The next PM.

[Kellfire]

If Farage gets the ambassador role we will all know for sure it was a set up against Darroch.

 

[Hacker Khan]

There is only one place for blame here and that's with who ever leaked the information and anyone complicent in it. Trump has reacted as expected and Morgan et al are giving their opinions.

Not sure I mentioned anything about blame, I was just commenting on the moral fibre of the people who seem to have differing opinions on the ambassador's character and actions.

 

[Hacker Khan]

He makes a few good points regarding the way people have seen their country socially engineered by the Liberal Elete without consideration of its effects on the most vunerable.

Other than that its largely biased waffle and used by you to support your own opinion. Can you imagine what this thread would be like if we all trawled through the internet to find editorials that support our personal views then post them up as a good read 🙄

Sorry, my bad.

People of the forum, please don't post links to articles that may make you think and dare to question Farage and Bojo as it may trigger people.

 

[SocketRocket]

Sorry, my bad.

People of the forum, please don't post links to articles that may make you think and dare to question Farage and Bojo as it may trigger people.

Sorry, My bad.

Dont question the way some posters constantly stick up editorials to support a view they have made countless times before. They dont even use the link as part of a point they are trying to put over..

 

[Deleted member 15344]

He's (can you please stop this silly BeeJay, its juvenile) not the Prime Minister so not able to do anything as a back bencher.

Imagine a different scenario in business. You have a customer who is responsible for a large amount of your business, without this business you would need to lose half of your employees. Your sales Manager sends an email around criticising the CEO of the company and the way he manages the board of Directors, the email ends up at customers inbox by mistake. The CEO demands that he never deals with your Sales Manager again otherwise he will take his orders to your competitor who has been working hard to get this contract from you. You try to pacify him but he will not budge. Honestly, what would you do?

That’s a very interesting analogy- that could be used in a very relevant scenario right now

How about the business stick with behind their sales manager and the company look for business behind that customer because the world is wide and vast and their are loads of customers to deal with that can replace them and maybe the company can flourish even more 😉

Either way Trump must be sitting their smiling his head off right now - ambassador tells the truth about an administration the whole world knows is clearly incompetent at best with a leader who is prob the worst in world politics- he stomps his foot and the UK jump , how pathetic are we to be at the beck and call of a country that will ensure everything is in their benefit. Sad day

 

[Hobbit]

A very good read, written by a tory no less.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...eading-disaster?amp&__twitter_impression=true

An appallingly bad read. Much of its early paragraphs centre around immigration being one of the key issues in the Brexit vote. It might have been in those areas with high immigration but I'd argue that the vast majority of Leavers in the northeast of England voted Leave for very different reasons. And if you look at the geographical concentrations of immigrants in the UK.... its just a poor piece in that respect.

As much as I agree that many of the top politicians are shallow and some from a privileged, private school/university background, those comments smack of inverted snobbery. Isn't it strange that people sneer at well educated and intelligent, successful high achievers, yet want well educated high achievers to lead the country. And what we often see is a minority liberal elite preaching form their high moral ground at what is wrong with the people in the UK, and the choices they have made. I detest that level of arrogance.

It harps on about many people wanting to go back to a rose tinted memory of great times for the UK. What a load of complete tosh. I'm getting close to the twilight years and my memories of the 60's and 70's, of almost constant news headlines of strikes and power cuts, rampant inflation and high interest rates. Isn't it strange that the zealot Remainers trot out this rubbish on a regular basis - if this is a measure of their intellect they need a look in the mirror of their own musings.

Johnson, Corbyn, Farage, McDonnell - God help us but there are a good number of politicians very close to the top table well worth a mention. But its the electorate that vote these people into power, and isn't that what the electorate are supposed to do? Isn't it what democracy is about, the people making choices? Minority idiots platforming pieces like this aren't just attacking the shallow politicians, they are attacking the majorities that voted those people into power. Where's the respect of democracy in that?

The piece highlights many things that are wrong in the UK but, I feel, the conclusions it draws and where it lays a lot of the blame is tainted with a strong political bias of its own. There is a reason the Newstatesman is a minority publication - seems a little bizarre me saying that as its one of the publications I subscribe to. There's often some good pieces in there but this isn't one of them.

 

[jp5]

An appallingly bad read. Much of its early paragraphs centre around immigration being one of the key issues in the Brexit vote. It might have been in those areas with high immigration but I'd argue that the vast majority of Leavers in the northeast of England voted Leave for very different reasons. And if you look at the geographical concentrations of immigrants in the UK.... its just a poor piece in that respect.

As much as Farage et al. have rowed back from this argument, polls show that immigration was a key issue in people voting to leave. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but would be wrong to deny it was a big factor.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Sorry but you're living in lala land if you think Boris has anything to do with this or is failing him in anyway..

Boris is not his boss, Teresa May is and she backed him. Trump whether you like it or not is the leader of one of our biggest Allies. So if Boris whilst trying to be elected and show he has support of a major world leading figure whether you like him or not then in fact Boris is doing his job correctly. It is I'll repeat in this countries interest to have America onside whether you like their leader or not. POTUS has publicly said the US will not deal with Sir Kim. So what do you expect would happen, do you propose that Boris just backs him and says up yours America. Considering the mess brexit has us in that would be a wonderful thing to do wouldn't it 🙄

The fact you keep belittling the man calling him BeeJay and now trying to blame him for someone else actions, for not backing him when he is NOT his boss is laughable and says more about your bias in not liking the man than it does of any political nous.

Then comparing that to a customer service issue is even more laughable. Its in no way comparable, the trust of a nation we need onside compared to upsetting a customer is leagues apart.

I'm sorry SILH but you've had a complete brain fart with that one.

The Ambassador knew his position was very difficult - indeed in the context of continuing conversations with key US admin officials he knew his position was untenable. However if he had had the full support of his very soon to be boss - and not suspected that he was going to get sacked in two weeks in any case - then he might well have stayed on with the full backing of the Civil Service and the most senior politicians in the land. It is apparent from what we are being told that this is just what the Ambassador was thinking and why he resigned - it is not my conjecture.

He did not resign because he realised his position was untenable - he resigned because he knew that, then found - the straw that broke the camel's back - that his boss in 13 days time wasn't behind him.

And so we have Farage and Tice (and the rest of Farage & Co) in unseemly joyful celebration of the demise and resignation of the Ambassador - and demanding that a new Ambassador is a strong Trump-loving and Brexit supporting businessman...

(they should really look at Trump's record when putting Trump-supporting businessmen into key positions - see for example Rex Tillerson - US Secretary of State - sacked because he didn't think, do and say exactly what Trump wanted him to think, do and say).

 

[ColchesterFC]

He did not resign because he realised his position was untenable - he resigned because he knew that, then found - the straw that broke the camel's back - that his boss in 13 days time wasn't behind him.

So you think that if Boris had backed him he would have stayed in his job? Despite knowing his position was untenable and having been told by Trump that they would no longer work with him? How exactly was he meant to continue doing his job if he no longer had access to the White House or the American officials he needed to speak to, to be able to actually do his job? If as you say, he knew his position was untenable then he should have resigned regardless of whether Boris backed him or not.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So you think that if Boris had backed him he would have stayed in his job? Despite knowing his position was untenable and having been told by Trump that they would no longer work with him? How exactly was he meant to continue doing his job if he no longer had access to the White House or the American officials he needed to speak to, to be able to actually do his job? If as you say, he knew his position was untenable then he should have resigned regardless of whether Boris backed him or not.

We are told that BeeJay (preferable to me than BoJo - he is in no way amusing) not supporting him was the straw that broke the camel's back

My understanding is that he would not have resigned as he did. That is not to say that the government would not have fund their own way of moving him on - such as him going on sick leave - with his deputy standing in. What would Trump have said about that deputy...? If it was 'the words' in the briefings as well as the POTUS's other very personal views and attacks on him (a man he claims he has never met), then on what grounds could Trump apply that same reasoning to his deputy - a different person...on what grounds would Trump refuse to let his admin speak with that deputy?

 

[Wolf]

The Ambassador knew his position was very difficult - indeed in the context of continuing conversations with key US admin officials he knew his position was untenable. However if he had had the full support of his very soon to be boss - and not suspected that he was going to get sacked in two weeks in any case - then he might well have stayed on with the full backing of the Civil Service and the most senior politicians in the land. It is apparent from what we are being told that this is just what the Ambassador was thinking and why he resigned - it is not my conjecture.

He did not resign because he realised his position was untenable - he resigned because he knew that, then found - the straw that broke the camel's back - that his boss in 13 days time wasn't behind him.

And so we have Farage and Tice (and the rest of Farage & Co) in unseemly joyful celebration of the demise and resignation of the Ambassador - and demanding that a new Ambassador is a strong Trump-loving and Brexit supporting businessman...

(they should really look at Trump's record when putting Trump-supporting businessmen into key positions - see for example Rex Tillerson - US Secretary of State - sacked because he didn't think, do and say exactly what Trump wanted him to think, do and say).

You really are flogging a dead horse just to show your aversion to Boris.

You openly state he knows his position is untenable. This is not because of lack of backing from Boris, but the refusal is the US administration refusing to deal with him as a result of his own actions. Whether Boris is to become his boss or not is irrelevant, the US won't deal with him so backing him becomes a pointless task and puts the relationship between 2 heads of state in an unnecessary position. You really are being very critical of the person who at the moment is in no need to back him instead of accepting the reality that if someone's position is untenable there is no other outcome.

That alone shows rather than this being about the ambassador its actually about your own personal dislike if Boris. The fact you continue to call him BeeJay rather than by his name shows you prefer to make belittling remarks than actually accept what you have even said yourself that it's untenable.

 

[ColchesterFC]

We are told that BeeJay (preferable to me than BoJo - he is in no way amusing) not supporting him was the straw that broke the camel's back

But it shouldn't have been and it seems like a very convenient excuse to be able to blame Boris. Once he had been royally shafted by whoever leaked the email then he should have resigned. As you said, his position was untenable. As he was no longer able to perform his role he had to resign regardless of whether May, Boris or anyone else had supported him.

 

[Wolf]

But it shouldn't have been and it seems like a very convenient excuse to be able to blame Boris. Once he had been royally shafted by whoever leaked the email then he should have resigned. As you said, his position was untenable. As he was no longer able to perform his role he had to resign regardless of whether May, Boris or anyone else had supported him.

Yet easier to keep insulting Boris than accept what he is saying himself it seems.

Position was/is untenable, backing becomes irrelevant only outcome is resignation or removal from position.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Yet easier to keep insulting Boris than accept what he is saying himself it seems.

Position was/is untenable, backing becomes irrelevant only outcome is resignation or removal from position.

...and so all those in the Cabinet; Government; Civil Service; Foreign Office; Westminster; retired ambassadors and other diplomats; previous Prime Ministers; previous Foreign Secretaries; previous Heads of the Civil Service; previous leaders of the Tory Party etc who thought BJ should have backed Darroch as a matter of principal - they are all wrong...

OK then - what do they know. Farage, Tice and their buddies are ecstatic - salivating at the thought of a Brexit Businessman being Darroch's replacement. So what's not to like. You've got to love BeeJay.

 

[ger147]

...and so all those in the Cabinet; Government; Civil Service; Foreign Office; Westminster; retired ambassadors and other diplomats; previous Prime Ministers; previous Foreign Secretaries; previous Heads of the Civil Service; previous leaders of the Tory Party etc who thought BJ should have backed Darroch as a matter of principal - they are all wrong...

OK then - what do they know. You've got to love BeeJay.

His position was untenable and he had to go. Absolutely 100% NOTHING to do with Boris.

There are a 1,001 things you can go after Boris for if you so choose but this is most definitely not one of them...

 

[SocketRocket]

That’s a very interesting analogy- that could be used in a very relevant scenario right now

How about the business stick with behind their sales manager and the company look for business behind that customer because the world is wide and vast and their are loads of customers to deal with that can replace them and maybe the company can flourish even more 😉

Either way Trump must be sitting their smiling his head off right now - ambassador tells the truth about an administration the whole world knows is clearly incompetent at best with a leader who is prob the worst in world politics- he stomps his foot and the UK jump , how pathetic are we to be at the beck and call of a country that will ensure everything is in their benefit. Sad day

I guess you have never had the responsibility of providing wages for your employees and being concerned that one of your biggest customers is threatening to take their business away if you dont meet their needs. It sounds clever to suggest the moral pathway is always the best but when its bread on the table for a lot of people that has to go out the window or you take the consequences. It's similar to the way you challenge Brexiteers for accepting their may be some casualties if we leave the EU, when you say it's wrong to do anything if it puts anyones job at risk but in this case you have different principals. So, is it right in some cases but wrong when its against your personal preferences.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I guess you have never had the responsibility of providing wages for your employees and being concerned that one of your biggest customers is threatening to take their business away if you dont meet their needs. It sounds clever to suggest the moral pathway is always the best but when its bread on the table for a lot of people that has to go out the window or you take the consequences. It's similar to the way you challenge Brexiteers for accepting their may be some casualties if we leave the EU, when you say it's wrong to do anything if it puts anyones job at risk but in this case you have different principals. So, is it right in some cases but wrong when its against your personal preferences.

It’s certainly similar to Brexit etc

Just imagine that big business is the UK and who is the UK biggest customer - oh the EU , and you lose that biggest customer just think of all the wages and jobs that could potentially go 🙄

But of course your thinking is different there isn’t it - you are more than happy to lose that biggest customer in search of newer better ones on the horizon 🙄

I’m guessing the point of my post flew right over your head - but it’s interesting to see your different principles

Don’t upset the USA and do all that’s required to keep that “special” relationship ( where everything is in the US favour ) but break that much more fruitful true special relationship with the EU no matter what the cost and as quick as possible

Maybe it’s just me but I guess it’s a touch hypocritical

 

[Wolf]

...and so all those in the Cabinet; Government; Civil Service; Foreign Office; Westminster; retired ambassadors and other diplomats; previous Prime Ministers; previous Foreign Secretaries; previous Heads of the Civil Service; previous leaders of the Tory Party etc who thought BJ should have backed Darroch as a matter of principal - they are all wrong...

OK then - what do they know. Farage, Tice and their buddies are ecstatic - salivating at the thought of a Brexit Businessman being Darroch's replacement. So what's not to like. You've got to love BeeJay.

You really are being pedantic now. You've openly stated yourself his position was untenable but somehow you're pinning that on Boris..

You're just being ridiculous now SILH just like your persistent use of the term BeeJay. He had to go end of moan about all the other issues with Boris by all means but not this

 

[SocketRocket]

It’s certainly similar to Brexit etc

Just imagine that big business is the UK and who is the UK biggest customer - oh the EU , and you lose that biggest customer just think of all the wages and jobs that could potentially go 🙄

But of course your thinking is different there isn’t it - you are more than happy to lose that biggest customer in search of newer better ones on the horizon 🙄

I’m guessing the point of my post flew right over your head - but it’s interesting to see your different principles

Don’t upset the USA and do all that’s required to keep that “special” relationship ( where everything is in the US favour ) but break that much more fruitful true special relationship with the EU no matter what the cost and as quick as possible

Maybe it’s just me but I guess it’s a touch hypocritical

Why do you suggest that if we leave the EU we will also lose all our trade in Europe. Leaving the EU is in reality a change in trading arrangements, trade will continue and there should not be much difference. A small number of products will be affected by tarrifs but that would be the same for both parties and as the UK holds a net trading deficit we will not be the only ones wanting a new trade arrangement. I find it hard to understand why people like you continue to make these assertions that trade will stop. I also disagree with your suggestion we would be breaking a fruitful true special relationship, all we do is pay through the nose for an organisation we have always been uneasy with and wants to lead us down a road of closer political union which dilutes us into a grey gloop of subservient countries. History tells us this will never work.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Why do you suggest that if we leave the EU we will also lose all our trade in Europe. Leaving the EU is in reality a change in trading arrangements, trade will continue and there should not be much difference. A small number of products will be affected by tarrifs but that would be the same for both parties and as the UK holds a net trading deficit we will not be the only ones wanting a new trade arrangement. I find it hard to understand why people like you continue to make these assertions that trade will stop. I also disagree with your suggestion we would be breaking a fruitful true special relationship, all we do is pay through the nose for an organisation we have always been uneasy with and wants to lead us down a road of closer political union which dilutes us into a grey gloop of subservient countries. History tells us this will never work.

😂

All the twisting and turning when it suits 😂

Guess the argument only fits when it backs up your own point - when it’s turned around it’s dismissed 😂😂😂