Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods
The Guardian wrote:Jeremy Hunt has been accused of trying to boost his Conservative leadership campaign by withdrawing Foreign Office (FCO) support for Nicola Sturgeon’s overseas visits.
The foreign secretary has confirmed that he has ordered his department not to provide any official or consular support for Sturgeon’s trips abroad if she uses them to campaign for Scottish independence.
B0ycey wrote:You are aware that this story remains as such because of Johnson and not the Guardian? Had he answered the questions in the Birmingham hustings perhaps the news outlets would have stopped running this story by now, especially if all that happened was the spilling of wine. Although the evidence does suggest that what happened was actually more than that. Nonetheless just to make it clear, this "non-story" is a story now because of the secrecy and not the event itself and the blame of that comes down to Johnson.
Silence speaks volumes in such a story. Only the guilty would hide behind bogus excuses to maintain their silence. Although my imagination has audio evidence. What evidence do you have that this is a non story and a nothing event?
You don't even have a testimony from Johnson suggesting otherwise FYI.
Beren wrote:It's really like a painting, isn't it?
Beren wrote:"Idyll before the storm" - by unknown artist.
Rafael Behr wrote:The challenger to Boris Johnson is emphasising his seriousness. But for Conservatives dreaming of no deal, realism is only an irritant
Boris Johnson had many motives to dodge a televised debate with Jeremy Hunt on Tuesday night but one factor trumped the rest: he didn’t do it because he didn’t have to. If Conservative party rules and our bizarre constitution can combine to let a man like Johnson sidle up to Downing Street, answering as few questions as possible, it makes sense for him to try.
It is also natural that others should try to flush the frontrunner into the open. Hunt accused his rival of cowardice and the jibe clearly stung, as the truth often does. Johnson took to the airwaves, blustering ineffective rebuttals to the charge that he had anything to hide.
These dynamics would matter more if the race involved a ballot of the nation and not a straw poll of Tory members, whose preferences are mostly set. “Boris in No 10” is the blockbuster they have been queueing to see after a long, hard marketing push. A few bad reviews might provoke a flutter of anxiety on the eve of release, but won’t make a big difference at the box office. The other candidates’ pitches are just trailers before the real show begins.
There isn’t much Hunt can do about that. He could be more aggressive on Johnson’s record of personal betrayals and professional derelictions. He could point to the slurry of lies and bullying behind the factory where Johnson’s chummy authenticity is manufactured. But to what effect? The most revealing intervention in the leadership hustings in Birmingham over the weekend was the growl of dissent that rose out of the audience when Johnson was pressed to clarify the circumstances of an argument with his partner. The reaction was reminiscent of the way Jeremy Corbyn’s activist audiences reprimand the media for disrespecting their icon. But there is a difference. Corbyn’s crowd believes he is beyond reproach and being maligned by wicked journalists. Johnson’s fans know he is flawed but don’t care, or don’t want to be reminded that they should care. Tugging at the mask spoils the fun.
Hunt cannot ingratiate himself with a Tory audience and attack his rival at the same time. (And he’ll want a plum cabinet job from the winner as consolation for being a sporting runner-up.) His hustings performances are wholesome and bland. He looks like an earnest parent at a children’s party handing out carrot sticks when all eyes are on the chocolate cake.
On Brexit, the two rivals’ positions are not miles apart. Both claim they will procure better deals than the one negotiated by Theresa May. Both struggle to explain how that can be done when the EU says the existing withdrawal agreement is immutable. Both claim they would be prepared to proceed through without a deal; only Hunt is explicit about the cost. He would do it, he says, “with a heavy heart”. But much of his audience sees that foreboding as the very reason why Brexit has stalled. They diagnose heaviness of heart as a morbid affliction of the May years and seek Johnsonian levity as the antidote.
Hunt doesn’t have a true bluffer’s panache but he also lacks conviction for a sustained, fact-based assault on Brexit fantasies. He is not a fearless truth-teller but a truth-impersonator, mumbling cover versions of what should be good arguments about tariffs and trade. That style is consistent with a career spent trimming sails to changing Westminster winds. Hunt has been in the cabinet since 2010. He survived May’s purge of David Cameron loyalists in 2016. He was a remainer who preferred a soft Brexit immediately after the referendum, when soft Brexits were still tolerated in the Tory mainstream, and then hardened his position to match his party’s ossifying anti-Brussels dogma.
That elasticity of belief – combined with Johnson’s tendency to spontaneous political combustion – are reasons not to write Hunt off completely. But the qualities he brings to the race belong in a different contest, from a different time. If the ability to hold down a cabinet job were considered vital, Johnson wouldn’t have made the starting line-up. One former Downing Street adviser told me that May only put Johnson in the Foreign Office to accelerate exposure of his feckless incompetence, and thereby hasten his disqualification from any higher office. Only the first half of that plan seems to have worked.
Johnson’s slapdash dilettantism can’t be defeated by Hunt’s ministerial CV. If anything, a record of departmental diligence and attention to detail is offputting because it has a whiff of bureaucracy and Whitehall risk-aversion. It is the halitosis of remain to Brexiteer noses. Hunt’s message is all about seriousness. “I’m not going to say it’s going to be easy,” he tells his audience. But if the Tories were minded to contemplate the complexity of Brexit – and the strategic, legal and economic implications of rupture from the EU – they would have accepted May’s deal or abandoned the project by now. They are too deep in denial to ponder the downside. If they tug on all the threads of difficulty, they end up unravelling the whole tapestry woven from years of Eurosceptic mythology, and exposing the naked monstrosity of what they have undertaken.
Hunt doesn’t really want to pull at those threads, but nor can he ignore them. His campaign is a nervous fidget around the truth, supported by a beleaguered minority, nostalgic for a Conservative style that was fashionable before 2016. He is the candidate of a bygone era when most Tory MPs thought Johnson was a sinister clown who should never be allowed near Downing Street.
Now even many pro-European Conservatives are resigned to Johnson’s victory as the logical culmination of an ethos that treats any rational calibration of Brexit risks as a sign of moral debilitation. For Hunt there is no scrubbing off the stain of remain. Instead Tory Brexiteers need to see intractable problems confronted by the man who told them it would all be easy. And they will only believe there is a cliff edge when they see their cheerleader blanch at the drop – or later still, on the way down.
About Hunt's views on Brexit Wikipedia wrote:Hunt supported Britain remaining in the European Union (EU) in the 2016 referendum. After the result which supported Brexit was announced, Hunt suggested a second referendum on the terms of any exit deal with him personally backing one in which the UK would stay in the Single Market. In 2017 he stated that he had changed his mind, and now supported Brexit, citing the "arrogance of the EU Commission" in responding to the UK government in the Brexit negotiations.
In July 2018, Hunt expressed fears over the UK potentially leaving the EU without a deal. He said that it would be "incredibly challenging economically" and that "It would lead to a fissure in relations which would be highly damaging for that great partnership that we have had for so many years, which has been so important in sustaining the international order." In a December 2018 interview with the Daily Telegraph, he suggested the UK would "flourish and prosper" even without a deal, although he continued to back the Brexit withdrawal agreement proposed by Theresa May. In March 2019 he stated that a "lot more work" was needed to get MPs to back May's deal but there were "encouraging signs" that progress was being made.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I really hope you are trolling.
What a lovely couple.
Nonsense wrote:I think that Boris will be the next P.M.
However, there is a very strong possibility that he will be a mere 'caretaker' P.M, until the next election,in that case, I fail to see what all the fuss is about in the media.
He is more likely to deliver Leave than Jeremy HUNT, either of them will hold the position on a short-term-lease only, until 2022.
Daily Mail wrote:
Class war anarchists descend on Boris and Carrie's flat as it emerges she's 'too afraid to return' after anti-Brexit neighbours called police on them and handed row recording to newspaper
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Lefties hound battered woman out of her home.
Beren wrote:So Hunt's position on Brexit has been changing as follows:
Remainer ---> Supporting a second referendum and staying in the Single Market ---> Brexiter ---> Expressing fears over the UK potentially leaving the EU without a deal ---> Suggesting the UK would "flourish and prosper" even without a deal
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I really hope you are trolling.
What a lovely couple.
Nonsense wrote:When Theresa MAY was asked who she backed as her successor, she refused to be drawn in answering that quesion, but, I am certain that Jeremy HUNT is her poster boy
Beren wrote:Maybe Hunt would try to pass her deal through parliament again after the EU refuses to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, while Boris wouldn't, I guess. However, it would be a failure again and a general election should be called anyway, followed by a referendum on no-deal Brexit. So the Tories seem ready to screw Britain hard one way or another regardless of whether who their leader and the British PM is.
B0ycey wrote:More likely battered women afraid to return to site of attack from lover.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:It's heartening to see your genuine concern for a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence.
Exactly! Well, this is only true in the USA or o[…]
I have demonstrated how the comments are racist by[…]
In his best attempt at debate so far BigSteve sai[…]
Trump and Epstein footage. It’s just weird :eh: […]