Another anti-Trump Darroch claim !!

[Noir]

What the hell did you think he was going to say?

If he through Darroch was wrong in what he said, and/or shouldn’t of said it, then I would of expected Boris to say that.

With all this going on, YOU, Noir, expect Boris to have the duty to royally put his foot in his mouth, and argue AGAINST his support-base ?? Seriously ??

I expect Boris (and indeed anyone) to represent their position on the matter truthfully, regardless of what they are expected to believe or what their support-base argue for or against.

Here's a challenge, Noir.

You are anti-Conservative (.. obviously ..). But, you're singling out Boris for criticism. WHY ONLY HIM ?

So, let's see you attack Jeremy Hunt, too. Post something disparaging about him. Give it a go.

Or is only Boris in your sights ? If so ... precisely, WHY ?

Boris is almost certainly going to be our next Prime Minister and was the Foreign Secretary during the Darroch documents discussed through the thread, why waste breath on Hunt?

[STTAB]

If he through Darroch was wrong in what he said, and/or shouldn’t of said it, then I would of expected Boris to say that.



I expect Boris (and indeed anyone) to represent their position on the matter truthfully, regardless of what they are expected to believe or what their support-base argue for or against.



Boris is almost certainly going to be our next Prime Minister and was the Foreign Secretary during the Darroch documents discussed through the thread, why waste breath on Hunt?

So let me get this straight, you expect Boris to kick a guy who on his way out the door anyway? What would that have accomplished?

[Noir]

So let me get this straight, you expect Boris to kick a guy who on his way out the door anyway? What would that have accomplished?

Why the narrative?
I expected Boris to represent his position honestly, I don’t think that should be a controversial statement.

[STTAB]

Why the narrative?
I expected Boris to represent his position honestly, I don’t think that should be a controversial statement.

Noir, there is a reason they call them DIPLOMATS . The guy is probably going to be the next leader of England, starting your tenure out on bad terms with the US President probably isn't a wise choice.

[Drummond]

Why the narrative?
I expected Boris to represent his position honestly, I don’t think that should be a controversial statement.

One would not expect a politician deserving of high office to blatantly lie .. I agree (at least, it's far from ideal if it happened !!).

But there are shades to this. Precious little in the world of high-power politics is totally black v white.

Where Darroch has been concerned .. a certain weighing of what it was or was not wise to say, should've certainly played a part.

On the one hand, Darroch gave vent to his prejudices and converted it into vitriol, submitting that in his reporting as though it was somehow 'objective commentary'. In so doing, he completely subverted the diplomatic role he was there to fulfill ... one as a figure who was supposed to be aiding a 'special relationship' between the UK and US, one based on friendship, cooperation, and pursuing and representing shared values !

On the other - and I'm still struggling to understand WHY - Darroch commands considerable support here, even despite all he's been up to.

Boris, as a future Prime Ministerial 'hopeful', has to correctly weigh all of that so that he can emerge as our future PM in the best possible way ! He has to maintain his level of support amongst all those Conservatives who'll simultaneously want to support him in the forthcoming vote, but by the same token, who also choose to be supportive of Darroch. Boris has that tightrope to walk, Noir, whether or not you approve of him walking it.

Once PM .... he has his, and therefore OUR, future relations with Donald Trump to take into account.

Now, Noir, what would you prefer ? Do you want Boris to do a GOOD, or a BAD, job with that ?

Try to separate out your natural Leftie prejudices from an objective consideration of all this, Noir. I'm sure you have certain non-constructive wishes on this score (?). But, reality is what it is, not what you prefer it to be. Boris Johnson has the task of helping to shape, as future PM, the quality of our relationship with the US. Me, I'd rather he did a good job.

Will that require proper diplomacy ... say, on Boris's part ? And / or on the part of Darroch's replacement ?

Noir ... who are you to want our people to do any less than implement their very best efforts to pursue the best relations we can ?

Think on that before you respond with any of your less-than-helpful thinking ... please .. ! .....

[Noir]

One would not expect a politician deserving of high office to blatantly lie .. I agree (at least, it's far from ideal if it happened !!).

But there are shades to this. Precious little in the world of high-power politics is totally black v white.

Where Darroch has been concerned .. a certain weighing of what it was or was not wise to say, should've certainly played a part.

On the one hand, Darroch gave vent to his prejudices and converted it into vitriol, submitting that in his reporting as though it was somehow 'objective commentary'. In so doing, he completely subverted the diplomatic role he was there to fulfill ... one as a figure who was supposed to be aiding a 'special relationship' between the UK and US, one based on friendship, cooperation, and pursuing and representing shared values !

On the other - and I'm still struggling to understand WHY - Darroch commands considerable support here, even despite all he's been up to.

Boris, as a future Prime Ministerial 'hopeful', has to correctly weigh all of that so that he can emerge as our future PM in the best possible way ! He has to maintain his level of support amongst all those Conservatives who'll simultaneously want to support him in the forthcoming vote, but by the same token, who also choose to be supportive of Darroch. Boris has that tightrope to walk, Noir, whether or not you approve of him walking it.

Once PM .... he has his, and therefore OUR, future relations with Donald Trump to take into account.

Now, Noir, what would you prefer ? Do you want Boris to do a GOOD, or a BAD, job with that ?

Try to separate out your natural Leftie prejudices from an objective consideration of all this, Noir. I'm sure you have certain non-constructive wishes on this score (?). But, reality is what it is, not what you prefer it to be. Boris Johnson has the task of helping to shape, as future PM, the quality of our relationship with the US. Me, I'd rather he did a good job.

Will that require proper diplomacy ... say, on Boris's part ? And / or on the part of Darroch's replacement ?

Noir ... who are you to want our people to do any less than implement their very best efforts to pursue the best relations we can ?

Think on that before you respond with any of your less-than-helpful thinking ... please .. ! .....

Bringing this right back to basics - and as briefly as you like - did Boris support Darroch?

[Drummond]

Bringing this right back to basics - and as briefly as you like - did Boris support Darroch?

My brief answer, is ... YES. HE DID.

His support fell just short of being as unequivocal as that offered by Jeremy Hunt, though. Hunt was clear ... he'd have left Darroch in-post, for months longer, until he was due to retire.

Boris didn't go that far, refusing to match any such supportive commitment. What he did was to give support to the principle that what Darroch had communicated to our Government should never have become public; that civil servants have the absolute right to expect protection from such an eventuality.

Boris also said he'd spoken privately to Darroch and been sympathetic to him over the way matters had progressed. Note that Darroch only ever received a secondhand account of what Boris had said about him and the comments ... and Andrew Neil tried to insist, in his hostile interview, that this wasn't the case. Boris corrected him on that --- Neil didn't show a willingness to believe him.

Of course not. Neil had his BBC-serving hostile agenda to advance.

[Noir]

My brief answer, is ... YES. HE DID.

Okay, why do you think Boris supported Darroch given the statements Darroch was making about the trump administration?

[Drummond]

Okay, why do you think Boris supported Darroch given the statements Darroch was making about the trump administration?

Read my previous post again. Try to understand its message.

Boris gave support. You asked me about that, and I answered you. But I've also made clear that it fell short of the full extent of support given by Hunt.

Ask yourself why that was.

For myself, I believe that Boris felt Sir Kim had gone too far. Boris himself, as you SHOULD know, has his own history of making comments he's later had to acknowledge were unwise to make (didn't he once find himself being ordered to go to Liverpool to publicly apologise for one of them ?). My belief is that Boris sympathised with Darroch because he felt he'd made something of a comparable gaffe ... maybe he identified, possibly too closely, with the position Darroch had put himself in ?

[Drummond]

For anybody hoping that this thread was finished with ... my apologies ! Maybe it will be, very shortly (?).

But for right now .. I thought this might be of interest.

Nigel Farage. He was the founder of UKIP, a Party founded to fight for Brexit. He led it for quite a while.

Ultimately, Farage left it. He thought his political activities within the UK were all but finished. Instead, because the March Brexit deadline passed without our leaving, he founded the Brexit Party. That Party trounced both major Parties in our MEP elections, just weeks after it was formed !!

Farage has another string to his bow .. he hosts his own phone-in programme on London Broadcasting (LBC) radio.

Here's a clip of him on one of his programmes, dated at the time the Darroch scandal first took off, even before Trump's reaction was known. In the press, Farage took a strong anti-Darroch line, wanting Darroch sacked. Nigel's comments here are noteworthy, because if he's telling the truth, he's reporting on Darroch's own deliberate refusal to be politically neutral.

If that's true, Darroch's troublemaking intentions, his biases, are a proven FACT.

So ... try playing this ....