Forum Topic

BORISITIS

Somebody in today's Guardian remarks that when they see a photo of the Prime Minister they feel sick in the stomach. That's my experience too. Is it widely shared on this Forum?

Alexander MacLeod ● 1122d62 Comments

Let's be honest.A unique selling point of the Guardian is that it gives high prominence and support to issues relating to 'women/feminism'; gender; left-wing politics (pro-Labour; anti-Conservative; anti-free market capitalism) and non-white ethnic minorities.Nothing wrong with that of course providing the reader understands this to be the case and can thus read it with that perspective in mind.

John Hawkes ● 1119d

Mr WinstanleySo "Theres even Alison Pearson in the DT and Julia Hatred-Spewer - (neither of them are going do feminist pieces in a hurry!) -  they are right-wing apologists first and second and women a trailing third".You come across as being highly misogynistic.And I cannot understand why someone writing for what you would call a 'right wing' (what does that term actually mean  ?) newspaper cannot write in your opinion a 'feminist piece'.Surely such a piece is defined as being on a topic of special concern to women and written by a women.Its political perspective especially when well known is irrelevant.You either agree with her views or you do not.Do you take such a disparaging view of Zoe Williams writing in the Guardian ?Is she a 'left-wing apologists first and second and wom(a)n a trailing third".

John Hawkes ● 1119d

MW: Exactly. For the reasons I suggested. You again miss the point.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1119d

No, I suggested why your suggestion of a reason was probably wrong.In point of fact, the survey linked showed not that great a preponderance of female readers - 14.7m reached vs. 12.5m. The point I ORIGINALLY MADE was not that the Guardian had a predominantly female readership ( for whatever reason) but that over the past few decades, the female proportion has grown.

Michael Winstanley ● 1119d

MW: The issue is not whether female journalists are good/bad. The issue raised was why many Guardian readers are female. I suggested a reason. You have offered a good example of how these strings so often go off track.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1119d

"all, Jewish people of my acquaintance consider Corbyn to hold antisemitic views."Please can you tell me what they consider his views to be?

David Ainsworth ● 1120d

I hadn't as I don't read it much - I am sent their daily summary and dip in to the occasional article as it is the one remaining quality broadsheet without a paywall.But does it make a difference? Feminist articles aside, what does it matter if a political editor is female. We have many female correspondents in the media and their gender is not really relevant. Their is Kuennsberg (though she is useless), Beth Rigby on Sky, that geordie one on the Beeb, Fiona Bruce hosting QT (not that that is worth watching any more) - their femaleness is irrelevant to the content from my point of view. Theres even Alison Pearson in the DT and Julia Hatred-Spewer - (neither of them are going do feminist pieces in a hurry!) -  they are right-wing apologists first and second and women a trailing third.

Michael Winstanley ● 1120d

Have you noticed that the Guardian has a female editor and a team of political correspondents most of whom are female? Also, if you follow their editorial priorities, day to day, you may well conclude that feminist topics are far more prevalent than when the paper's editors were male. I make no complaint about this - merely note it as a possible reason for the apparently high number of women who read it.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1120d

I can assure you David that all, and I mean all, Jewish people of my acquaintance consider Corbyn to hold antisemitic views. If you haven't read it yet I suggest you read an excellent book titled Jews Don't Count by David Baddiel. It is an enlightening read

Lucille Grant ● 1120d

Mr Hawkes I am well aware that the Observer is owned by Guardian Media and have no need to Google it. My point is that the Observer has a different, better editor than its sister paper.

Lucille Grant ● 1120d

They tend to read the Daily Mail, amongst whose readers nothing could be more popular than reintroduction of the death penalty.More women take an an interest in current afairs than 50 years ago, for sure - not least because they are allowed to and their opinions taken notice of. As to why a MAJORITY of Guardian readers should now be female I can't say - unless perhaps it is the absence of several pages at the back droning on about football.

Michael Winstanley ● 1120d

"Unfortunately leading Jewish organisations and a Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger were not so convinced.But what would they know!"I am sure that they know many things. But they can be wrong. And other Jewish people disagreed with them. An accusation is not proof."And in my list of the repellent terrorist groups Corbyn has shown sympathy for I forgot to include the fact that after the Salisbury poisoning affair, which everyone knew was set up by Russia, Corbyn had his doubts and suggested a sample be  sent to Putin for him to analyse and say whether his country was in fact the source!!"There you go again:-"which everyone KNEW was set up by Russia"Most people believed that certainly. And they are very likely right, but we, in the UK, have been lied to before about international events. False intelligence led us into war. False Flag operations do happen.

David Ainsworth ● 1120d

Interestingly my social media news feeds (Facebook and Google) show articles from the Guardian and Independent to the Mirror, Mail and Express, plus HuffPost and NYTimes. (They also include the Telegraph, Times and FT but other than the headlines they're behind paywalls.) There is a theory that in Russia older people are more likely than younger people to support Putin's war in Ukraine as they get their news from state controlled MSM whereas younger people are more likely to see alternative views on social media (that could be Telegram rather than the ones we're more familiar with).

Michael Ixer ● 1120d

"So which paper supports the notion 'Comment is free'!"Well, what do you think?

David Ainsworth ● 1120d

I am sure you are right.One factor might be that I am told the younger demographic tend not to go to the MSM for news and comment but to Facebook  and other social media sources (heaven forbid !)Why more women readers I can't explain.Must be the Tricoteuse tendency !

John Hawkes ● 1120d

"Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so." (Jeremy Corbyn)Unfortunately leading Jewish organisations and a Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger were not so convinced.But what would they know !And in my list of the repellent terrorist groups Corbyn has shown sympathy for I forgot to include the fact that after the Salisbury poisoning affair, which everyone knew was set up by Russia, Corbyn had his doubts and suggested a sample be  sent to Putin for him to analyse and say whether his country was in fact the source !!

John Hawkes ● 1120d

Mr Ainsworth---------------------------------"I know from experience that if you try to post something that goes against the general trend from other readers you will be censored/cancelled"The same has happened to me, although I should guess that the reasons for cancelling postings of mine would be rather different to the reasons for cancelling yours.------------------------I find this comment intruiging.I was cancelled I assume for being 'too right wing' in that instance.Yet you seem to take a more 'left wing' (simplistic I know) point of view than I do.So you must be too 'left wing' for the Guardian !Very strange.BTW ironically the Mail is far more liberal over the comments it allows to be posted.So which paper supports the notion 'Comment is free' !

John Hawkes ● 1120d

This is perhaps something you like to think, to justify the increasing discrepancy between your views and that of this periodical. However, I think it is always best to look at actual facts and data where it is available, rather than upon one's own conjecture, which tends to be quite biased.Fortuitously, some research was conducted not that long ago, easily found online, which says: "Readers of The Guardian were more likely to be women, with nearly 15 million monthly female readers in the United Kingdom from April 2019 to March 2020. Readership of The Guardian proved to be more popular among older adults than younger ones. Throughout the period observed, approximately 18.5 million individuals over 35 years old read The Guardian, either on print or online"https://www.statista.com/statistics/380687/the-guardian-the-observer-monthly-reach-by-demographic-uk/So looking back across the decades to when I first became aware of the exitence of the "Manchester Guardian", I would say that the readership is no younger, but has become much more female.

Michael Winstanley ● 1120d

"with a history of supporting gangs of political thugs""Not beliefs and attitudes acceptable to the British electorate hence Johnson's eighty seat Parliamentary majority."Beliefs and attitudes quite acceptable to the British electorate hence Blair's 66 seat Parliamentary majority in 2005, AFTER the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq along with Bush.

David Ainsworth ● 1120d

"equivocal in his condemnation of anti-Semitism."Really?"Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so." (Jeremy Corbyn)

David Ainsworth ● 1120d

"I know from experience that if you try to post something that goes against the general trend from other readers you will be censored/cancelled"The same has happened to me, although I should guess that the reasons for cancelling postings of mine would be rather different to the reasons for cancelling yours.

David Ainsworth ● 1120d

To misquote Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard yes "I am older but the Guardian readers just got younger" !

John Hawkes ● 1120d

Mr AinsworthI do indeed understand that BTL comments on Guardian articles are written by the readers.I know from experience that if you try to post something that goes against the general trend from other readers you will be censored/cancelled and eventually have your id revoked.For a paper that claims 'Facts are sacred, comment is free' its guidelines for posting, should you read them, are almost Stalinistic.

John Hawkes ● 1120d

Ms GrantThe Observer is owned by the Guardian Media Group as is the Guardian.If you Google 'the observer online' you get the Guardian online !

John Hawkes ● 1120d

"Like most serious news media it published some columnists who just pointed out what everyone knew."How do people find out most of what they KNOW about politicians except from news media?The media are not just "pointing out" what "everyone knew."

David Ainsworth ● 1120d

"If you read the Guardian regularly, especially BTL comments you would have to accept my description of it."You do realise that the BTL comments are written by ordinary people, not Guardian journalists, don't you?

David Ainsworth ● 1120d

"Luckily tomorrow you will be able to read its last serious political commentator Andrew Rawnsley."Ha, ha! Good one!"Do voters still value honour and integrity? Sir Keir Starmer is staking his career on it"(Andrew Rawnsley last Sunday)

David Ainsworth ● 1120d

In reality the Guardian hasn'tchanged  much, but you have got older.

Michael Winstanley ● 1121d

Well he's obviously fooled you. Right down to the basic level where you don't even understand what a "sovereign nation" is.

Michael Winstanley ● 1121d

Andrew Rawnsley is an Observer columnist. That paper is streets ahead of the Guardian which is saying a lot.

Lucille Grant ● 1121d

Mr AinsworthI don't think the Guardian spent 5 years attacking Corbyn and Labour.Like most serious news media it published some columnists who just pointed out what everyone knew.Corbyn was a terrible leader of the Party; indecisive over Brexit; with a history of supporting gangs of political thugs like the IRA, Sandinistas and Hamas and equivocal in his condemnation of anti-Semitism.Not beliefs and attitudes acceptable to the British electorate hence Johnson's eighty seat Parliamentary majority.But it also published many more on the hard-left like Owen Jones, Zoe Williams and other teenage scribblers who worshipped him.If you read the Guardian regularly, especially BTL comments you would have to accept my description of it.Luckily tomorrow you will be able to read its last serious political commentator Andrew Rawnsley.

John Hawkes ● 1121d

The Guardian "is now an echo chamber for committed leftists"?!Really, the Guardian is now an echo chamber for centrists, who spent 5 years enthusiastically joining in the attack on Corbyn and Labour. Now they whinge about Johnson, but they helped make Johnson inevitable.Yesterday there was the Guardian opinion article headline:-"Don’t condemn just our lying PM: save some anger for the cowards who enabled him".The article, of course, did not blame Guardian journalists.

David Ainsworth ● 1121d

Mr IxerPersonally I voted for joining and staying in the EU because I saw it as giving access to a large trading block.Why look a gift horse in the mouth !I never saw any benefit at all in its aspirations for political union as I believe in the rights of a nation state to act in its own interests as directed by its own people through its democratic elections.Nor did I buy into the 'Ode to Joy' mentality.Unfortunately trade and politics became very much intertwined with the Commission, European Parliament and the  European Court of Justice having powers to override what the UK wished to do.Some have argued that the rise of populist (in the pejorative sense) movements in Germany and France are symptoms of the disadvantages of centralised government by the EU over that of the nation. Standards and financial factors governing trade outside the EU were all defined by these bodies.And this is not just a 'little Englander' complaint. German law makers have also felt similar though of course the desire to sell more Mercs and BMWs was seen to be more important !Then of course we have sclerotic collective decision making processes of these bodies as shown up by their tardiness during the height of the Covid pandemic and the reluctance, especially shown by Germany, over imposing sanctions on Putin's Russia.I am well aware that the EU is imposing restrictions on trading and otherwise collaborating with them. Then we will have to look further afield.

John Hawkes ● 1121d

Sue. Like it or not those of us for remaining believe that leaving the EU will not give many long term benefits, if any; and areas such as animal rights and the environment where it could yield benefits seem to be getting stalled by the far right of the Conservative party. If one's worried about sovereignty then perhaps you should consider NATO membership (or the European Convention of Human Rights). As a NATO member we are bound by treaty to enter into a war if another NATO member is attacked so have waived or sovereign right to make a decision on when to enter into war in certain circumstances. I think on balance that NATO membership is an advantage as it in return provides protection to the UK in the event of an attack. In the same way that NATO provides mutual military defence then I also believe that the EU assisted in providing mutual support and protection in terms of the economy and financial services, product quality and standardisation, scientific research and development, data privacy and protection, etc. Of course, in any case, EU nations are still sovereign which is why Hungary is able to support Russia by refusing to turn off oil supplies as other EU nations are trying to do; and, yes, the EU countries made a mistake in becoming too dependent on Russian fuel. I've never said the EU was perfect!

Michael Ixer ● 1121d

What's left wing about a Guardian article concerning UK scientists being blocked from Horizon Europe? It's to do with negotiating a good deal - or not as seems to be the case. Leaving the EU wasn't a right wing event, that well known left wing weather scientist Piers Corbyn voted for Brexit, so Brexiteers are in good company :-)https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-s-brother-piers-of-course-i-voted-for-brexit-a3282931.html

Michael Ixer ● 1121d

@MW"It is another negative re Johnson - he often falls back on this "I got Brexit done" shtick which still fools a lot of people. With someone else in charge, we would stand a better chance of moving on."Get Brexit done did not 'fool' people Michael. It was obvious to me that to fully extricate the U.K. from 43 years of EU bureaucracy would take many years to complete. That process is ongoing and eventually our country will reap the benefits from being a fully sovereign nation again.  Unfortunately the Brexit arguments are also ongoing because many of those who voted to remain just cannot accept the result and will not move on. Their air of superiority and constant talking down to those who voted to leave is what sickens me.

Sue Hammond ● 1121d

Well said Mr Hawkes👏🏻and bonus points for your accurate critique of the Leftie Bible.

Sue Hammond ● 1121d

We will be waiting until pigs fly!

Lucille Grant ● 1121d

I completely agree with you Alexander.

Lucille Grant ● 1121d

Good luck with that one, Michael I !

Jane Carter ● 1121d

Mr Hawkes. The facts in this article seem clear, or do you have evidence that the Guardian has misreported them? Sadly an example of Johnson's poor Brexit deal affecting science:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/21/cambridge-university-astrophysicist-loses-esa-project-role-over-brexit-row-nicholas-walton?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1653124078Perhaps you, Mr Rolink or Ms Hammond could explain clearly what the Brexit benefits are? All I can see problems created by the deal Johnson signed. Probably my bias against Brexit so please help me by describing the benefits?

Michael Ixer ● 1121d

'Somebody in today's Guardian remarks that when they see a photo of the Prime Minister they feel sick in the stomach. That's my experience too. Is it widely shared on this Forum?'Mr MacLeodDoes anyone any more take the Guardian seriously ?It used to be an open-minded liberal and progressive newspaper, written by mature journalists for adults.It is now an echo chamber for committed leftists, in the main I would guess aged 20-40ish who are attracted to its click-baiting articles written by potty mouthed teenaged scribblers or the 'never quite grew out of my Oxford Labour club beliefs' aging Polly Toynbee.You can read three or so articles a day criticising Johnson, most written in the language and with the imagery quoted above.But then most of its generally Oxford educated journalists seem to have weak stomachs.Another today said the thought of even writing that Ant and Dec might present a late night talk show made him feel sick.But of course what passes today for social or political argument are generally ad hominem attacks.Oh, but by the way and for what it is worth, I believe Johnson is the worst PM in modern times and his behaviour has potentially ruined our politics for a long, long time.Also I have never watched Ant and Dec !

John Hawkes ● 1121d

I agree with both of you Michael I and Michael W.The shambles we continue to be in is unbelievable."Festival of Brexit"?  It has been forgotten thank goodness.  Sadly, the same will happen with party gate which is unforgivable.All in all, not many positives for BoJo and his chums....

Ivonne Holliday ● 1121d

Exactly, nothing is over until it is over. Even the Soviet Union is, apparently, not completely over. Or perhaps the Russian Empire is not. Or Kiev Rus?

David Ainsworth ● 1121d

In a sense I agree with you.Leaving the EU IS old news and pointless continiuing to argue about.However, the complete dog's arse Boris and his chums have made of the manner of leaving and continue to make of our trade relationships with other countries, the US and EU included, that is ongoing. It is another negative re Johnson - as he is lazy, stupid and incompetent, he often falls back on this "I got Brexit done" shtick which still fools a lot of people. With someone else in charge, we would stand a better chance of moving on.As an aside - has anyone noticed what has become of the celebratory "Festival of Brexit"? The first move was to make sure "Brexit" wasn't mentioned in the name. This might well ensure its success.

Michael Winstanley ● 1122d

I agree with many of your comments, Michael, but while Brexit ought to be old news unfortunately it isn't.  The shambles of a deal signed by Johnson means that the NI Protocol and the disagreement over it between the UK and EU is a top news item, particularly now the US has jumped in with concerns about it being unilaterally broken by the UK. (And we still don't have that trade deal with the US ...)

Michael Ixer ● 1122d

It's squealing Paul.I do not "hate Tories" - I was a member of that party for several years. This puts me in a priveleged position from which to consider their shortcomings. They should replace Boris Johnson as PM with a non-lying Tory MP, preferably one from outside Johnson's clique of talentless sycophants - there are quite a few to choose from.Leaving the EU is old news. Leavers won. Get over it. I have yet to see a single benefit arise from our departure, but it really is old news. If anywhere is "the sidelines" it is continuing a debate about EU membership.

Michael Winstanley ● 1122d

You lot are a laugh a minute.I hate Tories,they took us out of the EU & he is to blame & we can't stand it. And you are all so superior as well. To the rest of us you are just a bunch of losers who are squeeling away from the sidelines.

Paul Rolink ● 1122d

I started this discussion because it's only the first time in quite a long life that I've felt actual physical revulsion towards a democratically elected politician. I've had plenty of disagreements with  politicians in terms of policy , but I've never felt it in the gut. I find BJ repulsive, and it's not just his policies. There's something in his demeanour that makes my stomach churn.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1122d

If it's someone who doesn't lie or break the law, that would be a very good start, regardless of what party they are from. An honest Tory would be fine - at the next election we could choose whether to keep them on.Let not the perfect be an enemy of the good.

Michael Winstanley ● 1122d

Boris’s decision making on lockdowns, covid and the unnecessary unlawful vaccination program where so wrong, would never vote for him.

Paul Beer ● 1122d

David.  Until the next election when the voters will decide it would have to be Tory party members. Agreed, candidates of the appropriate calibre aren't obviously :-(

Michael Ixer ● 1122d

But what or who would replace Johnson? Some other Tory?Or Starmer? The Labour Party?

David Ainsworth ● 1122d

He doesn't make me sick, he is just not a fit person to be PM.The philandering is not illegal, but it goes to character - ie the deceit involved. Not to mention the narcisssm.He is a serial liar with a history going back many years on this. Lying to Parliament is a special case which should lead to his removal from office.Then there are the other bits and pieces - smashing up a restaurant, conspiring with his friend (since convicted fraudster) to have a journo beaten up.The man belongs behind bars, not in No.10. It is no surprise to me if other people find this sickening. What is a surprise is how many people are determined to be oblivious to it, just because he favours some pet cause of theirs.

Michael Winstanley ● 1122d

If you recall at the last election Michael the alternative was Corbyn and McDonnell.  It would be hard to find an alternative that wouldn’t be preferable in my opinion.No especial fan of Bodger and think much criticism of him is pretty reasonable but I would vote the same again against Corbyn even knowing how things have gone.  Couldn’t care less about partygate, more dislike him for economic ignorance/ indifference and agree he has been a weak leader who caves in too easily as he seems to have no direction of his own.He does still seem to be fairly popular in the polls though, although obviously not with the metropolitan media or posters here of course!

Mike Warman ● 1122d

Sue. I wasn't referring to his private life or appearance. He was sacked from his first job at the Times for inventing a quote.He was sacked from the Spectator not for having an affair but his dishonesty in lying about it.He's misled us about completing Brexit. He hasn't: it won't be until he's resolved to NI protocol after lying to the DUP about there being no border in the Irish sea.He also seems to have misled scientists about continuing participation in the EU's Horizon programme. He hasn't pushed that forward and if he unilaterally breaks the NI protocol that he signed and said was a good deal that will likely be a casualty. (It's not a funding issue it's the loss of science COLLABORATION that's important.)It's alleged he lied to Parliament about all lockdown rules being followed in Downing Street (it's not the parties per se it's misleading parliament); let's see what Sue Gray's report says :-)

Michael Ixer ● 1122d

I don't think people were conned at all Michael. I voted Conservative because Boris promised to get Brexit done, and he did, so that's good enough for me.  For the record I couldn't care less about his private life, how many children he has with how many different women, his scruffy hair, his sometimes casual relationship with the truth, his lack of attention to detail, his  provocative speech, his perceived buffoonery or how many bloody parties in No 10 he may have attended.

Sue Hammond ● 1122d

"I just feel sad that so many people were conned into voting for him given his track record and sackings from previous positions."Maybe Gove, then Lord Chancellor, declaring “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”Maybe (as I have mentioned several times) they fell for Johnson, because he is like Sassoon's "General": 'He's a cheery old card'.

David Ainsworth ● 1122d

I just feel sad that so many people were conned into voting for him given his track record and sackings from previous positions.

Michael Ixer ● 1122d

Hello Alexander,BJ is not a saint of my devotion and I admit, I see his picture and I feel a certain revulsion....

Ivonne Holliday ● 1122d

Case for saying that, Paul, but what does the Forum think about BJ SPECIFICALLY?

Alexander MacLeod ● 1122d

very few honest individuals who are in touch on either side and Parliament …I would say ….they all make me feel sick,

Paul Beer ● 1122d