Tory MP, Boris Johnson, has apologised for comparing the infighting of New Labour to the people of Papua New Guinea, who he described as being prone to "cannibalism and chief-killing”. His comments were meant be lighthearted and were nowhere near as bad as his attack on the people of Liverpool who he once accused of "wallowing in victimhood”. But once again he proves he lacks the gravitas needed to be a Tory spokesman.Why he was given a job by Cameron after his slur on Liverpool is beyond me. Although it does prove one thing we've known all along – that if you went to the right school, preferably Eton, you can get away with anything.
Johnson is in politics for one reason only: to promote himself, his books, his articles and his endless media appearances. He uses his position as an MP to strengthen the Johnson brand and to feather his already well lined nest. And if it wasn’t for the Tories A-list of preferred candidates which aims to bring more women, ethnic minorities and a few down to earth types into Parliament, I would happily tell them to stick their Party where the sun don’t shine.
9 comments:
Give us a break. Boris is one of the brightest people in British politics and one of the most sound classical liberals in the Commons. There is no-one less deserving of the title "buffoon" on the British political scene.
Attacks on him are akin to those of people who mock the Speaker's impenetrable Scottish accent. They are pure snobbery. I respect Boris, as I respect the Speaker, for being who he is, without spin or apology. Of course he could fake Estuary English like all those privately and selectively-educated Labourites who lie in their bios about where they went to school. Why should he?
Boris can't choose his background any more than you can, and it's just barking to exclude talent from our national life on snobbish grounds - which is just one reason why the A List is such an abomination.
Before you look up my Blogger details and infer wrongly from the scanty details that I am privileged myself, let me tell you I could out-prole the entire Cabinet, if I thought it had any bloody relevance. I went to one of the "bog standard comprehensives" those Socialist bastards foisted on us and I hate them passionately for betraying the working classes by destroying their educational opportunities. I envy Boris his education, certainly, but he is not to blame for having a better one than me. Anthony f****** Crosland is to blame for that, may he roast in Hell forever. I would have been happy to have had his education and would have made rather better use of it than he did, the c***.
Fortunately, though I grew up within 20 miles of Scouseland, I didn't have a victim mentality. I got on with it and got lucky enough to buy my children as good an education as Boris's. So do you love them for their proletarian roots, or do you hate them for their educational privilege? Either way is just as stupid, so take your pick.
Boris also has a great sense of humour. Something the representative of Papua New Guinea who complained should consider cultivating. Boris was making an amusing reference to the not so distant past of that country. Indeed Wikipedia reports the Korowai or Kolufo people of Papua as current cannibals, perhaps the last on Earth.
Anyway, he didn't suggest that modern Papua New Guineans were "prone to cannibalism and chief-killing" at all. He suggested, by way of an amusing metaphor, that the Conservatives had been and that Labour are becoming so. He is, as usual, spot on.
Until Britain gets over its snobberies, and judges people on their contribution and, as Martin Luther King put it, "the content of their characters", rather than on their accents and their backgrounds, it will continue to waste talent at a destructive rate. We don't have so much that we can afford to do that. No country does.
Do you honestly believe that Boris has talent? Well, maybe he does. A talent for making a prick of himself.
Every human has that particular talent and the only ones who never display it are liars, fakers and the grey people who prefer to carp from the sidelines rather than contribute.
The guy's academic credential are pretty good, he writes well and he is more sound on the relationship between the state and the individual than any current MP. I could wish he presented better, but I respect his insistence on being himself. In a world of political fakes, he stands out for being real. So real, that I am surprised Cameron has the balls to give him a role.
Take Boris or leave him. Criticise him all you like, but for God's sake don't pander to pathetic class prejudice. People who have nothing better to boast about than their "correct" ancestry are cretins, whether they are proud of descent from William the Conqueror or a Yorkshire miner.
Real? He's about as real as Michael Fabricant's hair. But more importantly he's a liability. Even though I distrust Cameron, I would rather have a Conservative government than a Labour one. The last thing the Tories need is a loose cannon like Johnson whose only loyalty is to his media paymasters and the success of the Johnson brand.
Michael Fabricant's hair »
Boris prevented Liam Fox and David Davis getting even a sentence in the Spectator throughout the leadership contest. He admits that he gave his full support to Cameron. 'This is Cameron country' he wrote.
Principle or self interest? Self interest by his own admission. That's why he got the job.
It's good that you are getting to political criticisms now. I have no brief for Boris, who is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself.
There is still no excuse for cheap class-driven jibes about his parent's educational choices. I can (and do) criticise Paul McCartney as an ignorant and selfish man for sending his kids to state schools on ideological grounds, when he could have afforded the best education in the world. But I don't criticise his children for it. Judging a man on his parents and their choices is a vestige of feudalism.
I am pleased to see you at least make no attempt to justify the snide remark.
Don't get me wrong. I am a libertarian. Say what you like. In a truly free society you would be able to hate a man for any reason you please, including race, religion or hair colour. But others would also have the right to point out that your criteria are ridiculous.
Leave boris alone this world would be a duller place without him.
If you have no brief for Boris, Tom, then why mention it?
Post a Comment