VerdictAnything that Boris Johnson says on any subject must be assumed to be false unless independently corroborated.We sent a letter to Johnson’s personal and office address offering him the chance to respond. The letter was received (and signed for) by both, but no reply.
It is all a bit querulous, no?If a prime minister tells a tall tale about how deep they dived, what a big fish they caught on a thin line, what a hard boulderproblem they flashed, or other inconsequential thing people lie about, it's no skin of my nose, no?
Bojo was one in a long line of bullshitters, in an environment that strongly incentivises bullshit. There are many types of bullshitter and his was cartoon-figure bullshit in plain sight - easy to see and to choose to ignore or believe.My pet dislike are bullshitter politicians who’ve polished (or who sincerely believe) themselves to a higher gloss of righteousness. Tony Blair and his advisors for example. Opposite In schtick to Boris, but similarly deceptive and imo a more manipulative individual. You could say his lies have had just as disastrous long-lasting outcomes in loss of trust in government and government communication.
Tony Blair and his advisors…You could say his lies have had just as disastrous long-lasting outcomes in loss of trust in government and government communication.
Quote from: petejh on December 10, 2023, 09:40:32 amTony Blair and his advisors…You could say his lies have had just as disastrous long-lasting outcomes in loss of trust in government and government communication.What specific lies do you have in mind? I’m talking ones that are provably false in the same way as Johnson’s.
However, Blair's lying on this specific issue was undeniably huge, egregious, and resulted in vast numbers of deaths and leaving Iraq catastrophically fucked up in ways which led to the rise of ISIS.
Quote from: slab_happy on December 11, 2023, 11:03:58 amHowever, Blair's lying on this specific issue was undeniably huge, egregious, and resulted in vast numbers of deaths and leaving Iraq catastrophically fucked up in ways which led to the rise of ISIS.It only “resulted” in the deaths if no British involvement would have meant no Iraq War. To me it’s clear that the war was going to happen regardless, so this is just the left wing version of unwarranted British exceptionalism. If you want a sort of counterfactual, ie an Arab country with a Ba’ath Party dictatorship that wasn’t invaded by the US, then we handily have one: Syria. Which is where ISIS actually arose and whose response to the Arab Spring was disastrous. Sure, we don’t know how an un-invaded Iraq would have fared after 2003, but I don’t think it would have been pretty. I still think it was the wrong decision, but the effects on the U.K. were smaller than commonly thought. The two main arguments for the negative effects of Iraq were increased domestic terrorism and lower trust in politicians. France has had more Islamist terrorism and there is even less trust in politicians, and they famously gave the Iraq War a pass. So I suspect other things are just as important or more so.
Quote from: seankenny on December 11, 2023, 12:51:29 pmQuote from: slab_happy on December 11, 2023, 11:03:58 amHowever, Blair's lying on this specific issue was undeniably huge, egregious, and resulted in vast numbers of deaths and leaving Iraq catastrophically fucked up in ways which led to the rise of ISIS.It only “resulted” in the deaths if no British involvement would have meant no Iraq War. To me it’s clear that the war was going to happen regardless, so this is just the left wing version of unwarranted British exceptionalism. If you want a sort of counterfactual, ie an Arab country with a Ba’ath Party dictatorship that wasn’t invaded by the US, then we handily have one: Syria. Which is where ISIS actually arose and whose response to the Arab Spring was disastrous. Sure, we don’t know how an un-invaded Iraq would have fared after 2003, but I don’t think it would have been pretty. I still think it was the wrong decision, but the effects on the U.K. were smaller than commonly thought. The two main arguments for the negative effects of Iraq were increased domestic terrorism and lower trust in politicians. France has had more Islamist terrorism and there is even less trust in politicians, and they famously gave the Iraq War a pass. So I suspect other things are just as important or more so.I think I largely agree with that. There isn't a clear simple answer to intervention or not. On some things, Blair was undoubtedly a bullshitter and/ or misguided, how many and much probably depends on your opinion of him; but he wasn't a pathological liar in the same way as Johnson. Johnson is only interested in himself and his image, he's a serial adulterer, was prepared to lie to get articles done as a journalist, lied to his party leader (Howard), to assist the Brexit campaign, to prorogue parliament, and finally to try to get his mates off penalties when they've misbehaved.
I know that they were only addressed to Labour Party members rather than to the public at large, but don't Keir Starmer's ten pledges mark him out as being a truely flamboyant liar?https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-labour-leadership-pledges-2666421303