Jump to content

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

The hiring and firing of the advisor is the sort of thing that would have been politically terminal in the pre trump era. Wonder if Boris can just ride it out.

Comes down to whether the people who voted for him are bothered about a guy with those views being hired by number 10. 

Questions that need to be ask

Who Hired him? What was his role? Did he meet PM? Was he properly vetted to have role he was meant to be? Was he special Advisor? 

I doubt Boris Johnson hired him but big questions need to be asked how a person with appalling views was allowed to be hired. 

Johnson need to focus on delivering his promises to the country. He should out in the most affected areas of these floods meeting flood affected people. Funding flood defences and making sure people have all the money they need to move back into their homes and rebuild their home. He promised HS2. He need to deliver on this. I don't agree with the decision as we should be improving our current rail system and structure we have now. 

Edited by chaddyrovers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toby Young

This isn't anything new, Boris put his weight behind Young for a role on the board for University regulation a few years back.

Young resigned from that post after a plethora of misogynistic tweets he'd made were discovered on his twitter, despite his efforts to delete his history and interestingly enough he wrote an article which had a section called  "Progressive eugenics" :rock: 

 

 

Edited by Gav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s fundamentally true, Chaddy. 
But how does anyone expect to be able to get away with saying anything in the past these days?
If anyone is being hired, before ahh announcements, you need to make sure those are whiter than white and they’ve tidied up their social media history, or it will come back to bite you in the backside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, K-Hod said:

That’s fundamentally true, Chaddy. 
But how does anyone expect to be able to get away with saying anything in the past these days?
If anyone is being hired, before ahh announcements, you need to make sure those are whiter than white and they’ve tidied up their social media history, or it will come back to bite you in the backside.

I agree. I believe Special advisors are fully vetted according to what I heard on GMB on ITV this morning. But not on people just advising on Boris's team or special advisors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When my daughter started her media masters course at Stoke it was one of the first things they were warned about -  that every employer would look at your facebook and Twitter accs as it was then. You simply cannot make public statements and expect nobody to be able to find them. Even if you delete something, someone will almost certainly have seen it and remember it. 

 

Oh, and you're right, Chaddy. Boris Johnson should be in Worcestershire at the moment looking at flood areas. He should have been in the Calder valley or Wales last week. But he has no empathy with peoples problems and doesn't really care about anything that doesn't directly affect him. So he hasn't visited.

Edited by gumboots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gumboots said:

When my daughter started her media masters course at Stoke it was one of the first things they were warned about -  that every employer would look at your facebook and Twitter accs as it was then. You simply cannot make public statements and expect nobody to be able to find them. Even if you delete something, someone will almost certainly have seen it and remember it. 

 

Oh, and you're right, Chaddy. Boris Johnson should be in Worcestershire at the moment looking at flood areas. He should have been in the Calder valley or Wales last week. But he has no empathy with peoples problems and doesn't really care about anything that doesn't directly affect him. So he hasn't visited.

It's quite good that this record exists as it makes it hard for people who hold repugnant views to go under the radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest I never got the whole MP visiting a place of floods. I want to see the army and fires service not resources spent so Boris can see it.

Has Jeremy Corbyn visited? Is it a requirement for heads of parties to visit disaster zones? Floods happened under Labour governments just like they happen under any government. This is a global problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What;s Corbyn got to do with it ? Has the right wing press blamed him for climate change too ? Superb whatabouttery

As prime minister, Johnson should be there - if only to show sympathy and empathy with people whose lives have been devastated by the floods. Perhaps with his large majority there;s no political mileage in it for him - and it wouldn't look good him having to explain why after a decade of Tory led governments the nation's flood defences are underfunded and are still totally inadequate.

With regards to this sacked "adviser", it is another instance of the role of social media companies that they can be platforms for hatred and abuse without any responsibity or regulation.

Facebook, Twitter etc should be classified as publishers and  made legal owners of their content and regulated as such.  A clampdown is long overdue

 

Edited by jim mk2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, gumboots said:

When my daughter started her media masters course at Stoke it was one of the first things they were warned about -  that every employer would look at your facebook and Twitter accs as it was then. You simply cannot make public statements and expect nobody to be able to find them. Even if you delete something, someone will almost certainly have seen it and remember it. 

 

Oh, and you're right, Chaddy. Boris Johnson should be in Worcestershire at the moment looking at flood areas. He should have been in the Calder valley or Wales last week. But he has no empathy with peoples problems and doesn't really care about anything that doesn't directly affect him. So he hasn't visited.

Boris Johnson but I see the Environment Minister has visit some flood areas. I guess Boris is like a CEO of a business and has different departments heads under him and letting them do their jobs and report back to him so he can provided the support needed and ask the chancellor to provide the money. That's why the PM and Chancellor have to be in line in terms of thought process and happy to work together. 

12 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I'll be honest I never got the whole MP visiting a place of floods. I want to see the army and fires service not resources spent so Boris can see it.

Has Jeremy Corbyn visited? Is it a requirement for heads of parties to visit disaster zones? Floods happened under Labour governments just like they happen under any government. This is a global problem.

I believe PM should visits some flood areas aswell as other parts of government like Environment minister or Chancellor. 

Yes it is a global problem. but one we have deal with now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I'll be honest I never got the whole MP visiting a place of floods. I want to see the army and fires service not resources spent so Boris can see it.

Has Jeremy Corbyn visited? Is it a requirement for heads of parties to visit disaster zones? Floods happened under Labour governments just like they happen under any government. This is a global problem.

It's not what they do. In fact they do nothing. It's the fact that they see it for themselves, smell it, feel it, understand a fraction of the devastation. Had Corbyn been PM then I'd have expected him to visit. It makes people feel that they are not forgotten, that someone in power has taken time to recognise their problems. You wouldn't want them there at the height of it - you're right, theyd be in the way. But as soon as possible and practical even a flying visit helps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

What;s Corbyn got to do with it ? Has the right wing press blamed him for climate change too ? Superb whatabouttery

As prime minister, Johnson should be there - if only to show sympathy and empathy with people whose lives have been devastated by the floods. Perhaps with his large majority there;s no political mileage in it for him - and it wouldn't look good him having to explain why after a decade of Tory led governments the nation's flood defences are underfunded and are still totally inadequate.

With regards to this sacked "adviser", it is another instance of the role of social media companies that they can be platforms for hatred and abuse without any responsibity or regulation.

Facebook, Twitter etc should be classified as publishers and  made legal owners of their content and regulated as such.  A clampdown is long overdue

 

It was an argument to say why should heads of parties have to visit?

What you are saying flies right in the face of what people on the ground are saying, in that the flood defences have worked as well as can be expected. It is the wettest year on record in the areas worst hit so quite how you expected any government to plan for is beyond me.

The 2007 floods saw billions of pounds of damage caused to parts of Britain - after a decade of Labour governments.

2009 floods - 2 years after the promise of "more funding to prevent this happening again"...........happened again - Labour led government.

I don't blame Labour for those floods, far from it, these are instances of natural disasters which are worsening way beyond the "1 in 100" event developers plan for. Often flood plains are built on to provide housing (Labour promised more houses to be built btw) and this leads to urban drainage struggling with demand. Case and point would be the flooding on Livesy Branch Rd a week or so ago - never happened when I lived there but then there was a farmers field behind it absorbing the water!

Terrible attempt to politicise the flooding. Then again you've been shameless quite a few times on this topic.

I have worked in construction quite some time and my family been in it for generations- one thing is for certain, most things that get "value engineered" out of any developments are: sustainable urban drainage and electric car charging ports. Currently working on a development in Wolverhampton in which a Labour council decided to scrap the SuDs and subsequently the housing adjacent to it suffered with huge water backlog in their gardens, meaning they will now pay extra to fix the damage.

My point being is that this is a cross party problem due to a lack of understanding. Although you're extreme left so will peddle any overdramatic line possible to try and hit the feelings of those you want to turn.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Case and point would be the flooding on Livesy Branch Rd a week or so ago - never happened when I lived there but then there was a farmers field behind it absorbing the water!

Not sure where on Livesey you lived but at the top of Old Gates Drive, before the housing estate was built, the road flooded during heavy rainfall, it was like a torrent coming down from the fields, but we digress. 

The PM should always go to where the worst flooding is, to show solidarity, to show he/she cares about the people of this country. Boris has been quick off the mark in the past, he was all over the dam at Whaley Bridge and rightly so, unlike May who has many regrets over her handling of Grenfell in the hours after the devastating fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

It was an argument to say why should heads of parties have to visit?

Terrible attempt to politicise the flooding. Then again you've been shameless quite a few times on this topic

My point being is that this is a cross party problem due to a lack of understanding. Although you're extreme left so will peddle any overdramatic line possible to try and hit the feelings of those you want to turn.

 

Party leaders shouldn't.......but in times of crisis the prime minister should. Maybe this is why he hasn't come out of his Downing St bunker after the reception he got last time

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-flooding-tories-election-trees-defences-corbyn-farage-coventry-speech_uk_5dcc4879e4b0d43931ce46c1

You "politicised" the flood by shamelessly bringing Corbyn into it.

The Tories are directly to blame for the current mess because of their austerity cuts but you're so far right you won't acknowledge it

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/02/tory-cuts-wrecking-uk-flood-defences

 

 

Edited by jim mk2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Party leader shouldn't.......but in times of crisis the prime minister should. Maybe this is why he hasn't come out of his buner after the reception he got last time

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-flooding-tories-election-trees-defences-corbyn-farage-coventry-speech_uk_5dcc4879e4b0d43931ce46c1

You "politicised" the flood by shamelessly bringing Corbyn into it.

The Tories are directly to blame for the current mess because of their austerity cuts but you're so far right you won't acknowledge it

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/02/tory-cuts-wrecking-uk-flood-defences

 

 

No. I just asked if all heads of parties should visit. I didn't try and criticise Corbyn for not going because I don't particularly care if either go. Weird.

The aftermath of the Worcestershire floods isn't even fully revealed. It would be counter productive for BJ to be there right now.

Like how you have ignored the flooding in previous years to continue with the line it is an entirely Tory problem. I have no issue in accepting flood defences are still not up to standard however this has been a problem before 2009 and continues even now. Even Labour held councils are withdrawing funding for urban drainage because they prioritise number of plots over the safety of residents! It's an issue for all politicians, not just blue and red, but you're so blinkered you won't acknowledge it. I work in this area so have quite a good understanding of it and this isn't purely down to the last 10 years. 

8 minutes ago, Gav said:

Not sure where on Livesey you lived but at the top of Old Gates Drive, before the housing estate was built, the road flooded during heavy rainfall, it was like a torrent coming down from the fields, but we digress. 

The PM should always go to where the worst flooding is, to show solidarity, to show he/she cares about the people of this country. Boris has been quick off the mark in the past, he was all over the dam at Whaley Bridge and rightly so, unlike May who has many regrets over her handling of Grenfell in the hours after the devastating fire.

Yeah it was over Old Gates now. Have to be honest I can't remember that but it may have been when I was younger! It was certainly much worse now since that development has happened.

He probably should visit if it's such an issue for people but I was just speaking from my own viewpoint that the last person I want to see is Boris. Again, though, that's just my point.

Edited by Dreams of 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Johnson a 'climate denier'?

It would look pretty hypocritical on his part to visit flood disaster zones and the like. Especially considering the Tories current environmental policies, including ripping down ancient woodlands, building on greenbelt lands, making up mumbo jumbo dates regarding future climate goals whilst at the same time throwing their appalling weight behind such things as fracking and spending billions of UK tax-payers money on Global fossil fuel expansion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last person I'd want to see at any time is Johnson, but as PM many people expect him to look concerned enough to visit even if hes not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think after the reactions to him during the November floods, I think it's good he's listened and just let the fire and rescue services and the army deal with it.

Personally last thing I'd want to see with my worldly possessions floating around me is mop-headed Etonian asking how I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

No. I just asked if all heads of parties should visit. I didn't try and criticise Corbyn for not going because I don't particularly care if either go. Weird.

The aftermath of the Worcestershire floods isn't even fully revealed. It would be counter productive for BJ to be there right now.

Like how you have ignored the flooding in previous years to continue with the line it is an entirely Tory problem

You queried whether Corbyn should be there when his presence would obviously be inappropriate as this is national emergency and prime minister is supposed to be in charge.

The criticism he has received shows that Johnson demonstrating support and sympathy would have been welcomed by those affected.  

Events from the past are irrelevant and is just whataboutery. The Tories have been in charge for 10 years and have consistently failed to invest in flood defences and infrastructure in general. Cameron promised to do something permanently to fix the rail when it was washed away at Dawlish a few years ago but went back to London and nothing was done. 

This is a government that has cut back on public spending for years - and the current crisis is what you get when you failed to invest and try to do things on the cheap. That's not blinkered - it's a matter of fact

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jim mk2 said:

You queried whether Corbyn should be there when his presence would obviously be inappropriate as this is national emergency and prime minister is supposed to be in charge.

The criticism he has received shows that Johnson demonstrating support and sympathy would have been welcomed by those affected.  

Events from the past are irrelevant and is just whataboutery. The Tories have been in charge for 10 years and have consistently failed to invest in flood defences and infrastructure in general. Cameron promised to do something permanently to fix the rail when it was washed away at Dawlish a few years ago but went back to London and nothing was done. 

This is a government that has cut back on public spending for years - and the current crisis is what you get when you failed to invest and try to do things on the cheap. That's not blinkered - it's a matter of fact

 

I think he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't tbh. Look at the flood victims before the GE telling him to sod off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mike E said:

 Look at the flood victims before the GE telling him to sod off.

Precisely....that;s why he's holed up in Downing St and won't emerge until it's stopped raining.

The voters in Worcs, Shropshire and Wales will remember though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

This is a government that has cut back on public spending for years - and the current crisis is what you get when you failed to invest and try to do things on the cheap. That's not blinkered - it's a matter of fact

 

Absolutely, and if these floods had occurred within the M25, I'm sure there would've been altogether different response.

Instead of investing in infrastructure, they've skimmed off the top with tax cuts for their mates.

It bodes ill for 1st January when the Brexit hits the fan. Johnson will run for his bunker, and only emerge once the poor have eaten each other. I exaggerate slightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim's arguments show it is very easy to be in opposition. Evidence suggest this is a problem that has spanned decades not just the last. It's easy to be able to dismiss that as "whataboutery" though.

The truth is developers do as much damage to our drainage infrastructure as our governments funding does. It is an argument we in the industry have almost weekly, believe me. I'm on the side that sees how many things get chopped out of schemes for cost savings.

All parties need to get behind the fact we need to modernise our defence systems. A brilliant project has happened in Devon by rewilding beavers which has had dramatic effects on flood zones there. Outside of the box thinking like this needs to happen more because by throwing in dual-systems and transporting storm water to attenuation tanks / soakaways / river courses isn't good for either the environment or effective in draining surface water.

I would argue that Shropshire is as blue as they come and wouldn't expect them to be switching to Labour, especially when it's in its current guise, purely because Boris didn't visit. I work in Worcs and Shropshire and honestly have heard no murmurs about the govt- funnily enough, it's folk from outside areas slamming the defence systems whilst those living in it seem to disagree.

This flooding is unchartered territory and levels have risen to highs not seen before. When the flood defences were built they were meant to withstand a "1 in 100" year weather event, yet this was perhaps taken from outdated data because what was normal in the previous 100 years isn't normal now. Hindsight is 20/20. Genuine thought needs to go into where the money is spent because billions have been spent on flood defences in the past 30 years from all governments and they simply aren't standing the test of time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

57 minutes ago, broadsword said:

Absolutely, and if these floods had occurred within the M25, I'm sure there would've been altogether different response.

Instead of investing in infrastructure, they've skimmed off the top with tax cuts for their mates.

It bodes ill for 1st January when the Brexit hits the fan. Johnson will run for his bunker, and only emerge once the poor have eaten each other. I exaggerate slightly.

 Flood spending skewed towards London and the south 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/13/does-the-government-spend-more-on-flood-defences-for-the-south

The weather is exceptional but these severe events are occuring with increasing regularity and the £1bn or so we spend on flood defences each year clearly isn't enough. The Tory government's cutbacks are directly responsible for this and the likes of Dreams of 1995 are putting their head in the sand over their beloved party. Support for the Tories will crumble as swiftly as the inadequate flood defences in the Calder Valley, south Wales and Worcestershire. Johnson is discovering that government is not just slogans and jolly japes  - he needs to do the difficult things that affect real people in their daily existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 

 Flood spending skewed towards London and the south 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/13/does-the-government-spend-more-on-flood-defences-for-the-south

The weather is exceptional but these severe events are occuring with increasing regularity and the £1bn or so we spend on flood defences each year clearly isn't enough. The Tory government's cutbacks are directly responsible for this and the likes of Dreams of 1995 are putting their head in the sand over their beloved party. Support for the Tories will crumble as swiftly as the inadequate flood defences in the Calder Valley, south Wales and Worcestershire. Johnson is discovering that government is not just slogans and jolly japes  - he needs to do the difficult things that affect real people in their daily existence.

Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the typical Labour party member of 2020. Just like during the Schiphol airport situation, which was proven to be unrelated to Brexit, in his haste to throw shade he hasn't even fact checked. The article itself gives a verdict that the party is wrong in its claim. Further information to be found here: https://fullfact.org/election-2019/flood-defence-spending/

The Thames Estuary project skews figures and funding is released in cycles. Strip away the Thames Estuary and funding is highest per head in Yorkshire. However, using such ways to measure spending is flawed in itself as certain areas require no funding for flooding, in the Midlands for example.

The only thing 'directly responsible' is the weather and arguably climate change. This is something the whole world has to stand up and take responsibility for. 

Jim, the Tory party isn't my beloved party, I have voted Labour before and hope to return one day when the likes of yourself aren't there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

The only thing 'directly responsible' is the weather and arguably climate change. This is something the whole world has to stand up and take responsibility for. 

Jim, the Tory party isn't my beloved party, I have voted Labour before and hope to return one day when the likes of yourself aren't there. 

The causes of the extreme weather are undeniable. Gcvernment is responsible for trying to prevent it and dealing with its consequences. On the latter, this one has failed. 

Labour is a broad church. Even unprincipled, wavering Tory supporters are allowed in. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.