Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 22 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Haircut

I've never heard of the guy, but looking him up, damn, that's a haircut that demands attention. Researcher (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn right it does. ^bomination 08:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea he had duel US citizenry. Now I know who I'm rooting for in 2016. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Boris J versus Donald T

What would happen if BoJo decided to lead an 'anyone but Donald Trump' campaign? 31.51.113.34 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Owned by Murdoch

So, if that most recent edit about why he won't stand for PM is correct, Rupert Murdoch basically owns the Tory party then? Of course that's probably true, since he said that he was supporting the Brexit because the UK government does whatever he tells them to, but the EU won't give him the time of day.68.200.26.93 (talk)

Murdoch's paper once titled "It was the Sun wot won it" (sic). I think that's all you need to know about his influence on British politics. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Balance at the Foreign Office

Get BJ to offend each and every country (including the ones that no longer exist, and 'hobby countries' - Sealand etc). 109.150.11.241 (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Back in the day you needed population, territory, government and recognition to be a state. Now to truly be a state you need the fifth element; an insult by the hairdo. I am not the Ombud's man 17:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And if BJ decides to go in for a 'beard and moustache competition'?

There are many aspects of statehood (Tannu Tuvan postage stamps, the Czech Legion on the Trans Siberian railways - so far undiscovered by 'a certain ex-MP' noted for colourful suits and trains - spring to mind). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Boris: illegitimate son of Trump

Born in New York, where Yellow Beast dwell, he resembles to it remarkably - physically, mentally and spiritually. He even bears a Slavic (first) name, which is known trait in Beast's lair (Melanija, Ivanka, and possibly Boris).

Yellow also refer to blond/yellow hair not just character. Yellow Beast is entire species Sp. Flavus flavus bestia, represented by individual trophy specimens: Donald Trump, BoJo, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, Ann Coulter, ex-blonde Vojislav Šešelj bawd of mass murder and genocide, Viktor Orban. Species feels more then threatened, critically endangered even (breitbart.com: blond-cheerful-families-dangerous-right), and hopefully won't survive for long, although it proved to be extremely tough, resilient animal which survived post-WWII denazification and defascisation of the continent.

God damn it, I was compelled to write this - not constructive at all, my apologies.--Santasa (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Football

Is BJ's comment comparing the 2018 World Cup and the 1936 Olympics a case of galloping Godwin's Law? 109.150.40.215 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

no. no in the slightest. its an apt comparison. and it wasnt his comparison he merely agreed.

“”Speaking at the Commons committee hearing, Mr Austin said: "The idea of Putin handing over the World Cup to the captain of the winning team; the idea of Putin using this as a PR exercise to gloss over the brutal, corrupt regime for which he is responsible; it fills me with horror," he said. Mr Johnson could be heard saying, "I'm afraid that's completely right, completely right", during Mr Austin's comments.

this is entirely true. what do you think events like the world cup and the olympics are? they massive prestige events and when countries like russia get to hold them they are 'PR exercise to gloss over the brutal, corrupt regime' much like hitlers olympics. sure, its imflammatory, buts thats kind of the pointAMassiveGay (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is in part defining the boundaries between '(reasonably) valid statement', 'understandable hyperbole' and 'Godwin's Law and its derivatives (including 'mention X or Y and you automatically lose the argument')' are - not all cases are clear cut and sometimes considering whether 'this statement is or isn't an example of an internet law' does advance the argument. Anna Livia (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

i think people just dong understand internet laws and godwins in particular. not all references are to hitler are godwins and unjustified and internet laws are not actually cast iron laws. throwing around such terms, as with when folk do the same with fallacies add nothing to the conversation when your reasoning is entirely absent and merely serve to shut down debate. heres my 'law' - if your response to an argument is nothing more than reference to a fallacy or an internet law, your a condescending prick. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I know I’m way too late for this, but less bombastic analogies would’ve been the 1988 Seoul and 2008 Beijing Olympics (and arguably the 1968 Mexico Olympics as well), as well as the 1976 Argentina (and again, arguably, the 1984 Mexico) and the upcoming 2022 Qatar FIFA World Cup. All are examples of successful “sports branding” by authoritarian regimes (I left out the 1980 Moscow Olympics as they were hardly an unqualified PR success) without the need for Godwin distractions. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

an even later return to the party, but I couldn't let it lie, this was all under the context of an honest to goodness chemical weapon attack on british soil, killing one and maiming others, with putin firmly in the frame, nor was it the first such attack on british soil. then there are the various susipicious deaths - read assassinations of Russian emigres that just so happened to be critical of putins regime, and/or have cooperated with international bodies embarrassing or resulting in financial damage to putin. bombast was I believe justified, and the reference to hitler equally so. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

Given Bojo's habit of issuing 'statements that provoke much comment' should there be a protect on the article? Anna Livia (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Pages are only protected if there's repeated vandalism, not just because they might be vandalised. Protection is a bad thing because it prevents contributors, and shouldn't be done unless necessary. --Gospatric (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

More 'something to be considered' - particularly for the few days after he makes such statements. Anna Livia (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There is an occasional role for a 'right-wing Tory politician who will never climb the greasy pole and instead make statements that others of a more centrist or leftist disposition consider outrageous' - Dennis Thatcher and Alan Clark being previous such. Has BJ succeeded to this office? Anna Livia (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but not by choice or design. He still aims for No. 10 and his various shenanigans are ways he thinks might help get him there. He is basically and opportunistic, unprincipled mercenary who will do or say anything he thinks can serve his own interests. Unlike someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg, who at least seem to believe in his deeply regressive vision of Britain, although they do share in common the tailoring of their personal image to fit popular culture upper class stereotypes: Boris as upper class buffoon/twit à la Bertie Wooster and JR-M as Downtown Abbey’ish paternalistic nobleman.ScepticWombat (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Authoritarian or not?

I’ve reinstated the authoritarian wingnuttery category, because sanitising/normalising the creeping authoritarian tendencies within the Tory party in general and the hard Brexiteers that BoJo has chosen as his vehicle to power is not particularly helpful. BoJo plays to the same “I’m a strongman who’ll fix everything” image as Trump (indeed he preceded Trump in that game) and to call the every rightward slithering Tories “centrists” is ludicrous.

The most worrying signs of this tendency was BoJo’s attitude towards Parliament and the attempt to shut it out of the Brexit process with the transparently bogus recess, which is all the more concerning in the British system where so much hangs on Parliament, unlike the US system where the courts in general (and the SCOTUS in particular) play a stronger role. But even the courts got a shot across the bow with the “Traitors!” rhetoric from BoJo’s supporters in the tabloids. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I really disagree with the authoritarian label. It cheapens real authoritarianism. There is still freedom of press, movement, speech and full voting suffrage. Ace^Moderator 10:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s the difference between what’s usually termed “soft” and “hard” authoritarianism. And it is a useful caution against the concentration of power in the executive branch and the weakening of both checks and balances and countervailing centres of power more broadly. One criticism of the Tories is that they seem to have taken a leaf from the GOP playbook by making voter registration at universities more difficult and thus de facto raising the bar for voter participation. But sure, if we decide that only outright dictatorial states should be called authoritarian, then by all means go ahead and change the categorisation. Personally, I just think that’s setting a rather high bar to what can be called authoritarian and a very formalistic view of democracy and the exercise of power. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I just really can't see an elected government as authoritarian until such a time as they restrict movement and speech. I'd even be hard-pressed to label Trump as authoritarian at this stage. Yes there are tendencies towards authoritarianism but until the elections are called off or a government loses an election but stays on... I don't know - I'm using my BA in Political Science to guide me here. Ace^Moderator 10:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump believes he can be classified into the category of authoritarianism because he shows an extreme right-wing tendency. But BoJo, unlike Trump, is not far-right, so I think it's somewhat biased to classify him as an authoritarian category.--BluePink (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I too use my background in Political Science as a guide, when I bring up the “hard”/“soft” distinction. Now, there will always be “minimalist” and “maximalist” definitions of any type of ideology or governing systems, but I think that to demand formal restrictions of basic civil rights as the bedrock for determining authoritarianism is unnecessarily reductionist, because there are so many other ways in which the practical exercise of these rights can be restricted. For instance, the late Chalmers S. Johnson pointed to Japan’s informal restrictions via press clubs etc. as the reason for designating Japan as a soft authoritarian system. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Reductionist it may be but I believe it should be a high bar to clear. Ace^Moderator 11:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

PS. I should probably note that one of the reasons given when the “authoritarian wingnuttery” category was removed was than BoJo was less an example of this category than Shinzo Abe, and that my disagreement with this interpretation was one reason form my reinstatement of the category. If the mob decides to adopt the more limited definition of authoritarianism supported by Ace, we need to do a lot of mopping up in all of these “soft” examples, so that we’re at least consistent. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh I don't plan to revert your changes, while I do disagree. I don't have much of a dog in this fight, I just am a little more strict when it comes to this sort of thing because it is all to easy (and common) for left-wingers to equate right-wing = authoritarianism as much as right-wingers equate left-wing = communism. Ace^Moderator 11:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. To regard BoJo as an authoritarian is largely limited to some leftists. Of course, RationalWiki doesn't have to keep NPOV, but I think classification should be more neutral. I don't object to describing BoJo's aspect that may appear authoritarian in the document. However, I oppose adding the category of authoritarianism.--BluePink (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

BoJo's political behavior is more like the one with "populism." I don't think that's enough to regard the person as authoritarian. For now, the Tories are mainstream conservative parties and do not appear to harbor Far-right tendencies like the Republican Party and LDP. --BluePink (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the "authoritarian" label should be given recklessly. France's Jean-Luc Mélenchon, for example, is the leader of a far-left party and is criticized for showing a Stalinist tendency by liberals or right-wingers, but does not classify him as "authoritarian" in Rationalwiki. Furthermore, BoJo is the leader of the center-right party.--BluePink (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a typo and I am correcting it. (I am currently partially using a translator.) Some liberals and rightists in France regard Mélenchon as a Stalinist. In general, however, Mélenchon is not considered a Stalinist. Likewise, BoJo is considered authoritarian only on some left, and this is likely to be seen as a kind of branding. I'm not British, but I've never thought of BoJo as an authoritarian, though I think he's an incompetent, stupid, discriminatory and wingnut leader. If BoJo is an authoritarian, perhaps the majority of conservatives in South Korea and Japan should all be regarded as extreme right.--BluePink (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To be very blunt, I reinstated the category simply because I find it silly to claim that it applies to Shinzo Abe, but not BoJo. If the mob agrees that only “hard” authoritarians should be slapped with this label, e.g. the semi-dictatorship of Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus, the former military junta in Thailand or the semi-theocratic Gulf state monarchies, then that’s fine (or at least consistent).

But then I’d like to hear what we should call those countries in which the “soft” authoritarianism is less about the limitations of formal rights and more about limiting the actual ability to avail yourself of these rights, e.g. the examples of Hungary or Poland? Or, for that matter, what label should we give cases in which a leader clearly wants to be an authoritarian, but is constrained by the institutional setup (Jair Bolsonaro is arguably a poster child for this, considering his outspoken praise of the former Brazilian military junta)?

The worrying thing about BoJo is that he simply doesn’t seem to actually understand or accept the core concept of British politics: That Parliament is sovereign. This is a remarkable aspect, as is his attempt to sideline Parliament in favour of an ever more powerful No. 10. He seems to think that once he has secured a majority in Parliament behind him as PM, Parliament should just vote through whatever he wants. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Leaders of Abe, Trump, Bolsonaro, Orbán Viktor and Kaczyński are far-right. But BoJo is not the far-right. The Conservative Party doesn't think it's much out of the center-right category. Therefore, attaching the category of "authoritarianism" to Abe, Trump and Bolsonaro is different in nature from attaching the category of "authoritarianism" to BoJo. There is plenty of room for the latter to be seen as branding.--BluePink (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Japan's LDP is considered to have an far-right faction. But there is considerable controversy over the existence of "extreme right" in the British Conservative Party. LDP is a right-wing party and has a right-wing populist tendency, but the British Conservative Party has not deviated much from the center-right category. In the case of LDP, extreme right is also mentioned in the English Wikipedia. BoJo has a right-wing populist element, but he doesn't see it as extreme rightist as Shinzo Abe or Donald Trump. (Check out the English Wikipedia. LDP, Tories) Western media outlets, which reported Abe's creed as far-right, do not have only left-wing media. But Western media outlets reporting BoJo as far-right are usually left-wing.--BluePink (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition, in Northeast Asia, the GOP of the United States is perceived as more liberal than the LDP of Japan. (LDP is sometimes referred to as the party itself as a Ultra-Nationalist party. It does not mean some party members like the British Conservative Party, but rather it means the tendency of the LDP itself.) You are not familiar with the conservatism of Korea and Japan. Unlike the world-leading British and U.S. regions, problems in Northeast Asia are not easily revealed to the outside world. BoJo is an Idiot, not an authoritarian. --BluePink (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The discrimination I experienced while living in Northeast Asia was a problem that could have been sufficiently institutionalized and punish perpetrators if I were in the West. I won't go into details now that 'Trigger' is coming. Of course, seeing the racism of Asians in the West in recent years has somewhat broken the illusion of the West. But it is undeniable that Northeast Asia is very, very conservative. Do you know how many horrible and cruel things I've been through in Northeast Asia as an autistic person?

LDP members are to visit Yasukuni Shrine. Abe once boarded a combat plane bearing 731.# Do British Conservative Members Praise the Nazis(The Nazis I speak here do not refer to the far right as a whole as a derogatory expression, but to the Nazis during World War II in its original meaning.)? Does BoJo make a caricature of Holocaust? How is BoJo equivalent to Shinzo Abe? BoJo or Berlusconi makes rather radical rhetoric and discriminatory remarks hostile to the liberal press. But they don't openly carry out extreme policies like Trump and Salvini. Abe is threatening the liberal media behind the scenes and blatantly engaging in discriminatory policies, but his words and actions or "showing" against so-called Western countries are relatively modest. This is closely related to the conservative culture of Northeast Asia, which values honor. What is more authoritarian? Abe is a hardliner on the LDP[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/japan-name-order.html?auth=login-google Shinzo Abe? That’s Not His Name, Says Japan’s Foreign Minister "Mr. Abe is strongly supported by the far right wing of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which hews to tradition and tends toward insularity." and the LDP is certainly a party on the right more than the British Conservative Party. Also, Jacob Rees-Mogg has a "authoritarian" element because of its strong traditionalist color based on religion, but BoJo has few such elements. (Abe is a ultra-nationalist and traditionalist politician. Abe is an authoritarian conservative who is more right-wing than BoJo.)--BluePink (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am also active in English Wikipedia. But when I edit both English Wikipedia and RationalWiki, I honestly think this. RationalWiki seems to impose more stringent standards on Western conservatives and right-wing parties, and relatively less stringent standards on non-Western conservatives and right-wing parties. In English Wikipedia, the British Conservative Party classifies itself as a simple center-rightist, while the LDP classifies itself as a right-wing populist or nationalist party, and I can say for sure that it is true as a person who has actually lived in Northeast Asia. It is not silliness to oppose classifying BoJo as an authoritarian, classifying the Abe creed as an authoritarian.--BluePink (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to reduce BoJo's shit. However, categorization means that we need to be more careful. I was the first one to put a "conservative wingnut" category on the BoJo document.

To sum up, BoJo is a prime minister belonging to the British Conservative Party, a simple center-right party, and it should be very careful to attach "authoritarianism" to the prime minister of a party whose views are overwhelming, not a party that is considered to have a right-wing populist tendency like Japan's LDP or the GOD of the United States.--BluePink (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to state my agreement with @ScepticWombat on this subject, and... Pardon me for invoking Godwin's law but I'm going to have to bring up the Nazi Party. They didn't so much restrict the freedom of the press so much as supplant it, slowly dominating the political landscape and delegitimizing their political and press opposition and shifting the Overton window to suit their ends. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

im not seeing this at all. since his election hes virtually all. the coronavirus has prevented anything happening, shutting down parliament. hes not in anyway supplanted the press, has not in way delegitimised opposition, the overton hasn't lurched to right under him. Johnson as an authoritarian is just ridiculoius. show me exactly what he is doing that warrants that label. the traitors from tabloids mentioned above? the daily mail have been calling people traitors for years. the last time was surrounding Brexit and judges rulings against mays government. this is all nonsense. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is controversial and believes that categories that are not accepted by many who are not part of RationalWiki users should be removed. Categories should be more neutral. BoJo is not the far-right, the category of "authoritarianism" is inappropriate.--BluePink (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose classifying BoJo as a "authoritarian" category, but I don't even oppose describing what might appear to be authoritarian in Boris Johnson document as authoritarian.--BluePink (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As I’ve already pointed out, but which no one seems to have noticed or cared about, this discussion comes down to how narrow or wide a definition of “authoritarian” you subscribe to. If you adopt the narrow definition of (and I admit to be simplifying a bit) basically only using authoritarian to denote regimes and politicians who not only support but are actually able to implement (semi)dictatorial politicies that restrict formal rights of citizens, then no, BoJo don’t fit the bill. This is the “hard” definition that basically makes “authoritarianism” a synonym for “dictatorship”. If you adopt the “soft” definition that allows for “authoritarian” to be used in cases where the exercise of power either doesn’t focus on formal limitations of civil rights then the picture is somewhat different. Again, this is a legitimate discussion and I’d like to see that being at the core, and not simply using slapdash examples from around the world of “assorted rightists” as the reason for lumping BoJo in this of that category.

Hell, just for shits and giggles I could argue that since the continental European conservatives and Christian democrats in the EPP party group also counts Orbáns Fidesz among their numbers, they must clearly be far right as must BoJo‘s Tories for shacking up with the Polish PiS, the Sweden Democrats and other assorted rightist nuts in the ECR group. This is why simply making this kind of “six degrees of authoritarianism” is pointless.

As for the “holding Western democracies to a higher standard” objection, that’s and old discussion that dates back to at least the Cold War (when it was used to deflect criticism of “The West” by contrasting it with the outright dictatorships of the Eastern Bloc) and my approach is the same to both: Of course I did and do hold Western democracies to a high(er) standard, because they themselves openly profess that this is the kind of standard they should be judged against. If you openly profess to being a dictatorial state, you’re not pretending to be an open, fair, inclusive and competitive democracy with an extensive interpretation of human rights (duh...). However, if you do subscribe to the latter as your societal model, it’s entirely fair to criticise deviations from that, and such criticism is in no way either lessened or deflected by whataboutery vis-a-vis other political systems. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

sorry still not seeing it even on the 'soft' authoritarian front. even with the whole prorogation thing, though since has been ruled unlawful, I say it came about during extraordinary circumstances. 'Delivering judgment, Hale said: “The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again.”' it was a one coming as it did after 3 years of a most awful stalemate in parliament. I did not agree with it, but the whole of those 3 years since Brexit should be viewed with disgust, and all involved with utter contempt. parliament is sovereign. the court judgement confirmed this. but parliament in the run up to all this was not functioning. mays government repeatedly failed to pass any legislation. boris's government repeatedly failed to pass legislation. the opposition did nothing but block legislation, bringing nothing in the way of an alternative to what was being put to the house - there not being any alternative to the shit Brexit deals offered, there was nothing else to offer. it blocked attempts to dissolve parliament, because polling wasnt favourable. 3 years of nothing but despair and ineptitude. the prorogation was an attempt to do something as no legislation could be passed in parliament, but wouldn't let an election be called. it was legally shaky and proved unlawful. this seems to be boris's sole authoritarian action, under circumstances that wont return and a parliament that was in chronic paralysis. since then, a general election was called, he won it, and the current crisis we find ourselves has paralysed us once more, with anything boris has done, its been under this crisis where everything has been unprecedented. an authoritarian bent has not been revealed nor has it been the spur for anything that has happened. its all been circumstance. this crisis has only thrown sharp relief on a man with no goal but to be prime minister, and having done so, with his naked opportunism now useless to him, and his Brexit, though more importantly and accurately his uber Thatcherite new pals constrained by an economic lockdown, he has only his incompetence and a lack of direction, completely void of a plan, idea, or sense of purpose. his old etonian education instilled a sense of being born to rule, but seems to have neglected to provide any reason or ability. he is not yet an authoritarian and we cant yet say that's where he is heading. hes not really anything. except a massive liability. and a prick. we can say with certainty he is a massive prick AMassiveGay (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that consensus on the this talk page is moving towards endorsement of the removal of the “authoritarian wingnuttery” category from BoJo. Some of the arguments have been in favour of what I’ve called the limited or strict definition of authoritarianism, others that BoJo is just a buffoon and that his more, ahem, controversial, policies and other shenanigans are simply examples of populism, opportunism and/or extraordinary circumstances.

Now, Shinzō Abe was brought up as a contrast with BoJo, so my question is: What has Abe done that is so different from BoJo that he merits the authoritarian wingnuttery category? I ask not simply to stir shit up, but because there seems to be some inclination to be a bit more systematic in RW categorisations, such as this one. Hence, I’m trying to hammer out some form of definition/criteria to go by when evaluating where the boundaries of “authoritarian wingnuttery” should be drawn and why. Similarly, we currently have applied this label to Jacob Rees-Mogg, but not to BoJo, which seems a bit odd. Also, what about Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher who are also both in the category, in contrast to BoJo.

In short, what is the salient feature(s) of Abe, Reagan, Rees-Mogg, and Thatcher absent from Johnson that means that he alone of these four does not merit the category “authoritarian wingnuttery”? Or are we moving towards a more limited application of this category overall?

Note that I’ve deliberately chosen examples from the category that I’d assume were more likely to be borderline/controversial cases as these are apt to be more useful in testing the finer points of the definition and its application. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm more of a compromise in the category of 'authoritarianism'. Even a major politician in a liberal democratic country can add a "authoritarian" category if he is an far-rightist or a person with a strong religious conservative tendency. However, if it is not an far-right tendency, I think it may be branding the category of "authoritarianism" to major politicians in liberal democratic countries, so if possible, it should be avoided. That's why I'm against classifying BoJo as authoritarian, but Trump isn't against classifying him as an authoritarian.--BluePink (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Shinzo Abe is a lot different qualitatively from Boris Johnson. Shinzo has a much stronger traditionalist tendency and advocates Japanese Empire during the military dictatorships that formed alliances with the Nazis. I think Abe's creed is rather qualitatively similar to Donald Trump. Even Abe is authoritarian enough to control the center-left media to some extent, unlike Trump.--BluePink (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

In a liberal democratic country, when a particular politician is classified as a "authoritarian" category, it is reasonable to classify him as "authoritarian" if he is a far-right nationalist or has a traditionalist tendency. Donald Trump, Shinzo Abe, Orbán Viktor, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are in line, but BoJo believes they are not.--BluePink (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I really couldn't say about what other politicians should be labelled as. I am only confident in my assessment of boris. he really is the vacuous prick I suggest he is, his sole motivation and ambition was the premiership, and hes got that already. the lockdown is probably all that hes got to give the impression of leadership. even that and his actions are dictated by events. hes not progressed from the wait and see approach taken early on. Brexit policy is limited to looking vaguely Churchillian. vague is all that can hope for when an education in the classics and invoking of the blitz are employed for a vague idea of a vague one nation tory. he is not of the same mind as some of his cabinet whom he finds himself aligned with - the dominic raabs, the priti patels. those for whom thatcher was a wet and who were the real drivers for and real winners of Brexit.

I know its a cop out to say extraordinary circumstances, but they really are. nothing from Brexit has been resolved and wont be for awhile. that's extraordinary. and with the coronavirus? I have no idea of what the uk will look like this time next year. no idea if the uk will still be a thing. I don't think it is really possible to say for certain how anything lies right now, certainly not boris's ideology. it will likely become clearer as more things are decided, what paths remain open. but while many had an idea for Brexit was a delusion, boris was motivated by opportunism. his Thatcherite friends are the only group with a clear idea of what Brexit will be, its likely their voices that will determine our route. that might mean boris will effectively be more authoritarian, even if not him per say. right now he is not and its uncertain where hes going. it might be while before we know.

honestly, ive been consumed by all of this since Brexit constantly going over why and for what. its probably made me a bit mental. this triumph of Thatcherism was not what was being sold, even if it was always clear from who were for Brexit it was a danger. boris was once mayor of London, now he is pm. he took credit for boris bikes, and latched on to Brexit. hes never achieved anything that was his own ideas or shaped in his own image. can you be an authoritarian if you are not really at the wheel? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

i'm thinking I don't really care either way if im honest. I am just enraged by comparisons to trump or any other politician, or by the application of labels that all combine to give this prick and impression of having any kind of principle, having any strength of character, vision, direction, any idea at all instead of the fact that with boris at the wheel, its the same as having no one at the wheel. and I should stop obsessing AMassiveGay (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

ok, just one more point that might actually be more pertinent than my usual howling into the void. whatever categories one might apply, would it not make sense to be reflected by the content of the article? just at the moment, whatever we might feel it should be, the article is very much in the boris as a vacuous prick camp. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Two points. One, I agree with @AMassiveGay on the fact that Boris is at his core a pure opportunist. And two, @BluePink quit adding ref tags on the talkpage, it fucks with the archivebot and is just annoying as fuck if multiple conversations use it, due to the clutter that accumulates.. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Given Boris spent £250k on water cannon when he was Mayor, and was prepared to use them for the first time on the British mainland, anyone fancy a sweepstake on when he'll go full disaster capitalist and fuck British workers over with great force like his hero Churchill did in 1911 and 1919? LondonGrump (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

His latest poster says Be a lert'

What are lerts? Anna Livia (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Boris at the Foreign Office

was taken in the Mayor's office in City Hall, by Tower Bridge, the thing in the background. I say let it stand because he was equally shit as mayor and his tenure prefigures, foreshadows, whatever, his being a shit PM. LondonGrump (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)