snowychap Posted December 10, 2020 Share Posted December 10, 2020 6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I'm not sure Snowy. We all knew this oven ready stuff was the WA, but many didn't and stuff like the below doesn't help. That's pretty much the point that I and others are making, Stefan. Johnson, Cummings et al. were pushing it as a slogan. It was a campaigning slogan (that he and others continued to use afterwards) but the actual meaning of it was rather ephemeral and that is and was fullly intentional. It means that it could be used in different situations with different audiences in different ways - to let people make up their own minds as to what they wanted to hear or to give a pushing off point for attacking people who pointed out, for example, that the whole 'deal' part of the oven-ready deal phrase was indeed a load of nonsense. We are getting a bit caught up over the 'oven-ready' part of the phrase (again, intentional, imo, from the people who came up with it) when it's the 'deal' part of the phrase that was the reall problem. It wasn't a deal in that it had little or no permanency (other than things like the NI Protocol - though that has since run in to problems of its own) even though it was sold, both implicitly and explicitly, as having it. The point is that Johnson (and Cleverly and others) were lying then and are lying now whilst at the same time saying some things that are truthful. The portrayal is such a jumble that no clear truth exists in what they said then and said now. We have to step outside of the picture(s) they are and were trying to paint in order to get at the truth. Cleverey is right to some extent accusing those saying the 'o-r deal' was anything more than the WA of being ignorant or lying, it's just that he's actually correctly describing the Tories during their election campaign (and after). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted December 10, 2020 Share Posted December 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, snowychap said: That's pretty much the point that I and others are making, Stefan. Johnson, Cummings et al. were pushing it as a slogan. It was a campaigning slogan (that he and others continued to use afterwards) but the actual meaning of it was rather ephemeral and that is and was fullly intentional. It means that it could be used in different situations with different audiences in different ways - to let people make up their own minds as to what they wanted to hear or to give a pushing off point for attacking people who pointed out, for example, that the whole 'deal' part of the oven-ready deal phrase was indeed a load of nonsense. We are getting a bit caught up over the 'oven-ready' part of the phrase (again, intentional, imo, from the people who came up with it) when it's the 'deal' part of the phrase that was the reall problem. It wasn't a deal in that it had little or no permanency (other than things like the NI Protocol - though that has since run in to problems of its own) even though it was sold, both implicitly and explicitly, as having it. The point is that Johnson (and Cleverly and others) were lying then and are lying now whilst at the same time saying some things that are truthful. The portrayal is such a jumble that no clear truth exists in what they said then and said now. We have to step outside of the picture(s) they are and were trying to paint in order to get at the truth. Cleverey is right to some extent accusing those saying the 'o-r deal' was anything more than the WA of being ignorant or lying, it's just that he's actually correctly describing the Tories during their election campaign (and after). I know what you're saying, and I do agree to an extent. The failure to diverge 'Brexit' and the 'Trade Deal' as separate things to the population is what has lead to this position now. However, going way way back, Vote Leave said we wouldn't trigger any mechanism to leave until the future relationship was agreed so... According to them (mostly Tories), the deal should have been part of the Brexit process, but in the end wasn't. But the Tories didn't do enough to make that. Certainly intentionally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 10, 2020 Share Posted December 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I know what you're saying, and I do agree to an extent. The failure to diverge 'Brexit' and the 'Trade Deal' as separate things to the population is what has lead to this position now. However, going way way back, Vote Leave said we wouldn't trigger any mechanism to leave until the future relationship was agreed so... According to them (mostly Tories), the deal should have been part of the Brexit process, but in the end wasn't. But the Tories didn't do enough to make that. Certainly intentionally. I agree with that. At the heart of it was either a misreading or misrepresentation of the A50 process (delete as appropriate) and the claim about what would be negotiated and concluded, i.e. the terms of future dealings (including trade) versus the terms of withdrawal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 10, 2020 Author Moderator Share Posted December 10, 2020 2 hours ago, snowychap said: At play here is elision - or a number of elisions. We have the WA, what ministers and Johnson claimed were its effects (as opposed, often, to the reality), what ministers and Johnson claimed was in it (as opposed, often, to the reality), the consequences of it all, whether or not the UK could be relied upon to stick to agreements made, the public's perception of what all of these things were (versus the reality of what these things were), &c. The 'oven-ready deal' was the WA. Johnson (and others) may well have lied about what the WA did and its implications, i.e. it 'got Brexit done', 'kept supply chains intact', 'didn't put a customs border' blah, blah, blah, and so on, but the 'oven-ready deal' was the WA. I had too look up what elision means you rascal I guess this, (which you also wrote in a later post) Quote The point is that Johnson (and Cleverly and others) were lying then and are lying now whilst at the same time saying some things that are truthful. The portrayal is such a jumble that no clear truth exists in what they said then and said now. We have to step outside of the picture(s) they are and were trying to paint in order to get at the truth. Is exactly right. My perception is that in claiming they had a deal which contained guarantees, or details that meant there would be no tariffs, continuity of supply chains and all that gubbins, Johnson could not be talking about the Withdrawal agreement, because ity didn't contain those, so he must have been talking about a future agreement that was good to go (oven ready). Other people may have (if Stefan's right that "we all knew") understood him to be talking about the WA, but lying about it. As simple folk, my view is he was lying then (whether it was about the WA, or an imaginary Trade deal) and is also lying now, as you say. TL:DR he's a liar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 10, 2020 Share Posted December 10, 2020 5 hours ago, blandy said: Johnson could not be talking about the Withdrawal agreement, because ity didn't contain those The WA did contain those, i.e. it kept everything as was. 5 hours ago, blandy said: TL:DR he's a liar. Bingo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 10, 2020 Author Moderator Share Posted December 10, 2020 41 minutes ago, snowychap said: The WA ...kept everything as was. What he is saying on camera, in the video I linked off twitter seems to me strongly NOT to be discussion of the WA - he talks about e.g. 'equivalence of standards' (whereas the transition period covered in the WA requires continuing to adhere to current EU standards, not equivalent ones). So my take is definitely that he's lying about having an imaginary post WA agreement which he claims in the video is "in the pipeline ready to go" . But as per earlier posts I suppose it doesn't really matter - as you say he's lying either way. Bingo indeed. I dunno why I'm even looking at this stuff, I was happier when the election was on last year, knowing nothing about it and being far, far away from the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 10, 2020 Share Posted December 10, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, blandy said: What he is saying on camera, in the video I linked off twitter seems to me strongly NOT to be discussion of the WA - he talks about e.g. 'equivalence of standards' (whereas the transition period covered in the WA requires continuing to adhere to current EU standards, not equivalent ones). You are making the absolutely critical mistake of regarding what comes out of Johnson's mouth as having any actual connection to reality rather than a continuous exercise in obfuscation. Again, it's the point about elision - he may say 'equivalence of standards' which you take to mean not the WA because actually they're the current standards and therefore not an equivalence but he is not intending to be that precise. He's attempting to ride multiple wives and only claim responsibility for the children if they turn out to be worth it. Edited December 10, 2020 by snowychap 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 10, 2020 Author Moderator Share Posted December 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, snowychap said: You are making the absolutely critical mistake of regarding what comes out of Johnson's mouth as having any actual connection to reality Oh, no. I may get many things wrong, but don't worry, I have no trouble determining that he's lying - we just slightly differ on what he was lying about. In essence I think it safest to conclude he was lying about everything. Some people give him the benefit and say he was talking about the WA, and therefore not completely lying. I'm sticking with my safe bet that he was completely lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 10, 2020 Share Posted December 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, blandy said: Oh, no. I may get many things wrong, but don't worry, I have no trouble determining that he's lying - we just slightly differ on what he was lying about. In essence I think it safest to conclude he was lying about everything. Some people give him the benefit and say he was talking about the WA, and therefore not completely lying. I'm sticking with my safe bet that he was completely lying. Though you were taking part of it and inferring that he couldn't be talking about x because it doesn't contain the y that were the words that he used when he's quite capable of, indeed quite keen on, referring to x but using a y that could be interpreted (depending upon the listener) as referring to x to something else, neither or either. It's less about lying - though he's obviously an inveterate liar - more about putting a case forward in bad faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 It’s a 1 on the surprised scale for me Quote Boris Johnson's former chief aide Dominic Cummings, who left No 10 last month after an internal power struggle, enjoyed a bumper pay rise earlier this year, new figures have revealed. His basic salary rose by about £45,000 to between £140,000 and £144,999. The PM stood by Mr Cummings this summer when he was embroiled in controversy over a trip to Durham during lockdown. Labour said the rise was an "insult" to millions of workers whose pay is being frozen due to the Covid crisis. Link bbc 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 I’m still intrigued why Cummins after getting sacked bought a couple of bottles of champagne on his way home. Did he know he’d be getting a big payoff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 3 minutes ago, Genie said: I’m still intrigued why Cummins after getting sacked bought a couple of bottles of champagne on his way home. Did he know he’d be getting a big payoff? Same reason he walked out the front door of No 10 with a photo-friendly cardboard box; to get some pictures in the paper that steer discussion in the direction he wnted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicho Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 (edited) People saying the over ready deal meant the WA know they are wrong The evidence is there, worded in a way that in hindsight allows to say it isn’t. Either they signed it and very cleverly worded it in a way so that they could disown it when ready. meaning they got a deal they never planned to keep just for election purposes or they signed a deal, realised they didn’t like it and have tried to spin the wording used Edited December 15, 2020 by Nicho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 42 minutes ago, Nicho said: People saying the over ready deal meant the WA know they are wrong Nope Quote The evidence is there, worded in a way that in hindsight allows to say it isn’t. I think this is the wrong way around. Quote Either they signed it and very cleverly worded it in a way so that they could disown it when ready. meaning they got a deal they never planned to keep just for election purposes or they signed a deal, realised they didn’t like it and have tried to spin the wording used Erm, kind of but not really?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Genie said: It’s a 1 on the surprised scale for me Link bbc Just to play the contrarian a bit, that's probably not unreasonable is it? He's clearly a despicable scumbag who should probably see the inside of a prison cell at some point, but he was kind of in charge of everything and running the country (yes, very badly, I know). Getting paid the same as a middle-manager at Deloitte or (to pick a job I just randomly Googled) ten grand less than the "Corporate Director of Place" for Thurrock Council (£154,994) doesn't make me swoon in horror. Edited December 15, 2020 by ml1dch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Nicho said: People saying the over ready deal meant the WA know they are wrong The evidence is there, worded in a way that in hindsight allows to say it isn’t. Either they signed it and very cleverly worded it in a way so that they could disown it when ready. meaning they got a deal they never planned to keep just for election purposes or they signed a deal, realised they didn’t like it and have tried to spin the wording used I’m not sure what to tell you. At that stage of proceedings the ‘oven ready deal’ could only have been the withdrawal agreement. It was the only thing that had been under negotiation for the first 3 years and negotiations could not start on a trade agreement until the withdrawal agreement was agreed and signed off by the parliaments of both sides. It was not possible at that stage of the process for a trade agreement to have been agreed as the withdrawal agreement sets the terms to start negotiations on the trade deal. I understand not everyone follows the process closely and Johnson was being vague about what stage of the process had been agreed. He was playing on people being fed up with the whole thing and would vote for him to just get it all over with so the U.K. could move on. Edited December 16, 2020 by LondonLax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, ml1dch said: Just to play the contrarian a bit, that's probably not unreasonable is it? He's clearly a despicable scumbag who should probably see the inside of a prison cell at some point, but he was kind of in charge of everything and running the country (yes, very badly, I know). Getting paid the same as a middle-manager at Deloitte or (to pick a job I just randomly Googled) ten grand less than the "Corporate Director of Place" for Thurrock Council (£154,994) doesn't make me swoon in horror. It’s not really his job to run the country though is it? The perception via the media is that he was pulling the strings in Downing Street but that is because Boris Johnson is especially useless. The job isn’t “UK manager”. I guess the best comparison would be how much his equivalent was paid under previous PM’s. Did Boris jack up the salary above the going rate? And was that because DC told him to? Edited December 16, 2020 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 16, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2020 6 minutes ago, Genie said: It’s not really his job to run the country though is it? The perception via the media is that he was pulling the strings in Downing Street but that is because Boris Johnson is especially useless. The job isn’t “UK manager”. I guess the best comparison would be how much his equivalent was paid under previous PM’s. Did Boris jack up the salary above the going rate? And was that because DC told him to? There has never been an equivalent SPAD with as much power as Cummings. No PM's SPAD was ever on SAGE as far as I'm aware (as an example) and certainly not guiding it as he seemed to be doing. Cummings wasn't in the job for the money (or the direct salary to be clear), the power was why he was there. If Cummings asked for a pay rise, it was more likely for the symbolism of it rather than the actual money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatAboutTheFinish Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 7 minutes ago, Genie said: I guess the best comparison would be how much his equivalent was paid under previous PM’s. Did Boris Jack up the salary above the going rate? And was that because DC told him to? Theresa May had two spads on £140k back in 2018 and Alistair Campbell was on £125k nearly 20 years ago under Blair...so I think we can assume that Cummings was getting the going rate. As I understand it, the only reason this is in anyway newsworthy is that apparently when BoJo came to power, it was DC himself who decided to impose a "no Spad on more than £100k to show we are men of the people" policy. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 16, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2020 Boris needs to go lie in front of a bulldozer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts