
“I thought I'd share this Boris Johnson story with you” - carusooneliner
https://www.facebook.com/thejeremyvine/posts/since-he-is-probably-our-next-prime-minister-i-thought-id-share-this-boris-johns/2449074521979085/
======
duxup
I've been lucky enough to know some US state level politicians for quite some
time, not major figures, but folks who did it most of their life (while doing
other things too) and were successful at it.

I often got the felling that they did that thing, and even pushed the issues
they did... because they were successful at it and it fit their personality.
Most were not idealists despite what they said IMO, I suspect many if pressed
to change their positions did not really care about the issues outside of a
couple topics at most (and due to the winds of change in US politics most
actually supported surprisingly different issues over time). They were just
very good at getting along with people, shaking hands, negotiating deals, had
the social skills that provided them the financal and political support hey
needed to keep going.

In many ways it seemed to be a lifestyle that once they were successful, was
also a sort of social life, and to some extent a thrill seeking event
(elections are exciting) that just kept them going as people.

Not to pass the buck on any moral choices they make, they're certainly
responsible, but I suspect for may they just sort of fall into it, and just
don't want to quit the lifestyle as it fits who they are.

~~~
gexla
> Most were not idealists despite what they said IMO, I suspect many if
> pressed to change their positions did not really care about the issues
> outside of a couple topics at most (and due to the winds of change in US
> politics most actually supported surprisingly different issues over time).

They represent the views of the people who vote. Those views change over time.
This is much like me doing what my employer asks for, despite my own
preferences. It's not our views which are important, but rather the ability to
execute for those we are working for.

I think most workers don't care so much about the mission of their employers.
They find a way to make their work interesting and things get done regardless.

~~~
riffraff
I think this point of view is arguable.

First, politicians may be considered as representative of either _only the
people who voted for them_, or as _representative of everyone_.

Secondly, many politicians do not really change their point of view, the
change in people's opinion is expressed by voting different people.

~~~
sidkshatriya
Must this be a binary choice? Both effects are at play here.

Politicians will often adjust their publicity stated views to match their
electorate to be more electable. As the electorates opinions change over time,
the publicly stated views of the politicians also evolve. Occasionally
politicians who want to bring about a certain kind of change they believe in
passionately are able to shift the views of their electorate also. This
happens rarely but it happens.

In other words this business attracts people of all kinds: the cynical kind
that just wants power regardless of policy and the kind that wants to bring
about the kind of of change they think will take society to nirvana regardless
of what people think. Usually each politician has both sides. It’s a
continuum.

~~~
riffraff
yes, I agree completely.

------
pjc50
Like Penn and Teller, it's always interesting to see a magic trick
deconstructed. And it is a "trick" or a "routine", as much as anyone else's
performance. It relies entirely on intelligence and the ability to think on
one's feet, combined with a good memory of a stock of anecdotes that can be
matched to the audience. Or at least a few stock ones that can be hammed up.
The anecdotes mentioned (SHEEP and SHARK) are highly political, too, focusing
on "EU regulations" and "health and safety"; mocking these is absolutely a
staple of Johnsonism, and it goes down well with the soft-right and
businessmen.

The haplessness is a routine that Brits absolutely love, and again it takes no
small skill to be professionally hapless. This was also a staple of Wogan's
performances; famously, for the big Children in Need telethons, he never did
any of the rehearsals but came on and delivered a charismatic and funny
performance - all night.

The problem is that Johnson is not applying for the job of chat show host,
he's applying for PM, and this routine absolutely does not work on other EU
leaders. He also appears to be entirely self-centered and amoral. Years ago
having a daughter in adultery would have disqualified him (
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/21/boris-
johns...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/21/boris-johnson-
fathered-child-affair) ), but in post-Trump times nobody cares.

[http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2017/12/11/the-two-
cultures...](http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2017/12/11/the-two-
cultures-2017-merit-versus-brilliance/) : explores this concept at greater
length. As a Cambridge alumnus I'm absolutely familiar with brilliance as a
kind of performance. For those in that culture glib effortlessness is prized.
An earlier example might be Enoch Powell's showboating on his Classical Greek
paper - when asked to do a translation into Greek of a poem, he did two
versions as pastiches of different Greek poets and then left early.

------
philjohn
The thing people need to know about Boris is that 99% of what you see in
public is a carefuly crafted image of a harmless, and somewhat likeable
buffoon.

If you listen to the recording of where he was talking with an acquaitance
about supplying him with the address of a reporter for said acquaintance to
"rough up" an entirely different man emerges, one who doesn't stammer and ham
things up.

Boris is a very calculating man, and has fooled so many, for so long. This
story paints this point very vividly.

~~~
bhouston
So Boris, the Oxford man, has an "Everyman" shtick that has wide appeal. Smart
man.

Politicians who are so smart as to become something else are a bit scary, hard
to trust if they are mostly an act.

I suspect this is mostly for public consumption and he dropped this when
actually working. Thus maybe it is just his interfacing with the people
shtick. And then it is mostly harmless.

~~~
Bakary
"There is an idea of a Boris Johnson, some kind of abstraction, but there is
no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold
gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can
even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there."

~~~
zwerdlds
did you manage to get that doria reservation for tonight?

------
ruytlm
I am reminded of a post I once read[0] on how coyotes are 'too clever by
half'; smart enough to realise how to win each skirmish, but without realising
they're losing the metagame.

Johnson strikes me as someone who has learned to 'hack' the skirmishes (e.g.
by playing the fool when giving speeches as discussed) in order to win in the
short term, but who seems oblivious to (or to be willfully disregarding) the
long term detrimental effect his skirmishing has on the UK.

[0]: [https://www.epsilontheory.com/too-clever-by-
half/](https://www.epsilontheory.com/too-clever-by-half/)

~~~
HenryBemis
Great article, thank you.

As for BoJo, he is smart as a fox. Trump is the same. They make 1-2 stupid
things, so people call them stupid. On the back side they scheme and plan.
Haters see the stupid actions and hate. They play a game of chess, sacrificing
a pawn (some 'credibility' by saying something stupid), and while people are
getting tired of their artificial stupidity, they march on doing their thing
left alone.

Someone who managed to be the mayor of London, then get in the Parliament,
then managing to be in the top 2 candidates for Prime Minister, have a net
worth of a couple of million (of the £€$ we know), he CANNOT be THAT stupid.
He plays the game and he's winning. I don't like the man. But I don't like him
because I don't like his policies, his ideas, and I don't like Brexit.

But as a politician/player, he's rocking this game.

People who think Boris is stupid, are completely missing it. He is like
Varoufakis. He sees an opportunity and grabs it. Maybe the 'bet' will pay off,
maybe it will not. But: Mayor of London --> Minister of "Foreign Affairs" \-->
Prime Minister.. I call that an intelligent human being.

~~~
kristiandupont
I am not sure about Boris, but I am 100% certain that the narrative about
Trump playing 4D chess is bullshit.

I believe that George Bush may have had a persona to some degree
([https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/](https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/))
because it pays off to speak like a man of the people. But everyone who's
worked with Donald Trump and spoken out afterwards tell the same story about
how utterly stupid he is.

In Denmark, we once elected a comedian into parliament. He won on promises
like "more sunshine" and "bigger christmas presents". People loved it because
it was fun and a bit of a finger to the boring, smooth politicians that they
usually saw. I guess you could argue that he is smart in that he was able to
win the crowd, but what I take away from that is more that the crowd is fickle
and will go with (and push) a trend or a fad if it looks fun or supports their
anger.

~~~
coldtea
> _I am not sure about Boris, but I am 100% certain that the narrative about
> Trump playing 4D chess is bullshit._

Compared to the narrative that a person who could run several multi-billion
dollar businesses, negotiate deals all around the world, get back from
bankruptcy (even if it was with cunning and winning banking favors) and play
the media to become President is stupid?

~~~
mikeymz
You are missing the subtext of that narrative - Trump did none of those
things. People around him and behind him are responsible. I'm not saying that
is true (probably is) but it explains how a dullard with his dad's cash can
achieve what he has.

~~~
coldtea
All billionaires have an army of support. Even if Trump didn't handle the
details, he was still on the forefront on high end deals, not sitting in the
back and letting some CEOs do them (which many heirs do).

Lots of dullards with dad's cash just spent it on women and booze or lose
everything, Trump kept it (if he didn't increase it, considering the
bankruptcies and re-emergences) and made his name a kind of brand.

He is not gracious or polished (he's an American businessman after all, that's
par for the course), but he does have the P.T Barnum kind of spirit (which is
not exactly that of the dullard).

And even if we forget the business thing (say he had zero accomplishments
there). The elections thing, he did mostly by himself. He obliterated
opponents and won voters (including from his own party) starting from zero,
when media and pundits gave him zero chances.

Could you or me?

~~~
notahacker
I think the PT Barnum spirit comment is absolutely fair, but it's also true to
say that PT Barnum was more unusually driven and genuinely fond of attention
than a 4D chess player.

As for Trump, there's a theory fashionable in some circles that his speaking
style is purely performative to simplify or reframe his genuinely sharp grasp
of the issues for his audience. But it's undermined by his tendency to embark
upon similar rambles about how _his pilot said the airports should give
airlines better equipment (?!?) and pilots are very clever and if the FAA isn
't run by a pilot it should be_ in front of the sort of apolitical business
audience where there's nothing to gain from not just doing the presidential
thing and appearing to listen. Sure, nobody's saying his drive isn't
exceptional or that the basic strategy of seizing media attention and
promoting the sort of populist policies his opponents were squeamish about
didn't _work_ , but that's not the same thing as him actually being the
smartest person in the room playing 4D chess to disguise it. His persona's at
least as WYSIWYG as any other politician.

I think Johnson might be more deliberate in his unpolished approach, but I
also haven't seen any reason to believe the whimsicality and studied flustered
look isn't there mainly because he genuinely does prefer anecdotes to details
and struggles to give a straight answer. The counterpoint to this Johnson
story of charmingly chaotic speeches is a recent video where he's asked what
he does in his spare time, and he appears to be making up a hobby as he goes
along in a manner which just looks _incredibly awkward_. And yet references to
this hobby (making models from boxes) in an old column suggest he was actually
honestly trying to explain it! Would have come across a lot better if he'd
told a joke about not having any spare time and thrown in a half-remembered
story about how Winston Churchill spent his time...

------
dr_dshiv
This was a fun read. My take is that politicians showing up to random award
ceremonies and giving a canned speech is a normal situation, though. That he
can give a canned speech in a way that seems self-deprecating and authentic,
in order to entertain and connect with the audience, is impressive. I can
understand why someone would feel that this is a form of lying.

He is an entertainer and capable of manipulating crowds. My concern is the
lack of people like this who share my own politics.

~~~
magpi3
> He is an entertainer and capable of manipulating crowds. My concern is the
> lack of people like this who share my own politics.

The creepy part for me was not the canned speech. It was the attempt to
manipulate the people at his table. The last minute arrival, the shock at
finding he is the speaker, forgetting his speech at the table... I would also
feel like I am watching a fraud

~~~
monk_e_boy
It's all staged. The late enterence, the demands for paper and pen, leaving it
on the table and 'winging' his speech. He knows it all adds to his mystique,
that sheet of paper will be passed around and talked about. He knows that he
has been sat on the most influential table with the most influential people.
He reminds me of great improv, that he takes a bit and goes with it. Shame
he's being kept of the telly at the moment.

~~~
magpi3
Except none of it is improv. It is all planned.

------
daniel75378
Isn’t this normally called a one-trick pony?

Alternatively it is very much like what actors do; act.

I am struggling to see a sense of professionalism, concern or leadership,
unfortunately.

Nice hair, though.

~~~
bubblewrap
I don't think he is giving the sheep speech at EVERY occasion. Presumably he
has more than one trick up his sleeve.

------
ggm
The moral of the story: it's a giant con, and all of us, worldwide are the
mark.

------
garypoc
The only logical conclusion we can make about this post is that the writer is
indeed a good storyteller!

~~~
monk_e_boy
jeremy vine is a very well known journalist and radio show host

~~~
johnnycab
His younger brother is less political or gloomy; an accomplished comedian and
a king of one-liners.

"I decided to sell my Hoover... well it was just collecting dust."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Vine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Vine)

------
fit2rule
Think for yourself: what is happening underneath all these distractions by
loud and obnoxious clowns? Am I possibly missing something important while all
this fuss and nonsense is distracting the general public?

Because, we are living in an age of cults. The mechanics of the cult process
are well and truly understood by the rich and powerful at this point, and we
are never going to be safe for as long as we are members, unwittingly, of a
cult for which we don't know the real purpose.

------
andy_ppp
In some horrendous nihilistic way we seem to get the politicians we deserve.
Hopefully Boris and Trump are the end of this mess and after they screw
everything we get something better, but I fear it’s just the start. It really
does feel like we live in the hunger games right now.

~~~
te_chris
It’s literally a certain portion of boomers and above who are these people’s
main constituency. TPUSA et al can try and claim there’s a silent minority of
youth for these proto-fascists, stats would disagree though. It’s the boomers
mostly, whose elected political representatives have spent their whole lives
running down the state, making things easy for themselves, and now they expect
to retire and cost a fortune in healthcare and that younger generations are
just going to go along with it. And maybe they’re right, life expectancy is
helping them to keep winning elections. Not forever though. #NotAllBoomers of
course, but they did keep electing the ones who’ve put us in the position
we’re in today vis a vis huge upcoming tax liabilities and very low -
historically - current levels of tax income.

If you want some interesting reading, google generational eu sentiment in the
uk, it’s the boomers who are the most anti. The greatest generation are
generally positive, given they actually went through the war.

~~~
rjf72
Here [1] are some data on this exact topic. Pew broke down ideology by age.
While it's true that older individuals tend to become more conservative, this
is a not a new phenomena and has been observed and commented upon for
centuries. Of course when young we _know_ there is no chance we could ever
'compromise' our views as the years pass. Nonetheless, life experience changes
us in ways we often could never have predicted. Ok, but in spite of this
there's no crystal clear correlation. In particular the split among ideology
on the 65+ group that most consistently votes one way or the other
(representing about 66% of the entire population) is split 50/50\. And
similarly there is also much more diversity in views among younger individuals
than is typically represented by e.g. social media.

The one interesting correlation they did observe is one between your cohort's
(by age group) voting tendencies and whom the president was when your cohort
turned 18. Like you mention the Greatest generation who turned 18 under FDR
lean heavily democratic. Though contradicting your hypothesis is the fact that
you're presumably referencing WW2. And the Silent generation served
extensively in this war. And they lean heavily republican.

One interesting thing I've observed (and wrote in a post a little above in a
peer to this comment chain) is there tends to be a periodic shifting of
ideology, that in general just tends to be against the status quo. And Pew's
data provides some really interesting insight there. For instance they broke
Boomers down into three 5 year groups. The groups are divided based upon who
was president when they turned 18. Those 3 presidents were Kenny/Johnson,
Nixon, and Ford/Carter. The Ford/Carter combination is frustrating for data,
but regardless the results we get:

\- Kennedy/Johnson - lean heavily republican

\- Nixon - lean heavily democrat

\- Ford/Carter - lean heavily republican

Not easy to classify things in a straight forward way, but interesting data
nonetheless!

[1] - [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-
politic...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-
american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/)

------
Simon_says
I block all Facebook properties at the DNS level. Is there another source for
this?

~~~
mooreds
[https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/my-boris-
story/](https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/my-boris-story/)

~~~
Simon_says
Sweet. Thank you.

------
diego_moita
As a non-British, I say that the idea of Boris Johnson leading Britain through
Brexit sounds just like an orangutan riding a double decker bus through
Piccadilly Circus: you don't want to be there, but you don't want to miss a
second of this show.

Sorry Italy! You're not the funniest country in Europe anymore. Britain just
got their own Silvio Berlusconi.

~~~
jacquesm
Boris is much worse than Silvio Berlusconi, who is - predictably - following
the money and looking out for his buddies. Johnson will happily ruin the whole
country for a gain in status.

~~~
rurban
Certainly not for a gain of status. His speech was very well prepared to the
target audience: Upper class cynicism, throw the plebs under the bus, nobody
cares - the beaches do remain open.

And we'll entertain ourselves in the meantime, whilst the industry will have
their will.

------
arittr
This is a true HN gem - thanks, really made my evening.

------
talos
So he’s a comedian, and a bad one.

------
badcede
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gabyntpWg#t=2m58s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gabyntpWg#t=2m58s)

------
senectus1
Why do we (our society) keep electing these sorts of people?

~~~
pseudolus
Because we value superficiality over depth. Always have, always will.

~~~
peterwwillis
People interpret charisma as depth (or at the very least, as being capable).
Nobody looks at a charismatic person and says, now there's a real idiot. Even
in this story you see it. The author thought he was a genius, even after
watching the insanity of a supposedly unprepared speaker trying to wing it.

~~~
kmonsen
What? Isn't Trump, Boris Johnson and George W Bush charismatic people and that
is what is used against them? Charismatic but a fool underneath?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument here.

~~~
peterwwillis
People vote populist because they see themselves in that leader: "they're just
like me". If the voters considered who they're voting for as idiots, that
would mean the voters considered themselves idiots. Instead, people considered
them "capable". Not a genius, but "able to get the job done". Charisma
instills confidence, and is endearing.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton gathered large bases because of what they
were saying, but not because of how they said it. Rather than instilling
confidence by charisma, they had to convince people of their abilities. In a
way, that's much harder. Charisma is a bit like a cheat code.

You can also see this in Bill Clinton, who despite passing some dreadful
legislation _and_ being scandalized, people continued to have respect for,
because he was very charismatic.

------
noncoml
So, he is an actor?

------
bifrost
ok, thats hilarious.

~~~
mooreds
Did not see that one coming.

------
Arbalest
He must have recognised the seachange of populism and created a persona to
suit. Reminds me of the BDG video on Polygon on how to create the perfect E3
presentation. Particularly the part about Gaffes.

I suppose this was a long time coming, in marketing circles, it is agreed that
"Generation X" was the first "Jaded" generation, and I feel like there's some
link there. Marketing to that generation often involves taking the piss out of
their own product, and it is now the generation which is right in the age
group to start wielding significant power and still has a number of good
working years.

~~~
Apocryphon
It's been said that George W. Bush already did that decades ago, shedding his
New Englander blue-blood upbringing for Texan rustic.

~~~
doesnt_know
I dunno, I don't think it's very healthy that when presented with a bumbling
idiot in a position of power you start to think it's a big ruse and they are
actually a genius.

It's best to just assume they are in fact, a bumbling idiot.

~~~
eschaton
When there are actually samples of his speech before and after moving to
Texas, and when he was Governor of Texas versus President of the United
States, it kind of lends more credence to the claim.

~~~
jancsika
There are two essential options:

1\. W "knew stuff" and chose to present himself as a Texan

2\. W "didn't know stuff" and chose to present himself as a Texan

The second option is by far more likely. For one of many examples take the
following clip:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o)

Is there any evidence at all that W actually knew what tribal sovereignty
meant yet chose to completely bumble the answer here?

------
Bakary
This calls to mind the idea that our world is uniquely suited to psychopaths
(or whatever the current DSM-V term is). Cities are too large for people to be
held accountable as a villager would. There is too much information for
scandals to have consequences. The thirst for confidence and charm is so
intense that charisma or presence is by far the most useful quality a person
can have. Modern life is filled with so much stress that those who cannot feel
fear or empathy are highly advantaged.

In the end you can have amorphous politicians who can change their identity at
any moment and be hailed for it, because they provide some form of emotional
value to people in a world where nothing matters anymore anyway.

Looking at the new generation of entertainers on streaming or video platforms,
many of them seem to have dark triad traits.

~~~
895-grbtio
Don't believe the hype. Lack of empathy is a huge handicap in life. People who
are unable to imagine things from the perspective of others are often unable
to correctly interpret or anticipate others' actions and responses. Managers
with low EQ tend to not go very far.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Sociopathy isn’t associated with empathy impairment like psychopathy is.
Sociopaths understand empathy well, and can use it like a weapon.

~~~
neonate
What's your source for that? It's not how I've understood the distinction
between sociopaths and psychopaths. In fact, it's not clear that there _is_ a
well-defined distinction. Everybody seems to draw the line differently.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
[https://www.healthyplace.com/personality-
disorders/psychopat...](https://www.healthyplace.com/personality-
disorders/psychopath/psychopath-vs-sociopath-what-s-the-difference)

------
DanBC
> “Now, I accept,” he went on in an uncertain tone, “that as a result some
> small children were eaten by a shark. But how much more pleasure did the
> MAJORITY get from those beaches as a result of the boldness of the Mayor in
> Jaws?”

A small reminder that this is a direct cause of Grenfell, where 72 people died
in a burning building.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire)

~~~
chippy
could you explain your comment as I did a search on this page and saw no
mention of this

~~~
DanBC
Boris Johnson is claiming that red tape hinders business and that we need less
of it, and sure some people are going to be harmed but that's counter-balanced
by the increased prosperity of everyone else.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/28/boris-johnson-
ba...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/28/boris-johnson-backs-
telegraph-campaign-cut-eu-red-tape-choking/)

He was part of a government that promised a "bonfire of red tape", and that
included building standards.

[https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/cameron-claims-
victory-i...](https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/cameron-claims-victory-in-
bonfire-of-the-building-regulations/8658068.article)

> In a speech to the Federation of Small Business Cameron said 100 standards
> and building regulations were facing the bonfire – a move which he claimed
> would save around £60 million a year for housebuilders – or £500 for each
> new home built.

> His announcement effectively re-iterates the government’s commitment to trim
> down building regulations as part of its Housing Standards Review.

Grenfell Tower showed us why those regulations exist and what happens when you
get rid of them - people die.
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/grenfe...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/grenfell-
tower-red-tape-safety-deregulation)

From the Wikipedia article: "The national government commissioned an
independent review of building regulations and fire safety, which published a
report in May 2018"

That report is here: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-
revie...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-
building-regulations-and-fire-safety-final-report)

There was previous criticism of UK fire regulation, that's mentioned in the
Wikipedia article here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire#Criticism_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire#Criticism_of_fire_safety_regulation)

~~~
bubblewrap
But did he specifically axe regulations of fire safety? Or did he mean to
abandon all ALL regulations? Just because some regulations may be good, does
not mean all regulations are good.

------
0815test
> Johnson excelled in English and Classics

English and Classics... seriously, dude? That's good enough for working at
Starbucks and McDonalds, I guess, but not for much else. Least of all for
effective policymaking.

~~~
growlist
Not sure if you're kidding, but Eton is one of the finest schools in the UK,
probably the world, so it's a bit much to be quite so disparaging. Also I'm
guessing you've never heard of CP Snow:

'The Two Cultures is the first part of an influential 1959 Rede Lecture by
British scientist and novelist C. P. Snow. Its thesis was that "the
intellectual life of the whole of western society" was split into two cultures
– the sciences and the humanities – which was a major hindrance to solving the
world's problems.'

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures)

Edit: Boris was also President of the Oxford Union, assistant Editor of the
Telegraph, and Editor of the Spectator, as well as two-term London mayor.
Surely you must give him some credit! I suggest it would take an
extraordinarily fortunate fool to be able to pull off a record like that.

~~~
machinecoffee
> assistant Editor of the Telegraph
> [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-
> johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain)

Max Hastings, his boss at the time doesn't have such a great opinion of Boris.

I would suggest as well that in more ordinary times, when the country has some
decent leaders and is not so bitterly divided, he would have absolutely no
chance of rising to the position he looks now likely to hold.

But these are very strange times, and "chaos is a ladder".

~~~
growlist
Max Hastings may well have an axe to grind, no?

> so bitterly divided > very strange times

I'm not so sure we are as bitterly divided or that the times are as strange as
we are led to believe, and I think both of above have been pushed hard by
those that would seek to thwart Brexit: 'the country is so divided, we must
compromise (BRINO) in order to heal these divisions!' and 'look at how broken
our politics is, we must revoke Article 50 in order to safely navigate these
perilous waters!'

------
smangbang
Who's the POTUS right now?

~~~
dang
Please don't post political flamebait here.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20281979](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20281979)
and marked it off-topic.

------
sonnyblarney
If this is true, the man is obviously a genius.

That said, the 'act of the fool' mightn't work in operational reality, because
if everyone believes he's an unprepared bumpkin, then that's the reality, and
he won't be respected.

His former editor at the Telegraph had some very harsh words about him, along
the lines of 'he only cares about himself, he's totally unprepared, has no
idea what he is doing' etc. and I'll gather that rings true.

So maybe he is a populist genius, but I'm not sure how well this will bode for
the current EU/Brexit crisis.

~~~
whatshisface
Critically, he was doing it at random awards shows where his expertise wasn't
relevant. You could probably pull this off with no risk to your reputation if
you pulled together (I.e. put the "pulled together" tape in your mental
Walkman) when it was expected of you.

~~~
sonnyblarney
I think the point of the story was not that he was a 'good speaker' but
rather, his foolhardiness is a populist act.

Which implies that his kind of bumbling attitude in popular politics might
very well be calculated, i.e. he's not a fool, he's brilliant.

I'll buy that he's borderline genius with the populist bits, but I also
believe basically everyone in international politics who say he's a clown,
totally unprepared, never serious. Some of the things serious entities have to
say about him are pretty bad.

~~~
whatshisface
Suppose you were a calculating actor like this guy, and you wanted to insult
him. Would you design the insult around his private persona, which only you
and a select few were privy to, or around his public persona, so that the
public will agree with the insult? If the truth doesn't matter to you, you
will join in on the illusion of him being disorganized, because that's what
the public already believes.

~~~
sonnyblarney
The plebs don't seem to be aware that he's disorganized and unprepared or
lacking in knowledge - that's beyond the things they care about it seems.

Apparently, people 'like him' and his sheer popularity I think is most of the
driving force behind his success.

Anyone who's paying attention (small minority in reality) seems to regard him
as a complete idiot, however.

The Financial Times, his former editor at the Telegraph, obviously the
Guardian - any serious writing about him is seriously derisive.

These are harsh words [1]

The thing I don't understand is what the Conservatives are thinking at this
time? Are they simply looking at the polls showing him as clearly the most
electable in an election? Because I can't believe that conservative MP's don't
realize he's a fool as well. Maybe they think they'll be able to combine him
with a solid Brexit negotiator, but I don't see that working. I just can't
fathom Boris Johnson sitting down with Merkel, and whoever the new EU
President is going to be, and doing anything material.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-
johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain)

~~~
repolfx
_The Financial Times, his former editor at the Telegraph, obviously the
Guardian_

I would note that all three of these are extremely anti-Brexit. Lots of people
believe (rightly or wrongly) that Leave wouldn't have won without the support
of Johnson and blame him personally for Brexit, which they see as an
abomination. They aren't going to be even handed in their judgement of him:
really, I'd say anything they write about him is going to be a smear.

~~~
sonnyblarney
The Telegraph editorial position is 'Brexit' [1]

[1] [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/heres-where-
britains-...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/heres-where-britains-
newspapers-stand-on-the-eu-referendum/)

~~~
repolfx
Yes I know. But Max Hastings is a _former_ editor.

------
sittingnut
politics allowed here?

~~~
Apocryphon
Sounds like he hacked the societal expectations of what constitutes a speech
via social engineering

~~~
hprotagonist
twice, the exact same way.

~~~
mc32
Plus who knows how many more the witness wasn’t privy to.

~~~
Apocryphon
And the speeches that are to come!

------
baybal2
That "sea change" in populism did not started just now.

I felt since around late nineties that Western and Eastern politics are
getting closer with each day, to the point of convergence.

See, that "ultrapopulism" did not start with Trump and Co., it started with
mainstream, centrist parties beginning to resorting to extreme political
maneuvers and demagoguery at around start of millennium, with WTC attacks
greatly facilitating that.

Whatever slogans the modern ultrapopulists operate, could've easily be taken
for something coming from Lenin, Stalin, Pol or Mao few decades ago.

------
bubblewrap
Politician giving speeches at some random gathering of industry types - isn't
that SUPPOSED to be entertainment? It's not as if those speeches matter in any
way?

I think comedians do a similar thing, practicing their act until it seems
spontaneous but every punchline hits. Why should politicians do their job part
of "public speaking" in a different way?

So what does "for real" mean? If a comedian manages to look spontaneous, yet
every word and move has been practiced hundreds of times, is he for real?

