Re: PM Boris
 

It's a bit of a leap from "his backers stand to gain" to "he's acting specifically for their benefit". If I bet on Tottenham, Sonny is not going to try harder to score. I don't doubt that there are senior figures in the Conservative Party who are directly seeking to influence policy to the detriment of the country for personal gain, JRM for example, but I don't think there's enough evidence to pin that charge on Johnson.

Re: PM Boris
 

That would be why McConnell asked the Cabinet Secretary to consider conducting an enquiry. To see if there is enough (or any) evidence.

Re: PM Boris
 

I suspect some of the debunking by those who have knowledge of financial markets work are the same sort of people who denied there was anything wrong with banking prior to the 2008 bank failures. Some don't want to accept that there's a problem, especially if those people are profiting from the lack of accountability.

Re: PM Boris
 

I suppose it's a fact of life that some with well defined beliefs tend to be predisposed to believe stories and commentators that support their views.
At the moment it's reached a zenith in the US where anti-Trumps watch CNN and pro-Trumps watch Fox. I watch both and really some days you'd be forgiven if you thought you lived in different universes.
This leave-remain argument finds itself in a similar place. Everyone has an agenda even sisters and, more likely, senior civil servants.

Re: PM Boris
 

They say that Britain is no longer politically Right/Left, but Remain/Leave.

Re: PM Boris
 

They say? Who says?
I suspect that 'they' may be right and if 'they' are then the next election will be a de facto second referendum and will likely carry more significance since the winner will likely have control of parliament.
It'll be interesting to see whether the tail will begin to wag the dog and whether the leave/remain trend will begin to dictate party thinking.

Re: PM Boris
 

There is, though, the rather important difference in knowing only the one view and 'liking' that view and knowing more than one view, together with the reasons behind the views and siding with the reasoning/view having considered them.
I watch neither CNN nor Fox but I accept that people talk about bias in their coverage just as they do for, let's say, the Guardian and the Daily Mail.

But what I do know is that the guardian frequently, if not always, presents both sides of an argument. As I said in a different thread here last week, the newspaper is 'remain' but they posted two opinion pieces last week to support Boris Johnson's bill and leave by the end of the month.

Re: PM Boris
 

They is a specifically a journo that I was listening to the other day (or was it a politician)...but I've been hearing this theory quite a bit over the past several months. This time it was underlying the observation that Remainers and Leavers don't actually like/trust each other (much more division than Right / Left) and it's going to be a serious problem for the country once Brexit progresses to the next stage.

Re: PM Boris
 

So now it seems likely there'll be another election. Brexit for Brexit, Conservatives for Brexit, Lib/Dems for Remain, Labour for dithering. Unless, of course, there isn't.

Re: PM Boris
 

At the moment, who knows what'll change as polls influence MPs chances of remaining on the gravy train.
It's a shining example of how MPs refuse to surrender their personal benefit when an opposition refuses an election, where the government has a majority of -40+, because they think they might lose since their stand may be contrary to public opinion.
Understandable, but like Canute holding back the tide they'll end up getting their feet wet.

Re: PM Boris
 

Yes, you're right, I can't think of a single reason why an arch-Remainer former Chancellor, an arch-Remainer former Treasury Secretary and an arch-Remainer former Change UK party candidate would want to smear the motives of the former leader of the official Leave Campaign and current pro-Brexit Prime Minister :rolleyes:

Re: PM Boris
 

And some are happy to believe anything, however incredible, without question so long as it supports their worldview.

Re: PM Boris
 

I think, blah blah blah . . .

Re: PM Boris
 

Not sure sibling rivalry is really smearing. Brother Jo not too keen either.

Re: PM Boris
 

That can be said of the entire Johnson clan. Johnson Sr. was a MEP and worked for the EU Commission in the 1970s and even Boris is actually rather more ambivalent than his political ambition allows him to be.

Re: PM Boris
 

More than one, myself included, have suggested tales of wrong doing by one side tend to be believed by the other side without serious questioning because such tales reinforce their own beliefs.
Now fact checking such tales is difficult so it's easy to run with these tales in the knowledge that if challenged it'll be our word against theirs and neither side really knows what's true so what's wrong with that?
This latest thread dispute centers around the claim, made by political animals, that Johnson's backers have been betting on a no-deal and that this is the reason he acts as he does in order to enrich them and probably himself.
I don't doubt that some backers have been betting on a no-deal, but we don't hear of any betting on other events, eg elections etc. Now Johnson has been pushing for an election so why haven't we heard that his backers been betting on that? If there is apparently so much money and pressure riding on a no-deal event on 31st October, why did he give in and send his letter, why not refuse to do so and brazen it out and why push so hard for an election and why attempt to push through a deal that would exclude no-deal?
The imputation that Johnson acts as he does to benefit his backers is simply smearing without evidence because that's what some want to hear.
'Ahhh', I hear you say, 'Surely the accusation from his loving sister must be believed'. Well, that's the problem with families, members disagree and political members disagree violently and Rachel is far from being the impartial apolitical loving sister.
'Ahhh', I hear you say, 'But this is backed up by his erstwhile political associates'. Well that's the problem with politicians, when they're not stabbing their opponents in the front they're stabbing their friends in the back and if they've been let go then they stab them front and back.
Now I'm not saying the rumours being spread are false, but I wouldn't give them the full blooded credence that some do without a shred of proof and I don't take accusations by any with axes to grind as impartial utterings of proof.

Re: PM Boris
 

There, fixing that quote might expain why a lot of people are argueing for a re-run of the referendum now all the machinations, problems and lies have been disclosed. Even Juncker is saying that Johnson and the leave campaign lied.

Re: PM Boris
 

Re: PM Boris
 

From one as gifted in many subjects of direct interest to BE members as yourself, that is a particularly puerile contribution.

Re: PM Boris
 

Have they? The NCA has thrown out the case against Arron Banks. The Electoral Commission has done the same with the case against Darren Grimes. Saying “even” Juncker is anti-Brexit is hardly making your case.

Re: PM Boris
 

Until someone can make the case for the hedge fund conspiracy with something more than simply appealing to Remainer authority then you expect more of the same. No-one can because if they did they would know it’s complete b*llocks.

Re: PM Boris
 

That's a bit strong. Hedge funds do stand to gain from a no deal Brexit. Senior Conservatives, for example Johnson and JRM, are rich men who invest in hedge funds. Senior Conservatives do want a no deal Brexit even though, as rich men, they would seem to have a lot to lose from the resultant collapse of the British economy. If their long term losses are not offset by short term gains why would they want a no deal Brexit?

Re: PM Boris
 

What, pray, is the Remainer authority?

Re: PM Boris
 

You made an appeal to authority; it's a logical fallacy. Just because Philip Hammond says it's true doesn't make it true, doubly so in light of his Remain bias.

Re: PM Boris
 

If every single one of your assumptions weren't incorrect you might have the beginning of a valid argument there.

Re: PM Boris
 

Glib, but working backwards; Brexit, especially no deal Brexit will damage the economy, I don't think anyone disputes that. The case for Brexit is that emotionally it will be enriching while financially it's impoverishing. See pro-Brexit posts above.

JRM and Johnson, rich men, matter of record. I don't know that they're financially invested in the UK but trust that they are, at least to the extent of having personal chattels there.

No deal Brexit hurts them. Even if Johnson gets a long term as PM he's a big fish in a smaller pond and that's not considering the Union breaking up.

Why do they want the no deal Brexit; what's in it for them?

Re: PM Boris
 

Let’s just skip to the end: why do you think Boris and JRM want a ‘No Deal’ Brexit when they are doing everything in their power to get the WAB through Parliament?

Re: PM Boris
 

But I didn't rely on or appeal to his Brexit position but rather on his fiscal expertise (or at least knowledge base). This was in response to your claim that none who understand how financial markets function would give credence to manipulation of politics by hedge funds etc.

Re: PM Boris
 

Glib, but a map of the world with many of pink bits re-coloured. It's British exceptionalism writ large.

Re: PM Boris
 

Just so, an appeal to authority. “Phil Hammond says it so it must be true” is not a valid argument. I’ve yet to see anyone pushing this theory be able to explain it, Hammond included.

Re: PM Boris
 

I don't think they are doing that. I think they could have softened it a bit and got it through. A customs union for the whole country would likely have made it acceptable to a majority of the house.

Re: PM Boris
 

That asks us to believe that Johnson is acting on principle, misguided but sincere. That's just not credible. There's something, likely a knobbing, in it for him.

Re: PM Boris
 

I did not say that, nor would I ever say that. I said that Hammond and other such fiscally fluent people supported an enquiry to be instigated by the Cabinet Secretary so as to investigate what they feel is a highly credible possibility. That's all.

Re: PM Boris
 

I'd suggest it's because if BoJo and JRM openly supported no deal, when the economy nosedives under a no deal Brexit and it starts to hurt Leavers in their wallets, many of those will start to question why they weren't told how bad it would be. And if, as some polls show, it was the older generation who tended to vote Leave,many of them are barely managing on their income now. It's easy for Leavers to say they're prepared to be financially worse-off to Leave the EU, but another to actually have to do so medium to long term.

But the likes of JRM with his hedge funds and his wife's family money will be insulated from such things, and BoJo won't be short of public-speaking engagements, a book deal, and directorships when he's no longer PM.

Re: PM Boris
 

Yes, definitely. They are well insulated, and more than ready to give swashbuckling a try. Personally, they have no downside, unlike the country as a whole. I don't believe it's about personal enrichment, more about power and identity.

Re: PM Boris
 

I wonder whether posters actually read their own posts.
The current proposition is that the Johnson clique is pushing a no-deal Brexit in the full knowledge that it'll cripple the UK economy but they're apparently content with this because they're wealthy and they'll be able to sustain any impact on their wealth because they're all using their hedge fund mates to bet on this outcome and clean up afterwards.
It's an attractive tale, spread by those who'd prefer to believe anything that'd put a spoke into the Brexit wheel, but it's just a little thin when subject to the 'Is this True?' test.
The proposition itself is ludicrous when you stand back, study it, and ask yourself the question, 'Why, when the government has no control over what happens, would Johnson et al bet the farm on anything, especially a no-deal?'

Re: PM Boris
 

I find some poster's posts more verbose than others.

Re: PM Boris
 

Because he's not a serious man and it's fun to do things that seem big but don't directly affect oneself. I don't say that he has bet on no deal but the idea isn't at all far-fetched.

Re: PM Boris
 

But that isn't the accusation.
The smear is that Johnson and his rich colleagues stand to benefit financially from his actions. Are you suggesting that none are serious and all simply act because it's a fun thing to do?
I can't believe that JRM ever indulged in fun, can you?

Re: PM Boris
 

No. I think it very likely that JRM has bet on a no deal Brexit.