NationStates Jolt Archive

Colourful Tory MP, Boris Johnson is set to be sacked from his post as Tory Culture Spokesman in the near future as unverified allegations concerning the married father of 4 and an employee of his editorial magazine the 'Spectator' have emerged.
These rumours are as yet uncorroborated and have been stringently denied by Johnson but the Tory still seems set to be sacked from his post. This is thought to be also down to the recent scandal involving Mr Johnson and comments made in the 'Spectator' magazine which he edits wherein a journalist attacks aspects of the City of Liverpool. For this the Tory was forced to apologise. Some commentators argue that even without these latest rumours, Boris Johnson's dismissal was inevitable.

However, should a politician necessarily be sacked for adultery?

On the 'Spectator' piece, Mr Johnson did not write the article, only put his name to it as editor and so is he really responsible?

Should a politician be punished for speaking his mind in what is meant to be a liberal democracy wherein 'freedom of speech' is in action if what that politician says does not go against the party line?

Was the article in the 'Spectator' right and just badly presented? (Read my thoughts, when I was Planta Genestae, here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367354)

Finally, are the Tories throwing themselves further into the political abyss by getting rid of someone who is by far their most popular and well-known figure?

My views are that:


-No, he shouldn't be sacked purely for having an extra-marital affair, if indeed he has!

-I believe that Boris Johnson as editor has taken all the responsibilty and more that he should take for the article by apologising in person to the people of Liverpool for any offence caused by the article and has actually shielded the article's author, Simon Heffer from criticism by doing so.

- This country is a democracy and a politician should not be sacked for speaking his mind.

- If you read the link above you will get the idea that I do agree with what the article said even if it was poorly written.

-In my opinion Boris Johnson is so popular and well liked because he is who he is; outspoken and not afraid of letting people know of his opinion even if he knows that many will disagree with it. This is totally different to the typical run-of-the-mill politicians like Michael Howard and most others who have been dragged into the morass by fear of offending anyone and by trying to win everyone's affection. The Tory Party by getting rid of him, if it does, will show itself to be even more ridiculous and nauseatingly similar to the other major political parties that the electorate will completely disregard and humiliate come the next General Election. The Tory Party needs Boris Johnson if it is to have any success in getting back into power (by the way, I am not a Conservative myself, but am a bit of a floating voter, I must confess).

That's my 'two cents'. But what do you think?

One: Boris Johnson is not popular-he is well known. A subtle difference. He is a well known Tory moron.

Two: the day the conservatives get back into power will be a sad day for this country

Three: Why should he not be sacked for adultery? I am devoutly atheist, but if you commit adultery, you are violating one of the foundations of western culture. This is not trustworthy behaviour.

Four: the people of liverpool had a right to demand an apology. Although there is some truth in the article, the editor is expected to revise or cut articles which may cause offence. It is the same principle in any business. You're in charge, you take the blame.

One: Boris Johnson is not popular-he is well known. A subtle difference. He is a well known Tory moron.

Two: the day the conservatives get back into power will be a sad day for this country

Three: Why should he not be sacked for adultery? I am devoutly atheist, but if you commit adultery, you are violating one of the foundations of western culture. This is not trustworthy behaviour.

Four: the people of liverpool had a right to demand an apology. Although there is some truth in the article, the editor is expected to revise or cut articles which may cause offence. It is the same principle in any business. You're in charge, you take the blame.

Agree on points two and four.

One: Boris Johnson is not popular-he is well known. A subtle difference. He is a well known Tory moron.

Two: the day the conservatives get back into power will be a sad day for this country

Three: Why should he not be sacked for adultery? I am devoutly atheist, but if you commit adultery, you are violating one of the foundations of western culture. This is not trustworthy behaviour.

Four: the people of liverpool had a right to demand an apology. Although there is some truth in the article, the editor is expected to revise or cut articles which may cause offence. It is the same principle in any business. You're in charge, you take the blame.Not in general objectionable but #4 really causes me problems. Are you saying that only unobjectionable inoffensive pablum is the aceptable fair from the media? I agree that the City of Liverpool is entitled to ask for, even demand, an apology. I do not however feel that an editor or publisher or writer is doing their job if the reduce everything to the type of drivel which will offend no one, the media's job is not to protect people's sensitivities but to inform the public of what is going on, good or bad.

The scousers were never going to vote Conservative anyways. So I don't see the big deal if they are worried about a bad rep from the article, especially as Boris isn't exactly the leader of the Tories. Everybody else (who isn't a Labour or LibDem partisan) understood what Boris meant, although it still wasn't very tasteful saying it so soon after Ken Bigley got murdered - the fact we wear our hearts on our sleeves. Oh well, the truth hurts and I found it quite amusing when they were giving all these silences to respect Bigley; a greedy man who knew the risks and got caught, nevermind our British soldiers though who are out their doing their duty without a choice. Personally I found it quite sick, and it was if though crying over someone you probably never knew was the only way to be socially accepted. . . Jaded times.

Boris is a comical character but I don't think much harm will be done by getting rid of him. People vote under the party name for local elections, not the individual candidate. We also seem to vote for who will hurt the party we dislike the most; but that is another issue.

I do agree though, getting fired was a bit harsh. I guess it was to give less fuel for other parties in the run up to the GE. It's best to go in as clean as possible. And although we have freedom of speech we also have responsibilities and if Boris was to become a liability then it has to be done sooner than later - Either that or because Howard is a Liverpool supporter he didn't want to look bad in the eyes of his "dream" team.

The idea though is that because MPs are elected under the party name, they therefore have to follow the party line.

Maybe it was an act of unneccessary political correctness, maybe it wasn't. . . There are much more important issues. And if Howard does win, he plans to clamp down on PC, so at the moment maybe he thinks it is better just to play along.

the editor is expected to revise or cut articles which may cause offence. It is the same principle in any business. You're in charge, you take the blame.

What a sad day that would be when the media only tells us what we want to hear. Obviously that will be a government ploy. . . It's for our "own good". We can't deal with anything sad or contraversial in the world, we should be dumbed down to happy hollow creatures who just graze in the meadows with a blissful ignorance. Now that would be poor ethics. They may or not have a social responsibility not to "offend" deliberately, but also a responsibility to tell us how it is and represent alternate views.

Tasteless maybe, but he had justification none the less.

One: Boris Johnson is not popular-he is well known. A subtle difference. He is a well known Tory moron.

Two: the day the conservatives get back into power will be a sad day for this country

Three: Why should he not be sacked for adultery? I am devoutly atheist, but if you commit adultery, you are violating one of the foundations of western culture. This is not trustworthy behaviour.

Four: the people of liverpool had a right to demand an apology. Although there is some truth in the article, the editor is expected to revise or cut articles which may cause offence. It is the same principle in any business. You're in charge, you take the blame.


I agree on points one, two and four, but I think he is probably being sacked because of other reasons we may or may not know about.

I thought the Tories we're already in power. They've spruced themselves up a bit, but practically theres an incredibly minimal difference between New Labour and the Conservatives.

Adultery has no bearing on his job in my opinion. But if he's not performing whatever vague tasks a shadow culture secretary is supposed to carry out, then he should be sacked.