Analysis comment

Video: Johnson implodes on BBC when asked why voters should relate to him

Naga Munchetty skewers Tory PM with simple question. Johnson’s answer? Because my parents gave me lots of opportunities

Boris Johnson imploded live on the BBC this morning when presenter Naga Munchetty asked him the simple question of why people should relate to him.

Johnson stammered, spluttered and flapped – and when words eventually came out, his answer why the hard-pressed millions in the UK should relate to him was because of his family privilege:

So there you have it, people. Boris Johnson thinks you should like him because his rich family was able to open doors for him.

He thinks you should relate to him because he’s had all the opportunities his class has spent years denying to millions of us – including millions of our children.

Vote Labour.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. John Rentoul described the question as inane and suggested it shows how poor journalism is in this country? Which is galling given that. Rentoul once wrote”Jeremy Corbyn might say that France had bought the attacks on itself” in reference to the Paris attacks of 2015.

    1. rentoul is a vile establishment troll being paid to gaslight his readers.

      personally i have never seen an honest unbiased article from his pen and still have to ask why such a hack still has a job. Then i realize that he is doing what he is paid to do which is to de-legitimize corbyn and socialism in general.

      i look forward to the day these so called honest and and unbiased news media become bankrupt due to their lies, distortions and half truths.

  2. I had a bit of a ‘de piffle’ moment meself, earlier. I seen angela (ill)eagle today in Liscard; first time in a fair few years.

    Instantly, a million things to rant about went through my head simultaneously, so I decided within that split second that it’d be best if I held me tongue and just give her a ‘hiss’ instead.

    …For all the good it did. 😕 I’m right peed off at meself for losing me thread when I’ve gone over the scene in my mind many times before.

    De piffle’s still – and always will be – a prick, though.

  3. “just give her a ‘hiss’ instead.

    …For all the good it did.”

    Believe it or not, Toffee, you have my genuine sympathy.

    Where the f. do you start in this situation where, after all the spaffing and idiotic incompetence, half the punters still seem to think that Mr Toad and allies are a viable proposition for government?

    Even if I believed all the lies about Corbyn and then some, he’d still be getting my vote when compared with the Toadies.

    1. That report highlights a massive issue. But it isn’t about immediate local effects of pesticides and habitat loss.

      I’ve known a particular patch of the Inner Hebrides over a period of some 40+ years. During the last two years, the loss of both insects and the numbers of birds has come to be really noticeable – it’s almost been a cliff-edge change.

      The area is not affected by significant habitat change, increase in human activity or use of pesticides (they aren’t used at all). But, despite a healthy variety of bird species – including White-tailed Eagles and Corncrake, the actual *number* of individual birds seems to have decreased noticeably – as has the number of (for instance) Crane Flies.

      I have no way of analysing the precise nature of what is happening, although I can see some changes, such as the spread of the Mink population and the massive decline in nesting Fulmars. But one thing is for sure – there is a critical change happening that isn’t attributable to local factors.

      It’s serious.

    1. John Bercow, the outgoing Speaker of the House, was being interviewed recently by Alastair Campbell, who at one point asked Bercow what his thoughts were regarding Jeremy Corbyn and the anti-semitism allegations, and Bercow responded as follows:

      “I myself have never experienced anti-semitism from a member of the Labour party … and I do not myself believe Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semitic … I have known him for the 22 years I have been in parliament … and I have never detected so much as a whiff of anti-semitism from him.”

      Needless to say, neither had Margaret Hodge or Ruth Smeeth or Luciana Berger or Louise Ellman or Jess “stab him in the front” Phillips, or Tom Watson or John Mann or Ian Austin – or Theresa May or Boris “bank robbers” Johnson or Jo Swinson for that matter – not until AFTER he became leader of the Labour Party, that is!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: