Just when your opinion of him couldn’t get any lower…
Yeah but he got the big decisions right.
I reckon he was hoping to finish the queen off so he could grandstand at the funeral, conscious of how Blair had instrumentalsed Diana's death for his own ends.
As it was, Truss bumped her off but was far too dumb to milk the occasion.
Johnson thought he'd have his moment by delivering the definitive eulogy in parliament, only to be upstaged by his predecessor with her story about a sandwich.
Replaced by a lettuce, mugged by a cake and defeated by a cheese sarnie.
Imagine if the Queen had caught it off of him. Sliding doors moment for the UK there.
Imagine if the Queen had caught it off of him. Sliding doors moment for the UK there.
She'd have just died a bit earlier?
Interestingly, if that were the case, Liz Trusses time as PM, without all the queens funeral gubbins, might have only lasted 2 weeks or less
Makes you think…
Considering he probably caught it off his own secretary of state for health, it's pretty much in scope isn't it
Richard Sharp has finally resigned but it looks like nothing is sticking to Johnson.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65323077
2) Why on earth would a serving PM need £800k at short notice in any case?
the way sharp seems to be telling the story makes it sound like Johnson’s cousin approached him because he was seeking to loan Johnson money and he made the introduction. Not that Johnson was seeking the loan. Which seems like a careful way of explaining it
Does the top job not require vetting?
the applicants are recruited by the Tory party membership with the same scrutiny and diligence as they exercised in appointing Truss
Does the top job not require vetting? I’m pretty certain that that kind of exposure would preclude someone from a relatively junior level of the civil service or military.
Technically yes but:
the applicants are recruited by the Tory party membership with the same scrutiny and diligence as they exercised in appointing Truss
Johnson has long been known as a security risk:
And of course there was the whole Lebedev affair, giving the son of a (former?) KGB officer a peerage.
3) What does needing £800k at short notice say about that PM being open to blackmail/bribery etc?
How can someone who has no shame be blackmailed? He would probably consider it a jolly wheeze.
Obviously my questions were somewhat rhetorical. And pre-supposed we weren't so far through the Brexit looking glass that this integrity stuff sort of mattered. 🙄
BBC set out his financial incompetence
BBC News - Why would Boris Johnson need an £800,000 loan?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64392524
How can someone who has no shame be blackmailed?
Yup and given how he was allowed to get away with pretty much anything also covered from other forms of blackmail.
Bribery on the other hand...
My understanding was - and still is - that johnson's Canadian cousin acted as guarantor and the lender's identity hasn't been made public.
One of the many unanswered questions is...how did the distant cousin become aware of johnson's apparent need to provide a guarantor?
It suggests that someone was tasked with finding a guarantor as johnson was seen as a bad risk by the lender.
Remember we are talking about a serving British Prime Minister here. Who needed nearly a million quid at short notice for undisclosed personal needs.
FFS, people.
Remember we are talking about a serving British Prime Minister here. Who needed nearly a million quid at short notice for undisclosed personal needs.
That's an awfully big coke debt, allegedly 😁
That’s an awfully big coke debt
It’s a secret who loned the money but it also seems to be a secret what or who it’s been spent on. Makes you wonder if what £800,000 buys is someone’s silence
Reporting was that johnson didn't draw down the full loan facility.
Having said that, there is no reportung on how much he did draw.
Same as everything else with johnson, this stinks and is shrouded in secrecy.
Well, as we know he thought £250000 was "chickenfeed" and said that his foreign secretary's salary plus his other earnings wasn't enough for him to live on... Which gave a bit of support to Dominic Cummings claims that one reason he was so absent during the floods and the start of covid was that he was hiding away, writing his long-delayed Shakespeare book for which he'd already spent the advance...
Which takes you to a pretty bad place, because yes, it's probably better to have a PM who's totally dependent on loans from "wellwishers" who just happen to want to be chairman of the BBC, than it is to have a PM who is hiding away at chevening house doing a different job to the one he's supposed to. Except that we had both of course.
Two things strikes me about this
1. We still don’t know who actually loaned him the money
2. Being in debt/financial peril is widely acknowledged as being a security risk as the individual is vulnerable to bribes and blackmail from foreign agents
Why are neither of these points being questioned more?
Double post
I quite like the cartoon. It's just a bit hypocritical given how much the Guardian did to put the Tories into Downing St.
That cartoon sets off my anti-Semitism radar, but I can't decide if I'm just being over-sensitive or not. I see the Guardian have taken it off their website.
It has certainly got the usual rightwing gobshites all of a tiz on Twitter.
Can't decide if it was deliberate or not personally. People seem to be getting upset by the nose in the box but that's Rishi and he always draws him like that. Gold has also triggered but he used to work for Goldman Sachs with Sunak and the squid/octopus is either a Goldman Sachs reference or something more sinister. The dead pig with visible blood is , at least on the surface not good. I expect it was meant to be on the edge and open to interpretation but fallen on the wrong side of an open goal.
why do you think the pig is dead ? Looks "upright" to me - and perhaps puking or just eating ? (I cant read the open tin on the floor that seems to have some red inside "<something> shreds")
I don't think it's a great cartoon but I'm not getting much in the way of antisemitism from it, though clearly taking the piss out of (partly) a Jewish man but as I see it that's for reasons well aside from his religion/race. Sure, it's offensive but that'll be the point, I suppose.
Drawing a caricature is a bit of a line to tread at the best of times but if the artist is racist, at least they're consitent across the board (and Boris is surely the "most offensive" - presumably copros is a running gag ? I'd say it's fairly clever but I'm not even sure it "means" what I think it does (everything he touches turning to shit))
That cartoon sets off my anti-Semitism radar, but I can’t decide if I’m just being over-sensitive or not.
Initially I couldn't see what the problem was and it had to be explained to me, the squid and apparently there is a puppet in the box that he is carrying, I didn't even know that Richard Sharp is Jewish, he certainly doesn't look Jewish to me.
But then I saw the physical characteristics given to Sharp in the cartoon, he is deliberately made to look as Jewish as possible, why do that if it's not how he looks?
The obvious answer is to draw attention to Sharp's Jewishness, and just for that reason alone I reckon the cartoon is clearly racist and anti-semitic.
but he used to work for Goldman Sachs with Sunak and the squid/octopus is either a Goldman Sachs reference or something more sinister
I think this does it for me, the Octopus, and Sunak - the allusion is to some pretty nasty 1930's cartoons about Jews controlling politicians and the v pointed reference to his former role at a bank - what for? His last job is the BBC, his box should have that on it, surely?
On Saturday 29th April 2023 The Guardian published a cartoon of mine about Richard Sharp’s resignation as Chairman of the BBC, the top news item the previous day. The main focus of the cartoon was Boris Johnson sitting naked on top of a dungheap holding bags full of dollars, with various wheeliebins around its base, labelled “Patrons”, “Friends”, “Families” and so on. Johnson was saying to Sharp, as the latter was leaving the dilapidated and clearly fire damaged room they were in, “Cheer up, matey! I put you down for a peerage in my Resignation Honours List!”
I think the purpose of the cartoon was fairly obvious - Johnson’s blithe toxicity by association, and how Sharp was the latest bit of blowback from the former Prime Minister’s
casual if all consuming sleaziness and selfishness. None of that, however, seems to have fuelled the furious response to the cartoon. That was all down to how I depicted Richard Sharp.In the internal narrative of the cartoon, I’d wanted Sharp to play the stooge, the fall guy Johnson had brought low. I also wanted to hint at other parts of the story, and how the networks of croneyism cut every which way among our rulers. It is common knowledge, for instance, that Rishi Sunak used to work for Sharp at Goldman Sachs, the multinational bank infamously described by Matt Taimmi in Rolling Stone in 2008 as “a vampire squid wrapped round the face of humanity”. To signify this not insignificant connection between Sharp and the current Prime Minister, I had him holding a cardboard box, the standard accessory of the just sacked, with the Goldman Sachs logo on it, albeit partially covered by his CV, also held in one of the hands holding the box. The logo’s been crossed out and “BBC” scribbled beneath it, also now crossed out. In the box are Sunak and the aforementioned vampire squid, in a rather cutesy cartoon form, and with the typical yellow polyped skin that stretches between the tentacles of vampire squid.
And this is where things started going wrong. The portrayal of Sharp takes up 3% of the overall image. I was trying to draw him looking silently furious, by implication with Johnson, in the standard caricatural way common to all political cartoons of exaggerating various of his features (most prominently, I thought, his large forehead and rather hooded, baggy eyes). I thought, at the time, it was a fairly mild caricature compared with how I’d draw Johnson. But I’d also never drawn Sharp before, so maybe overworked it to satisfy myself I’d “caught him”; in David Low’s famous phrase, made him look more like him than he does.
Oh, and then I added, just for a laugh as a tiny detail, an empty packet of “Dignity Shreds” at the base of Johnson’s dunghill, with a pig behind an attendant fur cup snarfing a clump of them up.
I like to produce complex cartoons, crammed with incidental detail, partly it allows layers of nuance to be added to the overall umage, partly because it’s the English Cartooning Great Tradition, from Hogarth and Gillray, via Giles and Pont. Also, I know, a lot of the readers enjoy it. But sometimes, like in this case, in the mad rush to cram as much in as possible in the 5 or so hours available to me to produce the artwork by deadline, things go horribly wrong.
Satirists, even though largely licenced to speak the unspeakable in liberal democracies, are no more immune to ****ing things up than anyone else, which is what I did here. I know Richard Sharp is Jewish; actually, while we’re collecting networks of croneyism, I was at school with him, though I doubt he remembers me. His Jewishness never crossed my mind as I drew him as it’s wholly irrelevant to the story or his actions, and it played no conscious role in how I twisted his features according to the standard cartooning playbook. Likewise, the cute squid and the little Rishi were no more than that, a cartoon squid and a short Prime Minister, it never occurring to me that some might see them as puppets of Sharp, this being another notorious antisemitic trope. As for the pig and the “Dignity Shreds”, I think I painted them red as like scraps of licorice, again not appreciating they could also be interpreted as blood, repeating yet again antisemitic blood libels that have recurred poisonously for millennia. Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.
For this I apologise, though I’m not going to repeat the current formulation by saying I’m sorry if people were upset, which is always code for “I’ve done nothing wrong, you’re just oversensitive”. This is on me, even if accidentally or, more precisely, thoughtlessly. It’s a personal mantra of mine that satirical cartoons are like journalism, all about Afflicting the Comfortable and Comforting the Afflicted. In other words, I should never attack people less powerful than me (which narrows the field more than you might imagine) and I should only attack people for what they think, not who they are.
So by any definition, most of all my own, the cartoon was a failure and on many levels: I offended the wrong people, Sharp wasn’t the main target of the satire, I rushed at something without allowing enough time to consider things with the depth and care they require, and thereby letting slip in stupid ambiguities that have ended up appearing to be something I never intended. But as I’ve always said, once my work is in the public domain, it no longer belongs to me but to the beholder, in whose eye offence dwells just as surely as beauty.
Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. To work effectively, cartoons almost more than any other part of journalism require eternal vigilance, against unconscious bias as well as things that should be obvious and in this case, unforgivably, I didnt even think about. There are sensitivities it is our obligation to respect in order to achieve our satirical purposes. Despite the tyranny of the deadline, in future I’ll make sure I’ve drawn what I really mean, and mean what I draw.
Thanks Klunk - just when we getting the pitchforks nicely sharp.
It is also nice to hear his thought process and the intention of the design. FWIW I did not pick up on the pig and assumed that squid was a reference to GS (also on the box), but I’m not super observant on some things.
I also like that he has accepted and owned the bad feeling and outrage. The subtle dig at “sorry, not sorry” is on point.
Long read but this is a devastating take down of the entire Johnson life history.
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2023/apr/30/anthony-seldon-boris-johnson-at-10-biography-interview
Oh what a laugh - johnson is calling for resignations at The Guardian over cartoongate.
What a steaming hypocrite.
^^^^
Groningen police said on their Instagram account: “Unfortunately for this person, we did not fall for his forgery.”
And then, as an aside:
"Unlike millions of thick Brits".
😂
A new book is out detailing Johnsons time in office. Having interviewed various people in close contact with him, he was apparently even more useless and inept than everyone thought, totally incapable of making decisions or even properly grasping the issues. Mainly as he had zero interest in doing either.
During the pandemic, as everyone else also suspected, it was Dominic Cummings who was effectively PM, other wise the useless tub of lard would have just hidden under his desk and watched the chaos unfold, like a spectator
https://twitter.com/premnsikka/status/1654137015426752513?s=20
Not that this has stopped the usual Tory headbangers calling for him to be reinstated as PM after last nights results
Not that this has stopped the usual Tory headbangers calling for him to be reinstated as PM after last nights results
And in turn demonstrating their contempt for the electorate and their intellect. It still dismays me that they think this is a door worth pushing at.
No need for dismay. Just enjoy it as a sign of complete Tory desperation.
One thing I will absolutely guarantee is that Johnson will not pay that bill himself.
A new book is out detailing Johnsons time in office
I read this over the weekend - It's fascinating and gruesome at the same time. Seldon pulls no punches about how re regards Johnson's time in No10.
One thing I will absolutely guarantee is that Johnson will not pay that bill himself.
I think we can all be absolutely sure of that. Does he pay any of his own bills himself?
What baffles me is the people that carry on funding him and his lavish, ****less lifestyle. What do they think they'll get in return? And all these arrangements must all be purely transactional. I can't believe he has any genuine friends.
If he's shown anything its that there is only one character trait he possesses that has been consistent throughout his life... how untrustworthy he is.
Every single person who has invested any trust in him at all, personally, professionally or politically has been betrayed and thrown under the bus at the first sign of trouble, without a second thought. Somehow he always keeps finding the next rich, credulous mug to bankroll him
