Should a politicians private life affect his public standing?

In light of the furore over Boris Johnsons recent private row  with his partner.

His neighbours not only called the police, but recorded the fracas happening inside his apartment, then passed it on to a national newspaper, which of course has been front page news for the last couple of days.
The police attended, obviously put it down to a domestic, no one was hurt, and no further action will be taken.

So...in your opinion should incidents like this affect a public figures career or their standing with the public?

Obviously this is a gift for his nearest rival in the position to become the next PM.

"Jeremy Hunt has joined calls for Boris Johnson to explain why police were called to his home after an argument with his partner by warning that his Conservative leadership rival “needs to show he can answer difficult questions”.
The foreign secretary followed cabinet ministers, backbenchers and a major party donor in demanding that the frontrunner to succeed Theresa May speak out about the loud, late-night altercation with his partner, Carrie Symonds, which was heard by several neighbours."


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/23/boris-johnson-faces-growing-pressure-to-comment-on-row-with-partner

Syl wrote:In light of the furore over Boris Johnsons recent private row  with his partner.

His neighbours not only called the police, but recorded the fracas happening inside his apartment, then passed it on to a national newspaper, which of course has been front page news for the last couple of days.
The police attended, obviously put it down to a domestic, no one was hurt, and no further action will be taken.

So...in your opinion should incidents like this affect a public figures career or their standing with the public?

Yes, I'm afraid that they will...and in some respects they must.

Boris is actively seeking the greatest of the Four Great Offices of State, and being under constant scrutiny and appraisal is part of the job description. At the moment he strikes me as being both arrogant and evasive and he's doing his quest no favours.

Mind you, I would also question the motives of the neighbour who was public spirited enough to record the assumed violent exchanges on his phone before reporting it to the police, quickly followed by a tip-off to the anti-Tory Guardian newspaper...as one does.

I wonder how much he was paid for the recording. Apparently the BBC has been trying to get it, but its actual contents are no doubt secure enough to ensure further exclusive Guardian revelations at strategic and potentially most damaging moments of the leadership campaign.

And Labour's Shadow Minister for Wimmin couldn't wait to pick up a few headlines and Brownie points with Corbyn by immediately accusing Johnson of "violence towards women" - even though whether there was physical violence and, if so, which party actually carried it out is, so far as I know, entirely unknown apart from the increasingly lurid accounts of those strange and mysterious beings, "media sources."

I think if he was arrested it would certainly be a matter for public interest, as it is, no one was arrested, the police left without taking further action, and it seems to be a storm in a teacup....which for some reason the neighbours decided to not only record, but like we say, passed over the recording to be made public.....which no doubt it will be before too long.

We all have rows with partners, sometimes they can get noisy, but the difference between us normal folk and public figures, even useless ones like Boris, no one is recording us and the papers are certainly not interested.

Some people will now brand him as a bully and a woman abuser no doubt... as if he hasn't got enough on his plate with the proven traits he often shows us.

I believe the Guardian DO NOT pay for stories like that.
The whole episode IS in the public interest, he aspires to be the PM, in political and financial charge of the UK. We need to know who he is, how he acts, how he thinks, what his policies are and how he plans to deliver Brexit.
The job demands a grasp of the big picture, gravitas , attention to detail, clear planning, negotiation skills, organisation and clarity of thought.
Johnson has none of these attributes. Hunt , not my favourite Minister, at least carries himself with dignity.
He needs to deliver this to the 150000 members who will blindly vote him in for no other reason that they 'like' him.
But parliament and the  electorate are more fickle and are may vote him out on a vote of no confidence and or a general election
Reverse the scenario.
Jeremy Corbyn or Tom Watson had a plate smashing row with their partners, it was recorded, then sold to The Sun/Mail/Express, Torygraph.
Would those defending and supporting Boris have the same opinion as they would of Corbyn?

Exactly!

Everyone saw fit to pry into the affair between Corbyn & Diane Abot, which was 100% their private & personal business and as they were both free agents at the time, they were doing nothing wrong. They were young. 


Bugger all to do with anyone yet people have been droning on & on about it for decades & refusing to shut up about it.


It's not as if Corbyn & Abot had a quick sordid grope behind a filing cabinet. They dated openly and they both went on a long summer holiday, touring Europe together on a motorbike as a pair of  YOUNG carefree socialists  who were attracted to each other.  Afterwards they split up and married different partners and that was the end of it.

But when it's toryboy Boris, suddenly people remember that it's "none of our business".


Boris = Trump mark 2.   Randiest pair of tomcats you've ever seen. Infidelity, love affairs, divorces, multiple kids by multiple women. They don't do things by halves! 

My political views are private and I will certainly not discuss them on television, says future Prime Minister

Andy wrote:My political views are private and I will certainly not discuss them on television, says future Prime Minister

What???

A quote from the satirical Newsthump.
Funny, but becoming strangely true, given Johnson repeatedly pulling out of yet another debate.

http://news.sky.com/story/skys-leadership-debate-postponed-unless-johnson-turns-up-11747943

He says enough ridiculous thigs without anyone making stuff up.

The Guardian do pay for stories.....especially stories (complete with recordings) like the one Boris's neighbours gave them.

They are both happy again now anyway....or so they would have us believe. 

People have to make things up about him, since most simply don't believe the crap he actually comes out with.

I don't think a politician should be judged on their personal lives; that's why you'll rarely hear me mention Trump's personal misdeeds, unless he makes political points that show him to be a hypocrite. And I'm the same way whether I like or dislike the politician.

I see politicians as working for the people. They're employees. I don't care what my employees are doing off the clock unless it affects their job performance.

Maajid - (Mājid) [maːʤɪd] ماجد‏Verified account

@MaajidNawaz

Yep,a deliberate strawman. The complaint isn’t that they called the police.The complaint is *after* police called them back reassuring them there’s “no cause for concern”,the creeps sent a recording to a paper,violating the privacy of the very woman they claim to be concerned for

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1143122694763950080[/size]

I think that the personal families of politicians are off-limits only if they will take an oath that they will not talk politics or social issues within the family, or offer advice.

If they will stay off-limits, then I think they should be off-limits.  If not...well, enjoy the water.

In answer to the OP, it’s a yes from me.

What a person is like in private is what he is actually like.
Let that sink in.

I am no fan of Boris, I think he is the buffoon  he so often described as
.
But...anyone with an agenda can ruin a persons career if they stick their noses in the private lives of almost anyone.
On this occasion who knows what happened...maybe his girlfriend is an hysterical drama queen, whatever did happen the police obviously thought it wasn't serious.

Why should he (or anyone in a similar position) apologise or explain themselves when they have done nothing wrong?

As long as they are not committing crimes, I'm not really too concerned.

On a side note, we already have an American princess. Time for an American PM.

Re that Photo, it's an old one. Showing his hair is long, it's been shorter for a few weeks !

as ultimately the arbiters of our moral infrastructure if you like I say YES...those who sit in power and demand that ALL of us should live "clean productive lives" however you interpret that, should themselves first show that they indeed are spotless...

It ties in nicely with the contract law doctrine of clean hands...that is to say those who demand judgement of equity should show equity....

Victorismyhero wrote:as ultimately the arbiters of our moral infrastructure if you like I say YES...those who sit in power and demand that ALL of us should live "clean productive lives" however you interpret that, should themselves first show that they indeed are spotless...

It ties in nicely with the contract law doctrine of clean hands...that is to say those who demand judgement of equity should show equity....

Totally agree.

Victorismyhero wrote:as ultimately the arbiters of our moral infrastructure if you like I say YES...those who sit in power and demand that ALL of us should live "clean productive lives" however you interpret that, should themselves first show that they indeed are spotless...

It ties in nicely with the contract law doctrine of clean hands...that is to say those who demand judgement of equity should show equity....

Yes...it goes with the job.

nicko wrote:Re that Photo, it's an old one.   Showing his hair is long, it's been shorter for a few weeks !

He was questioned about that Nicko....he refused to answer exactly when the pic was taken.

He need to stop listening to Lynton Crosby and Steve Bannon. 
.

Andy wrote:I believe the Guardian DO NOT pay for stories like that.
The whole episode IS in the public interest, he aspires to be the PM, in political and financial charge of the UK. We need to know who he is, how he acts, how he thinks, what his policies are and how he plans to deliver Brexit.
The job demands a grasp of the big picture, gravitas , attention to detail, clear planning, negotiation skills, organisation and clarity of thought.
Johnson has none of these attributes. Hunt , not my favourite Minister, at least carries himself with dignity.
He needs to deliver this to the 150000 members who will blindly vote him in for no other reason that they 'like' him.
But parliament and the  electorate are more fickle and are may vote him out on a vote of no confidence and or a general election
Reverse the scenario.
Jeremy Corbyn or Tom Watson had a plate smashing row with their partners, it was recorded, then sold to The Sun/Mail/Express, Torygraph.
Would those defending and supporting Boris have the same opinion as they would of Corbyn?

Be fortunate enough to discover a bit of credible information that could do immense damage to the Tory party.

Be even more fortunate enough to have in your possession the only piece of evidence - a recording of a phone call, for example - that could substantiate your claim.

Call the news desk of The Guardian.

Choose from the "confidential" and "anonymous" options.

Respond to the question of whether you just wish to speak to a reporter; pass on documents electronically, hand over actual documents or discs, etc.

Follow the instructions....

You will eventually get to speak to someone.

Do  you REALLY think The Guardian is any different to any other national newspaper when it comes to getting a scoop?

Oh, ye of little faith..........

You were a small town hack, Fred. Any journo would love a story like this.
It's called manna from heaven.

Andy wrote:You were a small town hack, Fred. Any journo would love a story like this.
It's called manna from heaven.

Yet you believe the Guardian, unlike any other newspaper,  don't  pay hard cash for this 'mana from heaven'.

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:as ultimately the arbiters of our moral infrastructure if you like I say YES...those who sit in power and demand that ALL of us should live "clean productive lives" however you interpret that, should themselves first show that they indeed are spotless...

It ties in nicely with the contract law doctrine of clean hands...that is to say those who demand judgement of equity should show equity....

Yes...it goes with the job.

And yet....you....oh, never mind.

Any society that allows politicians to arbitrate morality is in deep shit.

Ben Reilly wrote:Any society that allows politicians to arbitrate morality is in deep shit.

Yet populations have done that from Genghis Khan to Winston Churchill. Anytime popularity determines leaders, morality is in the politician's hands.

Andy wrote:You were a small town hack, Fred. Any journo would love a story like this.
It's called manna from heaven.

Was I? You have absolutely no idea of my CV, Andy, so stop making idiotic remarks based on your own silly assumptions in the forlorn hope of scoring a couple of brownie points.

You may well have seen me on TV or heard me on the radio - though come to think of it, I very much doubt whether you progressed much further than CBeebies and Listen with Mother.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Andy wrote:You were a small town hack, Fred. Any journo would love a story like this.
It's called manna from heaven.

Was I? You have absolutely no idea of my CV, Andy, so stop making idiotic remarks based on your own silly assumptions in the forlorn hope of scoring a couple of brownie points.

You may well have seen me on TV or heard me on the radio - though come to think of it,  I very much doubt whether you progressed much further than CBeebies and Listen with Mother.

People often make their opinions based on assumptions. It’s rather silly.

Ben Reilly wrote:Any society that allows politicians to arbitrate morality is in deep shit.

Ben, that's not the point tho.
He's been unfaithful in two marriages. Both times the wives kicked him out & divorced him.

Infidelity = cheating & lying. IE dishonesty.
Is a dishonest PM an asset??

Hunt is the better choice here imo.

Jules wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Any society that allows politicians to arbitrate morality is in deep shit.

Ben, that's not the point tho.
He's been unfaithful in two marriages. Both times the wives kicked him out & divorced him.

Infidelity = cheating & lying. IE dishonesty.
Is a dishonest PM an asset??

Hunt is the better choice here imo.

How moral is Hilary Clinton when she stood by her husband after he’d groomed Monica Lewinsky and lied about it until he was caught?
What is she saying to all the women of the world and her daughter?

She’d have helped a lot more women by kicking his arse out and standing up to sexual predators.

You are probably saying the same as Ben, in a slightly different way.
The theme of both your posts is about morally setting a good example to voters.


So my reply is the same as before ie voters don't need to look to our political leaders as role models.

I don't agree with that last line of your post, eddie. I don't think Hilary's decisions affected anyone. And I don't think any voters look up to politicians as role models.

Jules wrote:I don't agree with that last line of your post, eddie. I don't think Hilary's decisions affected anyone. And I don't think any voters look up to politicians as role models.

Maybe they should Jules. People look to celebrities as role models and I’d say that political figures are far more influential over our lives than actors and actresses.

If the private-life activities of a politician affect their job performance, doesn't it stand to reason that we'd have already noticed?

I'm no fan of Johnson, but it doesn't appear to me that his private life affects his work life in any demonstrable way.

I will say that if a politician's conduct in their private life is truly jaw-dropping, then sure, take it into consideration before you vote. Anybody with a history of violence, for example, would have a hard time getting my vote.

Nobody's record is clean, so you have to make up your own mind as to how bad the things they've done really are, and whether they disqualify them from office.

Reading something like this:

"On one occasion during 1989, [he] and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a "rape," but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense."

... gives me far more pause than anything Hillary Clinton did or is alleged to have done.

If you’re immoral, you’re an immoral public figure because you’re immoral.

It’s not rocket science.

eddie wrote:If you’re immoral, you’re an immoral public figure because you’re immoral.

It’s not rocket science.

Difference of opinions. If I ran a restaurant, I wouldn't fire a waitress because she was cheating on her husband. So I can't apply a different rule to politicians, who I don't see as more deserving of the title "role model" than a waitress at a restaurant or anybody else.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:If you’re immoral, you’re an immoral public figure because you’re immoral.

It’s not rocket science.

Difference of opinions. If I ran a restaurant, I wouldn't fire a waitress because she was cheating on her husband. So I can't apply a different rule to politicians, who I don't see as more deserving of the title "role model" than a waitress at a restaurant or anybody else.

Firstly, a waitress isn’t a figure or authority or a politician, so.....hmmmmm...and secondly, I’d keep my eye on her! Cheating is a form of lying. I wouldn’t trust her. I simply wouldn’t and I couldn’t help it.

Boris is unsuitable for high office in other ways, I feel.

He was sacked from his journalist job at a newspaper, for fabricating too many stories and he carries PLENTY more incriminating baggage than that.

The press would rip him apart on a daily basis (cos this is what the press does, it's their job) and that would be a huge distraction for Boris, it could cripple him. Just listen to his car crash interview with Nick Ferrari on LBC yesterday morning - and Nick is a FAN of Boris!! So imagine how the hostile journos will treat him.


I'm just not a fan. I don't like his gauche, clumsy ways & his appalling body language (with his neck sticking horizontally forward like a turtle, instead of being kept upright and looking the world in the eye.) He does not think quickly on his feet like the other politicians so journos will make mincemeat out of him, with ease.

But here comes the good news for Boris fans.  He is quite likely to beat Hunt in the race to 10 Downing street. The polls showed an impressive lead over Hunt. On that score you can relax. What's the problem?

Yawn...!

Jules wrote:Boris is unsuitable for high office in other ways, I feel.

He was sacked from his journalist job at a newspaper, for fabricating too many stories and he carries PLENTY more incriminating baggage than that.

The press would rip him apart on a daily basis (cos this is what the press does, it's their job) and that would be a huge distraction for Boris, it could cripple him. Just listen to his car crash interview with Nick Ferrari on LBC yesterday morning - and Nick is a FAN of Boris!! So imagine how the hostile journos will treat him.


I'm just not a fan. I don't like his gauche, clumsy ways & his appalling body language (with his neck sticking horizontally forward like a turtle, instead of being kept upright and looking the world in the eye.) He does not think quickly on his feet like the other politicians so journos will make mincemeat out of him, with ease.

Watched a channel 4 attempt to interview him yesterday coming out of a conference at a vineyard. He immediately began being dismissive and waffling about British wine as if that would solve all our problems. Sounded like he'd had a few himself...

I agree, Boris shouldn't be our PM based on far worse than his marital squabbles.

I'm also not one who thinks personal relationships and governance should be related. Bill Clinton was a decent President despite his affair. I'd be a hypocrite for having a different set of standards here. The only thing that would change my stance is if they were to be abusive.

“Despite his affair”

So we have to overlook that then?

I’d rather not have to “overlook” anything. Call me stupid.

eddie wrote:“Despite his affair”

So we have to overlook that then?

I’d rather not have to “overlook” anything. Call me stupid.

Well is an affair a crime Eddie?

We can all argue whether something is wrong, but does that then make someone a poor or good leader by their previous mistakes?

Frankly I do not think Boris would make for a good leader, but that has nothing to do with his personal relationships with females

It would have to do with his ability to serve and run this country

I would also add another point to this Eddie. What if someone is not married or in a realationshiip and has simple enjoyed a life of care free sex. Never hurting anyone. Would that then discount them from being a good leader, if they then had all the attributes of being a good political leader?

What personal views we may have around relationships are simple arbitrary and on what we expect of others. To me, that is never the bases for whether someone is a good leader or not.

eddie wrote:“Despite his affair”

So we have to overlook that then?

I’d rather not have to “overlook” anything. Call me stupid.

If a leader and their administration are doing such a good job that the economy is booming, people have jobs and mostly get a fair wage, there is no immigration crisis, people are steadily becoming more accepting and tolerant, there are no threats of major armed conflicts etc... then why on earth would anyone consider voting AGAINST them just because they did something with someone they shouldn't have???

You'd risk national and economic prosperity by voting the other person just because the guy in charge (who is doing a stellar job) was unfaithful to his Mrs?

Wow, never thought I would say this but Geoffrey Boycott has hit the nail on the head with all this when it comes to Brexit. He has come out with some really stupid things in the past, but here, he speaks like a yorkshireman and maybe that is what is needed lol
I imagine many people feel the same as him