Home / news / UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson brands working class men ‘drunk, criminal and feckless’ in vile sneers

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson brands working class men ‘drunk, criminal and feckless’ in vile sneers

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson brands working class men ‘drunk, criminal and feckless’ in vile sneers

View Reddit by casualphilosopher1View Source

41 comments

  1. Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.

    You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article’s claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it

    *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*

  2. This is just how the rich think about the other 99%, hardly surprising.

  3. I found it:

    [http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-august-1995/6/politics](http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-august-1995/6/politics)

    The male sex is to blame for the appalling proliferation of single mothers

    BORIS JOHNSON

    Iblame the men. I blame the male sex for the appalling proliferation of single moth- ers, to which John Redwood has correctly alluded, by which 500,000 women have cho- sen to marry the state. raccuse men of being responsible for a social breakdown which is costing us all, as taxpayers, £9.1 billion per year, and which is producing a generation of ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children who in theory will be paying for our pensions.

    I blame male Tory MPs in government, first, for robbing the ruling party of any credibility on the moral issues which are coming to dominate politics. It is not so much that they have banged on about one- parent families, while getting their research assistants pregnant; or that they have been uncovered in French hotels sharing beds with other men; or that they have had their toes sucked. The problem is not so much their frailties as the presentational inepti- tude which has allowed these frailties to be mixed in with what was called Back to Basics. With £90 billion currently spent on welfare, the great economic issues of our time are social. They are moral. And yet the Government is virtually incapacitated from utterance by its own bumbling.

    I also blame, to a certain extent, the new Moral Re-Armament brigade on the Right for spoiling a reasonable case with ele- ments of silliness. It is outrageous that mar- ried couples should on average be forking out £1,500 in tax to fund the single moth- ers’ desire to procreate independently of men. But it is fatuous to hope, as some apparently do, that you can cure this social malady by exhortation, what one might call the Gussie Fink-Nottle approach to the sin- gle parent issue Net married, P.K. Purvis. It’s the only life.’).

    It is also idle to pretend, like Dr Digby Anderson and other male contributors to a fascinating new volume called This Will Hurt, that British society is ready for a return to Shame. You can call, if you like, for the odious and unfair humiliation of bastard children, in the hope that it will cause a pang of regret in their parents and deter potential single mothers. You can call for a revival of the stocks, or perhaps even of the days when adulterers were taken into the agora and a radish or other sizeable vegetable was inserted into their funda- ment. But these prescriptions, thought-pro- voking though they may be, are unlikely to be widely read in the estates of Liverpool or Hackney.

    I even blame the otherwise blameless John Redwood for appearing to support the idea that teenage single mothers, of whom there are some 42,000, should be invited to give their babies up for adoption before receiving state benefits. At least, that is the only way I can interpret his rec- ommendation in the Mail on Sunday: ‘It is only when and if all these options have failed — if the father, the grandparents, the extended family and the possibility of adop- tion have all been properly explored — that the state should step in.’ Never mind the public relations catastrophe adumbrated in this suggestion of Tory baby-snatchers. It seems bizarre, to me, that a right-winger as lucid as Redwood, should propose more state interference in family relationships: nationalising morality and giving the social services even more power to take children away from their parents.

    To a large extent, like many others, I blame successive Labour and Tory govern- ments and social security secretaries, including Peter Lilley, for failing to restrict the public emoluments available to this group. It is a bit late to start wondering now about how one might adjust the priori- ty accorded to single mothers in the queue for housing; or whether to cut the single parent premium on child benefit; or whether to build in a job search require- ment for single mothers with children of school age. That should have been done before half a million single mothers found ‘Take my partner — I wish you would!’ themselves on benefit. No one believes that these girls make a cold and detailed calcu- lation of the benefits that might be avail- able to them if they failed to take their pill. But there is some evidence that the prospect of more readily available housing is an enticement; and it must be generally plausible that if having a baby out of wed- lock meant sure-fire destitution on a Victo- rian scale, young girls might indeed think twice about having a baby.

    And yet no government — and certainly no Labour government — will have the courage to make the cuts in the safety net of the viciousness required to provide any- thing like such a deterrent. For the reality, surely, is that nine times out of ten these girls will go on having babies out of wed- lock not because they want to qualify for some state hand out, but because, in their monotonous and depressing lives, they want a little creature to love.

    And that brings me to the last and great- est group of male culprits. Most of these single mothers have had the common sense to detect that the modern British male is useless. If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hope- less, and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemploy- ment. If he is white collar, he is likely to be little better. It is no use blaming uppity and irresponsible women for becoming preg- nant in the absence of a husband. Given their natural desire to have babies, and the tininess of what the sociologist William Julius Wilson has called the ‘marriageable pool’, it is the only answer.

    Nor is it enough to rely on the Child Sup- port Agency to trace absconding fathers. That misses the point. Something must be found, first, to restore women’s desire to be married. That means addressing the feeble- ness of the modern Briton, his reluctance or inability to take control of his woman and be head of a household. Perhaps the problem really is economic: that he feels depressed and emasculated by the state’s superior ability and willingness to provide for his womenfolk. Or perhaps something could be done with early morning swims, which generate the vital endorphins; or cold baths, or runs. I have no idea. But that is where the problem lies.

    Boris Johnson is assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph.

  4. Remember this….because Boris says he never lies.

  5. Note that this is the Tories’ most loyal voting demographic. Unfortunately middle-aged and old white people in the UK tend to be conservative, so even if the Tories openly mock them(as they are doing lately) they’ll still sweep this demographic and return to power.

  6. Laying the groundwork for Feudalism to make a comeback.

  7. Says the dodger who looks positively smashed 24/7

  8. Well, are they feckless?

  9. Boris is PM for one reason and one reason only: he is to help his useless rich friends rob England of every penny they can get. Just like Trump over here, that is his only function.

  10. Isn’t Boris Johnson a raging alcoholic?

  11. I would describe Boris Johnson as ‘drunk, criminal, and feckless’

  12. … and they’ll still vote for him.

  13. Interesting since I understand most of the people that voted for Brexit were working class. People voting against their own interests since…well…forever.

  14. I don’t give a feck what he says.

  15. ‘How to lose votes and alienate plebs’ by Sir Boris Johnson

  16. But its ok, because the working class men that vote for him don’t think they are working class! So they think this comment is directed at everyone but them.

  17. As if we didn’t know already that he’s a piece of shit.

  18. Isn’t that written in the tory manifesto?

  19. The man of the people, everyone.

  20. Brands instead of branded

    Even this was said a quarter century ago.

    That’s all you need to know about this piece’s true intentions.

  21. And yet they are going to vote him despite for this comment. Huzzah for democrazy!

  22. Hey!

    That’s only half true

  23. How dare he. I am not feckless.

  24. He wasn’t describing himself??

  25. So… Basically all of the doofuses that voted for him?

  26. Who elects these ManBitches!

  27. How many points did his approval rating increase by amongst working-class men?

  28. “Drunk, criminal, and feckless” could be equally applied to many members of the upper class…..

  29. Interesting that the *Mirror,* that tabloid shit-stain of a paper, doesn’t have the elementary guts to *link to the actual article*, because of course that would put the lie to the charge that Johnson somehow has it in for blue-collar workers. [Here’s the article](http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-august-1995/6/politics) that Johnson published way back when in the *Spectator*. Note that he explicitly writes that he blames white-collar men about as much as blue-collar ones:

    *”Most of these single mothers have had the common sense to detect that the modern British male is useless. If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless, and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment.* ***If he is white collar, he is likely to be little better***.”

    And it seems self-evident that Johnson doesn’t think all men are useless — he applies the label to those who shirk fatherhood and run away from responsibility and productivity.

  30. Strange when you remember that most of these men are his core supporters.

  31. This was in 1995, why is it being brought up now??

  32. Is it possible the Boris wants out, and is trying to lose?

  33. Your pm, all you brits out there. Hope youre proud.

  34. What’s with all this anti Boris propaganda on Reddit lately ,don’t get me wrong, he’s a twat, but God,this is just obvious manipulation

  35. “…If he is white collar, he’s unlikely to be any better”.

    Interesting … I wish you lot would dig up some of Corbyn’s views and associations from the past. Those are even tastier.

  36. Will Trump out-Boris UK or will Boris out-Trump US?

  37. Well, he knows his own friends best, I guess.

  38. But they will vote for him anyway cos he’s a bigot as well…

    …and with blonde hair like that he obviously wants to keep the British bloodline clean and pure so will send them all back /s

Leave a Reply