Letter: Why I Voted for Boris

Published on: 12 Jul, 2019
Updated on: 12 Jul, 2019

Christian Holliday’s ballot paper for the Conservative party leader election

From Christian Holliday

Conservative Party member and former Conservative borough councillor for Burpham

Conservative Party members are currently voting to decide who the next leader of the Conservative Party, and Prime Minister, should be. I’ve voted for Boris Johnson and I urge other Conservative Party members in Guildford to do the same.

After three years of dithering it is essential we now move forward and implement the 2016 referendum result to leave the EU. The consequences of not doing so will be catastrophic, for our trust in politics and the Conservative Party in particular. The Party has already had a taste of the consequences in the recent local elections, with the results in Guildford being particularly bad for us.

Yes, the Local Plan and other factors played badly too in Guildford, but we may have put up a more resilient performance if we have left the EU in March as originally intended. Remainers must accept the fact that the British people are inherently democratic and they find Parliament’s failure to implement the referendum result completely unacceptable. “Get on with it” is the cry from the populace. In this country we implement the result of all democratic votes; it’s one of the reasons we are respected as one of the worlds oldest and leading democracies, or at least we used to be.

It is essential, in my view, that this process is now led by someone who believes in Brexit. We’ve already allowed a Remainer, Theresa May, to become leader, which will be recorded as a historic mistake, equalled only by Anthony Eden and Suez.

We need to leave and leave in full at the end of October. Boris Johnson is the only candidate who campaigned for Brexit and is fully committed to getting us out at the end of October. There must be no more dithering. We voted Leave and we must Leave, “deal or no deal”.

Although it doesn’t feel like it right now, there will come a time when Brexit is done and dusted. It will then be necessary to turn our attentions fully to the domestic agenda and keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street. Boris is a Heineken Tory; he can reach parts other Tories can’t, including winning London twice as Mayor.

It is unlikely any other Conservative could have achieved that. It will be much easier for the Conservative Party to recover from this bruising period and take the message of Conservatism to a new generation under a leader who has broad appeal. I therefore hope my fellow Guildford Conservatives will do the same as me and vote for Boris.

Responses to Letter: Why I Voted for Boris

Andrew Eacott Reply

July 12, 2019 at 7:53 pm

It is interesting that Mr Holliday so clearly knows what the populace wants, given that his party is completely opposed to asking them in a confirmatory ballot.

It is also fascinating that he believes allowing a tiny fraction of the electorate to choose the next Prime Minister is a shining example of democracy for the world to envy. In particular, when that man apparently believes that shutting down parliament in order to push through his agenda is an option.

Dragging our country in a direction that almost no-one advocated for during the 2016 referendum is a travesty for which I sincerely hope the Conservative party is never forgiven.
Aubrey Leahy Reply

July 12, 2019 at 8:40 pm

Presumably he, like so many others, returned their ballot papers on the day they were received and therefore before Boris’ refusal to stand up for the British Ambassador in Washington and prior to the midnight screaming matches with his paramour.

Cannot help wondering if Mr Holliday, and how many others, would still cast their vote if the ballot papers had arrived today. Was perhaps a little disingenuous to mention his two terms as mayor without mentioning his profligate spending in so many areas, the failed Garden Bridge being an obvious one. A leopard cannot change his spots.
Stuart Barnes Reply

July 13, 2019 at 8:45 am

Well done Christian. It is so obvious that the only chance of upholding democracy is to elect Boris as leader and PM.

It is a disgrace that we have had to wait so long to get out of the corrupt EU. If we had had a proper PM over the last three years (who would not have signed the May surrender agreement) then we would have been out long ago.
John Perkins Reply

July 13, 2019 at 10:17 am

In reply to Andrew Eacott and Aubrey Leahy.

How many “confirmatory” ballots does it take before one becomes legitimate?

The fraction choosing the next Prime Minister is about one third of one percent of the electorate, which makes it about 30,000 times bigger than the proportion who chose the new leadership of the EU.

It may be that no-one advocated prorogation during the referendum. That’s because it wasn’t thought necessary, as all those campaigning said they would honour the result. Some were lying.

Johnson has no authority to support the UK Ambassador, he’s not a member of the government – unlike Hunt who is directly in charge. It’s perhaps telling that various EU “diplomats” did offer their support, despite it not being anything to do with them.

There was only one shouting match and it said little about Boris and much about his neighbours. Who amongst us would want such people busily recording their every domestic argument before reporting to a newspaper and, finally, the police?

If it’s any consolation, I agree about the Garden Bridge – it was a stupid and wasteful idea.
- Andrew Eacott Reply
  
  July 13, 2019 at 10:43 pm
  
  I’d say one more ballot would be sufficient.
  
  The referendum in 2016 was advisory and based on an utter lack of fact. Both sides promised things they could not deliver and left people voting without any information on what the terms of leaving would be. No Deal was dismissed even by Boris at the time as unthinkable.
  
  Now we have a real view on what the outcome of Brexit will be, I don’t see it as unreasonable to ask if that is really what people want. Or is that you don’t think you’d like the answer you might get?
  
  Every five years, voters have the right to assess how party manifestos map onto reality and change their minds if they no longer agree.
  
  Why does John Perkins believe they don’t have the same right for a decision that is irreversible and will affect us for generations to come?
  - John Perkins Reply
    
    July 15, 2019 at 11:53 am
    
    The referendum only became “advisory” for the side that lost, after it did so. Whilst it is arguable that the result is not legally binding, the Act to invoke Article 50 surely was. What’s more, the elected government runs the country, not lawyers, and a majority of MPs voted in favour of it.
    
    Most people had a real view of the outcome when they cast their votes, there was a huge amount of information presented, the most of it in favour of Remaining, yet a majority voted to leave.
    
    After a general election, the winning candidates go to Parliament straight away and the party with most MPs very quickly forms a new government. There is no 3-4 year delay allowing the losing parties to try to get another vote in the hope that it would be different.
    
    Remaining in the EU would also affect us for generations to come and not necessarily to our advantage. If leaving is irreversible, then it is the first political decision ever to be so.
    - Andrew Eacott Reply
      
      July 17, 2019 at 9:53 pm
      
      The referendum, as all referendums in the UK, was advisory because Parliament is sovereign. It seems rather a double standard to talk about respecting the will of Parliament in invoking Article 50 while at the same time discarding the will of parliament by forcing a No Deal exit or even contemplating a prorogation in order to leave.
      
      I dispute that “most people had a real view of the outcome” in 2016. I certainly had no idea what was on offer and I’m a reasonably well-informed voter. Various members of the Leave campaign promised that getting a deal with the EU would be the simplest negotiation in history, we would retain full access to the single market, we would have a better relationship with the EU than we had as of 2016 and of course, that we would be able to spend an additional £350m on the NHS. None of these things is true, most were discounted by the Leave campaign immediately after the referendum and certainly in the event of a No Deal exit, they are pure fantasy.
      
      We’re now hearing that we might see the benefit in 10 years or more and the Bank of England is assured that our financial sector is well prepared to “survive” for at least six months in the event of a No Deal exit. I thought Brexit was supposed to leave us better off, not just surviving?
      
      I’m confused by the point raised that voters can see the result of a general election immediately but can’t see the result of the referendum so presumably should just shut up, wait and see? The government has been trying, and failing, to meet the farcical promises of the Leave campaign for more than three years now. The fact that the promises were never deliverable is hardly a reason to push on regardless.
      
      In short, if you so strongly believe that the majority still want to leave now they’ve seen what a mess it will be, you should relish the chance for another referendum so you can silence those pesky Remainers once and for all. No?
      - John Perkins
        
        July 18, 2019 at 2:57 pm
        
        The sovereignty of Parliament is granted to it by the people. If the will of the people is not relevant then we truly are better off in the EU – it makes less pretence of democracy.
        
        Most people understood that the outcome would be Remain or Leave. What they did not have any idea of was that apparently Leave does not mean Leave.
        
        Mark Carney at the Bank of England has a long history of making doom-laden pronouncements. So far, he’s always been proved wrong.
        
        It’s quite simple, we vote for a government and get one, even if some people don’t like the result. A majority of politicians promised to do the same with the referendum and many were elected on that basis. Nobody voted for a second referendum.
        
        Whilst I agree the government has been failing I dispute it has been really trying – perhaps it has but is merely incompetent. Of course, it wasn’t asked to keep any of the promises of the Leave campaign, only to implement the referendum result.
        
        No. It’s doubtful anything will silence Remainers other than getting their own way.
David Roberts Reply

July 13, 2019 at 12:05 pm

I’m trying hard to feel positive. When it eventually comes, the open-minded, liberal, progressive, internationalist backlash to this stupid national farce is going to be staggering. The millennials will save us.
Aubrey Leahy Reply

July 13, 2019 at 2:58 pm

Quite right, Boris Johnson has no authority to support the British Ambassador. Nor does he have any authority to not support him. My comment was meant simply as being indicative of his bumbling, prevaricating, sitting on the fence and waiting-to-see-what-is-best-for-me style. Simply would not answer the simple question. (He has since done so and claims to regret not offering support.)

So far, it has not been revealed how many other diplomats worldwide agree with the report the ambassador filed. I have two friends who voted Leave purely because they believed his NHS/Brexit magical mystery omnibus tour claims. Perhaps you still believe him. My sympathies.
Adam Aaronson Reply

July 13, 2019 at 9:06 pm

Is this Mr Holliday the former councillor who failed to retain his seat on the Council at the last election?

According to this article in The Independent,

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/darius-boris-and-a-blast-from-the-past-1658043.html ,

Boris Johnson was asked by his friend to assist him with a plot to beat up a journalist. Instead of saying no and telling him that his proposal was criminal and that he would have nothing to do with it, he appears to have been “more worried about getting found out than the harm that would have been inflicted on one of his journalist colleagues.”(John Biggs).

In the Times, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/let-me-assure-you-boris-johnson-will-fail-as-pm-hl7b6tkx5 Matthew Parris, a former Tory MP, recently described Boris Johnson as an “habitual liar, a cheat, a conspirator with a criminal pal to have an offending journalist’s ribs broken, a cruel betrayer of the women he seduces, a politician who connived in a bid for a court order to suppress mention of a daughter he fathered, a do-nothing mayor of London and the worst foreign secretary in living memory” but said that “Wise colleagues inform me that his personal unfitness for the post is already “priced in” so we can forget about it”

I find it difficult to imagine that any sensible Tory member would vote for this charlatan, but I recall that Mr Holliday was suspended from the Guildford Conservatives for starting a petition to “Amend the Treason Felony Act to make supporting UK membership of the EU a crime”, so I suppose that explains his perspective. He thinks that Heineken Boris will refresh his vote at the next council election, but I doubt it.
- Jim Allen Reply
  
  July 14, 2019 at 1:50 pm
  
  Why don’t we all try and politically assassinate anyone we disagree with, shall we all meet in the town square, hang all politicians we don’t like and join Mussolini and Pol Pot in the squalid history books?
  
  Alternatively, we could try and understand other peoples points of view and learn to be kind to all people. I ask those writing comments to please stop these vicious attacks kick the problem, not the man. Kindness gentlemen and ladies, please.
- Stuart Barnes Reply
  
  July 14, 2019 at 3:26 pm
  
  Is this meant to be serious? Surely this is meant as a joke?
  
  Surely no-one who wants to be taken seriously could quote the ludicrous Matthew Parris in any arguments?
David Roberts Reply

July 16, 2019 at 12:48 pm

I don’t see anything in Mr Aaronson’s reasoned and well-documented comment that amounts to the sort of character assassination Mr Allen decries. Using versions of the stale old ‘reductio ad Hitlerum’ rhetorical trope sits oddly with the latter’s call for ‘kindness’.

Personally, I always find Matthew Parris entertaining and perceptive, despite his sentimental attachment to the Tory party. Parris’s vast inside knowledge of Westminster makes his views on Mr B Johnson infinitely more convincing than Mr Barnes’s throwaway remark.