Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: wilts rover on April 23, 2021, 05:27:06 pm
-
Dominic Cummings seems to think so!!
'The proper way for such issues to be handled is via an urgent Parliamentary inquiry into the government’s conduct over the covid crisis which ought to take evidence from all key players under oath and have access to documents. Issues concerning covid and/or the PM’s conduct should not be handled as No10 has handled them over the past 24 hours.'
Also claims Carrie influenced Government business:
'I told him that he could not possibly cancel an inquiry about a leak that affected millions of people, just because it might implicate his girlfriend’s friends.'
https://dominiccummings.com/2021/04/23/statement-regarding-no10-claims-today/
-
As I have said on multiple occasions, Cummings has a tendency to go off like a Claymore when he feels he has been wronged.
I suspect there are several people in Govt shitting themselves about what they might have detonated here.
Odd though, given that Kuenssberg was always so quick to get Cummings's words into print and onto the news. Not a dickie bird from the BBC about this.
-
Wow! Cummings is really going into Tasmanian Devil mode.
Re the flat. The Prime Minister’s DOC has also made accusations regarding me and leaks concerning the PM’s renovation of his flat. The PM stopped speaking to me about this matter in 2020 as I told him I thought his plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation were unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations if conducted in the way he intended. I refused to help him organise these payments. My knowledge about them is therefore limited. I would be happy to tell the Cabinet Secretary or Electoral Commission what I know concerning this matter.
-
Wow! Cummings is really going into Tasmanian Devil mode.
Re the flat. The Prime Minister’s DOC has also made accusations regarding me and leaks concerning the PM’s renovation of his flat. The PM stopped speaking to me about this matter in 2020 as I told him I thought his plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation were unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations if conducted in the way he intended. I refused to help him organise these payments. My knowledge about them is therefore limited. I would be happy to tell the Cabinet Secretary or Electoral Commission what I know concerning this matter.
"Hell hath no fury......"
-
Dominic Cummings seems to think so!!
'The proper way for such issues to be handled is via an urgent Parliamentary inquiry into the government’s conduct over the covid crisis which ought to take evidence from all key players under oath and have access to documents. Issues concerning covid and/or the PM’s conduct should not be handled as No10 has handled them over the past 24 hours.'
Also claims Carrie influenced Government business:
'I told him that he could not possibly cancel an inquiry about a leak that affected millions of people, just because it might implicate his girlfriend’s friends.'
https://dominiccummings.com/2021/04/23/statement-regarding-no10-claims-today/
Now that's a statement for the defence, thanks Wilts
-
I assume this headline from the bbc is tongue-in-cheek?
''Dominic Cummings launches attack on Boris Johnson's integrity''
-
Fascinating sub-plot here is that Cummings has never been a Tory.
He and Johnson had a symbiotic relationship.
Johnson used Cummings's brilliance at campaigning to further Johnson's career by winning the Brexit vote.
Cummings believed he had a messianic mission to rip Govt apart and rebuild it as he saw fit. He bought into the Johnson project because that was Cummings's route to getting to the heart of Govt.
But Cummings is a vicious, vindictive type. He's making it clear now that he knows where the bodies are buried and crucially, he owes no allegiance to Johnson or the Tories.
This has the potential to get very nasty for Johnson.
-
Unless he has proof which he might have, no one will believe a word he says, when he was a advisor not one person on this board believed a word he said so going off that what he is saying now is all lies?
-
that's a big problem bp when you have a disreputable person for a pm and an ex spad both quite happy to tell the electorate bare faced lies to cover their arses, in this case assume johnson is the biggest liar.
-
Interesting one isn't it. He was previously someone who couldn't be trusted with the truth in his blogs, now he's critical of government he's trustworthy again and telling the truth.....
On what he claims though, anyone who doesn't already believe that Boris Johnson does things that he shouldn't is at best naive.
-
The interesting thing is yp is that before, they were both lying to protect each other now they are lying to protect themselves.
-
Interesting one isn't it. He was previously someone who couldn't be trusted with the truth in his blogs, now he's critical of government he's trustworthy again and telling the truth.....
On what he claims though, anyone who doesn't already believe that Boris Johnson does things that he shouldn't is at best naive.
This is spot on. The problem is though that many voters don’t seem to care that Johnson is a lies and has little integrity. People will vote for him whatever.
-
As I have said on multiple occasions, Cummings has a tendency to go off like a Claymore when he feels he has been wronged.
I suspect there are several people in Govt shitting themselves about what they might have detonated here.
Odd though, given that Kuenssberg was always so quick to get Cummings's words into print and onto the news. Not a dickie bird from the BBC about this.
That last statement isn’t true BST.
It was highlighted a few weeks ago on the BBC that Cummings was raising issues and I mentioned it on this forum.
It was on the BBC breakfast news again today.
I have no doubt by the way that Cummings will be lauded on here as this situation evolves, which I also said a few weeks ago but no one responded to.
After decrying all Cummings said in the past I suspect he might become someone who is loved by the left supporters and all he says will be deemed to be true.
-
As I have said on multiple occasions, Cummings has a tendency to go off like a Claymore when he feels he has been wronged.
I suspect there are several people in Govt shitting themselves about what they might have detonated here.
Odd though, given that Kuenssberg was always so quick to get Cummings's words into print and onto the news. Not a dickie bird from the BBC about this.
That last statement isn’t true BST.
It was highlighted a few weeks ago on the BBC that Cummings was raising issues and I mentioned it on this forum.
It was on the BBC breakfast news again today.
I have no doubt by the way that Cummings will be lauded on here as this situation evolves, which I also said a few weeks ago but no one responded to.
After decrying all Cummings said in the past I suspect he might become someone who is loved by the left supporters and all he says will be deemed to be true.
It also wasn't true last night. It was the third story on the 10 o'clock news and Newsnight did a big piece on it.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1385752964296581123
I doubt Cummings will ever be 'lauded' by anyone other than those who voted for Brexit. But his appearance at the Spending Select Committee next month where he has proposed to fully co-operate and answer fully any questions on his time in government should be extremly interesting.
And welcolmed by all who oppose corruption, cronyism and dishonesty in government I would have thought.
-
It will be a sell out I would think Wilts
-
Interesting one isn't it. He was previously someone who couldn't be trusted with the truth in his blogs, now he's critical of government he's trustworthy again and telling the truth.....
On what he claims though, anyone who doesn't already believe that Boris Johnson does things that he shouldn't is at best naive.
BFYP.
I'm guessing that's aimed at me, given that I've posted more than anyone about Cummings's blog.
I don't recall ever saying that Cummings had lied on his blog. If you know where I have, I'd be happy to accept that.
What I HAVE said is that he is an egotistical maniac, very, very intelligent but vicious and quite happy to throw a hand grenade in the face of anyone who crossed him.
It's that combination that terrified me about him being close to the centre of Govt, not lying (although he did of course lie through his teeth over his breaking of the COVID lockdown).
-
It was suggested on THAT radio station that Cummings and Johnson were still in bed with each other, and this is is another stunt concocted to eventually make Johnson look good over it all. Can’t see how, personally, but there you go.
Either way, Cummings is showing again than that he is a cretin who doesn’t give a shit about anyone but himself but sells himself very well (yes Wilts: this from someone who voted leave).
Perhaps thats why they get on so well.
-
As I have said on multiple occasions, Cummings has a tendency to go off like a Claymore when he feels he has been wronged.
I suspect there are several people in Govt shitting themselves about what they might have detonated here.
Odd though, given that Kuenssberg was always so quick to get Cummings's words into print and onto the news. Not a dickie bird from the BBC about this.
That last statement isn’t true BST.
It was highlighted a few weeks ago on the BBC that Cummings was raising issues and I mentioned it on this forum.
It was on the BBC breakfast news again today.
I have no doubt by the way that Cummings will be lauded on here as this situation evolves, which I also said a few weeks ago but no one responded to.
After decrying all Cummings said in the past I suspect he might become someone who is loved by the left supporters and all he says will be deemed to be true.
It also wasn't true last night. It was the third story on the 10 o'clock news and Newsnight did a big piece on it.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1385752964296581123
I doubt Cummings will ever be 'lauded' by anyone other than those who voted for Brexit. But his appearance at the Spending Select Committee next month where he has proposed to fully co-operate and answer fully any questions on his time in government should be extremly interesting.
And welcolmed by all who oppose corruption, cronyism and dishonesty in government I would have thought.
It WAS true when I wrote it. I checked throughout the BBC website and there wasn't a word about it, nor any tweet from Kuenssberg.
I don't make this shit up you know.
I'm assuming there were some panicked high level BBC meetings figuring out what the editorial take was going to be. Given that Kuenssberg has spent two years breaking stories given to her directly from Cummings, it is very unlikely that she wasn't aware of this blog post. But she's still posted nowt on Twitter about it.
-
BST, it WAS on the bbc news a few weeks ago.
I wrote about it on here.
-
Hound.
I'm talking about THIS development.
The stuff on the news a few weeks ago was, if I recall correctly, briefings from No10 spin doctors blaming Cummings for leaks about the November lockdown. They did the same thing on Thursday night, accusing Cummings of leaking info about the Johnson/Dyson texts. Then Cummings went supernova yesterday afternoon and the BBC said not a word about it for hours, while the rest of the media were going apeshit over it.
-
Looks like even Cummings didn't trust them!
Dominic Cummings may have secret audio recordings from his time in government
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1386005429847724036
-
Looks like even Cummings didn't trust them!
Dominic Cummings may have secret audio recordings from his time in government
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1386005429847724036
not sure he would admit it if he did, would probably land him time in jail
-
Wouldn’t Cummings have had to sign some kind of confidentiality agreement.
-
Hound.
He will undoubtedly have to have signed the Official Secrets Act.
But this is politics, not national security. If Cummings breaks that agreement, but in doing so puts into the public domain evidence of Johnson having broken the law, or being responsible for a serious policy failure, prosecuting him would only look like trying to protect the PM.
You haven't learned what Cummings is like. He's a vindictive, egotistical maniac. He thinks, rightly or wrongly, that Johnson has slighted him. And he's doing what he does in those circumstances.
If (IF) Johnson has done anything very seriously wrong, and Cummings has the evidence, this is going to get very, very nasty for Johnson.
-
If Johnson has done nothing wrong why do 'No10 fears Cummings bombshell dossier':
https://twitter.com/TmorrowsPapers/status/1386063805944373252
If he has done nothing wrong there will be nothing to fear - he always acts with honesty and integrity doesn't he?
-
It makes no difference if Boris has done nothing wrong, he will still be guilty in some peoples eyes. It will just be called a cover-up.
-
BB
That gets to the heart of the problem in current debate.
There is a concept of absolute truth. Johnson either DID do wrong in getting someone to pay for his flat renovation without declaring it, or he didn't. He either DID do wrong in attempting to block an inquiry because it might point the finger at his missus's friend or he didn't.
I don't know if he did or didn't. Neither do you. But if there is compelling and unarguable evidence either way (and Cummings is suggesting that he has that) then I'd hope that all of us would accept that.
The problem these days is that too many people take a position and stick to that regardless of what evidence is put in front of them.
-
BST, I agree entirely with that, especially the last chapter which was exactly my point.
-
Good then we are in agreement. If (as is quite possible) this is just Cummings having one of his nail bomb rants and he has no evidence of Johnson doing wrong, then that puts Cummings to bed. Of course absence of damning evidence is not proof of absence of guilt though. And the statement from No 10 today (saying that Johnson has personally paid for all the renovations THIS YEAR) is an odd one, no? Surely if has done nothing wrong at all, he could put the matter to rest immediately by doing what Labour have asked him to do: publish the invoices for the whole work. It would be odd if he refuses to do that while having evidence to exonerate himself, no?
Because refusing to do a simple thing which would clear his name is itself evidence which we can all use in coming to our own judgements.
-
Think about a murder trial. Lack of video evidence of Joe Bloggs firing the gun doesn't mean that Joe Bloggs isn't the murderer. If Joe Bloggs says "I couldn't have done it because I wasn't there, I was in Spain" but refuses to show the police evidence that he was in Spain, that refusal would be taken as information that the jury would use in coming to their verdict.
-
I suppose it’s a bit like when people on here refuse to answer straightforward questions.
-
I just think it's poor that Keir Starmer can only increase his own popularity by decreasing that of his opponents. I also think that it is strange that someone who was renowned as a liar by anti-Tories is now being trusted by anti-Tories to give truthful evidence.
-
BB
Once again, I have never ever suggested that Cummings was a renowned liar. I DO think (it's as obvious as it could be) that he brazened out his Durham visit by lying. But I have seen no evidence in years of following his work that he has habitually lied.
And once again, this is not about Cummings's opinions. It is about whether he has hard evidence. Surely you can see the difference between the two things?
As for Starmer, I don't think you understand how politics works. It is the DUTY of the Opposition to hold the Executive to account. if there is a credible suggestion that the PM has broken Parliamentary rules (let alone, the law), a Leader of the Opposition should be sacked if he/she didn't ask probing questions to try to establish the truth of the matter.
By your take, it was a poor show by the Democrats in 1973 to point out that America had a criminal as President.
-
I don’t think for one moment that Johnson wouldn’t do exactly the same if the roles were reversed - politicians them all.
Cummings was on the defensive when trying to save his own skin about going to Durham.
In this new situation he is on the defensive about not being the whistleblower - he has no choice but to respond.
On the other hand, he has also gone on the offensive with his allegations against Johnson - why do this and ruin himself if he hasn’t got the evidence to back up his claims?
So that suggests to me that there may be some uncomfortable truths from Cummings for Johnson to deal with.
But that doesn’t mean Cummings told the truth about going to Durham. In fact quite the unconvincing opposite from what I saw and heard at the time.
So for me he lied then, and may be telling the truth now.
“Trust” is irrelevant. The Truth - regardless of your politics - very much is.
-
Relevant!
Ha ha
Gettin late
-
BB
Once again, I have never ever suggested that Cummings was a renowned liar. I DO think (it's as obvious as it could be) that he brazened out his Durham visit by lying. But I have seen no evidence in years of following his work that he has habitually lied.
And once again, this is not about Cummings's opinions. It is about whether he has hard evidence. Surely you can see the difference between the two things?
As for Starmer, I don't think you understand how politics works. It is the DUTY of the Opposition to hold the Executive to account. if there is a credible suggestion that the PM has broken Parliamentary rules (let alone, the law), a Leader of the Opposition should be sacked if he/she didn't ask probing questions to try to establish the truth of the matter.
By your take, it was a poor show by the Democrats in 1973 to point out that America had a criminal as President.
BST, I never said that you personally suggested that Cummungs was a renowned liar, but many people do think he is.
-
BB
Once again, I have never ever suggested that Cummings was a renowned liar. I DO think (it's as obvious as it could be) that he brazened out his Durham visit by lying. But I have seen no evidence in years of following his work that he has habitually lied.
And once again, this is not about Cummings's opinions. It is about whether he has hard evidence. Surely you can see the difference between the two things?
As for Starmer, I don't think you understand how politics works. It is the DUTY of the Opposition to hold the Executive to account. if there is a credible suggestion that the PM has broken Parliamentary rules (let alone, the law), a Leader of the Opposition should be sacked if he/she didn't ask probing questions to try to establish the truth of the matter.
By your take, it was a poor show by the Democrats in 1973 to point out that America had a criminal as President.
BST, I never said that you personally suggested that Cummungs was a renowned liar, but many people do think he is.
Many people also think Johnson is a renowned liar. There are websites, youtube compilations and indeed now a book compiling these.
Yet there are still people defending him and critising the motivations of people who accuse him of said lies.
Funny old world.
-
Fascinating nugget in todays papers.
Ed Woodward (Man U chief ex) met Johnson a couple of days before the Super League announcement and got the impression he was in favour of it.
Then after the announcement Johnson spoke out against it.
https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1386219364421091331
Surely this can't be true? I mean has Boris Johnson ever previously put up an argument for both sides of a divisive policy and then backed the side that gained him the most popularity?
-
Fascinating nugget in todays papers.
Ed Woodward (Man U chief ex) met Johnson a couple of days before the Super League announcement and got the impression he was in favour of it.
Then after the announcement Johnson spoke out against it.
https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1386219364421091331
Surely this can't be true? I mean has Boris Johnson ever previously put up an argument for both sides of a divisive policy and then backed the side that gained him the most popularity?
‘Sources accept that Johnson may have briefly met’
Can any one come up with a less convincing statement of ‘fact’?
-
Here's some interesting context to the Cummings-Johnson fight.
https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1386218565355950083
tl:dr. There is strong evidence that someone in Cummings's office in Vote Leave committed a serious crime when the Electoral Commission was investigating them. That evidence was given to the relevant investigatory body, which reports to the Home Office.
Nothing was ever done about it.
But if this does become a fight to the death, it's possible that both sides have potentially career-ending material on the other one.
-
So Cummings has said Boris asked him if it was possible to have Conservative donors pay for the renovation of 10 Downing Street flat. And Cummings 'advised' him it was not a good idea or even legal! So he did his job properly well done Dominic! Nothing here move on now folks!
-
Sproty
If there's nothing to see, why on earth is No10 answering in such convoluted language when pressed on the issue?
They've been asked specifically if Johnson was given money by a donor for the flat. They've have not answered that very specific question. They've said he paid for all the renovations that took place this year.
-
Apparently the Blairs spent hundreds of thousands on the same subject in their tenure, but out of the public purse, expect this to be used and fingers pointed at the relevant time.
-
Talk Radio been pouring its slime in your ear again Selby, has it?
EVERY PM receives an annual allowance for the upkeep of the No10 flat. It's currently £30k per year. So it's no wonder that the Blair's totted up a large sum given that they were there for ten years.
You may or may not agree that £30k per year is too much. But the point is, that's the law.
Johnson wanted to spend far more than £30k. Reportedly because his missus has expensive tastes. The question is, where did the extra money come from?
-
Talk Radio been pouring its slime in your ear again Selby, has it?
EVERY PM receives an annual allowance for the upkeep of the No10 flat. It's currently £30k per year. So it's no wonder that the Blair's totted up a large sum given that they were there for ten years.
You may or may not agree that £30k per year is too much. But the point is, that's the law.
Johnson wanted to spend far more than £30k. Reportedly because his missus has expensive tastes. The question is, where did the extra money come from?
I seem to recall the Blairs spent a Princes Ransom on the Flat as they had to extend it considerably as it was small and pokey, and they had kids, something that previous PM's didn't have,small children, I also seem to recall that nobody raised an eyebrow at the time! If the PM of this country can't have an opulent flat at No 10 what does it say about the country.
It isn't his flat,it's the Prime minister of Great Britain's flat! He can't take any of the fittings when he goes, he has got to leave under the eye of 5/600 Press reporters
-
Law breakers or not, it seems that some take the piss with our money, some don't - regardless of party.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/newsopener.com/uk/the-modern-makeovers-of-number-11-downing-street/amp/
It seems Thatcher and Brown have the most credibility and Blair and Johnson the least.
Just because someone may not have broken the law, it doesn’t mean they are not acting disgracefully.
‘I’ve done nothing (legally) wrong’ is a shit excuse.
-
Talk Radio been pouring its slime in your ear again Selby, has it?
EVERY PM receives an annual allowance for the upkeep of the No10 flat. It's currently £30k per year. So it's no wonder that the Blair's totted up a large sum given that they were there for ten years.
You may or may not agree that £30k per year is too much. But the point is, that's the law.
Johnson wanted to spend far more than £30k. Reportedly because his missus has expensive tastes. The question is, where did the extra money come from?
I seem to recall the Blairs spent a Princes Ransom on the Flat as they had to extend it considerably as it was small and pokey, and they had kids, something that previous PM's didn't have,small children, I also seem to recall that nobody raised an eyebrow at the time! If the PM of this country can't have an opulent flat at No 10 what does it say about the country.
It isn't his flat,it's the Prime minister of Great Britain's flat! He can't take any of the fittings when he goes, he has got to leave under the eye of 5/600 Press reporters
Sprot, the PM lives in the flat above the shop in No11 which is bigger
-
I see the smoke of battle is already obscuring the issue.
The issue is very, very clear. Has the PM taken a very large donation for his personal benefit?
That's it. Nothing more or less.
If he has, it's a black and white resigning issue, regardless of if it was illegal.
-
BB
Once again, I have never ever suggested that Cummings was a renowned liar. I DO think (it's as obvious as it could be) that he brazened out his Durham visit by lying. But I have seen no evidence in years of following his work that he has habitually lied.
And once again, this is not about Cummings's opinions. It is about whether he has hard evidence. Surely you can see the difference between the two things?
As for Starmer, I don't think you understand how politics works. It is the DUTY of the Opposition to hold the Executive to account. if there is a credible suggestion that the PM has broken Parliamentary rules (let alone, the law), a Leader of the Opposition should be sacked if he/she didn't ask probing questions to try to establish the truth of the matter.
By your take, it was a poor show by the Democrats in 1973 to point out that America had a criminal as President.
BST, I never said that you personally suggested that Cummungs was a renowned liar, but many people do think he is.
Many people also think Johnson is a renowned liar. There are websites, youtube compilations and indeed now a book compiling these.
Yet there are still people defending him and critising the motivations of people who accuse him of said lies.
Funny old world.
As I wrote above^
Funny old world...
-
I see the smoke of battle is already obscuring the issue.
The issue is very, very clear. Has the PM taken a very large donation for his personal benefit?
That's it. Nothing more or less.
If he has, it's a black and white resigning issue, regardless of if it was illegal.
Morals of an alley cat total liar stunt puller etc etc and amazingly would still be elected if there was a GE tomorrow
THAT is the unfortunate reality
"JUST the Poll Tax did for Thatcher" and to me it seems incredible that Johnson sails on serenely whilst being the most incompetent clown that he is
-
Here's some interesting context to the Cummings-Johnson fight.
https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1386218565355950083
tl:dr. There is strong evidence that someone in Cummings's office in Vote Leave committed a serious crime when the Electoral Commission was investigating them. That evidence was given to the relevant investigatory body, which reports to the Home Office.
Nothing was ever done about it.
But if this does become a fight to the death, it's possible that both sides have potentially career-ending material on the other one.
I think that Cummings becoming a whistle blower has probably ended his career anyway.
Who would feel comfortable employing him in any capacity where he has access to important information within the organisation.
-
government too busy for an inquiry, working around the clock apparently, hmmmmmmm
-
Here's some interesting context to the Cummings-Johnson fight.
https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1386218565355950083
tl:dr. There is strong evidence that someone in Cummings's office in Vote Leave committed a serious crime when the Electoral Commission was investigating them. That evidence was given to the relevant investigatory body, which reports to the Home Office.
Nothing was ever done about it.
But if this does become a fight to the death, it's possible that both sides have potentially career-ending material on the other one.
I think that Cummings becoming a whistle blower has probably ended his career anyway.
Who would feel comfortable employing him in any capacity where he has access to important information within the organisation.
Hound
1) General point: Whistleblowing is vital in organisations where people at the top are breaking the rules and getting away with it. It is something to be applauded, not condemned.
2) Specific point: We've known for a decade that Cummings shouldn't be anywhere near the top of Govt since his maniac behaviour in the Dept of Education. For Johnson to effectively let Cummings run Govt for 18 months without realising the consequences that would come when Cummings inevitably ended up having to be sacked says everything about his own judgement.
-
Of course whistleblowing should be applauded, but it’s naive for anyone to think this would not have a very negative effect on Cummings’ ‘career’. He’s not whistleblowing because people at the top are breaking the rules and getting away with it (if he was, he would have done it whilst he was still working for Johnson). He’s done it because he bears a grudge.
Any employer who thinks someone will turn when they fall out will give a very wide birth.
-
Talk Radio been pouring its slime in your ear again Selby, has it?
EVERY PM receives an annual allowance for the upkeep of the No10 flat. It's currently £30k per year. So it's no wonder that the Blair's totted up a large sum given that they were there for ten years.
You may or may not agree that £30k per year is too much. But the point is, that's the law.
Johnson wanted to spend far more than £30k. Reportedly because his missus has expensive tastes. The question is, where did the extra money come from?
I seem to recall the Blairs spent a Princes Ransom on the Flat as they had to extend it considerably as it was small and pokey, and they had kids, something that previous PM's didn't have,small children, I also seem to recall that nobody raised an eyebrow at the time! If the PM of this country can't have an opulent flat at No 10 what does it say about the country.
It isn't his flat,it's the Prime minister of Great Britain's flat! He can't take any of the fittings when he goes, he has got to leave under the eye of 5/600 Press reporters
Sprot, the PM lives in the flat above the shop in No11 which is bigger
Blair used the flat above No.11 too, and Brown (while Chancellor) lived in the flat above no.10 for the same reason - the No.11 flat was bigger and Blair had the bigger family.
-
Back to the subject of Boris's handling of Covid:
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-denies-report-that-pm-johnson-said-let-bodies-pile-high-2021-04-26/
One odd thing that's becoming apparent now is the tactic of using someone else to make a denial - first Liz Truss and now Ben Wallace - whilst Boris is strangely silent on the matters in hand. I wonder why he hasn't made any of his usually robust denials himself...could it possibly because he doesn't want to be caught red-handed because he knows the truth but doesn't know what evidence there is still to emerge? That's the impression it very strongly gives out.
-
Of course whistleblowing should be applauded, but it’s naive for anyone to think this would not have a very negative effect on Cummings’ ‘career’. He’s not whistleblowing because people at the top are breaking the rules and getting away with it (if he was, he would have done it whilst he was still working for Johnson). He’s done it because he bears a grudge.
Any employer who thinks someone will turn when they fall out will give a very wide birth.
Agreed. That's why I said "General point" about whistleblowing. Cummings is clearly not whistleblowing. Cummings is doing what Cummings does when someone crosses him. He's trying to destroy them.
He's been known to act like that for at least a decade. Which, as I've been saying for years is one reason why he is utterly unfit to be near levers of power.
The question is, what in God's name was Johnson thinking, taking him on?
-
He was probably thinking that he could get him elected.
-
He was never going to lose in 2019.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-denies-report-that-pm-johnson-said-let-bodies-pile-high-2021-04-26/?taid=6086629c2803a40001e70475&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
Unnamed source telling the Mail Johnson said last Autumn "No more f**king lockdowns. Let the bodies pile up in their thousands".
Unnamed source. And The Mail. So caution.
But, Cummings has been speaking to the Mail, so it's a fair bet he is the source. And there have been rumblings for months that there was a spectacular falling out over the September circuit breaker lockdown, with Cummings demanding it and Johnson refusing.
If Cummings actually has evidence of Johnson saying this, Johnson is finished.
-
Robert Peston confirming that Johnson did say 'Let the bodies pile up in their thousands' and that he got it from different sources to the Mail.
Thus Ben Wallace was lying/deciving the public on several radio stations this morning when he denied Johnson had said it.
Peston also confirming that Cummings was not the leak for the lockdown story - and he has the texts on his phone.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1386632029949792260
Perhaps backing up Jonny Mercer's assertion when he resigned last week that:
'This is the most distrustful, awful environment I’ve ever worked in, in government. Almost nobody tells the truth is what I’ve worked out over the last 36 hours.'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/21/ex-minister-johnny-mercer-says-almost-nobody-tells-truth-in-johnsons-government
and No.10 is a cesspit of snakes and cowards
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9510175/Number-10-cesspit-snakes-cowards-Johnny-Mercer-delivers-blistering-salvo.html
But there will be people on here quite soon defending him and attacking the people who have made allegations against him, without wanting to see if they are true or not.
-
Of course whistleblowing should be applauded, but it’s naive for anyone to think this would not have a very negative effect on Cummings’ ‘career’. He’s not whistleblowing because people at the top are breaking the rules and getting away with it (if he was, he would have done it whilst he was still working for Johnson). He’s done it because he bears a grudge.
Any employer who thinks someone will turn when they fall out will give a very wide birth.
Spot on Belton and for the record I haven’t condemned it despite BST intimating that I might have done.
I was simply suggesting that Cummings has f**ked up his chances of getting a job where he will have access to information which might effect his employers.
-
Robert Peston confirming that Johnson did say 'Let the bodies pile up in their thousands' and that he got it from different sources to the Mail.
Thus Ben Wallace was lying/deciving the public on several radio stations this morning when he denied Johnson had said it.
Peston also confirming that Cummings was not the leak for the lockdown story - and he has the texts on his phone.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1386632029949792260
Perhaps backing up Jonny Mercer's assertion when he resigned last week that:
'This is the most distrustful, awful environment I’ve ever worked in, in government. Almost nobody tells the truth is what I’ve worked out over the last 36 hours.'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/21/ex-minister-johnny-mercer-says-almost-nobody-tells-truth-in-johnsons-government
and No.10 is a cesspit of snakes and cowards
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9510175/Number-10-cesspit-snakes-cowards-Johnny-Mercer-delivers-blistering-salvo.html
But there will be people on here quite soon defending him and attacking the people who have made allegations against him, without wanting to see if they are true or not.
Wilts, waiting to see what the outcome is going to be might be a good idea for both sides to be fair.
-
That Peston tweet ups the ante considerably.
Johnson is in very, very big trouble.
If he's said "Let the bodies pile up in their thousands" while implementing policies that have directly led to the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands of people...I'm lost for words.
-
If he has actually said that it is as bad as it gets.
If true then some people on here might get their wish but beware, you might end up with Gove or Rees Mogg as PM.
-
Is he in big trouble BST? Or will this simply blow over in a week when the clown car moves on to the next circus show?
-
That Peston tweet ups the ante considerably.
Johnson is in very, very big trouble.
If he's said "Let the bodies pile up in their thousands" while implementing policies that have directly led to the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands of people...I'm lost for words.
And he had a Minister doining the media rounds this morning flat out denying he said it!
Appalling - North Korean government at its very best.
-
If it was a North Korean government you wouldn't have said that.
-
If it was a North Korean government you wouldn't have said that.
Certainly not twice.
-
And yet more
Story in todays Times that Johnson wants a new Royal yacht, named after Prince Philip, as a trade and investment ship to 'sell Britain to the world'.
Unfortuantely he forgot to ask the Queen first if she was in support of this and she is said to be 'very displeased with the suggestion'
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1386652150793703427
So not only has he upset the families of covid victims - he also upset a grieving widow the week after her husbands funeral.
But as I put above - there are still people who come out and attack and mock the people making you aware of this in a pathetic attempt to defend him.
Who is worse, Johnson or his sycophants?
-
That's a difficult question Wilts.
-
Now on BBC website that Johnson did say 'let the bodies pile high' so they must have sources too;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56890714
-
And any donations for flat will be declared ................. I thought there wasn't any?
''Boris Johnson has said any donations linked to the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat will be declared "in due course".
The prime minister is under pressure to explain how works on the official residence were paid for, following claims from his former top adviser''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56883078
-
Now on BBC website that Johnson did say 'let the bodies pile high' so they must have sources too;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56890714
Johnson will of course stick to the line that he said nothing of the sort.
There IS a way to get to the bottom of who is right and who is wrong though. An official inquiry, with witnesses giving testimony under oath. It would be perjury to lie to such an enquiry.
As I said early, Johnson is in very, very big trouble over this. I doubt it will finish him off immediately, but this is going to hang around him for the rest of his time as PM, just as the Iraq dossier did for Blair.
And this does but into some sort of context the speech Johnson gave when we passed 100,000 COVID deaths, where he looked down the camera to the nations and said that he took full responsibility. Then immediately followed that up by insisting that the Govt had done everything it could to reduce the death toll.
One final point. Peston's sources say Johnson was ranting about lockdowns not even working. That is all very consistent with the fact that he'd had his ear bent by those arch lockdown sceptics, Heneghan and Gupta, who have been wrong about pretty much everything in this awful crisis. Johnson, apparently, was repeating precisely what those dangerous idiots were telling him, after Sunak had ushered them into No10 to convince Johnson not to lockdown.
What an almighty tragedy.
-
Slight devil's advocate here and slight honesty from me. Personally I don't care whether he said it or not, though I will say from a so called statesman it's outrageous if true. I'll wager though a lot of people would feel the same way whether they admit it or not
-
I don't understand the point you're making Ldr. It would be outrageous if he did say it, but you don't care either way if he did or didn't?
My take. It's not the words. It is the effect on policy. That is all that matters. If he has resisted scientific advice to bring in lockdowns because he wanted to prioritise the economy, when we have known for months that the only way you protect the economy is by clamping down on outbreaks hard and fast, then he is unfit for office. The fact that he'd have demonstrated that by such a disgusting use of words (if true) just demonstrates that he's morally abhorrent as well.
-
I don't understand the point you're making Ldr. It would be outrageous if he did say it, but you don't care either way if he did or didn't?
My take. It's not the words. It is the effect on policy. That is all that matters. If he has resisted scientific advice to bring in lockdowns because he wanted to prioritise the economy, when we have known for months that the only way you protect the economy is by clamping down on outbreaks hard and fast, then he is unfit for office. The fact that he'd have demonstrated that by such a disgusting use of words (if true) just demonstrates that he's morally abhorrent as well.
It's apathy on my side mate. He is a moral.cesspit and unfit to lead no question and I have become desensitised to it all. Last election was a choice between a kick in the b*llocks or a bat to the b*llocks and I don't see future elections been different sadly.
-
If he has actually said that it is as bad as it gets.
If true then some people on here might get their wish but beware, you might end up with Gove or Rees Mogg as PM.
Havnt read much of this thread - though i did post earlier
Wouldnt mind either of those as they would be cut much LESS slack than bojo / boris / liar Johnson * Delete as applicable
-
Team Gove limbering up on the sidelines.
I reckon you should mind, Wolf.
Gove is as unprincipled as you get, and will pitch to the right of Johnson on social issues.
Johnson is a gruesome excuse for a human, and an advert for all the pathologies that come with an expensive private education....but he is a transparent buffoon. If you want to see it, his flaws are on full display.
Gove is altogether more devious and vulpine. Not sure how many are aware of his track record!
Rees Mogg has no chance IMO.
-
Thought Sunak was going to be 'Britains next PM'. Did I miss something?
-
Thought Sunak was going to be 'Britains next PM'. Did I miss something?
It was another poster who said something along those lines wilts.
-
Thought Sunak was going to be 'Britains next PM'. Did I miss something?
Well who was it who wheeled Heneghan and Gupta into No10 and convinced Johnson that lockdowns don't work? Leading, one assumes, to the PM choosing to prioritise the economy and let the bodies pile up in their thousands.
Going on past experience when the shit starts flying, Sunak will be conspicuous by his absence for the next few weeks.
-
Hound.
I'm talking about THIS development.
The stuff on the news a few weeks ago was, if I recall correctly, briefings from No10 spin doctors blaming Cummings for leaks about the November lockdown. They did the same thing on Thursday night, accusing Cummings of leaking info about the Johnson/Dyson texts. Then Cummings went supernova yesterday afternoon and the BBC said not a word about it for hours, while the rest of the media were going apeshit over it.
No BST, the news on the bbc a few weeks ago was about Cummings becoming a whistle blower.
-
Hound
Once again, that was about No10 briefing that Cummings had been the source of leaks last November. When I said that the BBC weren't covering "this" on Friday, I meant they weren't covering Cummings's recently meltdown.
-
Robert Peston confirming that Johnson did say 'Let the bodies pile up in their thousands' and that he got it from different sources to the Mail.
Thus Ben Wallace was lying/deciving the public on several radio stations this morning when he denied Johnson had said it.
Peston also confirming that Cummings was not the leak for the lockdown story - and he has the texts on his phone.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1386632029949792260
Perhaps backing up Jonny Mercer's assertion when he resigned last week that:
'This is the most distrustful, awful environment I’ve ever worked in, in government. Almost nobody tells the truth is what I’ve worked out over the last 36 hours.'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/21/ex-minister-johnny-mercer-says-almost-nobody-tells-truth-in-johnsons-government
and No.10 is a cesspit of snakes and cowards
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9510175/Number-10-cesspit-snakes-cowards-Johnny-Mercer-delivers-blistering-salvo.html
But there will be people on here quite soon defending him and attacking the people who have made allegations against him, without wanting to see if they are true or not.
Wilts, that first sentence in your above post should say “Peston has been told by someone that they heard Johnson say......”
-
Well I guess the "let the bodies pile up" issue has forced Johnson into announcing an investigation into his flat expenses, if only to knock the quote story off the headlines.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56883078
Some independent investigation though, eh? Being run by a man who Johnson has recently appointed and whom he could sack at the drop of a hat.
I don't understand it. If Johnson paid for the flat refurb directly, just publish the receipts and be done with.
-
Hes able to prove he paid for it , I bet , in that he gave the money to the contractor. Wonder if he can prove where the money came from though
-
Well I guess the "let the bodies pile up" issue has forced Johnson into announcing an investigation into his flat expenses, if only to knock the quote story off the headlines.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56883078
Some independent investigation though, eh? Being run by a man who Johnson has recently appointed and whom he could sack at the drop of a hat.
I don't understand it. If Johnson paid for the flat refurb directly, just publish the receipts and be done with.
He’s got the receipts, the problem is they were paid in Ruble’s
-
Well I guess the "let the bodies pile up" issue has forced Johnson into announcing an investigation into his flat expenses, if only to knock the quote story off the headlines.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56883078
Some independent investigation though, eh? Being run by a man who Johnson has recently appointed and whom he could sack at the drop of a hat.
I don't understand it. If Johnson paid for the flat refurb directly, just publish the receipts and be done with.
It gives No10 control, drag it out and let some of the heat out then of course there's the chance of doctoring the result, bingo
'Can't speak about that now while there's an inquiry'
-
Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary got an absolute mauling at the Select Committee meeting today. The purpose of the Select Committee is for backbench MPs to hold Cabinet Ministers and senior Civil Servants to account for how they are doing their job. Case repeatedly replied "I can't answer that" when asked. Until one exasperated MP said "Could you explain how we are supposed to check that you are doing your job when every time we ask you how you are doing you job you say you can't answer?"
He then announced that he will be holding an inquiry into Johnson's flat expenses. To which one MP asked him when we could expect a report on that, given that he's been investigating who the Chatty Rat leaker is for 6 months and said he probably wont be able to find out who it was (even though several journalists know exactly who it was because they received the leaks).
I fully expect a whitewash on the Johnson flat inquiry. What expectation of the truth coming out can you have when a boss asks a new employee to investigate the boss's dealings?
That will just be left to rot away and Johnson will get away with the obvious malpractice. (Obvious because if Johnson was clean, he could put this to bed in seconds by publishing the invoices for the flat work, so why on earth wouldn't he?) But there will eventually be a COVID Royal Inquiry with evidence given under oath and the threat of jail for people found to be lying. Then we might see some advisers and civil servants have their balls squeezed.
-
So it's out. Lord Brownlow paid £60k towards the refurb that Johnson's missus demanded. And Johnson didn't declare it. And Brownlow's company was awarded COVID contracts.
In previous times that was a stone cold resigning issue. Mandelson resigned from Blair's Cabinet when he was LOANED, not GIVEN funds to buy a house and didn't declare it.
-
Modus Operandi: deny-lie-obfuscate-lie-blame others.
It's astonishing that the man who is supposed to be beyond reproach, cannot be trusted with the simplest of truths, rich as all get out but wants others to pay for his lavish lifestyle where in the country he governs food banks are the norm for thousands and thousands of people.
-
Max Hastings (Johnson's old boss who sacked him for making up a story in The Telegraph) on Johnson here at 21:08.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000vghm
"People don't seem to care if the leader of the country is a moral, decent man. They know that he's a serial liar. They know that we're not allowed to ask him how many children he's got. Again and again we hear people say 'we know what Johnson is but hasn't he done wonderfully with the vaccine'".
Have Godwin's Law on me. In the 1930s, there were people in Berlin saying "Yeah we know what the Fuehrer is like, but hasn't he done wonderful things with the autobahns?"
-
Funny-not, that johnson sacked twice for lying to the nation via newspapers he worked for but plenty that want to be taken seriously make excuses and obfuscate rather than admit johnson is no better than a used wet wipe.
-
I know what you mean, Sydney: used wet wipes are right lying bas**rds.
-
slimy and covered in shit too
-
You shouldn’t be wiping your arse with wet wipes.
-
I certainly wouldn't do that with boris johnson
-
We may get to the truth after all
''Electoral Commission to investigate Boris Johnson's Downing Street flat renovations
The Electoral Commission has launched a formal investigation into the funding of Boris Johnson's Downing Street flat refurbishments.
The watchdog has been in contact with the Conservative Party since March over works the PM carried out to No 11.
But it has now announced it is "satisfied that there are reasonable''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56915307
-
Nicked from twitter:
It is not surprising Boris Johnson is angry.
He can see the writing on the wall, and he’s just spent nine grand having it papered...
-
Ex-Tory Communication Manager Craig Oliver on R4 just now saying he thinks the most damaging part of all this for Johnson is his missus's disgust at inheriting a flat furnished with stuff from John Lewis.
-
Arlene Foster's gone.
That's what you get for believing what Boris tells you.
-
Just a wild thought, what's the possibility that Carrie might come forward as the person to whom a loan was made, if there was one in the 1st place? Takes the heat off the clown and nothing to declare in his financial report which puts him in the clear, which I hear from the stooges put forward is an annual account, thought it was supposed to be every 6 months!
-
Just a wild thought, what's the possibility that Carrie might come forward as the person to whom a loan was made, if there was one in the 1st place? Takes the heat off the clown and nothing to declare in his financial report which puts him in the clear, which I hear from the stooges put forward is an annual account, thought it was supposed to be every 6 months!
It wouldn't take the heat off at all. She has NO official position, if the money comes through her it's still a donation and Boris still has to declare it. It'd just look even dodgier when audited.
-
So Tory donor Lord Brownose has a finger in the Covid pie carve up;
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/04/28/firm-owned-lord-brownlow-boris-johnsons-downing-street-donor-allowed-to-bid-for-130-million-public-contracts/
What a coincidence eh!
Still, Bozo and Carrie Antoinette can't be expected to live in a skip with John Lewis curtains can they?
-
It may be Carrie the Can soon, johnson doesn't care who he blames.
-
So Johnson has just appointed a new Advisor for Standards. And he's asked him to investigate the flat payments. But Johnson has today refused to say whether he will publish the report.
Good, that, int it?
Some background. The reason he's had to appoint a new Standards Advisor is that the old one resigned in protest. He produced s report into bullying by Priti Patel, that said Priti Patel was a bully. In response, Johnson said, no she wasn't. So the adviser resigned in protest.
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/wCJYzvs.jpg)
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
So Johnson needs an adviser to advise him whether he paid a bill himself?
Who does he have to help him wipe his arse?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/wCJYzvs.jpg)
As a lover of English literature, that, Not, has made my day.
Brilliant!
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
So Johnson needs an adviser to advise him whether he paid a bill himself?
Who does he have to help him wipe his arse?
No, Johnson has declared he paid the bill himself.
All governments have had special advisers since Harold Wilson introduced them for LABOUR in 1964.
Perhaps Johnson has to rely on them more now to assist in the constant accusations of sleaze from a lame opposition while he spends an unprecedented time on much more important issues like The pandemic and Brexit etc.
-
The person running the country and directing policy needs to get a grip on the costs scandal engulfing Downing Street.
Then when Carrie Symonds has done with that she must tell the Prime Minister what to say next.
-
We may get to the truth after all
''Electoral Commission to investigate Boris Johnson's Downing Street flat renovations
The Electoral Commission has launched a formal investigation into the funding of Boris Johnson's Downing Street flat refurbishments.
The watchdog has been in contact with the Conservative Party since March over works the PM carried out to No 11.
But it has now announced it is "satisfied that there are reasonable''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56915307
My understanding is that the Electoral Commission are investigating the activities of the Conservative Party, not Coco himself.
If the Party are found to be in breach of the rules, they can be fined up to £20k.
BB,
The issue is NOT whether Johnson eventually paid the bill himself...it is whether funds were directed to the project over and above the £30k allowed as an undeclared loan.
Failure to declare is the breach of rules as per the ministerial code.
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
So Johnson needs an adviser to advise him whether he paid a bill himself?
Who does he have to help him wipe his arse?
No, Johnson has declared he paid the bill himself.
All governments have had special advisers since Harold Wilson introduced them for LABOUR in 1964.
Perhaps Johnson has to rely on them more now to assist in the constant accusations of sleaze from a lame opposition while he spends an unprecedented time on much more important issues like The pandemic and Brexit etc.
Are you talking about the same person who didn't attend the first five Cobra meetings on the Pandemic?
-
That old chestnut! I'm more up to date than that and looking at now, seeing as it is now that the sleaze accusations are coming in thick and fast from an opposition that is desperate to discredit the government not least because of the vaccine success.
-
That old chestnut! I'm more up to date than that and looking at now, seeing as it is now that the sleaze accusations are coming in thick and fast from an opposition that is desperate to discredit the government not least because of the vaccine success.
Ah, so in your view it is quite unimportant that he deliberately avoided the first five Cobra meetings on such an important matter for the country when such important decisions needed to be agreed on, yes?
But if you are looking at the now, what is your darling PM actually doing in respect of Covid 19? Yes, he very successfully ordered masses of vaccine, but apart from that excellent success the remainder has been passed over, (quite correctly), to the NHS for them to roll out. If, as he says, he's being driven by the science then it's his scientists who are providing all the direction for Johnson to simply sign off on. Wow, that really does look like a taxing amount of work, no wonder it takes up an unprecedented amount of his time! And if Johnson really is 'handling it all' then why do we need a Secretary of State for Health? Shouldn't that be his job?
-
NNK, Had the vaccine output not gone well, the handful of lefties on here would have absolutely, definitely, unquestionably and certainly blamed Boris Johnson, and it is undoubtedly and indubitably obvious that you would have been one of them.
-
NNK, Had the vaccine output not gone well, the handful of lefties on here would have absolutely, definitely, unquestionably and certainly blamed Boris Johnson, and it is undoubtedly and indubitably obvious that you would have been one of them.
Nope, if the rollout of the vaccine had gone badly then that would have been the fault of the NHS as they are the ones managing that bit. The government are only responsible for its acquisition, something they did very well indeed.
Praise where it's due, criticism where it's due. Pity some of you right wingers don't get that!
Oh, and I see you didn't answer my question about Johnson not attending the first five Cobra meetings - I wonder why? Spoiler Alert: See the sentence above this.
-
Nah, you would have unashamedly blamed Boris. I say unashamedly because that is historically how you have acted in your extreme bias against everything Tory over the last half a decade.
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
So Johnson needs an adviser to advise him whether he paid a bill himself?
Who does he have to help him wipe his arse?
No, Johnson has declared he paid the bill himself.
All governments have had special advisers since Harold Wilson introduced them for LABOUR in 1964.
Perhaps Johnson has to rely on them more now to assist in the constant accusations of sleaze from a lame opposition while he spends an unprecedented time on much more important issues like The pandemic and Brexit etc.
Not sure if you have not been paying attention, or you are deliberately dissembling here. Johnson has repeatedly refused to answer when asked who ORIGINALLY paid the bill. That is absolutely vital. Because if someone else did and Johnson didn't declare it, he has broken the ministerial code and should resign. No shades of grey whatsoever.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/wCJYzvs.jpg)
As a lover of English literature, that, Not, has made my day.
Brilliant!
Seconded. That is just genius.
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
So Johnson needs an adviser to advise him whether he paid a bill himself?
Who does he have to help him wipe his arse?
No, Johnson has declared he paid the bill himself.
All governments have had special advisers since Harold Wilson introduced them for LABOUR in 1964.
Perhaps Johnson has to rely on them more now to assist in the constant accusations of sleaze from a lame opposition while he spends an unprecedented time on much more important issues like The pandemic and Brexit etc.
Not sure if you have not been paying attention, or you are deliberately dissembling here. Johnson has repeatedly refused to answer when asked who ORIGINALLY paid the bill. That is absolutely vital. Because if someone else did and Johnson didn't declare it, he has broken the ministerial code and should resign. No shades of grey whatsoever.
If he has to resign so be it. Maybe he is reluctant to respond fully to this latest sleaze accusation because if he did Starmer would just move onto another bit of potential sleaze he can find.
Like I keep correctly saying, and you keep failing to accept, Keir Starmer has got nothing to offer the country in terms of either personality or policy and his only route is to try to drag his opponents down below his own level to have any chance of becoming PM.
-
I said a few pages back it wont be long before posters start attacking the people revealing the sleaze rather than the ones exposing it.
I also said I don't know which is worse - the corrupt, cronyist charlatans using public office to benefit themselves, their old school friends, benefactors and donors - or the sychophants that defend them.
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
So Johnson needs an adviser to advise him whether he paid a bill himself?
Who does he have to help him wipe his arse?
No, Johnson has declared he paid the bill himself.
All governments have had special advisers since Harold Wilson introduced them for LABOUR in 1964.
Perhaps Johnson has to rely on them more now to assist in the constant accusations of sleaze from a lame opposition while he spends an unprecedented time on much more important issues like The pandemic and Brexit etc.
Not sure if you have not been paying attention, or you are deliberately dissembling here. Johnson has repeatedly refused to answer when asked who ORIGINALLY paid the bill. That is absolutely vital. Because if someone else did and Johnson didn't declare it, he has broken the ministerial code and should resign. No shades of grey whatsoever.
If he has to resign so be it. Maybe he is reluctant to respond fully to this latest sleaze accusation because if he did Starmer would just move onto another bit of potential sleaze he can find.
Like I keep correctly saying, and you keep failing to accept, Keir Starmer has got nothing to offer the country in terms of either personality or policy and his only route is to try to drag his opponents down below his own level to have any chance of becoming PM.
Actually that's not quite right BB , Starmer is steering the party towards New Labour territory although it seems to have escaped his attention that New Labour were voted out over a decade ago and lost more votes in the former red wall than Thatcher threw on the scrapheap .
Still it suits the vast majority that make up the present Labour Party because it means they don't have to compromise with the left .
The only flaw of course is that they lose General Election's but don't genuinely appear to know why , they aren't too bright with referendums either .
Still it fills the pages in The Guardian .
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
So Johnson needs an adviser to advise him whether he paid a bill himself?
Who does he have to help him wipe his arse?
No, Johnson has declared he paid the bill himself.
All governments have had special advisers since Harold Wilson introduced them for LABOUR in 1964.
Perhaps Johnson has to rely on them more now to assist in the constant accusations of sleaze from a lame opposition while he spends an unprecedented time on much more important issues like The pandemic and Brexit etc.
Not sure if you have not been paying attention, or you are deliberately dissembling here. Johnson has repeatedly refused to answer when asked who ORIGINALLY paid the bill. That is absolutely vital. Because if someone else did and Johnson didn't declare it, he has broken the ministerial code and should resign. No shades of grey whatsoever.
If he has to resign so be it. Maybe he is reluctant to respond fully to this latest sleaze accusation because if he did Starmer would just move onto another bit of potential sleaze he can find.
Like I keep correctly saying, and you keep failing to accept, Keir Starmer has got nothing to offer the country in terms of either personality or policy and his only route is to try to drag his opponents down below his own level to have any chance of becoming PM.
Actually that's not quite right BB , Starmer is steering the party towards New Labour territory although it seems to have escaped his attention that New Labour were voted out over a decade ago and lost more votes in the former red wall than Thatcher threw on the scrapheap .
Still it suits the vast majority that make up the present Labour Party because it means they don't have to compromise with the left .
The only flaw of course is that they lose General Election's but don't genuinely appear to know why , they aren't too bright with referendums either .
Still it fills the pages in The Guardian .
Perhaps the compromise should be the other way round given the left of the party lost two elections
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
So Johnson needs an adviser to advise him whether he paid a bill himself?
Who does he have to help him wipe his arse?
No, Johnson has declared he paid the bill himself.
All governments have had special advisers since Harold Wilson introduced them for LABOUR in 1964.
Perhaps Johnson has to rely on them more now to assist in the constant accusations of sleaze from a lame opposition while he spends an unprecedented time on much more important issues like The pandemic and Brexit etc.
Not sure if you have not been paying attention, or you are deliberately dissembling here. Johnson has repeatedly refused to answer when asked who ORIGINALLY paid the bill. That is absolutely vital. Because if someone else did and Johnson didn't declare it, he has broken the ministerial code and should resign. No shades of grey whatsoever.
If he has to resign so be it. Maybe he is reluctant to respond fully to this latest sleaze accusation because if he did Starmer would just move onto another bit of potential sleaze he can find.
Like I keep correctly saying, and you keep failing to accept, Keir Starmer has got nothing to offer the country in terms of either personality or policy and his only route is to try to drag his opponents down below his own level to have any chance of becoming PM.
Actually that's not quite right BB , Starmer is steering the party towards New Labour territory although it seems to have escaped his attention that New Labour were voted out over a decade ago and lost more votes in the former red wall than Thatcher threw on the scrapheap .
Still it suits the vast majority that make up the present Labour Party because it means they don't have to compromise with the left .
The only flaw of course is that they lose General Election's but don't genuinely appear to know why , they aren't too bright with referendums either .
Still it fills the pages in The Guardian .
New Labour were only able to be voted out because they were voted in in the first place. When was the last time the true left managed to do that?
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
Now which of our prominent posters told us that BB.
I can’t quite remember.
-
Hound.
Really? I mean, REALLY?
Do you honestly think that applies in this case? That is about political decisions. Choices of policy.
This is about a question of whether Johnson has broken the Ministerial Code of Conduct. The Standards Adviser is being asked to investigate whether Johnson did or did not pay a bill himself. A matter of objective truth which Johnson already knows the answer to but refuses to say.
Do you really think you're being clever making comments like that?
-
Nah, you would have unashamedly blamed Boris. I say unashamedly because that is historically how you have acted in your extreme bias against everything Tory over the last half a decade.
Calling me a liar then BB?
The only reasons I'm critical of the current government are that they are the ones in power, who are lying to the country, have lied to the Queen, have lied in Parliament and who are openly practicing Cronyism - all of which you appear, by your supportive posts, to condone!
For my part, I would be equally critical if Labour were in power and doing the same thing - or are you going to call me a liar again?
Oh, and are you going to answer my previous question?
-
But surely, Not, had the program not worked, then you would have accused the government of lying about how good it would be? And in turn hold them responsible for the failure.
-
But surely, Not, had the program not worked, then you would have accused the government of lying about how good it would be? And in turn hold them responsible for the failure.
The main problem we are dealing with belton is that the government is such an easy target, constantly over promising and under performing. When you add the contempt johnson & many in his government have for non-conservatives is there any wonder that they are scorned. I would think that the majority of criticism they receive on here is supported by fact and valid.
-
Hound.
Really? I mean, REALLY?
Do you honestly think that applies in this case? That is about political decisions. Choices of policy.
This is about a question of whether Johnson has broken the Ministerial Code of Conduct. The Standards Adviser is being asked to investigate whether Johnson did or did not pay a bill himself. A matter of objective truth which Johnson already knows the answer to but refuses to say.
Do you really think you're being clever making comments like that?
BST, I’m not sure why you are asking that question, or what the “really, really” part of your post really means.
BB quoted a post from someone who had said it on here in the past and I couldn’t remember who it was.
Nothing more, nothing less.
My question came to mind after you made a smart arse response to him.
For the record and before you lecture me about this situation, of course I understand the ramifications for the PM if he has broken the ministerial code.
Do you think you are being clever by telling me that.
-
But surely, Not, had the program not worked, then you would have accused the government of lying about how good it would be? And in turn hold them responsible for the failure.
The main problem we are dealing with belton is that the government is such an easy target, constantly over promising and under performing. When you add the contempt johnson & many in his government have for non-conservatives is there any wonder that they are scorned. I would think that the majority of criticism they receive on here is supported by fact and valid.
The government being an easy target is exactly my point, which is why I’m so surprised that Not swears that he would not have blamed the government had the vaccine program gone tits up.
That would have been another easy target for those who are constantly looking to shoot down an easy target.
-
yes
-
But surely, Not, had the program not worked, then you would have accused the government of lying about how good it would be? And in turn hold them responsible for the failure.
The main problem we are dealing with belton is that the government is such an easy target, constantly over promising and under performing. When you add the contempt johnson & many in his government have for non-conservatives is there any wonder that they are scorned. I would think that the majority of criticism they receive on here is supported by fact and valid.
The government being an easy target is exactly my point, which is why I’m so surprised that Not swears that he would not have blamed the government had the vaccine program gone tits up.
That would have been another easy target for those who are constantly looking to shoot down an easy target.
Seems to me you and BB live in a world of 'what if' whilst most of us live in the world of now. The governments job was to procure sufficient vaccine to meet the countries needs. They did that with aplomb and I rightly congratulate them. The rollout of the vaccine was then handed to the NHS and again, they did that with aplomb and I rightly congratulate them too.
I tend to find that the 'what if' syndrome is frequently used to deny the consequences of reality. The reality here is that we have a government of liars who practice cronyism for the benefit of their mates. They get much wrong which should be criticised, they also get a few things right, (vaccine acquisition and the furlough scheme), for which they should be praised.
-
Nah, you would have unashamedly blamed Boris. I say unashamedly because that is historically how you have acted in your extreme bias against everything Tory over the last half a decade.
Calling me a liar then BB?
The only reasons I'm critical of the current government are that they are the ones in power, who are lying to the country, have lied to the Queen, have lied in Parliament and who are openly practicing Cronyism - all of which you appear, by your supportive posts, to condone!
For my part, I would be equally critical if Labour were in power and doing the same thing - or are you going to call me a liar again?
Oh, and are you going to answer my previous question?
Not so much calling you a liar, more claiming your likelihood of sticking to a habit that you've had for the last half a decade - One that has blamed the government for absolutely everything negative that has occurred, and given them absolutely no credit for anything positive that has occurred. Simple really.
Regarding Johnson allegedly skipping five Cobra meetings, apparently, there were Cobra meeting going on all over the place so whether he was expected to chair them all I don't know. You no doubt will be confident that you know the truth, having read lefty anti-government press coverage on the subject.
-
Advisors advise, ministers decide.
So Johnson needs an adviser to advise him whether he paid a bill himself?
Who does he have to help him wipe his arse?
No, Johnson has declared he paid the bill himself.
All governments have had special advisers since Harold Wilson introduced them for LABOUR in 1964.
Perhaps Johnson has to rely on them more now to assist in the constant accusations of sleaze from a lame opposition while he spends an unprecedented time on much more important issues like The pandemic and Brexit etc.
Not sure if you have not been paying attention, or you are deliberately dissembling here. Johnson has repeatedly refused to answer when asked who ORIGINALLY paid the bill. That is absolutely vital. Because if someone else did and Johnson didn't declare it, he has broken the ministerial code and should resign. No shades of grey whatsoever.
If he has to resign so be it. Maybe he is reluctant to respond fully to this latest sleaze accusation because if he did Starmer would just move onto another bit of potential sleaze he can find.
Like I keep correctly saying, and you keep failing to accept, Keir Starmer has got nothing to offer the country in terms of either personality or policy and his only route is to try to drag his opponents down below his own level to have any chance of becoming PM.
Actually that's not quite right BB , Starmer is steering the party towards New Labour territory although it seems to have escaped his attention that New Labour were voted out over a decade ago and lost more votes in the former red wall than Thatcher threw on the scrapheap .
Still it suits the vast majority that make up the present Labour Party because it means they don't have to compromise with the left .
The only flaw of course is that they lose General Election's but don't genuinely appear to know why , they aren't too bright with referendums either .
Still it fills the pages in The Guardian .
New Labour were only able to be voted out because they were voted in in the first place. When was the last time the true left managed to do that?
There won't ever be a true left wing government Glyn as well you know , although twenty five Blair election victories isn't worth one Atlee victory in 1945 in my opinion .
As soon as Mandelson was brought back to the fold it was pretty obvious the left weren't even worth a seat at the table , so much for Starmer's claims of reuniting the party .
Mandelson the man who boasted he made an effort to undermine Corbyn's leadership every day .
If those are the kind of people you want to hang your hat on then that's up to you .
Personally I can't stand the sight of the centre of the Labour Party never mind vote for em anymore .
-
Whilst I'm on the subject of Mandelson and to remain on topic .
Does anyone wish to remind us why Mandelson had to step down from his senior position in Blair's government in 1998 ?
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
-
I’d rather have a poor Labour Government than a poor Tory Government.
-
What frightens me is that the reality of the way the government is operating isn’t getting out to the wider public
because of the biased and selective reporting of the Tory owned media, and the now Tory run BBC.
I don’t think they are all stupid. Many are just uninformed.
-
Nah, you would have unashamedly blamed Boris. I say unashamedly because that is historically how you have acted in your extreme bias against everything Tory over the last half a decade.
Calling me a liar then BB?
The only reasons I'm critical of the current government are that they are the ones in power, who are lying to the country, have lied to the Queen, have lied in Parliament and who are openly practicing Cronyism - all of which you appear, by your supportive posts, to condone!
For my part, I would be equally critical if Labour were in power and doing the same thing - or are you going to call me a liar again?
Oh, and are you going to answer my previous question?
Not so much calling you a liar, more claiming your likelihood of sticking to a habit that you've had for the last half a decade - One that has blamed the government for absolutely everything negative that has occurred, and given them absolutely no credit for anything positive that has occurred. Simple really.
Regarding Johnson allegedly skipping five Cobra meetings, apparently, there were Cobra meeting going on all over the place so whether he was expected to chair them all I don't know. You no doubt will be confident that you know the truth, having read lefty anti-government press coverage on the subject.
So it's wrong to criticise the government for everything they get wrong? Really? But I have praised them for the things they got right, (speedy and plentiful acquisition of vaccine and the furlough scheme), it's just that they get far more wrong than they get right - but the blinkered somehow can't see that. As my Dad used to say 'there's none so blind as them who refuse to see!'
Cobra meetings aren't held all over the place BB, they're held in the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms, hence the name, (someone stuck an A on the end to make it sound good!). Attendance and the chair are normally determined by the subject being discussed and there is no 'formal' list of who should attend. However, The PM would normally attend for matters of national importance such as the pandemic. Perhaps he was hiding in a fridge again, or choosing wallpaper.
It's nothing to do with lefty anti government press coverage, it's to do with matters of state of the utmost importance - unless you believe that the pandemic is really just a slightly exaggerated cold and a few hundred thousand deaths don't matter!
-
Johnson wasn't hiding or choosing wallpaper. He was having a few weeks off to sort out his divorce. That's why he didn't attend the COBRA meetings.
-
Johnson wasn't hiding or choosing wallpaper. He was having a few weeks off to sort out his divorce. That's why he didn't attend the COBRA meetings.
Thanks for the correction BST. :) Glad to see he was getting his priorities right!
-
What frightens me is that the reality of the way the government is operating isn’t getting out to the wider public
because of the biased and selective reporting of the Tory owned media, and the now Tory run BBC.
I don’t think they are all stupid. Many are just uninformed.
So it's nothing to do with Starmer and the Labour Party who are so completely deluded they'd send a Pro EU candidate up to Hartlepool to fight a by-election ?.
Even more deluded they'd bring back a stained character in Mandelson to promote a New Labour reset because they are so short of ideas they have to go back to the back catalogue of 24 years ago .
But it's the media ..... right ??? , or the electorate are thick maybe ?
The Labour Party deserves everything it gets because most of it is self inflicted , something many within it fail to accept .
Absolute cowards even with 13 years of power post Thatcher to change owt of significance for those who suffered the most under that woman .
Now they want to go back to it and you expect the likes of me ex NUM and an former active trade union man post mining to vote for this b@llax .
As much as Corbyn was a poor leader in many respects at least he offered real change , something the centre of this god forsaken Party plotted against every day during his tenure despite the fact the fellow won two leadership contests convincingly .
And you want me to back this shyte ?
I'd buy a season ticket at Hillsborough in league One whilst my club were in the PL before vote Labour .
-
What frightens me is that the reality of the way the government is operating isn’t getting out to the wider public
because of the biased and selective reporting of the Tory owned media, and the now Tory run BBC.
I don’t think they are all stupid. Many are just uninformed.
So it's nothing to do with Starmer and the Labour Party who are so completely deluded they'd send a Pro EU candidate up to Hartlepool to fight a by-election ?.
Even more deluded they'd bring back a stained character in Mandelson to promote a New Labour reset because they are so short of ideas they have to go back to the back catalogue of 24 years ago .
But it's the media ..... right ??? , or the electorate are thick maybe ?
The Labour Party deserves everything it gets because most of it is self inflicted , something many within it fail to accept .
Absolute cowards even with 13 years of power post Thatcher to change owt of significance for those who suffered the most under that woman .
Now they want to go back to it and you expect the likes of me ex NUM and an former active trade union man post mining to vote for this b@llax .
As much as Corbyn was a poor leader in many respects at least he offered real change , something the centre of this god forsaken Party plotted against every day during his tenure despite the fact the fellow won two leadership contests convincingly .
And you want me to back this shyte ?
I'd buy a season ticket at Hillsborough in league One whilst my club were in the PL before vote Labour .
Tyke, as I said before, it is posts like that one by foxbat that drive people away from voting Labour.
-
Have you ever voted labour hound?
-
What frightens me is that the reality of the way the government is operating isn’t getting out to the wider public
because of the biased and selective reporting of the Tory owned media, and the now Tory run BBC.
I don’t think they are all stupid. Many are just uninformed.
So it's nothing to do with Starmer and the Labour Party who are so completely deluded they'd send a Pro EU candidate up to Hartlepool to fight a by-election ?.
Even more deluded they'd bring back a stained character in Mandelson to promote a New Labour reset because they are so short of ideas they have to go back to the back catalogue of 24 years ago .
But it's the media ..... right ??? , or the electorate are thick maybe ?
The Labour Party deserves everything it gets because most of it is self inflicted , something many within it fail to accept .
Absolute cowards even with 13 years of power post Thatcher to change owt of significance for those who suffered the most under that woman .
Now they want to go back to it and you expect the likes of me ex NUM and an former active trade union man post mining to vote for this b@llax .
As much as Corbyn was a poor leader in many respects at least he offered real change , something the centre of this god forsaken Party plotted against every day during his tenure despite the fact the fellow won two leadership contests convincingly .
And you want me to back this shyte ?
I'd buy a season ticket at Hillsborough in league One whilst my club were in the PL before vote Labour .
Tyke, as I said before, it is posts like that one by foxbat that drive people away from voting Labour.
Hound its a conscious vote , at least we don't vote Tory for those who hang on to this catastrophe that is presently New Labour part two .
That's all it is , there's absolutely no conviction or anything else to add .
We aren't Tory voters so therefore we are pure whilst providing no alternative what so ever .
The truth is they don't want change the only thing they want is not to be the Tories but with more or less the same mindset , the only thing that seperates them is the Tory stain at dinner party's .
That's the core Labour vote as stands today in a nutshell .
It's the media that's against us , the former red wall are thick racists , it's not our fault .
The truth is none of these feckers have ever stood up for anything in their lives , had to use a foodbank , missed out on an agency job opportunity in hard times because Pieter will work the weekend for single time .
Ain't a fecking clue .
A global pandemic , a worldwide reset and absolutely nothing coming out of the Labour Party .
At least the fecking Lib Dems stood behind something at the last election as flawed as it was .
This lot , well you tell me ?
-
Tyke you should know by now that hound will find a way to disparage anyone that has ever disagreed with him on any subject.
Have you ever voted labour hound?
The implication of this hackneyed line about 'people won't vote labour because' A,B,C,D,E,F ......
is that with a better leader or under other circumstances etc that they may, could or would but in reality the majority trotting this old chestnut out would never vote labour and most likely never had.
Which is why the 'have you ever voted labour' Hound question is important as it goes directly to whether it is a genuine conversation or not.
-
Based on what he posts it would seem that Hound is perfectly happy to be lied to, for the Queen to be lied to and for cronyism to continue by this government. Oh, and for them to break the law and threaten to break international law. And all because he doesn't like people on here pointing out these things to him.
Go figure!
-
Tyke you should know by now that hound will find a way to disparage anyone that has ever disagreed with him on any subject.
Have you ever voted labour hound?
The implication of this hackneyed line about 'people won't vote labour because' A,B,C,D,E,F ......
is that with a better leader or under other circumstances etc that they may, could or would but in reality the majority trotting this old chestnut out would never vote labour and most likely never had.
Which is why the 'have you ever voted labour' Hound question is important as it goes directly to whether it is a genuine conversation or not.
SR,
Question one, I don’t know how to answer that.
If I say your statement isn’t true then you will say “I told you so”.
However I will risk that, so no, it isn’t true.
In fact it is a load of rubbish.
I have even agreed with your leader on some things.
Trawl back through my posts ( as you often do) and you will find plenty of evidence to back that up.
Question two, yes I have. (Filo might even click the like button on that one too).
Don’t bother asking me to have a conversation with you about this though.
Edit. That post by Kato has backed up one of my previous points.
-
Nah, you would have unashamedly blamed Boris. I say unashamedly because that is historically how you have acted in your extreme bias against everything Tory over the last half a decade.
Calling me a liar then BB?
The only reasons I'm critical of the current government are that they are the ones in power, who are lying to the country, have lied to the Queen, have lied in Parliament and who are openly practicing Cronyism - all of which you appear, by your supportive posts, to condone!
For my part, I would be equally critical if Labour were in power and doing the same thing - or are you going to call me a liar again?
Oh, and are you going to answer my previous question?
Not so much calling you a liar, more claiming your likelihood of sticking to a habit that you've had for the last half a decade - One that has blamed the government for absolutely everything negative that has occurred, and given them absolutely no credit for anything positive that has occurred. Simple really.
Regarding Johnson allegedly skipping five Cobra meetings, apparently, there were Cobra meeting going on all over the place so whether he was expected to chair them all I don't know. You no doubt will be confident that you know the truth, having read lefty anti-government press coverage on the subject.
So it's wrong to criticise the government for everything they get wrong? Really? But I have praised them for the things they got right, (speedy and plentiful acquisition of vaccine and the furlough scheme), it's just that they get far more wrong than they get right - but the blinkered somehow can't see that. As my Dad used to say 'there's none so blind as them who refuse to see!'
Cobra meetings aren't held all over the place BB, they're held in the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms, hence the name, (someone stuck an A on the end to make it sound good!). Attendance and the chair are normally determined by the subject being discussed and there is no 'formal' list of who should attend. However, The PM would normally attend for matters of national importance such as the pandemic. Perhaps he was hiding in a fridge again, or choosing wallpaper.
It's nothing to do with lefty anti government press coverage, it's to do with matters of state of the utmost importance - unless you believe that the pandemic is really just a slightly exaggerated cold and a few hundred thousand deaths don't matter!
NNK, you obviously have a far more generous perception of your own integrity judging by your posts. You have, as have many Labour party supporters, an arrogance that is not unlike a typical L**ds United supporter, and that is quite possibly why both sets of supporters do an equal amount of harm towards attracting new support, especially from those of us who don't possess such arrogance.
For instance, where have you seen the fact that Boris lied to the queen?
Where have you shown equal disdain for Starmer lying to the country?
The composition of any COBR meeting will depend on the situation being discussed. It will be a mixture of officials and agency personnel, alongside ministers, from relevant departments and agencies. The meetings are often chaired by the most senior minister in the room, and the prime minister if he or she is attending, but not always.
There are meetings across government, some of which are chaired by the Health Secretary, some which are chaired by other ministers. but the Prime Minister takes all the major decisions.
Unlike a Cabinet meeting - where frontbenchers meet the prime minister - there is no rigid register for who should attend a Cobra meeting and not even Boris Johnson has to attend.
-
it's a bit early bb
-
Tyke you should know by now that hound will find a way to disparage anyone that has ever disagreed with him on any subject.
Have you ever voted labour hound?
The implication of this hackneyed line about 'people won't vote labour because' A,B,C,D,E,F ......
is that with a better leader or under other circumstances etc that they may, could or would but in reality the majority trotting this old chestnut out would never vote labour and most likely never had.
Which is why the 'have you ever voted labour' Hound question is important as it goes directly to whether it is a genuine conversation or not.
SR,
Question one, I don’t know how to answer that.
If I say your statement isn’t true then you will say “I told you so”.
However I will risk that, so no, it isn’t true.
In fact it is a load of rubbish.
I have even agreed with your leader on some things.
Trawl back through my posts ( as you often do) and you will find plenty of evidence to back that up.
Question two, yes I have. (Filo might even click the like button on that one too).
Don’t bother asking me to have a conversation with you about this though.
Edit. That post by Kato has backed up one of my previous points.
It wasn't a statement it was a question, which I think you answered but unsure, hard to know.
A yes or no would have been simpler and you don't have to tell me what my reaction would be either.
-
Nah, you would have unashamedly blamed Boris. I say unashamedly because that is historically how you have acted in your extreme bias against everything Tory over the last half a decade.
Calling me a liar then BB?
The only reasons I'm critical of the current government are that they are the ones in power, who are lying to the country, have lied to the Queen, have lied in Parliament and who are openly practicing Cronyism - all of which you appear, by your supportive posts, to condone!
For my part, I would be equally critical if Labour were in power and doing the same thing - or are you going to call me a liar again?
Oh, and are you going to answer my previous question?
Not so much calling you a liar, more claiming your likelihood of sticking to a habit that you've had for the last half a decade - One that has blamed the government for absolutely everything negative that has occurred, and given them absolutely no credit for anything positive that has occurred. Simple really.
Regarding Johnson allegedly skipping five Cobra meetings, apparently, there were Cobra meeting going on all over the place so whether he was expected to chair them all I don't know. You no doubt will be confident that you know the truth, having read lefty anti-government press coverage on the subject.
So it's wrong to criticise the government for everything they get wrong? Really? But I have praised them for the things they got right, (speedy and plentiful acquisition of vaccine and the furlough scheme), it's just that they get far more wrong than they get right - but the blinkered somehow can't see that. As my Dad used to say 'there's none so blind as them who refuse to see!'
Cobra meetings aren't held all over the place BB, they're held in the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms, hence the name, (someone stuck an A on the end to make it sound good!). Attendance and the chair are normally determined by the subject being discussed and there is no 'formal' list of who should attend. However, The PM would normally attend for matters of national importance such as the pandemic. Perhaps he was hiding in a fridge again, or choosing wallpaper.
It's nothing to do with lefty anti government press coverage, it's to do with matters of state of the utmost importance - unless you believe that the pandemic is really just a slightly exaggerated cold and a few hundred thousand deaths don't matter!
NNK, you obviously have a far more generous perception of your own integrity judging by your posts. You have, as have many Labour party supporters, an arrogance that is not unlike a typical L**ds United supporter, and that is quite possibly why both sets of supporters do an equal amount of harm towards attracting new support, especially from those of us who don't possess such arrogance.
For instance, where have you seen the fact that Boris lied to the queen?
Are you serious BB? Where on earth have you been. Johnson went to the Queen and told her, illegally, and lying, that he had to prorogue parliament. He was subsequently taken to court and lost!
Where have you shown equal disdain for Starmer lying to the country?
Starmer lied once, in parliament, he subsequently retraced what he'd said an apologised. So far as I'm aware, he has never lied to the country. Do you have evidence that he has - unlike your lover Johnson?
The composition of any COBR meeting will depend on the situation being discussed. It will be a mixture of officials and agency personnel, alongside ministers, from relevant departments and agencies. The meetings are often chaired by the most senior minister in the room, and the prime minister if he or she is attending, but not always.
It's COBRA, and isn't that what I already said? Or do you have difficulty reading?
There are meetings across government, some of which are chaired by the Health Secretary, some which are chaired by other ministers. but the Prime Minister takes all the major decisions.
Unlike a Cabinet meeting - where frontbenchers meet the prime minister - there is no rigid register for who should attend a Cobra meeting and not even Boris Johnson has to attend.
Again, that what I already said? Or do you have difficulty reading?
You really have problems BB, I recommend you see someone about it, seriously!
-
No NNK, The only problem I have is with people like you. The supreme court stopped short of saying Johnson had an improper motive for proroguing parliament, nor did it say he lied.
At least we've cleared up the misunderstanding as to the legitimacy of Johnson's absence from some of the COBRA meetings.
-
Maybe the public have had enough
''Tory poll lead slashed as key elections loom across Britain
Stories of Conservative sleaze appear to be having an impact as Keir Starmer faces his first electoral test as Labour leader on 6 May''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/01/tory-poll-lead-slashed-as-key-elections-loom-across-britain
-
Yep, looks like your gonna win Sydney. Well done.
-
Maybe the public have had enough
''Tory poll lead slashed as key elections loom across Britain
Stories of Conservative sleaze appear to be having an impact as Keir Starmer faces his first electoral test as Labour leader on 6 May''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/01/tory-poll-lead-slashed-as-key-elections-loom-across-britain
-
Yep, you're right. are you flying over to join the celebrations?
-
Maybe the public have had enough
''Tory poll lead slashed as key elections loom across Britain
Stories of Conservative sleaze appear to be having an impact as Keir Starmer faces his first electoral test as Labour leader on 6 May''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/01/tory-poll-lead-slashed-as-key-elections-loom-across-britain
What's to celebrate the country has no self respect while they keep voting for a liar and a cheat (ask his extended family) and all because little britishers allow the yellow press and media to tell them all's ok
-
Yep, looks like your gonna win Sydney. Well done.
.....and if they don’t win they will still claim it was a successful night because they halved the Tory lead in the polls. :facepalm:
-
boo
-
Nah, you would have unashamedly blamed Boris. I say unashamedly because that is historically how you have acted in your extreme bias against everything Tory over the last half a decade.
Calling me a liar then BB?
The only reasons I'm critical of the current government are that they are the ones in power, who are lying to the country, have lied to the Queen, have lied in Parliament and who are openly practicing Cronyism - all of which you appear, by your supportive posts, to condone!
For my part, I would be equally critical if Labour were in power and doing the same thing - or are you going to call me a liar again?
Oh, and are you going to answer my previous question?
Not so much calling you a liar, more claiming your likelihood of sticking to a habit that you've had for the last half a decade - One that has blamed the government for absolutely everything negative that has occurred, and given them absolutely no credit for anything positive that has occurred. Simple really.
Regarding Johnson allegedly skipping five Cobra meetings, apparently, there were Cobra meeting going on all over the place so whether he was expected to chair them all I don't know. You no doubt will be confident that you know the truth, having read lefty anti-government press coverage on the subject.
So it's wrong to criticise the government for everything they get wrong? Really? But I have praised them for the things they got right, (speedy and plentiful acquisition of vaccine and the furlough scheme), it's just that they get far more wrong than they get right - but the blinkered somehow can't see that. As my Dad used to say 'there's none so blind as them who refuse to see!'
Cobra meetings aren't held all over the place BB, they're held in the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms, hence the name, (someone stuck an A on the end to make it sound good!). Attendance and the chair are normally determined by the subject being discussed and there is no 'formal' list of who should attend. However, The PM would normally attend for matters of national importance such as the pandemic. Perhaps he was hiding in a fridge again, or choosing wallpaper.
It's nothing to do with lefty anti government press coverage, it's to do with matters of state of the utmost importance - unless you believe that the pandemic is really just a slightly exaggerated cold and a few hundred thousand deaths don't matter!
NNK, you obviously have a far more generous perception of your own integrity judging by your posts. You have, as have many Labour party supporters, an arrogance that is not unlike a typical L**ds United supporter, and that is quite possibly why both sets of supporters do an equal amount of harm towards attracting new support, especially from those of us who don't possess such arrogance.
For instance, where have you seen the fact that Boris lied to the queen?
Are you serious BB? Where on earth have you been. Johnson went to the Queen and told her, illegally, and lying, that he had to prorogue parliament. He was subsequently taken to court and lost!
Where have you shown equal disdain for Starmer lying to the country?
Starmer lied once, in parliament, he subsequently retraced what he'd said an apologised. So far as I'm aware, he has never lied to the country. Do you have evidence that he has - unlike your lover Johnson?
The composition of any COBR meeting will depend on the situation being discussed. It will be a mixture of officials and agency personnel, alongside ministers, from relevant departments and agencies. The meetings are often chaired by the most senior minister in the room, and the prime minister if he or she is attending, but not always.
It's COBRA, and isn't that what I already said? Or do you have difficulty reading?
There are meetings across government, some of which are chaired by the Health Secretary, some which are chaired by other ministers. but the Prime Minister takes all the major decisions.
Unlike a Cabinet meeting - where frontbenchers meet the prime minister - there is no rigid register for who should attend a Cobra meeting and not even Boris Johnson has to attend.
Again, that what I already said? Or do you have difficulty reading?
You really have problems BB, I recommend you see someone about it, seriously!
You missed the important bit NNK.
In which BB accuesses someone else of being arrogant!
It appears he now know the intracicies of judical law - and Johnson's own motivations. Seems to have replaed Cummings as Johnson's apologist in chief.
'Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth'.
-
Nay Mr Wilts. I'm not the one who's started multiple threads about Brexit that were intended to aggravate and antagonise.
That's arrogance!
-
A video cataloguing Boris Johnson's lies and deceptions to Parilament:
https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1385117754752212992
....but still people defend him.
-
Billy has said a few times that the best con is when the mark doesn't even know, It now looks like following getting brexit up johnson & Co have said 'well they swallowed one we can do anything.
When Laura K is calling him out it must be serious.
-
In a crowded field, this stands out head and shoulders as the worst thing Kuenssberg has ever written.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56624437.amp
How can you write an article on whether Johnson lies without mentioning the fact that he has twice been sacked for lying?
Or mentioning his lies over the NI situation post-Brexit?
Or mentioning the list of his proven lies, collated by right wing journalist Peter Oborne?
Or mentioning the fact that he kick started his career by regularly writing lies about bent bananas and EU condoms?
Or mentioning his string of marital infidelities and that fact that he won't even admit how many illegitimate kids he has?
Or mentioning the fact that he looked solemnly at the British public and said "we truly did all we could" to prevent COVID deaths, when we know that he overruled SAGE advice on lockdown.
Nope. None of that. Just quotes from Tory MPs. And this, which might be the most craven, abhorrent line I've ever seen from a political journalist.
"What's suggested time and again is that the prime minister's attitude to the truth and facts is not based on what is real and what is not, but is driven by what he wants to achieve in that moment - what he desires, rather than what he believes. And there is no question, that approach, coupled with an intense force of personality can be enormously effective.
In his political career, Boris Johnson has time and again overturned the odds, and that's a huge part of the reason why."
She's there. In black and shite. Pumping a line that says "It doesn't matter if the PM is a habitual liar. It works. He wins doing it."
-
That "black and shite" is the most apt typo I've ever done.
-
You can't really expect the BBC to list johnson's entire rap sheet Billy, there'd be no room for other news.
-
In a crowded field, this stands out head and shoulders as the worst thing Kuenssberg has ever written.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56624437.amp
How can you write an article on whether Johnson lies without mentioning the fact that he has twice been sacked for lying?
Or mentioning his lies over the NI situation post-Brexit?
Or mentioning the list of his proven lies, collated by right wing journalist Peter Oborne?
Or mentioning the fact that he kick started his career by regularly writing lies about bent bananas and EU condoms?
Or mentioning his string of marital infidelities and that fact that he won't even admit how many illegitimate kids he has?
Or mentioning the fact that he looked solemnly at the British public and said "we truly did all we could" to prevent COVID deaths, when we know that he overruled SAGE advice on lockdown.
Nope. None of that. Just quotes from Tory MPs. And this, which might be the most craven, abhorrent line I've ever seen from a political journalist.
"What's suggested time and again is that the prime minister's attitude to the truth and facts is not based on what is real and what is not, but is driven by what he wants to achieve in that moment - what he desires, rather than what he believes. And there is no question, that approach, coupled with an intense force of personality can be enormously effective.
In his political career, Boris Johnson has time and again overturned the odds, and that's a huge part of the reason why."
She's there. In black and shite. Pumping a line that says "It doesn't matter if the PM is a habitual liar. It works. He wins doing it."
Accepting all that, I'd still rather have the cretin than a Labour government
-
Why is that Ldr? What Labour policies do you so despise that you'd prefer a habitual liar as PM to them?
-
Meanwhile. If you were a Russian oligarch, say with links to the Tory party. Or if you were the son of a KGB colonel who had had Johnson over to his Italian palace for lost weekend bunga-bunga parties.
Don't you reckon that your mates in the Kremlin would be interested in this?
https://mobile.twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1388543364279242757
-
So it now transpires that Johnson, who can't afford to makes ends meet on £157k a year, has had a Tory donor pay for his sprog's nanny.
I thought the Tory line was that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them?
-
Why is that Ldr? What Labour policies do you so despise that you'd prefer a habitual liar as PM to them?
Personalities rather than policies BST
-
Why is that Ldr? What Labour policies do you so despise that you'd prefer a habitual liar as PM to them?
Personalities rather than policies BST
Since when has a General Election been a personality contest?
-
Why is that Ldr? What Labour policies do you so despise that you'd prefer a habitual liar as PM to them?
Personalities rather than policies BST
So pretty much saying you would prefer a lying, sleazy, morally and financially corrupt leader and all but neo-fascist party - who would rather bung millions to their mates and donors then feed hunry children or offer finacial support to 3m small businesses struggling in a pandemic - because they are led by someone who is funny?
The country as we know it is doomed.
-
Since Tony Blair and the Labour Party won elections that way Filo.
-
Selby.
Labour could have been led by Frankenstein's monster in 1997 and they'd still have won.
-
So it now transpires that Johnson, who can't afford to makes ends meet on £157k a year, has had a Tory donor pay for his sprog's nanny.
I thought the Tory line was that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them?
If all this proves correct it proves he is a puppet of big donors and susceptible to bribery and coercion
-
Why is that Ldr? What Labour policies do you so despise that you'd prefer a habitual liar as PM to them?
Personalities rather than policies BST
So pretty much saying you would prefer a lying, sleazy, morally and financially corrupt leader and all but neo-fascist party - who would rather bung millions to their mates and donors then feed hunry children or offer finacial support to 3m small businesses struggling in a pandemic - because they are led by someone who is funny?
The country as we know it is doomed.
if you're happy and you know it clap your hands ....................
-
Why is that Ldr? What Labour policies do you so despise that you'd prefer a habitual liar as PM to them?
Personalities rather than policies BST
So pretty much saying you would prefer a lying, sleazy, morally and financially corrupt leader and all but neo-fascist party - who would rather bung millions to their mates and donors then feed hunry children or offer finacial support to 3m small businesses struggling in a pandemic - because they are led by someone who is funny?
The country as we know it is doomed.
if you're happy and you know it clap your hands ....................
You'd think a decent opposition party would cut through though wouldn't you Sydney .
I mean if the government is as corrupt as many are claiming which by the way I don't doubt for minute then the next election should be a slam dunk for Labour .
Those horrible fruit cakes on the left back in the box , a credible leader the Tory press can't get an angle on because he's so pure .
I mean for goodness sake the Labour leader isn't facing off against Thatcher it's a buffoon who if he speaks three words two of em are lies .
How easy does it have to be ?
How's the polls doing ?
I hear Labour have shaved 1% off the Tory lead on the back of this wallpaper business .
The biggest scandal yet and a 1% gain .
It's not going to be a great look next week when Labour are trashed in the elections which looks extremely likely .
I blame the Telegraph myself but that's just me .
:rolleyes:
-
The story now coming from Tory sources is that Johnson had now idea what bills his missus was running up on the flat until he was lumbered with the bill (said to be £200k). And apparently he is skint because he ex-wife (the one he left after she was diagnosed with cancer) took him to the cleaners over his divorce (the divorce he was sorting out in that 20 days when he pretty much vanished in Feb last year as COVID was taking hold.
So apparently, the Cabinet Office, Tory party and donors covered the bill. Then journalists and Opposition MPs started asking questions 2-3 months ago and he realised he was in deep shit over this, so he has taken out a huge bank loan to pay them back. But as of today, there is no sign that he has submitted the loan on the Register of Interests, which he is obliged to do.
The Sunday Times today reported that it's believed Cummings has a huge stash of e-mails and Whats App messages from Johnson that suggests there are some other firecrackers waiting to be exposed. And that Cummings has said he wants to bring Johnson down and see Sunak at No10. Which might explain why Sunak has not exactly been conspicuous in shouting out support for Johnson this past week.
-
Why is that Ldr? What Labour policies do you so despise that you'd prefer a habitual liar as PM to them?
Personalities rather than policies BST
So pretty much saying you would prefer a lying, sleazy, morally and financially corrupt leader and all but neo-fascist party - who would rather bung millions to their mates and donors then feed hunry children or offer finacial support to 3m small businesses struggling in a pandemic - because they are led by someone who is funny?
The country as we know it is doomed.
if you're happy and you know it clap your hands ....................
You'd think a decent opposition party would cut through though wouldn't you Sydney .
I mean if the government is as corrupt as many are claiming which by the way I don't doubt for minute then the next election should be a slam dunk for Labour .
Those horrible fruit cakes on the left back in the box , a credible leader the Tory press can't get an angle on because he's so pure .
I mean for goodness sake the Labour leader isn't facing off against Thatcher it's a buffoon who if he speaks three words two of em are lies .
How easy does it have to be ?
How's the polls doing ?
I hear Labour have shaved 1% off the Tory lead on the back of this wallpaper business .
The biggest scandal yet and a 1% gain .
It's not going to be a great look next week when Labour are trashed in the elections which looks extremely likely .
I blame the Telegraph myself but that's just me .
:rolleyes:
Tyke. 10 days ago, the Tories' lead in the polls was 8-10%, in great part due to people on the Left having deserted Labour since the New Year. Over the weekend, there were four polls published, with the average Tory lead being 4%.
I know you are obsessed with Labour and Starmer being a failure, but I suggest you show a bit of patience on this. There is a long, long way before the next election and a lot of water to flow under the bridge.
-
Tyke, what is required is strong and steady leadership and messaging ......... one voice, there's a long time to the main event, all sides have to give a bit and Starmer as I see it is clearing a path because he knows as well as anyone 'disunity is death'
Some are going to have there noses put out but maybe they should hold them instead and support someone that is going to be acceptable to enough at the right time. If the left of the party won't play ball and bring the left along it means Starmer will have to move more centrally to get the votes required.
I posted before about those saying 'people won't vote labour because a,b,c,d,e ...... etc and like Ldr's comment how do you counter insanity, johnson over Starmer!!! ffs. Would you prefer May, Cameron, Raab, Patel, Gove take your pick Ldr, it's not a serious argument.
It's not here on the forum that labour will win it's out there in the real world and if any cannot see and take a lessons from Biden then they deserve yet another tory government.
And you are correct to blame certain papers but they are just looking after the many hands that feed them.
This is a battle that will last the ages, eternal vigilance etc. Emily Pankhurst was still alive when my parents were born
-
No NNK, The only problem I have is with people like you. The supreme court stopped short of saying Johnson had an improper motive for proroguing parliament, nor did it say he lied.
At least we've cleared up the misunderstanding as to the legitimacy of Johnson's absence from some of the COBRA meetings.
I think you should take a trip to Barnard Castle BB as the problem you seem to have is the ability to read what's writ! here's what I said again....
Johnson went to the Queen and told her, illegally, and lying, that he had to prorogue parliament. He was subsequently taken to court and lost!
Are you suggesting that he didn't go to the Queen and lie? Did the Supreme Court not rule that Johnson's proroguing of parliament was against the law? As that is all I said in my sentence above! A simple yes or no will suffice.
-
I'm not suggesting anything! I'm telling you that the supreme court stopped short of saying Johnson had an improper motive for proroguing parliament, nor did it say he lied.
-
Tyke, what is required is strong and steady leadership and messaging ......... one voice, there's a long time to the main event, all sides have to give a bit and Starmer as I see it is clearing a path because he knows as well as anyone 'disunity is death'
Some are going to have there noses put out but maybe they should hold them instead and support someone that is going to be acceptable to enough at the right time. If the left of the party won't play ball and bring the left along it means Starmer will have to move more centrally to get the votes required.
I posted before about those saying 'people won't vote labour because a,b,c,d,e ...... etc and like Ldr's comment how do you counter insanity, johnson over Starmer!!! ffs. Would you prefer May, Cameron, Raab, Patel, Gove take your pick Ldr, it's not a serious argument.
It's not here on the forum that labour will win it's out there in the real world and if any cannot see and take a lessons from Biden then they deserve yet another tory government.
And you are correct to blame certain papers but they are just looking after the many hands that feed them.
This is a battle that will last the ages, eternal vigilance etc. Emily Pankhurst was still alive when my parents were born
I'm afraid the guilt-tripping angle to get people to vote Labour is a pretty flawed strategy if the party isn't worth supporting in its own right .
-
Tyke, what is required is strong and steady leadership and messaging ......... one voice, there's a long time to the main event, all sides have to give a bit and Starmer as I see it is clearing a path because he knows as well as anyone 'disunity is death'
Some are going to have there noses put out but maybe they should hold them instead and support someone that is going to be acceptable to enough at the right time. If the left of the party won't play ball and bring the left along it means Starmer will have to move more centrally to get the votes required.
I posted before about those saying 'people won't vote labour because a,b,c,d,e ...... etc and like Ldr's comment how do you counter insanity, johnson over Starmer!!! ffs. Would you prefer May, Cameron, Raab, Patel, Gove take your pick Ldr, it's not a serious argument.
It's not here on the forum that labour will win it's out there in the real world and if any cannot see and take a lessons from Biden then they deserve yet another tory government.
And you are correct to blame certain papers but they are just looking after the many hands that feed them.
This is a battle that will last the ages, eternal vigilance etc. Emily Pankhurst was still alive when my parents were born
I'm afraid the guilt-tripping angle to get people to vote Labour is a pretty flawed strategy if the party isn't worth supporting in its own right .
Too right tyke.
-
Tyke, what is required is strong and steady leadership and messaging ......... one voice, there's a long time to the main event, all sides have to give a bit and Starmer as I see it is clearing a path because he knows as well as anyone 'disunity is death'
Some are going to have there noses put out but maybe they should hold them instead and support someone that is going to be acceptable to enough at the right time. If the left of the party won't play ball and bring the left along it means Starmer will have to move more centrally to get the votes required.
I posted before about those saying 'people won't vote labour because a,b,c,d,e ...... etc and like Ldr's comment how do you counter insanity, johnson over Starmer!!! ffs. Would you prefer May, Cameron, Raab, Patel, Gove take your pick Ldr, it's not a serious argument.
It's not here on the forum that labour will win it's out there in the real world and if any cannot see and take a lessons from Biden then they deserve yet another tory government.
And you are correct to blame certain papers but they are just looking after the many hands that feed them.
This is a battle that will last the ages, eternal vigilance etc. Emily Pankhurst was still alive when my parents were born
I'm afraid the guilt-tripping angle to get people to vote Labour is a pretty flawed strategy if the party isn't worth supporting in its own right .
It’s a simple thing tyke, if you don’t want a continuation of the Tories and the shit show that we have, you have to vote for the largest opposition party, even if that means holding your nose, failure to do that is effectively a vote for more of the same shit we have now
-
No NNK, The only problem I have is with people like you. The supreme court stopped short of saying Johnson had an improper motive for proroguing parliament, nor did it say he lied.
At least we've cleared up the misunderstanding as to the legitimacy of Johnson's absence from some of the COBRA meetings.
I think you should take a trip to Barnard Castle BB as the problem you seem to have is the ability to read what's writ! here's what I said again....
Johnson went to the Queen and told her, illegally, and lying, that he had to prorogue parliament. He was subsequently taken to court and lost!
Are you suggesting that he didn't go to the Queen and lie? Did the Supreme Court not rule that Johnson's proroguing of parliament was against the law? As that is all I said in my sentence above! A simple yes or no will suffice.
Wasn't it Rees Mogg who actually lied to the Queen?
-
Tyke.
Which Labour policies do you so gutterally object to?
-
Tyke, what is required is strong and steady leadership and messaging ......... one voice, there's a long time to the main event, all sides have to give a bit and Starmer as I see it is clearing a path because he knows as well as anyone 'disunity is death'
Some are going to have there noses put out but maybe they should hold them instead and support someone that is going to be acceptable to enough at the right time. If the left of the party won't play ball and bring the left along it means Starmer will have to move more centrally to get the votes required.
I posted before about those saying 'people won't vote labour because a,b,c,d,e ...... etc and like Ldr's comment how do you counter insanity, johnson over Starmer!!! ffs. Would you prefer May, Cameron, Raab, Patel, Gove take your pick Ldr, it's not a serious argument.
It's not here on the forum that labour will win it's out there in the real world and if any cannot see and take a lessons from Biden then they deserve yet another tory government.
And you are correct to blame certain papers but they are just looking after the many hands that feed them.
This is a battle that will last the ages, eternal vigilance etc. Emily Pankhurst was still alive when my parents were born
I'm afraid the guilt-tripping angle to get people to vote Labour is a pretty flawed strategy if the party isn't worth supporting in its own right .
not a guilt trip Tyke, fact, take it or leave it.
-
I wouldn't vote Labour because I don't trust them. I believe once they were in power the left of the party could take over and change the manifesto that voted the party in. They would never get in power with left-wing intentions so could gain the more moderate voters by deceit with a more right-wing approach.
-
and you trust johson and his cronies, dearie me
-
Over Labour? You bet!
-
I have never thought you have given the slightest inkling that you would support labour, you can correct me if I'm wrong with a few of your memorable comments if you wish.
-
The last time Labour had any appeal in my eyes was when Blair and Brown were leaders.
-
Did you vote for them at that time?
-
Might have done, but it's hardly any of your business.
-
I'll take that as a no then, thank you
-
I wouldn't vote Labour because I don't trust them. I believe once they were in power the left of the party could take over and change the manifesto that voted the party in. They would never get in power with left-wing intentions so could gain the more moderate voters by deceit with a more right-wing approach.
Just like has happened all the other times Labour has been in power...
Whereas, when the Tory party actually WAS hijacked by the far right and booted out a string of moderates in 2019, not a word of criticism from you.
Almost like you're not actually interested in principles at all...
-
And that coming from a bloke who actually suggested that Labour cheat the public by claiming to be more right-wing to get into power and then turn their backs on the principles that that got them there!
ee bah gum lad!
-
It only matters to those that are likely to vote labour.
-
You're preaching to the minority then.
-
And that coming from a person who once again proves himself incapable of drawing logical conclusions from what he reads.
-
You're preaching to the minority then.
Remind me why I should listen to a person that had to be told that twitter didn't write its own comments, another tip for you bb the Royal Mail doesn't write all the letters.
-
And that coming from a person who once again proves himself incapable of drawing logical conclusions from what he reads.
You stick to your conclusions and I'll stick to mine.
-
You're preaching to the minority then.
Remind me why I should listen to a person that had to be told that twitter didn't write its own comments, another tip for you bb the Royal Mail doesn't write all the letters.
What?
-
And that coming from a person who once again proves himself incapable of drawing logical conclusions from what he reads.
You stick to your conclusions and I'll stick to mine.
You generally do. Despite all the facts showing you to be wrong.
-
What is a fact Billy is the people who vote for a party that attracts support from people like you and your lefty cronies on here are in the minority, and I can't see that changing any time soon.
-
No NNK, The only problem I have is with people like you. The supreme court stopped short of saying Johnson had an improper motive for proroguing parliament, nor did it say he lied.
At least we've cleared up the misunderstanding as to the legitimacy of Johnson's absence from some of the COBRA meetings.
I think you should take a trip to Barnard Castle BB as the problem you seem to have is the ability to read what's writ! here's what I said again....
Johnson went to the Queen and told her, illegally, and lying, that he had to prorogue parliament. He was subsequently taken to court and lost!
Are you suggesting that he didn't go to the Queen and lie? Did the Supreme Court not rule that Johnson's proroguing of parliament was against the law? As that is all I said in my sentence above! A simple yes or no will suffice.
Wasn't it Rees Mogg who actually lied to the Queen?
No, it was Mogg who delivered the lie to the Queen, Johnson simply instructed him on the message, (lie), to be delivered and so lied by proxy. Johnson apparently apologised to the Queen subsequently by telephone following the courts ruling, effectively confirming that it was his lie and not Moggs.
-
Agreed, just pointing out that it wasn't Johnson who actually told the Queen the lie got a lacky to do it
-
So the line from the Tory party on Cash for Curtains has been, "Doesn't matter, the voters aren't interested".
1) Stop and reflect on the morality that exposes. It doesn't matter if we have a PM who has broken the law. All that matters is whether it loses them votes.
2) On which subject - the latest poll published today has the Tory lead over Labour slashed from 10% to 2%. That's 4 out of 5 polls since the end of last week that have seen a big swing away from the Tories.
-
Newsflash.
Labour in the verge of astonishing victory.
-
Hilarious Hound.
The grown up point of course is that things happen in politics.
Interestingly though, in that poll, 27% of respondents said they think Johnson can be trusted to tell the truth more than Starmer can.
You do wonder how some people manage to wipe their own arses, don't you?
-
Hilarious Hound.
The grown up point of course is that things happen in politics.
Interestingly though, in that poll, 27% of respondents said they think Johnson can be trusted to tell the truth more than Starmer can.
You do wonder how some people manage to wipe their own arses, don't you?
Not really BST.
People are entitled to have their own beliefs and reasons for doing so.
To expand on your comment, have you not considered that some of those polled might not trust Starmer.
It isn’t all as one sided as you want everyone to believe.
PS. I mistakenly thought you had a sense of humour.
-
Hilarious Hound.
The grown up point of course is that things happen in politics.
Interestingly though, in that poll, 27% of respondents said they think Johnson can be trusted to tell the truth more than Starmer can.
You do wonder how some people manage to wipe their own arses, don't you?
Not really BST.
People are entitled to have their own beliefs and reasons for doing so.
To expand on your comment, have you not considered that some of those polled might not trust Starmer.
It isn’t all as one sided as you want everyone to believe.
PS. I mistakenly thought you had a sense of humour.
They'd have good reason not to trust Starmer either , this is a politician who had total disregard for his own party's election manifesto on brexit .
This is a man who got elected on a unify the party ticket and then spends the first 12 months purging the left and bringing back from the dead New Labour architect Mandelson after promising to build on the work of Corbyn .
There's a very low bar set within the opposition it seems .
-
Tyke.
Which Labour policies do you so gutterally object to?
There aren't any to object to as far as I'm aware .
The direction of travel Starmer is taking the party is another matter .
Gig economy unchecked , agencies unchecked , zero hours unchecked .
The overall assessment of our last venture in to New Labour was that it was about more of what it doesn't do which is why voters in the former red wall felt betrayed and taken for granted .
They look at Starmer with his education and million pound house on a New Labour ticket and conclude what is the point .
Perception is 90% of reality .
They voted Tory in huge numbers because Johnson delivered what they voted for in the referendum , it's as simple as that .
Now in my opinion the only way you are going to get them back is through greater prosperity , these towns need better jobs and b@llox to this low hanging fruit of Amazon warehouse distribution centres and call centres .
FFS Billy the names on the tin .... Labour and feck this identity politics shyte right off .
Better jobs , these towns economies grow , standards of living are raised , pride and dignity in the community restored which benefits everyone irrespective of where they are born .
Blair's mob didn't want to know .
Labour might want to refrain from telling everyone what they should think , we've had a belly full of it .
-
Well that was a rather scattergun rant Tyke.
You repeatedly insist that Labour has no policies but you haven't once acknowledged that they are continuing with the broad thrust of the Corbyn/McDonnell economic strategy that was so popular in 2017. What DO you want if that isn't enough?
And you consistently refuse to engage on the key question: how can Labour ever win any election if it "fecks off the shyte" that young, urban left-singers hold dear?
As I've pointed out numerous times, you seem to want a Labour party that specifically caters for only those things that you want. But you refuse to engage with the numbers. People who want specifically what you want (radical economics and conservative, nationalistic social policies) make up only 15-20% of the electorate. You are never, ever going to have the 1970s back again where you were part of a majority. You can either find a way of reaching some sort of accomodation with the younger people who want radical economics but internationalist, socially liberal policies. Or you indulge yourself complaining that it's everyone else's fault, and look forward to a Tory Govt forever.
Here's a question to ponder. Why do you think the Tories are so keen to pour petrol on the Culture War bonfire? Could it be because they know that's the way to get different people on the Left ripping each other's eyes out? And aren't you precisely falling into their trap?
-
Billy we are different people that much is clear , there can't ever be a compromise .
That's fine , you can have the party for me , it's yours .
I won't vote for it but good luck anyway .
-
Tyke.
Which Labour policies do you so gutterally object to?
There aren't any to object to as far as I'm aware .
The direction of travel Starmer is taking the party is another matter .
Gig economy unchecked , agencies unchecked , zero hours unchecked .
The overall assessment of our last venture in to New Labour was that it was about more of what it doesn't do which is why voters in the former red wall felt betrayed and taken for granted .
They look at Starmer with his education and million pound house on a New Labour ticket and conclude what is the point .
Perception is 90% of reality .
They voted Tory in huge numbers because Johnson delivered what they voted for in the referendum , it's as simple as that .
Now in my opinion the only way you are going to get them back is through greater prosperity , these towns need better jobs and b@llox to this low hanging fruit of Amazon warehouse distribution centres and call centres .
FFS Billy the names on the tin .... Labour and feck this identity politics shyte right off .
Better jobs , these towns economies grow , standards of living are raised , pride and dignity in the community restored which benefits everyone irrespective of where they are born .
Blair's mob didn't want to know .
Labour might want to refrain from telling everyone what they should think , we've had a belly full of it .
It's not like you didn't have plenty of time Tyke your man didn't get up, failed, now you want the party to fail if you can't have your way, not very reasonable.
''They look at Starmer with his education and million pound house on a New Labour ticket and conclude what is the point''
This is quite pathetic really, why shouldn't he accept the rewards if he did the work, aspirational voter, have you forgotten those not everyone wants to live in a two up, two down and outside bog.
Politics will never be 'won' by one side or the other but movement left and right, if everyone thinks as you are showing the UK will stay on the right and have corrupt leaders for a long time to come.
Added, a study showed that when some people get a bit of money together they vote tory to protect it, do you want only people in your party that are strugglers?
-
Tyke
It's not about MY Labour party. I accept entirely that Labour has to attract BOTH the post-industrial working class and the young, professional city dwellers. If it loses either of those, Labour gets hammered. What I can't understand is why you refuse to see that.
Labour lurched in the direction you want in early 2019. Corbyn finally revealed his nationalist, protectionist Bennite colours and it was a disaster. Labour collapsed from 40% to 18% in the polls in 4 months and won 13% in the EU elections. If you don't accept that, you are pissing in the wind by demanding more of that approach.
-
Back in the 80’s I was active on the left of the party and the thought of Labour moving to a centre left area filled me with horror. However, what I didn’t realise then but understand now, is that it really didn’t matter what I wanted. It was what the voters wanted that was important. And they told us in ‘83 all too clearly that they didn’t want a socialist government.
I don’t really get the criticism of Tony Blair by some in the Labour Party. He understood that a purely socialist approach would leave the party permanently in opposition. Labour spent the 1980’s fighting itself whilst the voters looked on in bemusement and gave Thatcher their vote time and again. Blair was able to unify the centrists and the left within the party with astonishing success.
A speaker at a Labour Conference some years ago made a very astute point. The UK is, at heart a centre right country. Looking at history it’s instinct is to vote conservative if ever in doubt. Consequently, Labour need to try harder than the Torys to win an election. What it also tells us is that a far left Labour Party will probably never get into power. To win an election Labour needs to tap into the aspirations of the working and middle classes and build policies and manifestos around these. They need to project an optimistic angle whilst holding the Tories to account. Remember the Brexit debates on telly? The Brexit advocates put across a positive message of how the UK could benefit from leaving the EU. The remain supporters basically told us that we’d better not leave as EU membership is as good as it’ll get for some people. Who wants to hear that? Labour need to learn from that and tell people HOW their lives will be better under Labour. So far, they’ve told us nothing and until they do, they’re going to vote for a Tory Government who’ve got the monopoly on positive spin at the moment.
-
That's fair comment HA, labour can in power if it chooses, restore the NHS and educate the public that this would be better than what is going on atm.
''Starmer will draw a clear distinction between his character and that of Johnson, describing his experience as a lawyer prosecuting MPs for false expenses claims. Labour will also try to forge a link between the cronyism of the distribution of Covid contracts and taxpayers’ cash, which advisers believe is key to making the damaging allegations stick''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/03/keir-starmer-vows-to-clean-up-british-politics-after-tory-sleaze-rows
-
The question Sydney is if enough of the country care about Boris vs Starmer. I doubt it. Many also accept therw is a level of cronyism it's perhaps baked in and less impactful than some think?
I fundamentally dislike it but I also have that persuasion that it exists in all parties (granted id have Boris removed for his financial incompetence).
-
As I've said previously it's a long haul and other have said governments are voted out rather than in. The Starmer v Johnson is just one battle in many that have to come, labour has to show the nation that more often than not they have run the economy better and they will care for more people than just those with johnson's ph number. Johnson has to show he's serious about levelling up and not just wallpapering over.