[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[St Leonards Seagull]

What a load of tosh - of course people could meet, they could meet at work.
Not everyone was isolating, not bus drivers, train drivers, nurses, factory workers, farmers, police, armed forces, journalists, builders, shopworkers,etc etc, and especially politicians of all parties.
You could also go outside for exercise and walk your dog as long as you kept 2 metres apart.
Get your facts right.

As a nurse we were still under social distancing guidelines in offices and they were pretty strict about it where I worked.
It was only in essential areas that distancing was not in place and PPE was a must.
I don’t seem to remember any leaving drinks either.
It’s great to think all the time we’re were being provided with inadequate PPE which the Tories and their mates were profiting out of, the considered it appropriate to get pissed up and party.
I can’t for one second understand where anyone thinks that would be ok and defend it.

 

[WATFORD zero]

As a nurse we were still under social distancing guidelines in offices and they were pretty strict about it where I worked.
It was only in essential areas that distancing was not in place and PPE was a must.
I don’t seem to remember any leaving drinks either.
It’s great to think all the time we’re were being provided with inadequate PPE which the Tories and their mates were profiting out of, the considered it appropriate to get pissed up and party.
I can’t for one second understand where anyone thinks that would be ok and defend it.

Well there's only two reasons I can think of to defend it.

1. You are part of it and got PPE contracts through the illegal fast track program and have made a few million quid.
2. You haven't, aren't too bright, and are probably very naïve and easily led.

Although I don't think either are particularly justifiable

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As a nurse we were still under social distancing guidelines in offices and they were pretty strict about it where I worked.
It was only in essential areas that distancing was not in place and PPE was a must.
I don’t seem to remember any leaving drinks either.
It’s great to think all the time we’re were being provided with inadequate PPE which the Tories and their mates were profiting out of, the considered it appropriate to get pissed up and party.
I can’t for one second understand where anyone thinks that would be ok and defend it.

Inveterate tory?

 

[Bodian]

No he doesn't.

He believes that the committee is not able to prove that he didn't believe it.

They didn't seem to lay a glove on him from what I saw. I reckon he'll get away with his lies.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

They didn't seem to lay a glove on him from what I saw. I reckon he'll get away with his lies.

'OJ' Johnson.

 

[Hamilton]

They didn't seem to lay a glove on him from what I saw. I reckon he'll get away with his lies.

Not even the part where his own counsel had to remind him what was in the Sue Gray report?

 

[Bodian]

Not even the part where his own counsel had to remind him what was in the Sue Gray report?

I don't see that bit! But having to be reminded of stuff isn't quite proving the liar was lying.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not even the part where his own counsel had to remind him what was in the Sue Gray report?

Just evidence that he doesn't give a flying toss about any of this. His reputation will not be damaged in the eyes of most Tories. If Sunak loses the general election Johnson will return on a white horse to save the day.

 

[A1X]

'OJ' Johnson.

If the wine was in the suitcase, an election he should face

 

[Wokeworrier]

They didn't seem to lay a glove on him from what I saw. I reckon he'll get away with his lies.

Probably, because there is no cast iron proof/smoking gun, showing he deliberately misled parliament.

If they find he did (which I doubt), then they are saying numerous people in government and the civil service were lying/ involved in a cover up.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Probably, because there is no cast iron proof/smoking gun, showing he deliberately misled parliament.

If they find he did (which I doubt), then they are saying numerous people in government and the civil service were lying/ involved in a cover up.

You are making the mistake of assuming they have to prove he misled Parliament beyond all reasonable doubt, they don’t.

The simply need to consider, whether it is reasonable for the person who made the rules and read them out on TV etc to know them. The obvious answer is yes. He must have (like many times in his career before) lied. They don’t need a smoking gun.

He is toast.

 

[Bodian]

Probably, because there is no cast iron proof/smoking gun, showing he deliberately misled parliament.

If they find he did (which I doubt), then they are saying numerous people in government and the civil service were lying/ involved in a cover up.

Yes. I think it more likely that they may find he 'recklessly' misled parliament. The final set of questions were all about 'why did you rely on a media adviser for your assurances, if you were taking 'due care' you should have asked a lawyerly adviser or a senior civil servant'. Harriet Harman said his assurances were flimsy - which I thought was quite telling of how they were thinking.

 

[Hamilton]

Probably, because there is no cast iron proof/smoking gun, showing he deliberately misled parliament.

If they find he did (which I doubt), then they are saying numerous people in government and the civil service were lying/ involved in a cover up.

That’s a desperate defence you are putting up there. Conjuring up other ‘witnesses’ to say that they were 90% sure that Simon Case gave assurances that Simon Case says he did not give and where there is no minuted evidence, is not a cast iron defence.

He’s been found alone with his hands in the cookie jar and now he’s trying to say that it was the other kids what stole the biscuits.

 

[A1X]

 

[rogersix]

Probably, because there is no cast iron proof/smoking gun, showing he deliberately misled parliament.

If they find he did (which I doubt), then they are saying numerous people in government and the civil service were lying/ involved in a cover up.

would your preference be, bungle back as tory leader, once starmer has vanquished sunak?

 

[Wokeworrier]

what do you think should happen to clampy for his, "plough them all into a ditch" comment?

On one level its rather sad that a grown man can act in a similar way to a child, continually saying something naughty trying to provoke a reaction.

On a more serious note, its well worth remembering what happened to David Amess as well as other politicians. We can all passionately disagree about politics without feeling the need to continually use language easily seen as condoning violence.

 

[Rdodge30]

So, on 1) by your own admission Starmer's comment was that he wouldn't have used those words, ergo he has commented. On 3) he said in Parliament they were wrong and it was unimplementable. He doesn't need to resay it because a footballer did a tweet. And on 2) the BBC will be impartial under a Labour Government because that's the raison d'etre.

The Lineker affair was about GL, the BBC and Braverman. No one else.

Quite. My view is simply that he should have aggressively taken control of the narrative and would have benefited from it politically.

Instead he has simply commented on a Gary Lineker story. Not a disaster for the party but just a bit meh! The unnerving feeling I’m getting is that he has no clue what to do on immigration and for all that the election is 13/14 months away, I find that concerning.


Incidentally I follow betting on horseracing and politics - I restrict myself to about half a dozen football bets a year but follow horseracing religiously and politics intently.

Before Lineker week
Next GE betting:

Labour most seats: 1/6 odds on everywhere - no deviation amongst bookmakers

Conservative most seats: some 4/1 but almost all 7/2

After Lineker week
Next GE betting

Labour most seats: some 1/6 mostly 1/5 and 2/9 available with 2 firms

Conservative most seats: still 7/2 available but 3/1 mostly 14/5 in a place

Only small differences but noticeable if you’re looking. Poor week for Labour and I posted how I did because I just feel that these are golden opportunities, the Conservatives are constantly fumbling the ball and I want Starmer to take control of tge narrative.

I remember when Cameron won the leadership of the Tory party he almost immediately put together several policy working parties headed by senior Conservatives on individual policy areas. So by that measure I’m surprised that whatever the headline of the week be it NHS strikes Immigration or anything else that the Opposition front bench are not all out putting forward the 3point plans for the policies they intend to implement when they are in power.

To me they simply look like opposition not Government in waiting

 

[The Clamp]

I’ve seen the “highlights” and would will try and see the whole thing in full later. So far it seems like Boris Johnson doing what Boris Johnson has always done;

Lie, lie and lie again. Like most Tory’s these days.

Ditch them all into a plough.

 

[rogersix]

On one level its rather sad that a grown man can act in a similar way to a child, continually saying something naughty trying to provoke a reaction.

On a more serious note, its well worth remembering what happened to David Amess as well as other politicians. We can all passionately disagree about politics without feeling the need to continually use language easily seen as condoning violence.

it looks more like an expression of frustration in a humouress manor, and you come across as a bit snowflakey?

is that fair?

 

[pb21]

Rightly or wrongly 52% of the country feel there is too much immigration...

I see you posting some quite 'interesting' bits and bobs on this thread, but I am wondering why you think the above?