Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

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



Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
56,745
Faversham
Part of the language problem, in Yorkshire, as I remember it, was that Asian women were kept at home, so weren’t able to learn English, but that was a past generation. In the last 40 years, all have attended school, and now go out to work so out in the world and integrating.
Yep. So even my sop to the gammon was a fake sop.

Some nasty bat phoned 606 the other day moaning that in her job she was paid per client and if 'they don't speak English' she didn't get paid. Unfortunately this went unchallenged. She later revealed that the only politician with any good 'solutions' is Nigel Something.

I am tired and bored of gormless lying racists.
 




Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,931
Fiveways
I think it's more about gearing up for opposition and individuals manoeuvring to be the next leader.

I think she's actually daring the Prime Minister to sack her.

In terms of Net Zero that's probably a strategic move. The polls have seen them gain a point or two over the last few days.

The vast majority of those people are not climate change deniers but worried about how much they will pay for it.

But still a classic 2023 Tories U-turn on their own policies then blame the other side for it.
Great post.
In terms of Braverman, her being sacked c6 months prior to the election will assist her leadership credentials. She won't be as associated with a defeat, and what she's got to say is oh so popular with the membership, who have the final say on the next leader (and their 'new' direction).
CC/Net Zero is hugely problematic for (post-)Thatcherite Tories -- and she remains the icon of the majority of MPs and members. Tackling it requires the state, and an active state. Ideologically, the only way they've used the state is as a tool against itself. If they're to enact Net Zero, they're effectively critiquing their ideology. This is less of a problem for more traditional Burkean conservatives that are resistant to change, eg what used to be known as the wets.
 


Peteinblack

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jun 3, 2004
4,179
Bath, Somerset.
No-one will ever do business with the Tories again I feel. Lib Dems were nearly wiped out when they tried it and the SNP would only do it if a referendum was included, now we know the Tories love a referendum, but that's a big ask.

The Tories will get in again simply because people have short memories and Labour will have to make some tough calls to sort out this mess.
Well, a lot of people will probably 'forget' the awful premierships of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and the tens of £ billions they spaffed, but the same voters will remember (or allow themselves to be reminded by the Daily Mail) the 2008 financial crash and 1978-79 winter of discontent, and cite either/both of these as a reason not to vote Labour.
 
Last edited:


WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,973
Indeed.

It’s all about their future careers after Parliament. Getting in with the Oil companies is going to be very lucrative for many of them. Some in the car industry might be very pleased with them also. Finally, if they can overhaul or get rid of inheritance tax keeping the rich richer, they’ll have won many wealthy friends.

And as for their red wall voters, they think that their MP’s content on GBeebies along with Braverman’s hate speeches are keeping them happy.

Well it certainly seems to be working on NSC's Burnley red wall contingent :shrug:
 


Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
8,771
Well, a lot of people will probably 'forget' the awful premierships of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and the tens of £ billions they spaffed, but the same voters will remember (or allow themselves to be reminded by the Daily Mail) the 2008 financial crash and 1978-879 winter of discontent, and cite either/both of these as a reason not to vote Labour.
Which is a socially acceptable way of saying, "I'm voting for the party who kicks out the most brown people and is happy to grind every public service into the dirt if it means my taxes won't go up"
 




Blackadder

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 6, 2003
16,123
Haywards Heath
Actually, the X spat (Twitter spat) from Fox shows interaction the conversation was planned so Wootton should be suspended too.
And now he has been :thumbsup::clap::clap:
 








Peteinblack

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jun 3, 2004
4,179
Bath, Somerset.
Which is a socially acceptable way of saying, "I'm voting for the party who kicks out the most brown people and is happy to grind every public service into the dirt if it means my taxes won't go up"
I've always said that the current government is largely about 'punching down' - saying to impoverished or disadvantaged sections of society "We won't actually do anything to improve your wages, job security or public services, but we will crap hard on the people we think you dislike or blame for your hardships; immigrants, welfare 'scroungers', environmentalists, liberals, the Woke, etc. And enough of you will applaud us - even though we'll be crapping on you as well."
 




Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
I've always said that the current government is largely about 'punching down' - saying to impoverished or disadvantaged sections of society "We won't actually do anything to improve your wages, job security or public services, but we will crap hard on the people we think you dislike or blame for your hardships; immigrants, welfare 'scroungers', environmentalists, liberals, the Woke, etc. And enough of you will applaud us - even though we'll be crapping on you as well."
That just about sums it up.

In the meantime, the government is pandering to their sponsors, lining their pockets and not giving a single care in the world about the plebs.
Rishi Sunak, who hasn't got any working class friends

Ask yourself, why a multi-billionaire, wants a job paying £150K a year? Maybe doing away with inheritance tax, which will benefit his family by £300M
 




Peteinblack

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jun 3, 2004
4,179
Bath, Somerset.
That just about sums it up.

In the meantime, the government is pandering to their sponsors, lining their pockets and not giving a single care in the world about the plebs.
Rishi Sunak, who hasn't got any working class friends

Ask yourself, why a multi-billionaire, wants a job paying £150K a year? Maybe doing away with inheritance tax, which will benefit his family by £300M
The Tories' obsession with inheritance is yet more pure hypocrisy - how often do they tell the rest of us to "stand on your own two feet, work hard to earn your living, and don't rely on hand-outs"?
 


Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
8,771
That just about sums it up.

In the meantime, the government is pandering to their sponsors, lining their pockets and not giving a single care in the world about the plebs.
Rishi Sunak, who hasn't got any working class friends

Ask yourself, why a multi-billionaire, wants a job paying £150K a year? Maybe doing away with inheritance tax, which will benefit his family by £300M
Given the ridiculous things I said when I was 21, i'll give him a pass at that. I'll also give him a pass, that he became PM for status and vanity rather than to increase his or his families wealth.

But the pot holes comments is just further causes me to sink deeper into despair. Just say the truth. Just say ....

A) we're doing it
B) we're not doing it
C) we're not sure, we're reviewing it, we'll let you know on X date

The constantly talking about something else when you're asked a question is infuriating
 


Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Given the ridiculous things I said when I was 21, i'll give him a pass at that. I'll also give him a pass, that he became PM for status and vanity rather than to increase his or his families wealth.

But the pot holes comments is just further causes me to sink deeper into despair. Just say the truth. Just say ....

A) we're doing it
B) we're not doing it
C) we're not sure, we're reviewing it, we'll let you know on X date

The constantly talking about something else when you're asked a question is infuriating
That's two passes for today alone. How many passes have you given him in the last 10 months?
When do you finally stop giving him passes?
 




Stato

Well-known member
Dec 21, 2011
7,422
It always annoys me that interviewers don't act in the way most of us would when a politician avoids a question.

"Jameson: Sorry, I feel we’re going off topic here and I just want to keep it focused on HS2. We’re straight-talking people in the north*. It’s a yes or a no. Are you scrapping the HS2 line between Birmingham and Manchester?

Sunak: Like I said, I’m not speculating on future things. We’ve got spades in the ground right now and we’re getting on …"

In these situations, am I the only one, who is mentally screaming for the interviewer to respond with:

"Well that's an obvious 'Yes' then. If it was a 'No' you would have no reason to be avoiding the question. So, unless you would like to categorically state that this is not the case, we'll consider that answered and move on to my next question."

They never do it and I fail to understand why. Even when Paxman famously asked Michael Howard 12 times whether he threatened to overrule, he never said the obvious out loud: "So, I think that your responses have established beyond any reasonable doubt that you did threaten to overrule him and don't want to say so." I know that journalists would argue that the audience can read between the lines, but its pretty obvious that a good proportion of modern audiences don't.

* - Why do so many northerners have to self aggrandise about Northern stereotypes in all circumstances? Being straight-talking is not a northern / southern divide, its predominately a working class / middle class divide. So many seem to love perpetuating the myth that everybody in the north of England is a horny handed son of the soil and that everybody south of Watford lives in a fantasy London where even the binmen went to Eton.
 
Last edited:


Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
8,771
I've got a theory about Sunak and HS2. My theory is that he's going to complete it all the way to Manchester and there was never an intention not to.

However, knowing he has a massive keynote speech coming up in Manchester and a record in government you could compare to Derby County's in the PL in 2008/09, he knows he needs to say something to get a standing ovation, before the next election.

So what he's done is leak to his favoured journalists the news that there was a prospect of abandoning the Manc leg, then along comes Rishi on his white charger and saves the day.

In exactly the same way of course that he saved us from compulsory car sharing and taxation on meat.

Please someone bounce this with some kind comment about my extraordinary powers of perception if my little theory is right, but maybe don't if it turns out to be complete bollocks.
 




A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,857
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Good for her for sticking to her point, asking really clear questions which can not be spun. He's a really cunning little toad in that interview, what a mistake to put him in front of people - they should go back to hiding him away. What a mess.
His performance in a General Election campaign is likely to end up being a disaster
 




Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
8,771
It always annoys me that interviewers don't act in the way most of us would when a politician avoids a question.

"Jameson: Sorry, I feel we’re going off topic here and I just want to keep it focused on HS2. We’re straight-talking people in the north*. It’s a yes or a no. Are you scrapping the HS2 line between Birmingham and Manchester?

Sunak: Like I said, I’m not speculating on future things. We’ve got spades in the ground right now and we’re getting on …"

In these situations, am I the only one, who is mentally screaming for the interviewer to respond with:

"Well that's an obvious 'Yes' then. If it was a 'No' you would have no reason to be avoiding the question. So, unless you would like to categorically deny that this is not the case, we'll consider that answered and move on to my next question."

They never do it and I fail to understand why. Even when Paxman famously asked Michael Howard 12 times whether he threatened to overrule, he never said the obvious out loud: "So, I think that your responses have established beyond any reasonable doubt that you did threaten to overrule him and don't want to say so." I know that journalists would argue that the audience can read between the lines, but its pretty obvious that a good proportion of modern audiences don't.

* - Why do so many northerners have to self aggrandise about Northern stereotypes in all circumstances? Being straight-talking is not a northern / southern divide, its predominately a working class / middle class divide. So many seem to love perpetuating the myth that everybody in the north of England is a horny handed son of the soil and that everybody south of Watford lives in a fantasy London where even the binmen went to Eton.
I think the alarming truth to this is that if a journalist goes in with a two footed tackle of a questioning line, they simply don't get invited to do another interview. They need to strike the balance between looking tough and getting another interview this time next week.

The fact that only headlines or snippets are played out also doesn't encourage reasoned debate
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,931
Fiveways
It always annoys me that interviewers don't act in the way most of us would when a politician avoids a question.

"Jameson: Sorry, I feel we’re going off topic here and I just want to keep it focused on HS2. We’re straight-talking people in the north*. It’s a yes or a no. Are you scrapping the HS2 line between Birmingham and Manchester?

Sunak: Like I said, I’m not speculating on future things. We’ve got spades in the ground right now and we’re getting on …"

In these situations, am I the only one, who is mentally screaming for the interviewer to respond with:

"Well that's an obvious 'Yes' then. If it was a 'No' you would have no reason to be avoiding the question. So, unless you would like to categorically deny that this is not the case, we'll consider that answered and move on to my next question."

They never do it and I fail to understand why. Even when Paxman famously asked Michael Howard 12 times whether he threatened to overrule, he never said the obvious out loud: "So, I think that your responses have established beyond any reasonable doubt that you did threaten to overrule him and don't want to say so." I know that journalists would argue that the audience can read between the lines, but its pretty obvious that a good proportion of modern audiences don't.

* - Why do so many northerners have to self aggrandise about Northern stereotypes in all circumstances? Being straight-talking is not a northern / southern divide, its predominately a working class / middle class divide. So many seem to love perpetuating the myth that everybody in the north of England is a horny handed son of the soil and that everybody south of Watford lives in a fantasy London where even the binmen went to Eton.
I think they should say what you indicate there. What has wound me up even more for, ooo about 13 years, is that interviewers (in the BBC) allow them to parrot phrases like 'we're putting record spending into the x public service', when they're: implementing real-terms decreases; and, these public services often have increasing demand, with the NHS being the obvious one -- running at the rate of 4% a year. Yet they've been allowed to get away with it for more than a decade.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here