A Political Thread

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

This Bojo-in-Italy, meeting with Russian oligarchs, thing is a mess.
No.10 categorically deny he went, but....he's done it in the past, and the airport says that he was there on the dates that are claimed.

IF it's true - it seems stupid to deny it, it's something that would be fairly easy to prove - then I would back his removal as party leader and put Raab in the job.

If it's not true, then there needs to be a proper investigation into what has gone on that has led to the italians lying about it

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Yeah, very strange - he was definitely in the UK until midday Monday (various meetings etc.) but then off radar afterwards, and there's also a private jet that flew from an RAF base by London to that specific airport/town in Italy.

I'm leaning towards it all being BS - but I do love the drama of it all

 

[ncurd]

IF it's true - it seems stupid to deny it, it's something that would be fairly easy to prove

Barnard Castle



Why Raab? I mean its not like the Tory benches are full of any actual talent (the opposition aren't miles better as an actual ratio but they do have people) to pick from but were talking about a guy who didn't understand the importance of Dover and can't be arsed to read all 35 pages of the Good Friday Agreement. He's a voidless mass in a suit.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

He's next in line, isn't he?
Rishi will want to be leader of the Tories/PM (and inevitably get it) but won't want to be tainted with the Brexit brush

I doubt Bojo makes it to the end of this election cycle (I think he packs it in next year, citing health reasons or family commitments or something) and then they'll stick the next posho in a suit (i.e. raab) in to deal with the fallout before putting in someone who they'd actually want to lead when it's calmed down.

 

[ncurd]

I mean the 'smart' Tories want Sunak in but I don't know if he wins a leadership contest. I don't want tar all Tories with the same brush because many aren't but their membership is full of closest racists.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Worth a watch if you've got a spare hour.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Barnard Castle



Why Raab? I mean its not like the Tory benches are full of any actual talent (the opposition aren't miles better as an actual ratio but they do have people) to pick from but were talking about a guy who didn't understand the importance of Dover and can't be arsed to read all 35 pages of the Good Friday Agreement. He's a voidless mass in a suit.

He's next in line, isn't he?
Rishi will want to be leader of the Tories/PM (and inevitably get it) but won't want to be tainted with the Brexit brush

I doubt Bojo makes it to the end of this election cycle (I think he packs it in next year, citing health reasons or family commitments or something) and then they'll stick the next posho in a suit (i.e. raab) in to deal with the fallout before putting in someone who they'd actually want to lead when it's calmed down.

Those highlighted bits are exaclty the reasons it'll a good choice to be Raab. Both of you and I are obviously going to disagree on his competence (as is tradition ) but a fairly uncontroversial, unspectacular appointment is exactly what will be needed imo.

Post bojo, the public and party will want some sembelance of stability, which Boris will never offer, especially in a recession, post Brexit drama and post-covid. A boring choice will be the best choice.

There is also some really exciting youth coming through imo (especiall a fan of Dehenna Davison and Andrew Bowie personally, with the latter being a VERY left field shout), but they are an election cycle (at least) away from even being close to the cabinet. Im guessing Sunak has been the long term plan for a while (if you look at how they started testing him at debates at the last election when he wasn't even a household name) but for that to work, he can't take over a sinking, recession ridden ship.

Bojo to leave next year (he'll be pushed to go I imagine), Cummings to leave for the US in the new year if Trump loses, 6 months after Bojo goes if Trump wins. Raab to take the Tories to the next election. If we are still in a dire economic state then he'll stay leader, if things are looking rosie, then Sunak to take the reigns before the election. Super young cabinet, very green manifesto (nuclear and free market solutions to be emphasised) with more libertarian influences than we've seen in a while.

Also, anyone that apparently decked Cummings in no10 post Barnard Castle gets my vote lol

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Fourth firm with links to Dominic Cummings awarded £640,000 in government work without an open tender process

A PR firm with links to Dominic Cummings has been awarded £640,000 in government contracts without having to compete for them in an...

www.theneweuropean.co.uk

Again again again again

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Fourth firm with links to Dominic Cummings awarded £640,000 in government work without an open tender process

A PR firm with links to Dominic Cummings has been awarded £640,000 in government contracts without having to compete for them in an...

www.theneweuropean.co.uk

Again again again again

I'm sick of this country, nationalism overrides all.

 

[Reiser99]

The corruption is so blatant. Honestly politics in the U.S and U.K has reached an all time low. Those in power just lie through their teeth, there is almost no accountability and yet we still have so many people who only care about themselves over the next 4-5 years and will vote in anyone who promises to make them better off, regardless of whether it actually happens.

 

[The Seeker]

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

View attachment 8511

I mean, tbf, that's exactly what Clinton is suggesting Biden does...

**** show all round

 

[Reiser99]

I mean, tbf, that's exactly what Clinton is suggesting Biden does...

**** show all round

Slight difference is that Biden hasn't been undermining the credibility of the election for months, tried to stop people voting by underfunding the postal service or actively encouraged his supporters to vote twice if they have sent a mail in vote. Not suggesting Biden is a saint, but there is clearly only one person who is trying to disrupt people voting in the election to help himself.

 

[ncurd]

Starmer has given Johnson both barrels in his speech, all this is excerpts taking from BBC website.

The Labour leader thanks "the care workers, the van drivers, the cleaners, the shop workers and the life-savers in the NHS" who kept the country going during the crisis.

But he accuses No 10 of "serious incompetence".

"Six months in, a Cabinet chosen on loyalty alone shows no sign of having learnt any lessons from the crisis", adds Sir Keir.

He says he has learned two things...

"First, if you neglect your public services, you won't be ready when a crisis hits," he says.

"Nobody blames the government for the existence of the virus. But the under-funding of the NHS, the abandonment of social care and the lack of investment in prevention.

"That's all on their watch. That's all down to them."

The second thing he says he has learned is that "a crisis reveals character like nothing else".

Sir Keir adds: "And I think we've learnt a lot about this prime minister.

"He's just not serious. He's just not up to the job."

He accuses Boris Johnson of responding to problems by "wishing it away or by lashing out".

He moves onto Brexit, saying the PM "wished away the problems with the Irish border….then, when he finally realised what he'd signed up to he lashed out and decided to break international law.

"We're all doing our bit to combat the virus by obeying the rule of six. Meanwhile the government won't even obey the rule of law."

Sir Keir says there is a "big difference" between him and Johnson.

"While Boris Johnson was writing flippant columns about bendy bananas, I was defending victims and prosecuting terrorists," says Sir Keir.

"While he was being sacked by a newspaper for making up quotes, I was fighting for justice and the rule of law."

He says the "grown-up way to deal with Brexit is to negotiate properly and get a deal".

Sir Keir reiterates his previous point that the "debate between Leave and Remain is over".

But he says the PM "repeatedly promised that he will get a deal", and if he fails to get one, "he will be failing Britain... [and] he'll have nobody to blame but himself."

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Starmer has given Johnson both barrels in his speech, all this is excerpts taking from BBC website.

And yet Tories will turn around and just go "but but labour socialism!" And then act like that is actually a fair defence of the current **** show.

 

[TRF_heineken]

You clearly are stupid enough to think that Trump and what is currently happening in the USA, or Johnson and this country, are the equivalent of what has gone before. How do you account for the numerous people working in both administrations who have said these right wing populists are far more corrupt than what has come before? You keep trying to claim it's all the same but it just simply isn't. The fact that they are more openly corrupt and dishonest doesn't mean that by some perverse reasoning they are therefore less corrupt or dishonest.

Being less openly corrupt, IMHO is worse, because you are trying to hide how corrupt you truly are, and in essence shows how dishonest and evil you can be, that you go to extra lengths to prevent the information from being leaked, or dug up or whatever form you try to get this from being "open corruptness".

It's not saying that being openly corrupt means you are more or less corrupt. If you are corrupt, no matter what the scale is, you are then corrupt. But by hiding things, you could be seen as being more "criminal" as you are then perhaps also guilty of bribery, blackmail, abuse of power etc. Then you aren't just corrupt, but even more malicious and evil than someone being more open to what he is doing.

The thing is though, is that corruption in politics is always happening, be it minor like nepotism, party-advancement, race/friendship/religious advancement. I have always been a firm believer that the definition of corruption should be broadened, and that some parts of "corruptness" shouldn't be deemed illegal per se. And by this I mean that you got to that position with help, and the expectation is that if you are in that position, you will be able to give back to those who helped you. And sometimes the red tape and other factors just delays the inevitable, so people then take shortcuts, And that's usually where the corruption comes into play.

No what led to Trump was the tea party movement, Republican obstructionism and the outright disregard for basic decency. The whole thing spawned in from the birther movement and Obama being a Communist / Muslim. From that movement we got the tea party whose sole aim was to oppose and obstruct. When Obama was president they did nothing productive, all they did was divide. Lies upon lies and a complete lack of integrity so in a way you are right, the lack of it is what led to Trump. The bit you miss out is the people who most lacked it and most contributed to it are the people who are backing Trump. Trump didn't arise in opposition to it, he is the culmination of nearly a decade of Republican ****. You are even highlighting it here by trying to pin Flint (a REPUBLICAN issue by a republican governor in a Republican state run by a Republican legislature) on Obama. Executive powers are not all-encompassing and it is not the job of a president to override a decision on where an individual town gets their water from. It was the governors responsibility entirely and he completely abdicated that responsibility so how about you put the blame where it should actually be, at the feet of the Republicans?

Blame will always be with the party in control. And the blame usually comes from the parties not in control. That's just normal politics, and that's how the non-leader party(ies) try to get more voters to try and overthrow the leadership party at the voting booths.

Pretty standard.

Yes Bush ****** up Katrina, show me where I said otherwise. What Bush did NOT do is politicise Katrina and try to attack the people suffering based on their relative wealth or political leanings. Trump has done that numerous times (Puerto Rico, all Democrat states in Covid, west coast forest fires). Bush was incompetent, Trump is malicious (and incompetent). He has openly stated he wants to deny aid to those suffering because they are Democrats. This is NOT the same ffs.

Because Bush had Cheney, who was a brilliant political mind, and knew how to control Bush and prevent things from being worse. Bush wasn't smart enough to politicize issues, he wasn't the one pulling the strings.

 

[Gavin]

And yet Tories will turn around and just go "but but labour socialism!" And then act like that is actually a fair defence of the current **** show.

 

[ncurd]

Yes on Corbynista side of things they've a collective meltdown over something he didn't say. God its all horribly predictable.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Being less openly corrupt, IMHO is worse, because you are trying to hide how corrupt you truly are, and in essence shows how dishonest and evil you can be, that you go to extra lengths to prevent the information from being leaked, or dug up or whatever form you try to get this from being "open corruptness".

It's not saying that being openly corrupt means you are more or less corrupt. If you are corrupt, no matter what the scale is, you are then corrupt. But by hiding things, you could be seen as being more "criminal" as you are then perhaps also guilty of bribery, blackmail, abuse of power etc. Then you aren't just corrupt, but even more malicious and evil than someone being more open to what he is doing.

The thing is though, is that corruption in politics is always happening, be it minor like nepotism, party-advancement, race/friendship/religious advancement. I have always been a firm believer that the definition of corruption should be broadened, and that some parts of "corruptness" shouldn't be deemed illegal per se. And by this I mean that you got to that position with help, and the expectation is that if you are in that position, you will be able to give back to those who helped you. And sometimes the red tape and other factors just delays the inevitable, so people then take shortcuts, And that's usually where the corruption comes into play.



Blame will always be with the party in control. And the blame usually comes from the parties not in control. That's just normal politics, and that's how the non-leader party(ies) try to get more voters to try and overthrow the leadership party at the voting booths.

Pretty standard.


Because Bush had Cheney, who was a brilliant political mind, and knew how to control Bush and prevent things from being worse. Bush wasn't smart enough to politicize issues, he wasn't the one pulling the strings.

Being less openly corrupt is NOT the same as being less corrupt so stop acting like it is. Trump may be less openly corrupt but he is definitely more corrupt than his predecessors. You don't get to fabricate corruption for the others out of thin air and say "oh I bet that is happening in the background!" 2 can play at that, Trump is so corrupt that he does all the stuff behind the scenes we don't see AND does all the stuff we do see. That is literally what your argument boils down to and 2 can play at that game. How do you know Trump isn't also hiding things? You don't.

And again you are twisting and turning in a desperate attempt to pretend somehow, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Trump is not more corrupt. You are part of that ridiculous school of though where lack of evidence of wrong doing is more evidence that it is clearly happening in secret.

Bush was much smarter than Trump, and that is saying something. It's just a stream of excuses and making things up. Ok Trump isn't the one pulling the strings, he has Russians and special interests working behind the scenes blackmailing him and he is forced to play this act to try to defend himself. I don't have evidence? Doesn't matter, it's "them" operating in the background and the lack of evidence proves it.

 

[Yulia]

Bush was much smarter than Trump

I'm not that sure about this point tbh..I still remember Bush,the golden era of an American stand-up..