LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Is a 'Kipper thing, to target non hard Brexit Tories by joining aka infiltrating the local branch of the Con party. Politics in this country is so 'kin broken.

That split has already happened in most of Western Europe so it wouldn’t be altogether surprising for the same split between traditional centre right and nativist far right in the UK

Surely then we'd end up being a single party country with no one opposing Labour?

After seven years of austerity and with a sh1t leader they still “beat” Corbyn. If Labour had a viable leadership then the Tories would do their normal thing and hang tough together.

If the Tories split then it will give Labour moderates the balls to split.

I am beyond caring what that will look like as the vast majority of the 650 will be 3rd rate winkers.

FFS every time I see, hear or even the mention of Mark “Walt” Francois makes me ashamed to be English.

rjsterry

Francois is just a man who has realised he will get a lot of air time - which makes him feel 'inportant' - if he keeps saying silly things to reporters. It's not really a surprise that politics attracts people who like showing off in public.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Francois is just a man who has realised he will get a lot of air time - which makes him feel 'inportant' - if he keeps saying silly things to reporters. It's not really a surprise that politics attracts people who like showing off in public.

Talking of winkers, how is Francois pronounced? The 'c' is hard, no?

orraloon

I've just been invited to attend the Tory Party conference in Manchester. How many do you think I could take out? Doubt I could get my baseball bat in though.

Anyway, still time for others to do what can be termed the reverse Stevo, need to be in for 3 months before get to vote, on such things as party leader aka PM. Costs £2.09 per month, I look on it as a barsteward tax. Given the Maybot is out of there sometime this year... How does it go again, oh yeah, Take Back Control from the fogeys and swivel eyes.

rjsterry

Some uncomfortable polling for the Conservatives (not that it is much better for Labour). Sucked into a Brexit black hole, they are lucky to have to have each other.

https://www.politico.eu/article/poll-br ... re-issues/

rolf_f

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/15/sajid-javid-i-could-have-had-a-life-of-crime.

Obviously what actually happened was a great result for him but I can't help thinking that it would have been better for the country had he had that life of crime.......

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/15/sajid-javid-i-could-have-had-a-life-of-crime.

Obviously what actually happened was a great result for him but I can't help thinking that it would have been better for the country had he had that life of crime.......

It’s a fairly punchy tag line for an former MD at Deutsche Bank, the bank that cant seem to avoid being involved in **every single possible scandal that a bank can be involved in**

He’s also a good advert for the fact that being good at whatever niche happens to be high paying doesn’t mean you’re actually any smarter or better than your average joe.

It’s just he’s good at a niche that pays chuffing well.

rick_chasey

A good post on why “the nation can’t afford more tax credits for the poor” isn’t quite right.

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.co ... idise.html

mrfpb

40% of sitting Tory councillors will back Brexit party in EUP elections according to Daily Mail poll (I can't bring myself to post a link).

tangled_metal

If you can't link it why read it? Surely reading it is worse? Of course, if you think the Dailly Mail has published something of merit such that reading it is OK then why not link it?

Own up! The daily mail is your guilty pleasure!

robert88

Tangled Metal wrote:

If you can't link it why read it? Surely reading it is worse? Of course, if you think the Dailly Mail has published something of merit such that reading it is OK then why not link it?

Own up! The daily mail is your guilty pleasure!

You suggest DM readers are a bunch of w****ers?

tangled_metal

Robert88 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

If you can't link it why read it? Surely reading it is worse? Of course, if you think the Dailly Mail has published something of merit such that reading it is OK then why not link it?

Own up! The daily mail is your guilty pleasure!

You suggest DM readers are a bunch of w****ers?

Not me.suggesting that. It seems mrfpb read a poll and quoted it but wouldn't post a link. Just questioning mrfpb about the reason why it's OK to read, reference but not post the link. To some the DM isn't a paper / news source to admit to reading but they still read it. Hence the guilty pleasure.

Personally there's news outlets on the left and right who could fit into the guilty pleasure. Outlets you don't want your mates to know you read on account of them not fitting in with your political views perhaps but you still go to them.

mrfpb

Tangled Metal wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

If you can't link it why read it? Surely reading it is worse? Of course, if you think the Dailly Mail has published something of merit such that reading it is OK then why not link it?

Own up! The daily mail is your guilty pleasure!

You suggest DM readers are a bunch of w****ers?

Not me.suggesting that. It seems mrfpb read a poll and quoted it but wouldn't post a link. Just questioning mrfpb about the reason why it's OK to read, reference but not post the link. To some the DM isn't a paper / news source to admit to reading but they still read it. Hence the guilty pleasure.

Personally there's news outlets on the left and right who could fit into the guilty pleasure. Outlets you don't want your mates to know you read on account of them not fitting in with your political views perhaps but you still go to them.

The poll was cited in a BBC article as an aside to a story about Labour. I looked up the source of the poll and it was commissioned by the Daily Mail so didn't read further.

This is the BBC article. I didn't link it originally as the Daily Mail poll is buried in the article, but the link is there if you want to fact check.

orraloon

Fact check. Daily Mail. Ha ha. Aha ha ha.

rjsterry

mrfpb wrote:

40% of sitting Tory councillors will back Brexit party in EUP elections according to Daily Mail poll (I can't bring myself to post a link).

Slightly lost track of which thread is which but some more figures confirming the rift between parliamentary party and constituency membership.



Seriously, Andrea Leadsom and Liz Truss are leading the table?! It's reassuring that everyone agrees that Grayling is terrible.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

40% of sitting Tory councillors will back Brexit party in EUP elections according to Daily Mail poll (I can't bring myself to post a link).

Slightly lost track of which thread is which but some more figures confirming the rift between parliamentary party and constituency membership.



Seriously, Andrea Leadsom and Liz Truss are leading the table?! It's reassuring that everyone agrees that Grayling is terrible.

Yes, but these are the same people who think that Leadsom is great....... It's like treading on two turds at once; just because one is nastier than the other doesn't mean you actually like the other.

shirley_basso

Gove and Hunt positive?

orraloon

Is a micro sample. I was not asked. But hey, get your 3 swivel eye friends to click on some boxes and there you go, is a soshul meejah Fact.

mrfpb

It would have been useful to include Baroness Warsi as indicator of the type of people sampled for the poll.

rjsterry

mrfpb wrote:

It would have been useful to include Baroness Warsi as indicator of the type of people sampled for the poll.

Why, mrfpb, whatever do you mean?

mrfpb

rjsterry wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

It would have been useful to include Baroness Warsi as indicator of the type of people sampled for the poll.

Why, mrfpb, whatever do you mean?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... -qV8wxQNNX

rick_chasey

Tories are out managing expectations, claiming they'll lose 1000 council seats, so when they lose 800 it won't look so bad.

I for one will welcome Tories getting spanked in the local elections.

Though apparently more of a national issue, the homelessness problem is getting really quite bad. Just on my way in and out of work I passed over 25 homeless people today. Terrible. Local figures in Cambridge show a massive rise from 2012, having virtually eradicated it in 2010. Absolute travesty.

shirley_basso

I'd be interested to know what 'eradicated' means in this context. I fear that the homeless are just pushed from one place to the next, with the last place calling it a 'victory'.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tories are out managing expectations, claiming they'll lose 1000 council seats, so when they lose 800 it won't look so bad.

I for one will welcome Tories getting spanked in the local elections.

Though apparently more of a national issue, the homelessness problem is getting really quite bad. Just on my way in and out of work I passed over 25 homeless people today. Terrible. Local figures in Cambridge show a massive rise from 2012, having virtually eradicated it in 2010. Absolute travesty.

Labour controlled by the look of it, with Lib Dems in second place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_City_Council

rjsterry

Williamson sacked for Huawei leak.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Williamson sacked for Huawei leak.

I had him and Fox as the biggest idiots in the room and Fox has kept schtum before so Fox always looked guilty

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Williamson sacked for Huawei leak.

I had him and Fox as the biggest idiots in the room and Fox has kept schtum before so Fox always looked guilty

GW still claiming he didn't do it, but apparently no other credible explanation.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Williamson sacked for Huawei leak.

I had him and Fox as the biggest idiots in the room and Fox has kept schtum before so Fox always looked guilty

GW still claiming he didn't do it, but apparently no other credible explanation.

We live in strange times. Two years ago the fact he had been fired would lead you to believe he was 100% guilty. But then two years ago he would not have been in full on denial.

Somebody is digging a very big hole for themselves

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Williamson sacked for Huawei leak.

I had him and Fox as the biggest idiots in the room and Fox has kept schtum before so Fox always looked guilty

GW still claiming he didn't do it, but apparently no other credible explanation.

We live in strange times. Two years ago the fact he had been fired would lead you to believe he was 100% guilty. But then two years ago he would not have been in full on denial.

Somebody is digging a very big hole for themselves

He's written a formal letter to the PM explaining why he didn't take the offer of resignation. PM now considers the matter closed (is it f***) and apparently she herself was asked to account for her whereabouts after the meeting. Murky as...

orraloon

Shock news. Politicos are not trustworthy.