LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
🍿briantrumpet said:orraloon said:Quite why Spaffer and / or his handlers would think it smart having a pop at the one who knows where most of the bodies are buried...?
Maybe they just aren't very good at stuff.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
🍿briantrumpet said:orraloon said:Quite why Spaffer and / or his handlers would think it smart having a pop at the one who knows where most of the bodies are buried...?
Maybe they just aren't very good at stuff.
Is Sam Coates a journalist or an actor? 🤔0 -
What you’re describing is why it’s entirely a political problem.john80 said:
It is a public challenge not a political one. Let's face it if climate catastrophy occurs there will be large parts of the UK still inhabitable for the current population. Who is for a electric car at twice the price of a fossil one. Who is for no holidays by flight. Who is for knocking down their 100 year old house for a shiny efficient one with a air source heat pump and electricity from only green sources. These are all public choices that people are unwilling to make as 90% of the public are not flush with oodles of cash to Jose down the river on the solutions. With a bit of border control the problem is actually large sections of the world that Karen from Dunstable probably does not give two shits about if we are being truthful.rick_chasey said:
My mate worked in the Department of Energy & Climate Change in the civil service for a while and the policy guys are all over what needs to happen, how it needs to happen and are very forward thinking about it.TheBigBean said:
It's not my area of expertise, I'm just making the point that it is a legitimate and worthwhile thing that could be campaigned about.rjsterry said:
It's near enough national planning policy that heritage concerns trump energy use. It is apparently more important that old buildings are not altered than to tackle carbon emissions. There is little coordination of environmental policies with planning legislation. Planning authorities lack the expertise to assess proposed development and developers just see it as an extra cost to avoid. The current government scrapped the one bit of legislation that actually focused the various stakeholders on energy use: the Code for Sustainable Homes. Instead we have those worthless Energy Certificates drafted by a guy with a clipboard in about half an hour. So you'll forgive me if I am deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to doing anything more than setting an ambitious target.TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
By the way, there are more effective ways to reduce energy use than changing all the sash windows in London to double glazing.
I'm also certainly not saying that the government has done what it should have. This has been pointed out repeatedly by Climate Change Committee.
Their challenge is trying to engineer something that is politically viable that they can get whoever is in charge to buy into that achieves the aim.
That is the challenge. It is mainly a political challenge, not a technical one.
If anything Boris knows human behaviour better than many on this forum and all of those in extinction rebellion.
The incentives for individuals are not aligned to helping the problems, as some of your examples illustrate.
So it is up to the governors to make the way the world is run such that one’s individual incentives align with the collective need to stop climate change.
The challenge, especially in democracies is to be popular enough to be elected whilst running on a mandate which does require people put their own personal advantage to one side for the collective good.
That is really really difficult, hence my post above.0 -
This fight with Cummings is fascinating and the proof of incompetence, corruption and general buffoonery would mean it was curtains for a normal politician. But with Boris everybody already knows he treats the public purse as his own and that his bungling incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people.
My hunch is his Achilles Heels is that his fawning acolytes will be much less willing to forgive him for being pussywhipped.0 -
Cummings has virtually no credibility on this.surrey_commuter said:This fight with Cummings is fascinating and the proof of incompetence, corruption and general buffoonery would mean it was curtains for a normal politician. But with Boris everybody already knows he treats the public purse as his own and that his bungling incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people.
My hunch is his Achilles Heels is that his fawning acolytes will be much less willing to forgive him for being pussywhipped.
It’s entirely in his character to make out he’s the saviour and he’s thwarted by “Westminster” establishment. I don’t think he’s more likely to be telling the truth than either BoJo or any of his supporters.
I obviously think that BoJo is a lying self interested PM who struggles to make decisions and puts himself before country but just because Cummings is saying stuff that marries up with that doesn’t make it true.
What’s more interesting is why BoJo is briefing journalists to pick a fight with him.0 -
The Cummings thing is interesting if it gives the papers cover to attack Boris without attacking Brexit“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Cummings comments were very specific so in these instances I think he is telling the truth.rick_chasey said:
Cummings has virtually no credibility on this.surrey_commuter said:This fight with Cummings is fascinating and the proof of incompetence, corruption and general buffoonery would mean it was curtains for a normal politician. But with Boris everybody already knows he treats the public purse as his own and that his bungling incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people.
My hunch is his Achilles Heels is that his fawning acolytes will be much less willing to forgive him for being pussywhipped.
It’s entirely in his character to make out he’s the saviour and he’s thwarted by “Westminster” establishment. I don’t think he’s more likely to be telling the truth than either BoJo or any of his supporters.
I obviously think that BoJo is a lying self interested PM who struggles to make decisions and puts himself before country but just because Cummings is saying stuff that marries up with that doesn’t make it true.
What’s more interesting is why BoJo is briefing journalists to pick a fight with him.
My answer to why is because Carrie told him to0 -
Worth noting that an electric car is cheaper to run, so the equation is better than it looks when only considering the purchase.john80 said:
It is a public challenge not a political one. Let's face it if climate catastrophy occurs there will be large parts of the UK still inhabitable for the current population. Who is for a electric car at twice the price of a fossil one. Who is for no holidays by flight. Who is for knocking down their 100 year old house for a shiny efficient one with a air source heat pump and electricity from only green sources. These are all public choices that people are unwilling to make as 90% of the public are not flush with oodles of cash to Jose down the river on the solutions. With a bit of border control the problem is actually large sections of the world that Karen from Dunstable probably does not give two shits about if we are being truthful.rick_chasey said:
My mate worked in the Department of Energy & Climate Change in the civil service for a while and the policy guys are all over what needs to happen, how it needs to happen and are very forward thinking about it.TheBigBean said:
It's not my area of expertise, I'm just making the point that it is a legitimate and worthwhile thing that could be campaigned about.rjsterry said:
It's near enough national planning policy that heritage concerns trump energy use. It is apparently more important that old buildings are not altered than to tackle carbon emissions. There is little coordination of environmental policies with planning legislation. Planning authorities lack the expertise to assess proposed development and developers just see it as an extra cost to avoid. The current government scrapped the one bit of legislation that actually focused the various stakeholders on energy use: the Code for Sustainable Homes. Instead we have those worthless Energy Certificates drafted by a guy with a clipboard in about half an hour. So you'll forgive me if I am deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to doing anything more than setting an ambitious target.TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
By the way, there are more effective ways to reduce energy use than changing all the sash windows in London to double glazing.
I'm also certainly not saying that the government has done what it should have. This has been pointed out repeatedly by Climate Change Committee.
Their challenge is trying to engineer something that is politically viable that they can get whoever is in charge to buy into that achieves the aim.
That is the challenge. It is mainly a political challenge, not a technical one.
If anything Boris knows human behaviour better than many on this forum and all of those in extinction rebellion.0 -
Until the battery needs replacing in 6-8 years time.....TheBigBean said:
Worth noting that an electric car is cheaper to run, so the equation is better than it looks when only considering the purchase.john80 said:
It is a public challenge not a political one. Let's face it if climate catastrophy occurs there will be large parts of the UK still inhabitable for the current population. Who is for a electric car at twice the price of a fossil one. Who is for no holidays by flight. Who is for knocking down their 100 year old house for a shiny efficient one with a air source heat pump and electricity from only green sources. These are all public choices that people are unwilling to make as 90% of the public are not flush with oodles of cash to Jose down the river on the solutions. With a bit of border control the problem is actually large sections of the world that Karen from Dunstable probably does not give two shits about if we are being truthful.rick_chasey said:
My mate worked in the Department of Energy & Climate Change in the civil service for a while and the policy guys are all over what needs to happen, how it needs to happen and are very forward thinking about it.TheBigBean said:
It's not my area of expertise, I'm just making the point that it is a legitimate and worthwhile thing that could be campaigned about.rjsterry said:
It's near enough national planning policy that heritage concerns trump energy use. It is apparently more important that old buildings are not altered than to tackle carbon emissions. There is little coordination of environmental policies with planning legislation. Planning authorities lack the expertise to assess proposed development and developers just see it as an extra cost to avoid. The current government scrapped the one bit of legislation that actually focused the various stakeholders on energy use: the Code for Sustainable Homes. Instead we have those worthless Energy Certificates drafted by a guy with a clipboard in about half an hour. So you'll forgive me if I am deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to doing anything more than setting an ambitious target.TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
By the way, there are more effective ways to reduce energy use than changing all the sash windows in London to double glazing.
I'm also certainly not saying that the government has done what it should have. This has been pointed out repeatedly by Climate Change Committee.
Their challenge is trying to engineer something that is politically viable that they can get whoever is in charge to buy into that achieves the aim.
That is the challenge. It is mainly a political challenge, not a technical one.
If anything Boris knows human behaviour better than many on this forum and all of those in extinction rebellion.0 -
Ferrets in a bag.
As per my previous post, as much as what Cummings is saying about Johnson is aligned with my understanding of who Johnson is, he’s no more credible and this is just as likely positioning himself to be not be on the hook when the inevitable inquiry into why one of the richest nations with the best healthcare system in the world had so many deaths.
I also expect this is a mixture of playing for leverage and distracting from Brexit.0 -
S-Times reckons Cummings is trying to stay out of prison.rick_chasey said:
Ferrets in a bag.
As per my previous post, as much as what Cummings is saying about Johnson is aligned with my understanding of who Johnson is, he’s no more credible and this is just as likely positioning himself to be not be on the hook when the inevitable inquiry into why one of the richest nations with the best healthcare system in the world had so many deaths.
I also expect this is a mixture of playing for leverage and distracting from Brexit.
Lister quit because he was being paid by the Govt to sell the Royal Mint whilst being paid by the buyer and the agent in the middle. This seems so unbelievable I may have read it wrong but if true at least we know what they consider to be wrong.0 -
Not quite, the government didn't own it, but he was paid by the government to broker the deal, as well as by the developer who owned it and also by the company buying it for China.surrey_commuter said:
S-Times reckons Cummings is trying to stay out of prison.rick_chasey said:
Ferrets in a bag.
As per my previous post, as much as what Cummings is saying about Johnson is aligned with my understanding of who Johnson is, he’s no more credible and this is just as likely positioning himself to be not be on the hook when the inevitable inquiry into why one of the richest nations with the best healthcare system in the world had so many deaths.
I also expect this is a mixture of playing for leverage and distracting from Brexit.
Lister quit because he was being paid by the Govt to sell the Royal Mint whilst being paid by the buyer and the agent in the middle. This seems so unbelievable I may have read it wrong but if true at least we know what they consider to be wrong.
This was in the news 2 months ago, but I missed it.0 -
Prison for Cummings? What for?surrey_commuter said:
S-Times reckons Cummings is trying to stay out of prison.rick_chasey said:
Ferrets in a bag.
As per my previous post, as much as what Cummings is saying about Johnson is aligned with my understanding of who Johnson is, he’s no more credible and this is just as likely positioning himself to be not be on the hook when the inevitable inquiry into why one of the richest nations with the best healthcare system in the world had so many deaths.
I also expect this is a mixture of playing for leverage and distracting from Brexit.
Lister quit because he was being paid by the Govt to sell the Royal Mint whilst being paid by the buyer and the agent in the middle. This seems so unbelievable I may have read it wrong but if true at least we know what they consider to be wrong.0 -
ST quotes sources close to him as saying he thinks the Establishment are looking to punish him for Brexit. Seems the accusations of financial irregularities shook him uprick_chasey said:
Prison for Cummings? What for?surrey_commuter said:
S-Times reckons Cummings is trying to stay out of prison.rick_chasey said:
Ferrets in a bag.
As per my previous post, as much as what Cummings is saying about Johnson is aligned with my understanding of who Johnson is, he’s no more credible and this is just as likely positioning himself to be not be on the hook when the inevitable inquiry into why one of the richest nations with the best healthcare system in the world had so many deaths.
I also expect this is a mixture of playing for leverage and distracting from Brexit.
Lister quit because he was being paid by the Govt to sell the Royal Mint whilst being paid by the buyer and the agent in the middle. This seems so unbelievable I may have read it wrong but if true at least we know what they consider to be wrong.0 -
Didn't think the ST bothered itself with conspiracy theories.surrey_commuter said:
ST quotes sources close to him as saying he thinks the Establishment are looking to punish him for Brexit. Seems the accusations of financial irregularities shook him uprick_chasey said:
Prison for Cummings? What for?surrey_commuter said:
S-Times reckons Cummings is trying to stay out of prison.rick_chasey said:
Ferrets in a bag.
As per my previous post, as much as what Cummings is saying about Johnson is aligned with my understanding of who Johnson is, he’s no more credible and this is just as likely positioning himself to be not be on the hook when the inevitable inquiry into why one of the richest nations with the best healthcare system in the world had so many deaths.
I also expect this is a mixture of playing for leverage and distracting from Brexit.
Lister quit because he was being paid by the Govt to sell the Royal Mint whilst being paid by the buyer and the agent in the middle. This seems so unbelievable I may have read it wrong but if true at least we know what they consider to be wrong.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Would be quite strange to pretend they don’t exist and influence people’s decisions and behaviour.rjsterry said:
Didn't think the ST bothered itself with conspiracy theories.surrey_commuter said:
ST quotes sources close to him as saying he thinks the Establishment are looking to punish him for Brexit. Seems the accusations of financial irregularities shook him uprick_chasey said:
Prison for Cummings? What for?surrey_commuter said:
S-Times reckons Cummings is trying to stay out of prison.rick_chasey said:
Ferrets in a bag.
As per my previous post, as much as what Cummings is saying about Johnson is aligned with my understanding of who Johnson is, he’s no more credible and this is just as likely positioning himself to be not be on the hook when the inevitable inquiry into why one of the richest nations with the best healthcare system in the world had so many deaths.
I also expect this is a mixture of playing for leverage and distracting from Brexit.
Lister quit because he was being paid by the Govt to sell the Royal Mint whilst being paid by the buyer and the agent in the middle. This seems so unbelievable I may have read it wrong but if true at least we know what they consider to be wrong.
0 -
The idea any of them are not part of the Establishment is pretty risible.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Promises made, promises kept.0
-
-
There's also the story Man Utds Ed Woodward was in No. 10 a few days before the super league announcement, questions being asked if Johnson initially backed it.0
-
I guess the problem with saying that is not so much that he said it, but then the bodies did pile up in their hundreds of thousands.0
-
The ESL is the most Tory idea possible - of course it had government support! It's the Bullingdon Club with studs...verylonglegs said:There's also the story Man Utds Ed Woodward was in No. 10 a few days before the super league announcement, questions being asked if Johnson initially backed it.
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Is BoJo Coopster.rick_chasey said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04F4xlWSFh0
BoJo in his meetings.
(showing my age here...)0 -
@rick_chasey how do your in-laws feel aboutthe prosecution of British troops in NI?
Is there is a chance Johnny Mercer will do more damage than all the others?0 -
Just asked - no view.surrey_commuter said:@rick_chasey how do your in-laws feel aboutthe prosecution of British troops in NI?
Is there is a chance Johnny Mercer will do more damage than all the others?0 -
I should add they are avid Daily Mail readers and out of principle will never vote anyone who isn't Tory ("we're not poor so why should we vote labour?") but they loathe BoJo so much ("he ought to be shot") they have decided to note vote at all in the next election.0
-
is this loathing a recent thing?rick_chasey said:I should add they are avid Daily Mail readers and out of principle will never vote anyone who isn't Tory ("we're not poor so why should we vote labour?") but they loathe BoJo so much ("he ought to be shot") they have decided to note vote at all in the next election.
I would have thought British heroes in the 70s being prosecuted whilst terrorists walk free would fire up the traditional tory heartlands0 -
Not into the army stuff.surrey_commuter said:
is this loathing a recent thing?rick_chasey said:I should add they are avid Daily Mail readers and out of principle will never vote anyone who isn't Tory ("we're not poor so why should we vote labour?") but they loathe BoJo so much ("he ought to be shot") they have decided to note vote at all in the next election.
I would have thought British heroes in the 70s being prosecuted whilst terrorists walk free would fire up the traditional tory heartlands
The loathing is entirely down to his handling of the pandemic. Voted with some enthusiasm for him last time.0
