LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

tailwindhome said:

rick_chasey said:

tailwindhome said:

I'm no defender of Raab

But there's no way I'd be quitting any job for being on/staying on a holiday the boss has approved.

It’s not really a normal job he’s foreign secretary.

With great power comes great responsibility, literally.

I'm not saying I'd have stayed on holiday

I'm saying if I'd my boss's approval to do so there's no way I'd quit and I'd know he couldn't sack me

Yes he could if you were the foreign secretary.

Boris is renowned for being incompetent, lazy, corrupt and a liar but not for being a hypocrite so I think Raab is safe.

I wonder if Johnson prefers to surround himself with people who are not only not very competent, but also without a sense of principle, to make himself look not so awful.

I alluded to the same question recently.

I think broadly the same although I think it’s more that he’s a weak leader who doesn’t want to be challenged by capable people.

He also limited himself to hiring Brexit supporters, as such there is no obvious talent that he has not picked.

I agree it has definitely limited the pool.

However, I’ve recently been coming to the conclusion that he’s focussed on the more one dimensional idiotic ones.
I can’t believe there isn’t an underbelly of some talent on the bank benches.

But he’s scared of quietly capable people. He wants big characters with limited talent.

It’s like reality TV when you boil it down to simple terms.

rick_chasey

Which prominent members of vote leave would be more capable?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Which prominent members of vote leave would be more capable?

Why prominent - why not any Brexit backing (or old Etonian) Tory MP would be more capable

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

tailwindhome said:

rick_chasey said:

tailwindhome said:

I'm no defender of Raab

But there's no way I'd be quitting any job for being on/staying on a holiday the boss has approved.

It’s not really a normal job he’s foreign secretary.

With great power comes great responsibility, literally.

I'm not saying I'd have stayed on holiday

I'm saying if I'd my boss's approval to do so there's no way I'd quit and I'd know he couldn't sack me

Yes he could if you were the foreign secretary.

Boris is renowned for being incompetent, lazy, corrupt and a liar but not for being a hypocrite so I think Raab is safe.

I wonder if Johnson prefers to surround himself with people who are not only not very competent, but also without a sense of principle, to make himself look not so awful.

I alluded to the same question recently.

I think broadly the same although I think it’s more that he’s a weak leader who doesn’t want to be challenged by capable people.

He also limited himself to hiring Brexit supporters, as such there is no obvious talent that he has not picked.

I agree it has definitely limited the pool.

However, I’ve recently been coming to the conclusion that he’s focussed on the more one dimensional idiotic ones.
I can’t believe there isn’t an underbelly of some talent on the bank benches.

But he’s scared of quietly capable people. He wants big characters with limited talent.

It’s like reality TV when you boil it down to simple terms.

Whilst you can not be expected to know every Tory MP I would like to point out some of the Brexit supporting idiots he has overlooked Grayling, IDS, JRM, DD, Francois

elbowloh

TBF, as PM you don't get a 100% free hand to choose your cabinet. All parties will have wings who will push for their preferred representatives to have a role in cabinet. Raab is very much a darling the right of the party and has been given a role to placate those nutters that element of the party.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Which prominent members of vote leave would be more capable?

Why prominent - why not any Brexit backing (or old Etonian) Tory MP would be more capable

I think the criteria he has used is the above. After all, the jacobins don't buy into former remainers turned leavers (hence everyone having it in for Javid), they are not pure enough and lack the 'authentic' Brexit support, so you need to have backed the right horse in 2016. (Sorry Stevo)

So who did that publicly who is more capable than the existing cabinet?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Which prominent members of vote leave would be more capable?

Why prominent - why not any Brexit backing (or old Etonian) Tory MP would be more capable

I think the criteria he has used is the above. After all, the jacobins don't buy into former remainers turned leavers (hence everyone having it in for Javid), they are not pure enough and lack the 'authentic' Brexit support, so you need to have backed the right horse in 2016. (Sorry Stevo)

So who did that publicly who is more capable than the existing cabinet?

I think the importance is to have publicly backed the right horse in 2016.

we are also forgetting that his relatives get a free pass on being Remainers, surely some of them are more competent than the current Cabinet? His sister seems quite sensible could she not be elevated to the Lords and replace Raab?

rick_chasey

I didn't think they were on speaking terms.

Ultimately if anyone can come up with a backer of vote leave who is more capable than this lot, let us know as i don't think there are any.

It is fairly self selective.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Who made the call that British staff should spend any time and effort getting stray dogs out of Afghanistan?

Bit more to that story than you are implying.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Who made the call that British staff should spend any time and effort getting stray dogs out of Afghanistan?

Bit more to that story than you are implying.

Not really.

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Who made the call that British staff should spend any time and effort getting stray dogs out of Afghanistan?

Bit more to that story than you are implying.

Not really.

Wallace seems pretty upset by it so I am guessing it is his boss's wife

I know I have commented on the strange tipping points that cause individuals to lose it with this Govt but this is truly a fvcking disgrace taking up a precious landing/take off slot and associated messing around

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Who made the call that British staff should spend any time and effort getting stray dogs out of Afghanistan?

Bit more to that story than you are implying.

Not really.

You don't think maybe his 68 staff might be the issue.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Who made the call that British staff should spend any time and effort getting stray dogs out of Afghanistan?

Bit more to that story than you are implying.

Not really.

You don't think maybe his 68 staff might be the issue.

Are you saying that he's only kicking up a fuss so he can get out some dog walkers in preference to people who might otherwise be higher up the list? I admit I hadn't thought of that.

Either way... British staff shouldn't be spending any time on anything to do with the animals.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Who made the call that British staff should spend any time and effort getting stray dogs out of Afghanistan?

Bit more to that story than you are implying.

Not really.

You don't think maybe his 68 staff might be the issue.

Are you saying that he's only kicking up a fuss so he can get out some dog walkers in preference to people who might otherwise be higher up the list? I admit I hadn't thought of that.

Either way... British staff shouldn't be spending any time on anything to do with the animals.

It's a point of view I suppose. I'm not sure why animal welfare is suddenly just a nice to have. Nowzad had chartered a plane to get their staff and animals out. From what I can see the main reason the UK gov is now having to get involved now is because they initially tried to get in the way of those plans.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Who made the call that British staff should spend any time and effort getting stray dogs out of Afghanistan?

Bit more to that story than you are implying.

Not really.

You don't think maybe his 68 staff might be the issue.

Are you saying that he's only kicking up a fuss so he can get out some dog walkers in preference to people who might otherwise be higher up the list? I admit I hadn't thought of that.

Either way... British staff shouldn't be spending any time on anything to do with the animals.

It's a point of view I suppose. I'm not sure why animal welfare is suddenly just a nice to have. Nowzad had chartered a plane to get their staff and animals out. From what I can see the main reason the UK gov is now having to get involved now is because they initially tried to get in the way of those plans.

Because they're less important than the people.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Who made the call that British staff should spend any time and effort getting stray dogs out of Afghanistan?

Bit more to that story than you are implying.

Not really.

You don't think maybe his 68 staff might be the issue.

Are you saying that he's only kicking up a fuss so he can get out some dog walkers in preference to people who might otherwise be higher up the list? I admit I hadn't thought of that.

Either way... British staff shouldn't be spending any time on anything to do with the animals.

It's a point of view I suppose. I'm not sure why animal welfare is suddenly just a nice to have. Nowzad had chartered a plane to get their staff and animals out. From what I can see the main reason the UK gov is now having to get involved now is because they initially tried to get in the way of those plans.

Because they're less important than the people.

The animals are incidental to the story. A plane was chartered to evacuate some people (+ animals). Someone tried to block the flight and now they have had to sort out the mess they made. Of course if anyone in control had not actually had their head up their a*** the whole thing would not have come as such a 'surprise' and an orderly evacuation could have been organised. But sure let's make a fuss about some dogs to distract from the utter failure.

kingstongraham

This is evacuating people from a war we lost. If there's space for another plane, great. But don't waste time putting dogs on it.

kingstongraham

.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

This is evacuating people from a war we lost. If there's space for another plane, great. But don't waste time putting dogs on it.

Not so much lost as our main ally sold us out a year ago. Just agreed to walk away for nothing in return.

One last attempt. Charity realises they need to get out. Charity independently organises a means to do this without any help from UK gov. Not taking up space on another plane. 68 fewer people UK gov needs to find seats for. Animals only taking up space that can't be used for people.
Someone in UK gov appears to have tried to block this for some reason - perhaps fretting that someone would throw a fit about 'dogs before people'. Now it's blown up into a row that they feel they have to resolve. Maybe they should just focused on the people who hadn't organised their own evacuation.

kingstongraham

If you think people plus dogs takes as much effort to get onto a plane as just people, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Pross

What's happening with these dogs when they get here? Considering there are already a load of dogs that need rehoming plus people already rescuing dogs from Romania (my mum has taken two, the second of which attacked me recently so I'm not a fan of importing strays!)

rjsterry

It was their own plane. I'm not convinced the time taken to load cargo is here or there compared with refueling and other tasks.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

It was their own plane. I'm not convinced the time taken to load cargo is here or there compared with refueling and other tasks.

I suspect the point KG is making is that the ground staff weren't their own, and they may have had better things to do such as defending the airport or loading people on to other flights.

I have no idea what the additional workload was though.

Jezyboy

I thought it was additionally due to flight slots being limited.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

It was their own plane. I'm not convinced the time taken to load cargo is here or there compared with refueling and other tasks.

One hopes they aren’t refuelling the dog plane as they have a bad shortage.

I find this so annoying I half hope the self entitled tvvat gets shot

rjsterry

That video clip of Johnson and Raab shuffling around the Afghanistan crisis centre offices. Like they're on some sightseeing tour.

I guess it's easier to get worked up about some dogs and cats on one plane than contemplate how these two came to be in charge of such a disaster.

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/toby_n/status/1431885025855803393?s=21

Not the greatest look

bm5

That video of Johnson and Raab is so deeply embarrassing, how are these people running the country. Very sad.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

That video clip of Johnson and Raab shuffling around the Afghanistan crisis centre offices. Like they're on some sightseeing tour.

I guess it's easier to get worked up about some dogs and cats on one plane than contemplate how these two came to be in charge of such a disaster.

I am struggling with prioritising dogs and cats but am trying to accept that it is just one of those things in modern life that I just don’t get.

rjsterry

They weren't prioritised. It's mainly a row about things said on social media.