LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rjsterry

Jezyboy said:

When was the last time they mentioned levelling up?

And even when it was in the headlines, did any schemes actually make noticeable differences

Well there was that property deal in the north east where the MP fixed it for his developer mate to buy a site for next to nothing and get the local council to pay for all the remediation. Certainly made a noticeable difference to the developer.

rjsterry

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

Yeah. No need to expel her IMO, not least as there is an election due relatively soon. If she is doing her constituents a disservice they'll put her out of her misery, or she'll step down.

It's not like she'll be there indefinitely. Plus it's pretty in-character for her, so it's hard to argue her constituents have been duped.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

Yeah. No need to expel her IMO, not least as there is an election due relatively soon. If she is doing her constituents a disservice they'll put her out of her misery, or she'll step down.

It's not like she'll be there indefinitely. Plus it's pretty in-character for her, so it's hard to argue her constituents have been duped.

Think I'd be hacked off if my MP did f*** all work for a year.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

Yeah. No need to expel her IMO, not least as there is an election due relatively soon. If she is doing her constituents a disservice they'll put her out of her misery, or she'll step down.

It's not like she'll be there indefinitely. Plus it's pretty in-character for her, so it's hard to argue her constituents have been duped.

Think I'd be hacked off if my MP did f*** all work for a year.

I think the contemporary term is that such behaviour is "priced in".

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

Yeah. No need to expel her IMO, not least as there is an election due relatively soon. If she is doing her constituents a disservice they'll put her out of her misery, or she'll step down.

It's not like she'll be there indefinitely. Plus it's pretty in-character for her, so it's hard to argue her constituents have been duped.

Think I'd be hacked off if my MP did f*** all work for a year.

And you can vote them out!

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

Yeah. No need to expel her IMO, not least as there is an election due relatively soon. If she is doing her constituents a disservice they'll put her out of her misery, or she'll step down.

It's not like she'll be there indefinitely. Plus it's pretty in-character for her, so it's hard to argue her constituents have been duped.

Think I'd be hacked off if my MP did f*** all work for a year.

I think the contemporary term is that such behaviour is "priced in".

Disagree. For the people that actually need their MP to represent or help them with something like a bad landlord or similar, 'pricing it in' is not an option. This casework takes up quite a bit of MPs time. It's very easy to dismiss if you have been fortunate enough to not need it.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

Yeah. No need to expel her IMO, not least as there is an election due relatively soon. If she is doing her constituents a disservice they'll put her out of her misery, or she'll step down.

It's not like she'll be there indefinitely. Plus it's pretty in-character for her, so it's hard to argue her constituents have been duped.

Think I'd be hacked off if my MP did f*** all work for a year.

I think the contemporary term is that such behaviour is "priced in".

Disagree. For the people that actually need their MP to represent or help them with something like a bad landlord or similar, 'pricing it in' is not an option. This casework takes up quite a bit of MPs time. It's very easy to dismiss if you have been fortunate enough to not need it.

I was under the impression the casework takes up so much time because the basic institutions we have to govern are so run down you basically need your local MP to do you a solid to sort sh!t out.

I don't think it's a designed feature of being an MP.

Might be wrong, but it seems mad that people who are voting on things on whether they become law or not spend time on things pretty unrelated.

sungod

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. They want as many seats as possible. However they come. Quite hard to get more seats than they have now.

Also, they need to work with what they have, which is a poor track record and probably the most culturally/socially right wing PM and cabinet the UK has had in living memory.

I disagree.

I always said that there is an inherent conflict in getting the south to pay for levelling up the north. My suggestion is that they will give up on the old red wall and focus on shoring up their own blue wall

What evidence is there they are sending money up north?

london and the southeast are the only areas that have a net outflow to the rest of the country, i.e. london/se money (and it's mostly london's) is being sent up north and out west...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinances/financialyearending2022#:~:text=London is the only country,NFS (£37.4 billion).

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

Yeah. No need to expel her IMO, not least as there is an election due relatively soon. If she is doing her constituents a disservice they'll put her out of her misery, or she'll step down.

It's not like she'll be there indefinitely. Plus it's pretty in-character for her, so it's hard to argue her constituents have been duped.

Think I'd be hacked off if my MP did f*** all work for a year.

I think the contemporary term is that such behaviour is "priced in".

Disagree. For the people that actually need their MP to represent or help them with something like a bad landlord or similar, 'pricing it in' is not an option. This casework takes up quite a bit of MPs time. It's very easy to dismiss if you have been fortunate enough to not need it.

I was under the impression the casework takes up so much time because the basic institutions we have to govern are so run down you basically need your local MP to do you a solid to sort sh!t out.

I don't think it's a designed feature of being an MP.

Might be wrong, but it seems mad that people who are voting on things on whether they become law or not spend time on things pretty unrelated.

Nothing about MPs is designed. They are a representative for the constituency and it's residents, and carry some weight if you need someone to back you up. Same with local councillors.

rjsterry

sungod said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. They want as many seats as possible. However they come. Quite hard to get more seats than they have now.

Also, they need to work with what they have, which is a poor track record and probably the most culturally/socially right wing PM and cabinet the UK has had in living memory.

I disagree.

I always said that there is an inherent conflict in getting the south to pay for levelling up the north. My suggestion is that they will give up on the old red wall and focus on shoring up their own blue wall

What evidence is there they are sending money up north?

london and the southeast are the only areas that have a net outflow to the rest of the country, i.e. london/se money (and it's mostly london's) is being sent up north and out west...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinances/financialyearending2022#:~:text=London is the only country,NFS (£37.4 billion).

Think RC meant in addition to general background funding.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

Yeah. No need to expel her IMO, not least as there is an election due relatively soon. If she is doing her constituents a disservice they'll put her out of her misery, or she'll step down.

It's not like she'll be there indefinitely. Plus it's pretty in-character for her, so it's hard to argue her constituents have been duped.

Doesn't she get some additional redundancy payout if she gets voted out rather than resigning?

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo usually I think you are just enjoying winding people up but that is not working, we have had pages and pages of people patiently explaining how you are wrong.

You are in danger of people beginning to think you really believe this shite.

Talking of shite, let's hear your alternative solution.

See above. Several times.

Quote the relevant posts then.

Assuming it is right to just let more in is no more than assumption and only one part of the issue - namely the longer term impact of ever growing numbers of asylum seekers in the UK.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo usually I think you are just enjoying winding people up but that is not working, we have had pages and pages of people patiently explaining how you are wrong.

You are in danger of people beginning to think you really believe this shite.

Talking of shite, let's hear your alternative solution.

See above. Several times.

Quote the relevant posts then.

Assuming it is right to just let more in is no more than assumption and only one part of the issue - namely the longer term impact of ever growing numbers of asylum seekers in the UK.

There aren't 'ever growing numbers' so your basic premise is wrong. Anyway we've moved on. Small Boats Week was a fortnight ago and nothing has changed.

Pross

We were trying to get some information about a proposed bridge closure out of a Council for a client. They'd only found out about it through rumours and it effectively ment their store was cut off from its customers with a minimum 20 mile detour around narrow lanes and that their delivery lorries would have to take a huge detour to use a suitable road. All they wanted to know was when it was going to happen, how long it would last and if there were any measures in place so they could at least get their deliveries through. I chased for a month or two with no response, the Client (international company) contacted the local (Conservative) MP and within 24 hours there were offers of meetings with the Head of Highways, details of the proposals etc. I agree with Rick that this shouldn't be the sort of thing that an MP has to get involved with though although arguably it is due to successive Governments running public services into the ground.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

Yeah. No need to expel her IMO, not least as there is an election due relatively soon. If she is doing her constituents a disservice they'll put her out of her misery, or she'll step down.

It's not like she'll be there indefinitely. Plus it's pretty in-character for her, so it's hard to argue her constituents have been duped.

Think I'd be hacked off if my MP did f*** all work for a year.

I think the contemporary term is that such behaviour is "priced in".

Disagree. For the people that actually need their MP to represent or help them with something like a bad landlord or similar, 'pricing it in' is not an option. This casework takes up quite a bit of MPs time. It's very easy to dismiss if you have been fortunate enough to not need it.

Sorry. I meant “priced in” that Dorries would be a waste of time as she’s long-since been nothing but a publicity-seeker who’s happy to abuse her position as MP for personal gain.

tailwindhome

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Good article on the slacker MP.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/08/22/the-house-of-commons-could-simply-expel-dorries-should-it/

Yeah. No need to expel her IMO, not least as there is an election due relatively soon. If she is doing her constituents a disservice they'll put her out of her misery, or she'll step down.

It's not like she'll be there indefinitely. Plus it's pretty in-character for her, so it's hard to argue her constituents have been duped.

Think I'd be hacked off if my MP did f*** all work for a year.

North Antrim says hi

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo usually I think you are just enjoying winding people up but that is not working, we have had pages and pages of people patiently explaining how you are wrong.

You are in danger of people beginning to think you really believe this shite.

Talking of shite, let's hear your alternative solution.

See above. Several times.

Quote the relevant posts then.

Assuming it is right to just let more in is no more than assumption and only one part of the issue - namely the longer term impact of ever growing numbers of asylum seekers in the UK.

There aren't 'ever growing numbers' so your basic premise is wrong. Anyway we've moved on. Small Boats Week was a fortnight ago and nothing has changed.

So there are more asylum seekers leaving than arriving? Let's see your source.

Bottom line is that most people do not want to take on ever more asylum seekers. As I mentioned above, it does nothing for the country apart from making Libs feel virtuous.

tailwindhome

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo usually I think you are just enjoying winding people up but that is not working, we have had pages and pages of people patiently explaining how you are wrong.

You are in danger of people beginning to think you really believe this shite.

Talking of shite, let's hear your alternative solution.

See above. Several times.

Quote the relevant posts then.

Assuming it is right to just let more in is no more than assumption and only one part of the issue - namely the longer term impact of ever growing numbers of asylum seekers in the UK.

There aren't 'ever growing numbers' so your basic premise is wrong. Anyway we've moved on. Small Boats Week was a fortnight ago and nothing has changed.

So there are more asylum seekers leaving than arriving? Let's see your source.

Bottom line is that most people do not want to take on ever more asylum seekers. As I mentioned above, it does nothing for the country apart from making Libs feel virtuous.

That's a weird insult from someone who took in an asylum seeker.

Pross

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo usually I think you are just enjoying winding people up but that is not working, we have had pages and pages of people patiently explaining how you are wrong.

You are in danger of people beginning to think you really believe this shite.

Talking of shite, let's hear your alternative solution.

See above. Several times.

Quote the relevant posts then.

Assuming it is right to just let more in is no more than assumption and only one part of the issue - namely the longer term impact of ever growing numbers of asylum seekers in the UK.

There aren't 'ever growing numbers' so your basic premise is wrong. Anyway we've moved on. Small Boats Week was a fortnight ago and nothing has changed.

So there are more asylum seekers leaving than arriving? Let's see your source.

Bottom line is that most people do not want to take on ever more asylum seekers. As I mentioned above, it does nothing for the country apart from making Libs feel virtuous.

That's a weird insult from someone who took in an asylum seeker.

Ukrainian woman probably brings a different reaction to Afghan male to some. Right type of refugee.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo usually I think you are just enjoying winding people up but that is not working, we have had pages and pages of people patiently explaining how you are wrong.

You are in danger of people beginning to think you really believe this shite.

Talking of shite, let's hear your alternative solution.

See above. Several times.

Quote the relevant posts then.

Assuming it is right to just let more in is no more than assumption and only one part of the issue - namely the longer term impact of ever growing numbers of asylum seekers in the UK.

There aren't 'ever growing numbers' so your basic premise is wrong. Anyway we've moved on. Small Boats Week was a fortnight ago and nothing has changed.

So there are more asylum seekers leaving than arriving? Let's see your source.

Bottom line is that most people do not want to take on ever more asylum seekers. As I mentioned above, it does nothing for the country apart from making Libs feel virtuous.

If you are just going to make unfounded claims there's no point continuing this. I've posted my thoughts numerous times. If you are interested you can find them.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo usually I think you are just enjoying winding people up but that is not working, we have had pages and pages of people patiently explaining how you are wrong.

You are in danger of people beginning to think you really believe this shite.

Talking of shite, let's hear your alternative solution.

See above. Several times.

Quote the relevant posts then.

Assuming it is right to just let more in is no more than assumption and only one part of the issue - namely the longer term impact of ever growing numbers of asylum seekers in the UK.

There aren't 'ever growing numbers' so your basic premise is wrong. Anyway we've moved on. Small Boats Week was a fortnight ago and nothing has changed.

So there are more asylum seekers leaving than arriving? Let's see your source.

Bottom line is that most people do not want to take on ever more asylum seekers. As I mentioned above, it does nothing for the country apart from making Libs feel virtuous.

If you are just going to make unfounded claims there's no point continuing this. I've posted my thoughts numerous times. If you are interested you can find them.

Where's your source for your claim?

And if you are right and the numbers of asylum seekers in the UK are reducing, does that mean that tory immigration policy is working?

pangolin

Talk us through the figures you extrapolated from 1 summer day Stevo and show us the errors of our ways.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Talk us through the figures you extrapolated from 1 summer day Stevo and show us the errors of our ways.

The question is for RJS to answer. Good deflection attempt though.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Talk us through the figures you extrapolated from 1 summer day Stevo and show us the errors of our ways.

The question is for RJS to answer. Good deflection attempt though.

No I'm asking you a question

First.Aspect

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo usually I think you are just enjoying winding people up but that is not working, we have had pages and pages of people patiently explaining how you are wrong.

You are in danger of people beginning to think you really believe this shite.

Talking of shite, let's hear your alternative solution.

See above. Several times.

Quote the relevant posts then.

Assuming it is right to just let more in is no more than assumption and only one part of the issue - namely the longer term impact of ever growing numbers of asylum seekers in the UK.

There aren't 'ever growing numbers' so your basic premise is wrong. Anyway we've moved on. Small Boats Week was a fortnight ago and nothing has changed.

So there are more asylum seekers leaving than arriving? Let's see your source.

Bottom line is that most people do not want to take on ever more asylum seekers. As I mentioned above, it does nothing for the country apart from making Libs feel virtuous.

If you are just going to make unfounded claims there's no point continuing this. I've posted my thoughts numerous times. If you are interested you can find them.

Where's your source for your claim?

And if you are right and the numbers of asylum seekers in the UK are reducing, does that mean that tory immigration policy is working?

Immigration policy has little to do with the numbers of asylum applications, which go up and down due to independent external factors. Immigration policy does not determine either the number of asylum applications or the number of those applications that are successful. Judging by its effect, Conservative policy is apparently to generally increase immigration. I think this is generally a good thing. There's little point repeating myself further so I'll leave it there.

rick_chasey

Police don’t enforce bike theft, state broadcaster publicises vigilante, police officer in said publicity doesn’t say to not conduct vigilante behaviour, just not to do it solo.

State of the nation. If Tories are supposed to be tough on crime wtf

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-66585713

pblakeney

Tories talk tough...
Eh, that's it.