Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Plim]

This thread largely isn't about the GLP and even people who appreciate their work - like me! - primarily care about and talk about other things on this thread, and in case you've not been paying attention there's some major shit going down at the moment. That document was published today, and the judgment was made public, what, 4 hours ago? You might be a teensie bit obsessed with the GLP, or more accurately with Maugham. Having said that, I don't see Jolyon Maugham's name anywhere in that document...

On the face of it, this was actually a useful case to bring. Having important communications recorded is a bulwark against corruption, which is a live worry with this government. I have no idea if the GLP will prevail with their appeal, but personally I hope they do. I cannot see how it is good for the future health of democracy in this country if ministers are able to conduct business with no audit trail. Note that's not the same as me claiming it's unlawful - because right now we know it's not.

Which is slightly mad, all things considered.

I get notifications of judgment hand-downs. That’s how I know. The GLP’s adventures just turn up with comical regularity.

The main shit that’s going down is being discussed on the Ukraine thread. And although party political comments get thrown in there I leave them alone. Because that seems a crass place for people to try to score domestic political points.

Er... There's more than a few things happening on the domestic front, champ. It's not just about the war.

I note you didn't bother to address the comments about the judgment itself. Happy with their decision?

I didn’t bother commenting on the decision because I expect any reasonable comment that doesn’t fit the agenda on this thread to be wilfully misrepresented or accused of being whataboutery.

But the issue that you seem to think is solely about the Tories and ‘corruption’ is universal. It isn’t any necessary indicator of wrongdoing that discussions are not recorded. The issue is the substance of the discussions.

GLP and AtC just wanted to allege rule breaking because of the use of messaging apps. There was no evidence at all of improper use. As the judgment says, there’s nothing wrong with a communications policy or ephemeral messages being destroyed.

Millions upon millions of government and government agency emails are deleted every single day and always have been. Billions of words are spoken in those bodies that are not written down. None of this is improper or unlawful per se.

What the court held was that the communications policy that allows the use of apps is not reviewable or, more to the point, unlawful in its scope. How could it be? It would otherwise amount to a legal obligation to record and release every word uttered by a minister.

You may not like me saying it, but Blair was notorious for unrecorded sofa chats with ministers and advisors. The answer was that it was not recordable government business. I know, I know…“but this is the Tories, it must have been corrupt”.

[JM2K6]

So you're comparing chats with other ministers with the conversations that lead to huge contracts being awarded to Tory donors and friends of MPs, outside of the usual tender process?

Why bother recording anything, then. Just do it all via WhatsApp and delete it all if anyone asks to see it.

[Plim]

So you're comparing chats with other ministers with the conversations that lead to huge contracts being awarded to Tory donors and friends of MPs, outside of the usual tender process?

Why bother recording anything, then. Just do it all via WhatsApp and delete it all if anyone asks to see it.

How do you know that the WhatsApp conversations led to huge contracts or any other significant decisions outside the proper processes?

If there was proof of misfeasance or fraud it wouldn’t be a case for the Administrative Court.

[Tichtheid]

So you're comparing chats with other ministers with the conversations that lead to huge contracts being awarded to Tory donors and friends of MPs, outside of the usual tender process?

Why bother recording anything, then. Just do it all via WhatsApp and delete it all if anyone asks to see it.

How do you know that the WhatsApp conversations led to huge contracts or any other significant decisions outside the proper processes?

If there was proof of misfeasance or fraud it wouldn’t be a case for the Administrative Court.

I think the lack of proof is the whole point here, tbh

it can just be swiped away, and I think that is probably why the court gave the right to appeal today

[JM2K6]

So you're comparing chats with other ministers with the conversations that lead to huge contracts being awarded to Tory donors and friends of MPs, outside of the usual tender process?

Why bother recording anything, then. Just do it all via WhatsApp and delete it all if anyone asks to see it.

How do you know that the WhatsApp conversations led to huge contracts or any other significant decisions outside the proper processes?

If there was proof of misfeasance or fraud it wouldn’t be a case for the Administrative Court.

Because they admitted to having a WhatsApp group with a bunch of CEOs who then got contracts. They've admitted to using WhatsApp for the covid response. Plus there's the whole Lord Bethell scandal which was all about covid contracts and him using personal mail and messaging apps, then"replacing" his phone when investigations began.

And of course, Boris and his wallpaper.

There's a big distance between "nothing to worry about" and "proof of malfeasance", especially when the proof is able to be deleted, which is a big part of the problem to begin with. Michelle Mone's house being raided makes it obvious that hand waving away the risk of corruption, especially when it comes to those huge covid contracts (hello also Matt Hancock), is just laughably one eyed. I know you're not stupid or naive...

[Tichtheid]

So you're comparing chats with other ministers with the conversations that lead to huge contracts being awarded to Tory donors and friends of MPs, outside of the usual tender process?

Why bother recording anything, then. Just do it all via WhatsApp and delete it all if anyone asks to see it.

How do you know that the WhatsApp conversations led to huge contracts or any other significant decisions outside the proper processes?

If there was proof of misfeasance or fraud it wouldn’t be a case for the Administrative Court.

Because they admitted to having a WhatsApp group with a bunch of CEOs who then got contracts. They've admitted to using WhatsApp for the covid response. Plus there's the whole Lord Bethell scandal which was all about covid contracts and him using personal mail and messaging apps, then"replacing" his phone when investigations began.

And of course, Boris and his wallpaper.

There's a big distance between "nothing to worry about" and "proof of malfeasance", especially when the proof is able to be deleted, which is a big part of the problem to begin with. Michelle Mone's house being raided makes it obvious that hand waving away the risk of corruption, especially when it comes to those huge covid contracts (hello also Matt Hancock), is just laughably one eyed. I know you're not stupid or naive...

Would the same "nothing to see here" attitude be in play if it was a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party in Government who were doing this?

We'll never know of course, but I think I'm on solid ground to say, no fucking way Jose

[JM2K6]

How do you know that the WhatsApp conversations led to huge contracts or any other significant decisions outside the proper processes?

If there was proof of misfeasance or fraud it wouldn’t be a case for the Administrative Court.

Because they admitted to having a WhatsApp group with a bunch of CEOs who then got contracts. They've admitted to using WhatsApp for the covid response. Plus there's the whole Lord Bethell scandal which was all about covid contracts and him using personal mail and messaging apps, then"replacing" his phone when investigations began.

And of course, Boris and his wallpaper.

There's a big distance between "nothing to worry about" and "proof of malfeasance", especially when the proof is able to be deleted, which is a big part of the problem to begin with. Michelle Mone's house being raided makes it obvious that hand waving away the risk of corruption, especially when it comes to those huge covid contracts (hello also Matt Hancock), is just laughably one eyed. I know you're not stupid or naive...

Would the same "nothing to see here" attitude be in play if it was a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party in Government who were doing this?

We'll never know of course, but I think I'm on solid ground to say, no fucking way Jose

Quite.

This ruling is a blow to transparency right at a time when trust in the government is it at an incredible low. Regardless of who is in power, we cannot make it this easy for unscrupulous people to avoid scrutiny.

[Plim]

So you're comparing chats with other ministers with the conversations that lead to huge contracts being awarded to Tory donors and friends of MPs, outside of the usual tender process?

Why bother recording anything, then. Just do it all via WhatsApp and delete it all if anyone asks to see it.

How do you know that the WhatsApp conversations led to huge contracts or any other significant decisions outside the proper processes?

If there was proof of misfeasance or fraud it wouldn’t be a case for the Administrative Court.

Because they admitted to having a WhatsApp group with a bunch of CEOs who then got contracts. They've admitted to using WhatsApp for the covid response. Plus there's the whole Lord Bethell scandal which was all about covid contracts and him using personal mail and messaging apps, then"replacing" his phone when investigations began.

And of course, Boris and his wallpaper.

There's a big distance between "nothing to worry about" and "proof of malfeasance", especially when the proof is able to be deleted, which is a big part of the problem to begin with. Michelle Mone's house being raided makes it obvious that hand waving away the risk of corruption, especially when it comes to those huge covid contracts (hello also Matt Hancock), is just laughably one eyed. I know you're not stupid or naive...

The question wasn’t ‘what do you suspect?’ it was ‘how do you know’? There’s nothing in that case about known deletion of improper messages.

Jolyon - ok, GLP - lost the case against Hancock anyway. The reason for 200 CEOs (from the Hancock JR) being in a WhatsApp group - it was hardly secret - was explained at the time.

Was Michelle Mone in a WhatsApp group? Was her house raided because of WhatsApp messages?

You’re right: I’m not stupid or naive. That’s why I think that all power should be policed carefully - no matter who’s in government; that there must be evidence for allegations of conspiracy; that it’s right to be as wary of the motives and conduct of campaigners as of politicians; and that I don’t think one politician is inevitably less trustworthy than another, because of political difference (though I’d always suspect local government more readily than central: local politics is particularly smelly).

[Plim]

Would the same "nothing to see here" attitude be in play if it was a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party in Government who were doing this?

We'll never know of course, but I think I'm on solid ground to say, no fucking way Jose

I’d expect evidence before any conspiracy was alleged against Jeremy Corbyn.

[Tichtheid]

Would the same "nothing to see here" attitude be in play if it was a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party in Government who were doing this?

We'll never know of course, but I think I'm on solid ground to say, no fucking way Jose

I’d expect evidence before any conspiracy was alleged against Jeremy Corbyn.

I really don't know where to start with this.

and I thought he was the worst possible choice as leader of the Labour Party at that time

[JM2K6]

How do you know that the WhatsApp conversations led to huge contracts or any other significant decisions outside the proper processes?

If there was proof of misfeasance or fraud it wouldn’t be a case for the Administrative Court.

Because they admitted to having a WhatsApp group with a bunch of CEOs who then got contracts. They've admitted to using WhatsApp for the covid response. Plus there's the whole Lord Bethell scandal which was all about covid contracts and him using personal mail and messaging apps, then"replacing" his phone when investigations began.

And of course, Boris and his wallpaper.

There's a big distance between "nothing to worry about" and "proof of malfeasance", especially when the proof is able to be deleted, which is a big part of the problem to begin with. Michelle Mone's house being raided makes it obvious that hand waving away the risk of corruption, especially when it comes to those huge covid contracts (hello also Matt Hancock), is just laughably one eyed. I know you're not stupid or naive...

The question wasn’t ‘what do you suspect?’ it was ‘how do you know’? There’s nothing in that case about known deletion of improper messages.

Jolyon - ok, GLP - lost the case against Hancock anyway. The reason for 200 CEOs (from the Hancock JR) being in a WhatsApp group - it was hardly secret - was explained at the time.

Was Michelle Mone in a WhatsApp group? Was her house raided because of WhatsApp messages?

You’re right: I’m not stupid or naive. That’s why I think that all power should be policed carefully - no matter who’s in government; that there must be evidence for allegations of conspiracy; that it’s right to be as wary of the motives and conduct of campaigners as of politicians; and that I don’t think one politician is inevitably less trustworthy than another, because of political difference (though I’d always suspect local government more readily than central: local politics is particularly smelly).

So to be clear, the fact that transparency international said that over a fifth of the covid contracts raised serious red flags, that the VIP lane (largely for Tory peers, donors, and allies) made it 10x more likely to get a contract, and the government having to be ordered by a court to turn over WhatsApp messages and private emails because of the stink of corruption around it doesn't bother you at all?

Using WhatsApp while handing out vast sums of public money to your mates in deals so dodgy that the agencies who report on the health of democracy & the risk of corruption worldwide feels the need to step in, ensuring the audit trail is much harder to follow - or impossible if they choose to delete it or have it auto delete - well, that should bother you.

But you know full well that the problem here is the lack of transparency and the absolute simplicity of getting rid of anything that would be proof of malfeasance.

As for Mone, that case is about MedPro, who were - surprise! - in the VIP lane that was operating outside the usual processes, with so much being done over WhatsApp.

At some point you must realise that you going "aha, but there's no PROOF" is missing the point quite dramatically - surely you must see that this ruling is a bad one for the health of our democracy.

[Plim]

Would the same "nothing to see here" attitude be in play if it was a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party in Government who were doing this?

We'll never know of course, but I think I'm on solid ground to say, no fucking way Jose

I’d expect evidence before any conspiracy was alleged against Jeremy Corbyn.

I really don't know where to start with this.

and I thought he was the worst possible choice as leader of the Labour Party at that time

You'd start with evidence.

He was the worst possible leader of Labour. But that was because of his childish politics, his dimness and his tolerance of antisemites. It had nothing to do with corruption.

[Tichtheid]

I’d expect evidence before any conspiracy was alleged against Jeremy Corbyn.

I really don't know where to start with this.

and I thought he was the worst possible choice as leader of the Labour Party at that time

You'd start with evidence.

He was the worst possible leader of Labour. But that was because of his childish politics, his dimness and his tolerance of antisemites. It had nothing to do with corruption.

"This research project provides a sound and theoretically informed analysis of the various (or unison) media representations of the rise of Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate for the Labour leadership and of him as the new leader of the largest opposition party in the UK. Furthermore, this project also aims to make a contribution to the ongoing public debate regarding the role of mainstream media and of journalists in a media-saturated democracy.

We set out to recognise and acknowledge the legitimate role of the press to critique and challenge the powers that be, which is often encapsulated by the metaphor of the watchdog. Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attackdog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served."

https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communi ... emy-corbyn


Now, I know this will be poo pooed away, but there is always a chance that someone might want a fully rounded view of what was going on

Again, I'll state that I thought he was the worst possible leader at that time

[Plim]

So to be clear, the fact that transparency international said that over a fifth of the covid contracts raised serious red flags, that the VIP lane (largely for Tory peers, donors, and allies) made it 10x more likely to get a contract, and the government having to be ordered by a court to turn over WhatsApp messages and private emails because of the stink of corruption around it doesn't bother you at all?

Using WhatsApp while handing out vast sums of public money to your mates in deals so dodgy that the agencies who report on the health of democracy & the risk of corruption worldwide feels the need to step in, ensuring the audit trail is much harder to follow - or impossible if they choose to delete it or have it auto delete - well, that should bother you.

But you know full well that the problem here is the lack of transparency and the absolute simplicity of getting rid of anything that would be proof of malfeasance.

As for Mone, that case is about MedPro, who were - surprise! - in the VIP lane that was operating outside the usual processes, with so much being done over WhatsApp.

At some point you must realise that you going "aha, but there's no PROOF" is missing the point quite dramatically - surely you must see that this ruling is a bad one for the health of our democracy.

There's a great deal of two and two makes five there, a lot of presumption and some big non sequiturs. Doesn't it matter to you that the courts - I assume you believe they're tolerably fair and disinterested - keep rejecting these challenges? If there was widespread law breaking going on, don't you think the GLP would have won something by now? Hancock was vindicated in court - there was no "stink of corruption" in that case.

But, as it happens, I do worry about the health of our democracy. Much of that comes from parties being in government - nationally and locally - for too long. Unshiftable power is a very bad thing. There is undoubtedly corruption in government, at all levels. But you need tangible evidence to allege it and root it out, not suspicions and internet echo chambers. I wouldn't look to Jolyon Maugham and Carole Cadwalladr to save democracy.

[PCPhil]

Neil Parish is claiming he may have opened porn on his phone by mistake.

I was going to try to post a humorous follow up to this but the above can’t be bettered.

[Blackmac]

Neil Parish is claiming he may have opened porn on his phone by mistake.

I was going to try to post a humorous follow up to this but the above can’t be bettered.

To be fair the alternative is so bloody hard to believe that I'm inclined to believe him. It's incredible to think that he would be watching porn in a busy chamber. All of us will have opened up something we have been sent in a group chat or even on here that turned out to be NSFW. Plus it ties in with the female MP who stated he closed it down before she could get a video of it.

[PCPhil]

Neil Parish is claiming he may have opened porn on his phone by mistake.

I was going to try to post a humorous follow up to this but the above can’t be bettered.

To be fair the alternative is so bloody hard to believe that I'm inclined to believe him. It's incredible to think that he would be watching porn in a busy chamber. All of us will have opened up something we have been sent in a group chat or even on here that turned out to be NSFW. Plus it ties in with the female MP who stated he closed it down before she could get a video of it.

Twice? Did he go back the second time just to confirm it in a sub meeting room again full of women. Yeah, okay. Benefit of doubt an all that.

[C69]

[fishfoodie]

Neil Parish is claiming he may have opened porn on his phone by mistake.

I was going to try to post a humorous follow up to this but the above can’t be bettered.

To be fair the alternative is so bloody hard to believe that I'm inclined to believe him. It's incredible to think that he would be watching porn in a busy chamber. All of us will have opened up something we have been sent in a group chat or even on here that turned out to be NSFW. Plus it ties in with the female MP who stated he closed it down before she could get a video of it.

Twice? Did he go back the second time just to confirm it in a sub meeting room again full of women. Yeah, okay. Benefit of doubt an all that.

as per, the Tory Leadership have completely misjudged the mood on this, & the Bumblecunt really doesn't want to add 20+ of his own MPs to the ranks of the women who want him to burn in hell !

If it was a clip someone sent on whatapp, Parish might not be the only MP sweating over the investigation !

[dpedin]

To be fair the alternative is so bloody hard to believe that I'm inclined to believe him. It's incredible to think that he would be watching porn in a busy chamber. All of us will have opened up something we have been sent in a group chat or even on here that turned out to be NSFW. Plus it ties in with the female MP who stated he closed it down before she could get a video of it.

Twice? Did he go back the second time just to confirm it in a sub meeting room again full of women. Yeah, okay. Benefit of doubt an all that.

as per, the Tory Leadership have completely misjudged the mood on this, & the Bumblecunt really doesn't want to add 20+ of his own MPs to the ranks of the women who want him to burn in hell !

If it was a clip someone sent on whatapp, Parish might not be the only MP sweating over the investigation !

I watched clip of Parrish being interviewed in Twitter and the clip of him on GB Twattery News last week before it was disclosed it was him who was the perv. He is both astonishingly thick and astonishingly arrogant. His wife is equally so and did the usual 'everyone watches porn at work' or 'the girls in the films know what they are doing, it takes two to tango' shit. Applying their low miserable standards in life to everyone else is now the standard response just like 'everyone broke covid rules' shite. The 'we need to wait for the outcome of the investigation' response just shows how low the tories have sunk and the damage the Partygate response from the Blonde Bumblecunt has done to the HoC. What the fuck happened to honourable behaviour and putting your hands up when caught in the act? It is staggering how bumptious and entitled these guys are, I honestly had to check it wasn't a piss take or a clip from the Fast Show. Having seen the twat Parrish I am in no doubt he wouldn't think twice of watching porn in the Chamber or wherever he wanted to be honest. These guys really do believe that there is one law for them and one for everyone else. He should be sacked from the Tories and made to stand for re election.

[fishfoodie]

Twice? Did he go back the second time just to confirm it in a sub meeting room again full of women. Yeah, okay. Benefit of doubt an all that.

as per, the Tory Leadership have completely misjudged the mood on this, & the Bumblecunt really doesn't want to add 20+ of his own MPs to the ranks of the women who want him to burn in hell !

If it was a clip someone sent on whatapp, Parish might not be the only MP sweating over the investigation !

I watched clip of Parrish being interviewed in Twitter and the clip of him on GB Twattery News last week before it was disclosed it was him who was the perv. He is both astonishingly thick and astonishingly arrogant. His wife is equally so and did the usual 'everyone watches porn at work' or 'the girls in the films know what they are doing, it takes two to tango' shit. Applying their low miserable standards in life to everyone else is now the standard response just like 'everyone broke covid rules' shite. The 'we need to wait for the outcome of the investigation' response just shows how low the tories have sunk and the damage the Partygate response from the Blonde Bumblecunt has done to the HoC. What the fuck happened to honourable behaviour and putting your hands up when caught in the act? It is staggering how bumptious and entitled these guys are, I honestly had to check it wasn't a piss take or a clip from the Fast Show. Having seen the twat Parrish I am in no doubt he wouldn't think twice of watching porn in the Chamber or wherever he wanted to be honest. These guys really do believe that there is one law for them and one for everyone else. He should be sacked from the Tories and made to stand for re election.

But the problem for the Bumblecunt is that any by-election is a de facto poll on his Leadership, & in the last true one, he lost a seat the Tories have held since the stone age !

How will Red Wall MPs react to him losing them Parrishs seat; which if it's elected an entitled cretin like him for twelve years, must be almost as solid ?

[dpedin]

as per, the Tory Leadership have completely misjudged the mood on this, & the Bumblecunt really doesn't want to add 20+ of his own MPs to the ranks of the women who want him to burn in hell !

If it was a clip someone sent on whatapp, Parish might not be the only MP sweating over the investigation !

I watched clip of Parrish being interviewed in Twitter and the clip of him on GB Twattery News last week before it was disclosed it was him who was the perv. He is both astonishingly thick and astonishingly arrogant. His wife is equally so and did the usual 'everyone watches porn at work' or 'the girls in the films know what they are doing, it takes two to tango' shit. Applying their low miserable standards in life to everyone else is now the standard response just like 'everyone broke covid rules' shite. The 'we need to wait for the outcome of the investigation' response just shows how low the tories have sunk and the damage the Partygate response from the Blonde Bumblecunt has done to the HoC. What the fuck happened to honourable behaviour and putting your hands up when caught in the act? It is staggering how bumptious and entitled these guys are, I honestly had to check it wasn't a piss take or a clip from the Fast Show. Having seen the twat Parrish I am in no doubt he wouldn't think twice of watching porn in the Chamber or wherever he wanted to be honest. These guys really do believe that there is one law for them and one for everyone else. He should be sacked from the Tories and made to stand for re election.

But the problem for the Bumblecunt is that any by-election is a de facto poll on his Leadership, & in the last true one, he lost a seat the Tories have held since the stone age !

How will Red Wall MPs react to him losing them Parrishs seat; which if it's elected an entitled cretin like him for twelve years, must be almost as solid ?

I agree and for that reason the Tories will do everything but what they should do. They will huff and puff, announce some sort of HoC review body, populate it with some dodgy friendly MPs and get a friend of the Blonde Bumblecunt to chair it ...and then let it wither on the vine without delivering anything. Meanwhile Parrish will be given some token form of punishment and will stand down at the next election to 'spend more time with his wife and family' and collect his pension, a couple of non executive jobs and probably a Chairmanship of some child protection or vulnerable women/shelter charity!

[C69]

So when did he lose/change/swap/fush/drop his phone?

Feck me

[C69]

Imho he is going to resign beacuse he pissed off his right wing mates with his silence and the resultant speculation and accusations among the Tory Party sleaze bags.

[Blackmac]

Jesus. He has just admitted it was deliberate. It's fucking incomprehensible.

[tabascoboy]

In an exclusive interview with BBC South West, he said: "The situation was that - funnily enough it was tractors I was looking at. I did get into another website that had a very similar name and I watched it for a bit which I shouldn't have done.

Yeah, right...

[PCPhil]

In an exclusive interview with BBC South West, he said: "The situation was that - funnily enough it was tractors I was looking at. I did get into another website that had a very similar name and I watched it for a bit which I shouldn't have done.

Yeah, right...

Easily done. I have no interest in farming whatsoever but the other day in the middle of a crowded office I had a sudden impulse to learn about cleaning cowsheds. Typed in 'dirty mucking' (might have put in F rather than M as they are quite close together on the keyboard), clicked on the first link and watched for a few minutes just to make sure I was in the wrong place....

[Slick]

In an exclusive interview with BBC South West, he said: "The situation was that - funnily enough it was tractors I was looking at. I did get into another website that had a very similar name and I watched it for a bit which I shouldn't have done.

Yeah, right...

Yes, but the very next sentence he said he then on another occasion deliberately looked at it. No need for selective quoting

[tabascoboy]

In an exclusive interview with BBC South West, he said: "The situation was that - funnily enough it was tractors I was looking at. I did get into another website that had a very similar name and I watched it for a bit which I shouldn't have done.

Yeah, right...

Yes, but the very next sentence he said he then on another occasion deliberately looked at it. No need for selective quoting

I was just wondering what porn site could have a similar name to "tractors"...purely for academic interest of course

[Slick]

Yeah, right...

Yes, but the very next sentence he said he then on another occasion deliberately looked at it. No need for selective quoting

I was just wondering what porn site could have a similar name to "tractors"...purely for academic interest of course

Show us yer Massive Fergusons

[tabascoboy]

[C69]

Apparently the right wing twat didn't even have the balls to tell his wife.

Dear feck these Tories really are scum. Anyone who votes for this shower of shit is as bad as they are.

[Insane_Homer]

[Slick]

Apparently the right wing twat didn't even have the balls to tell his wife.

Dear feck these Tories really are scum. Anyone who votes for this shower of shit is as bad as they are.

Before or after they did the statement together?

[Ata Rangi]

Yeah, right...

Yes, but the very next sentence he said he then on another occasion deliberately looked at it. No need for selective quoting

I was just wondering what porn site could have a similar name to "tractors"...purely for academic interest of course

Hope he didn’t Google BBC to set up the interview.

[pigsy]

" we plough the fields and scatter the good seed on the ground" Love to say I thought of that.....!

[C69]

Apparently the right wing twat didn't even have the balls to tell his wife.

Dear feck these Tories really are scum. Anyone who votes for this shower of shit is as bad as they are.

Before or after they did the statement together?

When she spoke to a journalist who mentioned her husband was suspended from the fetid Party he infested apparently.

[FalseBayFC]

In an exclusive interview with BBC South West, he said: "The situation was that - funnily enough it was tractors I was looking at. I did get into another website that had a very similar name and I watched it for a bit which I shouldn't have done.

Yeah, right...

Easily done. I have no interest in farming whatsoever but the other day in the middle of a crowded office I had a sudden impulse to learn about cleaning cowsheds. Typed in 'dirty mucking' (might have put in F rather than M as they are quite close together on the keyboard), clicked on the first link and watched for a few minutes just to make sure I was in the wrong place....

Boomer doesn't no how to opsec properly. Any male who shared a family PC in the early days of the internet has that ingrained in him.

[Hal Jordan]

Oliver Dowden is demanding answers from Labour over a possible election pact. Funny how this has cropped up now the Tories have given themselves complete control over the body that oversees elections.

And this is where the real issues lie, not with some no name MP making deposits in his wank bank, however shitty his conduct is. Although a Tory resigning on a point of principle is probably front page news given the cunts in the Cabinet.

[_Os_]

Tories are upset that Labour and Libdems seem to be coordinating where they stand candidates for the local elections, they're trying to say it's a Starmer plot but it looks as much/more driven by the local level. The rainbow coalition seems possible now though (Labour + Libdems + whoever isn't a Tory and hopefully the SNP aren't needed). Interesting and worth some discussion.

First thing to understand is a rainbow coalition has been an option since 2010. It didn't happen then because the Libdems didn't want it. After the Libdems were blown away in 2015 it was Corbyn's Labour preventing it in the years afterwards. Meanwhile the Tories secured power with the Libdems in 2010, the DUP in 2017, and with some help from the Brexit Party standing candidates only where they could harm Labour in 2019.

The UK's electoral system isn't working like it's supposed to (a two party system, like the Republicans and Democrats in the US). Instead there's a proliferation of parties mostly formed around identity/regionalism, that's making it harder to secure majorities. The UK is now getting all the disadvantages of FPTP and some of the disadvantages of PR too (without the advantages of PR: seats in proportion to votes, alliances expected post-election and publicly discussed beforehand).

The interesting thing is what that means for 2024. It's hard to imagine Labour will not field candidates in some constituencies, but if Labour/Libdems/Greens did work together in most of England and Wales the non-Tory vote would be concentrated into one party in each constituency (something closer to how FPTP is supposed to function), which would produce more Labour and Libdem MPs than would've otherwise been the case. More likely is Labour standing candidates everywhere, and the Libdems and Greens not standing them in places they have no chance but Labour do. The Libdems normally do better when the Labour leader is seen as "safe" and in the centre, because people inclined to vote Tory become more comfortable voting Libdem (they don't mind as much if Labour win under those circumstances, they're just not going to vote for it directly).

Not convinced it'll be enough, Tory polling is still very high, even though just in the past month there's been Tory PM/MPs/Peers involved in: sexual harassment, lockdown fines, taking massive Russian loans, lying under oath, a pedophilia conviction, a home raided in connection with PPE corruption. Then there's all the new authoritarian Tory laws around protesting/immigration/elections. Then there's the economy. Tories are still polling in the mid-30s whilst carrying all that, some of these local election results are going to give an indication of if a rainbow coalition is enough to remove them, if it's not enough then the Tories are going to be in power for a long time yet.

Puts the Tories in a tougher spot though, "vote Labour or Libdem and get a Labour/Libdem coalition" isn't going to be much of a scare tactic.