Stop voting for fucking Tories

Where goats go to escape
Slick
Posts: 11913
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:05 pm
Slick wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 11:55 am This isn’t a criticism, but I’m interested as to why Sunak is congratulated on being the first Asian PM. His recent background is African, both parents being born there, so isn’t he the first African/British PM?

He seems quite happy about it but an interesting look at identity
The age old culture v country discussion. His grandparents were Punjabis who moved to EA. He's happy with it because the EA Asians never saw themselves as Africans and lived in what amounted to self imposed, enclave communities. Their kids mostly went to Asian only attendee and funded schools. Basically they did not want to integrate which is the problem the UK now has with some portions of the Asian communities here.
Thanks Torq. I thought there was a bit more integration than that, but fair enough. Just quite surprised there seems to have been no nod at all to the African part of his background
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
User avatar
sturginho
Posts: 2432
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:51 pm

User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6474
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

One small plus so far though doesn't make up for the rest of it
Sunak has reintroduced fracking ban - Downing Street

Rishi Sunak has reintroduced the moratorium on fracking in England, Downing Street has confirmed.

The prime minister's official spokesman confirmed the move after the new PM was pressed on the issue by Green Party MP Caroline Lucas at his first Prime Minister's Questions.

He told the Commons he "stands by" the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto and insisted his government would deliver on what was agreed at the UN Cop26 Glasgow climate talks.

Former PM Liz Truss had said she was lifting the ban, in areas where fracking was wanted, as she argued it would strengthen the country's energy supply.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:51 pm

tabascoboy wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:54 pm One small plus so far though doesn't make up for the rest of it
Sunak has reintroduced fracking ban - Downing Street

Rishi Sunak has reintroduced the moratorium on fracking in England, Downing Street has confirmed.

The prime minister's official spokesman confirmed the move after the new PM was pressed on the issue by Green Party MP Caroline Lucas at his first Prime Minister's Questions.

He told the Commons he "stands by" the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto and insisted his government would deliver on what was agreed at the UN Cop26 Glasgow climate talks.

Former PM Liz Truss had said she was lifting the ban, in areas where fracking was wanted, as she argued it would strengthen the country's energy supply.
It's an easy win. The UK doesn't have any useful fracking supplies anyway, so introducing the ban is really not significant. Christ knows why they decided to get rid in the first place.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
_Os_
Posts: 2678
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:19 pm

_Os_ wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:04 pm There's one issue which has led many Tory no hoper MPs, which is never mentioned because it's a minefield subject. The parties have contributed towards breaking the FPTP system, it's not just apathetic voters.

The first thing to keep in mind is electoral systems are like a seesaw, on one end is accountability the other proportionality. You can never have the maximum of one without giving up the other. FPTP is a maximum accountability system, with no allowance for proportionality (even the geographical allocation of seats can potentially be disproportionate, eg rotten boroughs).

MP candidates are supposed to be selected by their party branches made up of party members, people who would've known them for a long time (decades, probably since they were teenagers). The MP candidates likely would've been councillors for awhile, weeding out the morons. Then they would be backbenchers in parliament for over a decade, where again the morons would be weeded out. Then a government minister, where again there would be a weeding. Then finally PM. Thatcher was contesting elections in the early 1950s.

This creates some problems though. Women are at a disadvantage when this amount of time needs to be devoted, because a lot of that time will go into having children (there's also a cost issue in just attempting to do something this long which isn't well paid, so likely the husband will have to be very supportive). In a developed world multi racial and cultural society, minority groups are usually congregated in urban areas where there's more opportunities (the migration of these people wasn't pre-industrial when most of the opportunities were on the land), meaning alth0ugh their percentage of the population could be high and growing they're only the majority in a comparatively small amount of urban seats. Bluntly FPTP left without any interference will produce a parliament that's highly accountable, but unrepresentative and stuffed with old white men.

New Labour and the Tories from Cameron onwards basically implemented affirmative action to make their candidates more representative of the UK population. The party will impose a candidate or slate of candidates from the party HQ, breaking all the informal party accountability elements of FPTP. These candidates will often be rapidly promoted once they become MPs (otherwise what's the point in parachuting them?) and hardly spend any time as backbenchers. Truss and Sunak became PM with 10 years or less experience, parachuted into a safe seat then immediately became a government minister more or less. The Tories have a particular problem with this their membership is 97% white and mostly old, the pool they're organically pulling from isn't that diverse. It shows up in the Tory parliamentary party too, despite the identity of those with top jobs, out of the Tory's 357 MPs 88 are women, whilst a majority of Labour and Libdem MPs are women.

The same issues are there that always are with affirmative action (this may be a rugby forum, but this a subject that's been heavily discussed by Saffas down the years). The candidates may be really good but could also be terrible, there's no way of knowing until they fail at a high level or not (there's been no weeding process). The candidates may be really good, but without experience they may still fail (and end up classified in the first group as no hopers, when they actually aren't but cannot easily go back and restart). Exceptional candidates may be excellent regardless (hard to know, but they may have done well without assistance). Very few people will point out what's going on (it's potentially career limiting to do so). Those that do will be told candidates that weren't parachuted are also shit sometimes, which is true. In a workplace where this stuff is rampant, you'll find capable people that are passed over will give up and mediocre people (regardless of their identity) will start expecting career progression at the rate of those with parachutes.

This stuff is on Tory minds, because they use it to attack Labour as part of this "culture war" bullshit. The Tory's main point in Truss's first PMQs, was that Truss is a woman and therefore the Tories were better than Labour. Never mind that Truss should've never risen above backbencher/councillor.
Dunt goes in on Braverman in his latest article, but nowhere in the article does he ask how she has become an MP and seems to have an absolutely bomb proof cabinet position.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ ... up-1935099

I will not quote it all because it's paywalled:

"The Braverman issue is not ultimately about her politics, which happen to be abysmal. It is about her competence. She has no business being anywhere near executive power. None of us should be aware of her name. The fact we are points to a systematic failure in our culture: one in which people succeed despite a complete lack of ability.
It was obscene enough when she was made attorney general. This role is unsung but pivotally important. The attorney general is effectively the Government’s lawyer, offering legal advice to No 10 and, in an ideal world, warning it against that which might be unlawful.
One of her first actions was to defend Boris Johnson’s internal markets bill, which proudly broke international law. It was a degradation in Britain’s adherence to the rule of law, the basic cornerstone of a free society.
Her presence corroded the legal structure in subtle and nefarious ways. Not so long ago, Whitehall lawyers could appeal to the attorney general if they were being asked to do something illegal by their political masters. This would apply to departmental lawyers working in government ministries and the staff who write legislation in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
Several of them have told me that they lost the confidence of raising the legal alarm once Braverman took the post."

"And that speaks to the greatest problem involved with Braverman. She is simply not intellectually competent to hold a position of authority. You can see it in her actions and in her language. “It’s the Labour Party, it’s the Lib Dems, it’s the coalition of chaos,” she said recently in the Commons Chamber, degrading the stature of the place with every word coming from her mouth, “it’s the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati, dare I say, the anti-growth coalition.”
What kind of a person would utter these words? We have to be honest. Unless we are, we cannot fix what is happening in this country – the sense that it is de-evolving into a condition of moral and mental primordialism. The answer is: an imbecile. Only an imbecile would say them. Only an imbecile would state them with pride in the heart of British democracy.
And that’s the imbecile who Sunak made Home Secretary. "


... If you look at Braverman's political biography (Wikipedia has its uses), she started out in the mid 2000s. She was unsuccessful in being nominated for a 2003 by-election in Brent where her family lived (her mother was nominated and came third). She then contested and lost a Leicester seat against Keith Vaz in 2005, the Tories likely needed any South Asian willing to contest a Labour safe seat (it's a minority white seat) that was happy to undertake the kamikaze mission. She then tried to get nominated for Bexhill and Battle (East Sussex) and failed, back in London she tried to get into the London Assembly, but was too far down the London wide list to get a seat. She then pops up in Fareham in Hampshire, a Tory safe seat, and is elected to parliament in 2015. As far as I can tell Braverman had totally failed, the process had weeded her out as an imbecile before she magically appeared in a Tory safe seat.

Ann Widdicombe is nuts, but she was one of the few that did warn about this. She said in 2009 Cameron's interventions in selection processes would lead to a second class Tory government.

What the UK actually has now is an opaque PR-esque system wearing the skinsuit of an FPTP system, delivering the worst of both. A properly functioning FPTP system will never come back, because by its nature it's unrepresentative. That's the real issue (not to keep banging on about it, but it is constitutional not political). Voters are too disengaged to understand/care about any of this. Anyone that does understand knows it's not worth their while bringing it up and could threaten their career, as what they say will likely be misrepresented and then they're fucked.
User avatar
The sun god
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:40 am
Location: It's nice in Nice.

petej wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 8:53 pm
Ovals wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:40 pm
salanya wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:32 pm Williamson and Jenrick also back in the Cabinet :crazy:

I didn't have high hopes of the Sunak premiership, but I was optimistic enough not to expect the likes of Braverman, Coffey, Williamson and Jenrick back so soon (you could add more names to that list).

There is a case to be made that you want some experience in government in these challenging times, but perhaps not those who have abundant experience in failure? And instead show some intention of change and progression if you want to do improve the country.

Well, at least no more JRM in the Cabinet.
Unfuckingbelievable
Twat Hancock is more capable than that pair.
But did you see how he was dissed by Richie Rich yesterday ?...
User avatar
Insane_Homer
Posts: 5389
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:14 pm
Location: Leafy Surrey

“Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.”
User avatar
ASMO
Posts: 5423
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:08 pm

From their own party, if this is not damning i don't know what is.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status ... 4617457664
User avatar
The sun god
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:40 am
Location: It's nice in Nice.

ASMO wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 6:54 am From their own party, if this is not damning i don't know what is.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status ... 4617457664

Would I be right in thinking that there is a bit of momentum gathering, this morning, to remove her again ? !!!
User avatar
The sun god
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:40 am
Location: It's nice in Nice.

_Os_ wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:02 pm
_Os_ wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:04 pm There's one issue which has led many Tory no hoper MPs, which is never mentioned because it's a minefield subject. The parties have contributed towards breaking the FPTP system, it's not just apathetic voters.

The first thing to keep in mind is electoral systems are like a seesaw, on one end is accountability the other proportionality. You can never have the maximum of one without giving up the other. FPTP is a maximum accountability system, with no allowance for proportionality (even the geographical allocation of seats can potentially be disproportionate, eg rotten boroughs).

MP candidates are supposed to be selected by their party branches made up of party members, people who would've known them for a long time (decades, probably since they were teenagers). The MP candidates likely would've been councillors for awhile, weeding out the morons. Then they would be backbenchers in parliament for over a decade, where again the morons would be weeded out. Then a government minister, where again there would be a weeding. Then finally PM. Thatcher was contesting elections in the early 1950s.

This creates some problems though. Women are at a disadvantage when this amount of time needs to be devoted, because a lot of that time will go into having children (there's also a cost issue in just attempting to do something this long which isn't well paid, so likely the husband will have to be very supportive). In a developed world multi racial and cultural society, minority groups are usually congregated in urban areas where there's more opportunities (the migration of these people wasn't pre-industrial when most of the opportunities were on the land), meaning alth0ugh their percentage of the population could be high and growing they're only the majority in a comparatively small amount of urban seats. Bluntly FPTP left without any interference will produce a parliament that's highly accountable, but unrepresentative and stuffed with old white men.

New Labour and the Tories from Cameron onwards basically implemented affirmative action to make their candidates more representative of the UK population. The party will impose a candidate or slate of candidates from the party HQ, breaking all the informal party accountability elements of FPTP. These candidates will often be rapidly promoted once they become MPs (otherwise what's the point in parachuting them?) and hardly spend any time as backbenchers. Truss and Sunak became PM with 10 years or less experience, parachuted into a safe seat then immediately became a government minister more or less. The Tories have a particular problem with this their membership is 97% white and mostly old, the pool they're organically pulling from isn't that diverse. It shows up in the Tory parliamentary party too, despite the identity of those with top jobs, out of the Tory's 357 MPs 88 are women, whilst a majority of Labour and Libdem MPs are women.

The same issues are there that always are with affirmative action (this may be a rugby forum, but this a subject that's been heavily discussed by Saffas down the years). The candidates may be really good but could also be terrible, there's no way of knowing until they fail at a high level or not (there's been no weeding process). The candidates may be really good, but without experience they may still fail (and end up classified in the first group as no hopers, when they actually aren't but cannot easily go back and restart). Exceptional candidates may be excellent regardless (hard to know, but they may have done well without assistance). Very few people will point out what's going on (it's potentially career limiting to do so). Those that do will be told candidates that weren't parachuted are also shit sometimes, which is true. In a workplace where this stuff is rampant, you'll find capable people that are passed over will give up and mediocre people (regardless of their identity) will start expecting career progression at the rate of those with parachutes.

This stuff is on Tory minds, because they use it to attack Labour as part of this "culture war" bullshit. The Tory's main point in Truss's first PMQs, was that Truss is a woman and therefore the Tories were better than Labour. Never mind that Truss should've never risen above backbencher/councillor.
Dunt goes in on Braverman in his latest article, but nowhere in the article does he ask how she has become an MP and seems to have an absolutely bomb proof cabinet position.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ ... up-1935099

I will not quote it all because it's paywalled:

"The Braverman issue is not ultimately about her politics, which happen to be abysmal. It is about her competence. She has no business being anywhere near executive power. None of us should be aware of her name. The fact we are points to a systematic failure in our culture: one in which people succeed despite a complete lack of ability.
It was obscene enough when she was made attorney general. This role is unsung but pivotally important. The attorney general is effectively the Government’s lawyer, offering legal advice to No 10 and, in an ideal world, warning it against that which might be unlawful.
One of her first actions was to defend Boris Johnson’s internal markets bill, which proudly broke international law. It was a degradation in Britain’s adherence to the rule of law, the basic cornerstone of a free society.
Her presence corroded the legal structure in subtle and nefarious ways. Not so long ago, Whitehall lawyers could appeal to the attorney general if they were being asked to do something illegal by their political masters. This would apply to departmental lawyers working in government ministries and the staff who write legislation in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
Several of them have told me that they lost the confidence of raising the legal alarm once Braverman took the post."

"And that speaks to the greatest problem involved with Braverman. She is simply not intellectually competent to hold a position of authority. You can see it in her actions and in her language. “It’s the Labour Party, it’s the Lib Dems, it’s the coalition of chaos,” she said recently in the Commons Chamber, degrading the stature of the place with every word coming from her mouth, “it’s the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati, dare I say, the anti-growth coalition.”
What kind of a person would utter these words? We have to be honest. Unless we are, we cannot fix what is happening in this country – the sense that it is de-evolving into a condition of moral and mental primordialism. The answer is: an imbecile. Only an imbecile would say them. Only an imbecile would state them with pride in the heart of British democracy.
And that’s the imbecile who Sunak made Home Secretary. "


... If you look at Braverman's political biography (Wikipedia has its uses), she started out in the mid 2000s. She was unsuccessful in being nominated for a 2003 by-election in Brent where her family lived (her mother was nominated and came third). She then contested and lost a Leicester seat against Keith Vaz in 2005, the Tories likely needed any South Asian willing to contest a Labour safe seat (it's a minority white seat) that was happy to undertake the kamikaze mission. She then tried to get nominated for Bexhill and Battle (East Sussex) and failed, back in London she tried to get into the London Assembly, but was too far down the London wide list to get a seat. She then pops up in Fareham in Hampshire, a Tory safe seat, and is elected to parliament in 2015. As far as I can tell Braverman had totally failed, the process had weeded her out as an imbecile before she magically appeared in a Tory safe seat.

Ann Widdicombe is nuts, but she was one of the few that did warn about this. She said in 2009 Cameron's interventions in selection processes would lead to a second class Tory government.

What the UK actually has now is an opaque PR-esque system wearing the skinsuit of an FPTP system, delivering the worst of both. A properly functioning FPTP system will never come back, because by its nature it's unrepresentative. That's the real issue (not to keep banging on about it, but it is constitutional not political). Voters are too disengaged to understand/care about any of this. Anyone that does understand knows it's not worth their while bringing it up and could threaten their career, as what they say will likely be misrepresented and then they're fucked.
That is a great post.......
User avatar
sturginho
Posts: 2432
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:51 pm

The sun god wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:09 am
ASMO wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 6:54 am From their own party, if this is not damning i don't know what is.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status ... 4617457664

Would I be right in thinking that there is a bit of momentum gathering, this morning, to remove her again ? !!!
That would be hilarious
Blackmac
Posts: 3231
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:04 pm

What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
User avatar
The sun god
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:40 am
Location: It's nice in Nice.

sturginho wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:20 am
The sun god wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:09 am
ASMO wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 6:54 am From their own party, if this is not damning i don't know what is.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status ... 4617457664

Would I be right in thinking that there is a bit of momentum gathering, this morning, to remove her again ? !!!
That would be hilarious
Not as hilarious as having her in such a high office in the first place !!
User avatar
The sun god
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:40 am
Location: It's nice in Nice.



Lovely woman......
User avatar
Paddington Bear
Posts: 5961
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:29 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:28 am What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
As much as 'Government to gays - tone it down a bit' wasn't a headline I expected in this day and age I don't really see what choice he has, there are different laws and customs across the world and you abide by them when in other countries. Certainly all the gay guys I know are well aware of this. The whole 'they can act like they want' plays well here but you're encouraging people to take a potentially life ruining decision.
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6474
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

The sun god wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:29 am
sturginho wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:20 am
The sun god wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:09 am


Would I be right in thinking that there is a bit of momentum gathering, this morning, to remove her again ? !!!
That would be hilarious
Not as hilarious as having her in such a high office in the first place !!
petej
Posts: 2457
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:41 am
Location: Gwent

Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:28 am What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
Sensible comments but i dislike the pretending as it allows the qatari's and fifa to have their cake and eat it. A bit more honesty would help just say that Qatar is a homophobic and misogynistic society compared to western democracies.
sockwithaticket
Posts: 8664
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:48 am

The sun god wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:16 am
_Os_ wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:02 pm
_Os_ wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:04 pm There's one issue which has led many Tory no hoper MPs, which is never mentioned because it's a minefield subject. The parties have contributed towards breaking the FPTP system, it's not just apathetic voters.

The first thing to keep in mind is electoral systems are like a seesaw, on one end is accountability the other proportionality. You can never have the maximum of one without giving up the other. FPTP is a maximum accountability system, with no allowance for proportionality (even the geographical allocation of seats can potentially be disproportionate, eg rotten boroughs).

MP candidates are supposed to be selected by their party branches made up of party members, people who would've known them for a long time (decades, probably since they were teenagers). The MP candidates likely would've been councillors for awhile, weeding out the morons. Then they would be backbenchers in parliament for over a decade, where again the morons would be weeded out. Then a government minister, where again there would be a weeding. Then finally PM. Thatcher was contesting elections in the early 1950s.

This creates some problems though. Women are at a disadvantage when this amount of time needs to be devoted, because a lot of that time will go into having children (there's also a cost issue in just attempting to do something this long which isn't well paid, so likely the husband will have to be very supportive). In a developed world multi racial and cultural society, minority groups are usually congregated in urban areas where there's more opportunities (the migration of these people wasn't pre-industrial when most of the opportunities were on the land), meaning alth0ugh their percentage of the population could be high and growing they're only the majority in a comparatively small amount of urban seats. Bluntly FPTP left without any interference will produce a parliament that's highly accountable, but unrepresentative and stuffed with old white men.

New Labour and the Tories from Cameron onwards basically implemented affirmative action to make their candidates more representative of the UK population. The party will impose a candidate or slate of candidates from the party HQ, breaking all the informal party accountability elements of FPTP. These candidates will often be rapidly promoted once they become MPs (otherwise what's the point in parachuting them?) and hardly spend any time as backbenchers. Truss and Sunak became PM with 10 years or less experience, parachuted into a safe seat then immediately became a government minister more or less. The Tories have a particular problem with this their membership is 97% white and mostly old, the pool they're organically pulling from isn't that diverse. It shows up in the Tory parliamentary party too, despite the identity of those with top jobs, out of the Tory's 357 MPs 88 are women, whilst a majority of Labour and Libdem MPs are women.

The same issues are there that always are with affirmative action (this may be a rugby forum, but this a subject that's been heavily discussed by Saffas down the years). The candidates may be really good but could also be terrible, there's no way of knowing until they fail at a high level or not (there's been no weeding process). The candidates may be really good, but without experience they may still fail (and end up classified in the first group as no hopers, when they actually aren't but cannot easily go back and restart). Exceptional candidates may be excellent regardless (hard to know, but they may have done well without assistance). Very few people will point out what's going on (it's potentially career limiting to do so). Those that do will be told candidates that weren't parachuted are also shit sometimes, which is true. In a workplace where this stuff is rampant, you'll find capable people that are passed over will give up and mediocre people (regardless of their identity) will start expecting career progression at the rate of those with parachutes.

This stuff is on Tory minds, because they use it to attack Labour as part of this "culture war" bullshit. The Tory's main point in Truss's first PMQs, was that Truss is a woman and therefore the Tories were better than Labour. Never mind that Truss should've never risen above backbencher/councillor.
Dunt goes in on Braverman in his latest article, but nowhere in the article does he ask how she has become an MP and seems to have an absolutely bomb proof cabinet position.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ ... up-1935099

I will not quote it all because it's paywalled:

"The Braverman issue is not ultimately about her politics, which happen to be abysmal. It is about her competence. She has no business being anywhere near executive power. None of us should be aware of her name. The fact we are points to a systematic failure in our culture: one in which people succeed despite a complete lack of ability.
It was obscene enough when she was made attorney general. This role is unsung but pivotally important. The attorney general is effectively the Government’s lawyer, offering legal advice to No 10 and, in an ideal world, warning it against that which might be unlawful.
One of her first actions was to defend Boris Johnson’s internal markets bill, which proudly broke international law. It was a degradation in Britain’s adherence to the rule of law, the basic cornerstone of a free society.
Her presence corroded the legal structure in subtle and nefarious ways. Not so long ago, Whitehall lawyers could appeal to the attorney general if they were being asked to do something illegal by their political masters. This would apply to departmental lawyers working in government ministries and the staff who write legislation in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
Several of them have told me that they lost the confidence of raising the legal alarm once Braverman took the post."

"And that speaks to the greatest problem involved with Braverman. She is simply not intellectually competent to hold a position of authority. You can see it in her actions and in her language. “It’s the Labour Party, it’s the Lib Dems, it’s the coalition of chaos,” she said recently in the Commons Chamber, degrading the stature of the place with every word coming from her mouth, “it’s the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati, dare I say, the anti-growth coalition.”
What kind of a person would utter these words? We have to be honest. Unless we are, we cannot fix what is happening in this country – the sense that it is de-evolving into a condition of moral and mental primordialism. The answer is: an imbecile. Only an imbecile would say them. Only an imbecile would state them with pride in the heart of British democracy.
And that’s the imbecile who Sunak made Home Secretary. "


... If you look at Braverman's political biography (Wikipedia has its uses), she started out in the mid 2000s. She was unsuccessful in being nominated for a 2003 by-election in Brent where her family lived (her mother was nominated and came third). She then contested and lost a Leicester seat against Keith Vaz in 2005, the Tories likely needed any South Asian willing to contest a Labour safe seat (it's a minority white seat) that was happy to undertake the kamikaze mission. She then tried to get nominated for Bexhill and Battle (East Sussex) and failed, back in London she tried to get into the London Assembly, but was too far down the London wide list to get a seat. She then pops up in Fareham in Hampshire, a Tory safe seat, and is elected to parliament in 2015. As far as I can tell Braverman had totally failed, the process had weeded her out as an imbecile before she magically appeared in a Tory safe seat.

Ann Widdicombe is nuts, but she was one of the few that did warn about this. She said in 2009 Cameron's interventions in selection processes would lead to a second class Tory government.

What the UK actually has now is an opaque PR-esque system wearing the skinsuit of an FPTP system, delivering the worst of both. A properly functioning FPTP system will never come back, because by its nature it's unrepresentative. That's the real issue (not to keep banging on about it, but it is constitutional not political). Voters are too disengaged to understand/care about any of this. Anyone that does understand knows it's not worth their while bringing it up and could threaten their career, as what they say will likely be misrepresented and then they're fucked.
That is a great post.......
It is indeed. I often just have to sit and admire OS's posts because I'm too under-informed to add anything.
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 6620
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

tabascoboy wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:11 am
The sun god wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:29 am
sturginho wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:20 am

That would be hilarious
Not as hilarious as having her in such a high office in the first place !!
Sunak needs to sort this asap or it will be his first major error of judgement as PM. Not ssure quite why he was so desperate for her support other than to try and bring the other headbangers over with her. Lot's of "friendly fire" being dire3cted her way
A report by the Daily Mail last night claimed Braverman was investigated by national security officials earlier this year as part of an MI5-linked inquiry into a security breach relating to a British spy.
Blackmac
Posts: 3231
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:04 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:09 am
Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:28 am What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
As much as 'Government to gays - tone it down a bit' wasn't a headline I expected in this day and age I don't really see what choice he has, there are different laws and customs across the world and you abide by them when in other countries. Certainly all the gay guys I know are well aware of this. The whole 'they can act like they want' plays well here but you're encouraging people to take a potentially life ruining decision.
Yep. It was more a "be less western" bit of advice. Even unmarried heterosexual couples are on a sticky wicket and almost everyone who goes out there is going to have to accept that they have to abide by the culture of the host country and act accordingly or potentially face pretty significant consequences. Typical of a virtue signalling twat like Linekar to jump all over it.
User avatar
sturginho
Posts: 2432
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:51 pm

Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:46 am
Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:09 am
Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:28 am What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
As much as 'Government to gays - tone it down a bit' wasn't a headline I expected in this day and age I don't really see what choice he has, there are different laws and customs across the world and you abide by them when in other countries. Certainly all the gay guys I know are well aware of this. The whole 'they can act like they want' plays well here but you're encouraging people to take a potentially life ruining decision.
Yep. It was more a "be less western" bit of advice. Even unmarried heterosexual couples are on a sticky wicket and almost everyone who goes out there is going to have to accept that they have to abide by the culture of the host country and act accordingly or potentially face pretty significant consequences. Typical of a virtue signalling twat like Linekar to jump all over it.
Link to the comments in question?
User avatar
fishfoodie
Posts: 8223
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

At the same time as she's being questioned on her integrity; the MPs are tearing apart the Bill for ending inquiries into events in NI, & pointing out that the Legal advice she dished out when she was AG, was the kind of thing Lionel Hutz would have been ashamed of, i.e. they point out that multiple parts of it violate fundamental ECHR rulings
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 9400
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

sturginho wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:04 am
Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:46 am
Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:09 am

As much as 'Government to gays - tone it down a bit' wasn't a headline I expected in this day and age I don't really see what choice he has, there are different laws and customs across the world and you abide by them when in other countries. Certainly all the gay guys I know are well aware of this. The whole 'they can act like they want' plays well here but you're encouraging people to take a potentially life ruining decision.
Yep. It was more a "be less western" bit of advice. Even unmarried heterosexual couples are on a sticky wicket and almost everyone who goes out there is going to have to accept that they have to abide by the culture of the host country and act accordingly or potentially face pretty significant consequences. Typical of a virtue signalling twat like Linekar to jump all over it.
Link to the comments in question?
Speaking to Sky News, the foreign secretary said: "We have incredibly important partners in the Middle East. These are Muslim countries, they have a very different cultural starting point [from] us.

"I think it's important, when you're a visitor to a country, that you respect the culture of your host nation."

He added: "We do talk to them about our values and why we believe it's important that people's rights from all kinds of communities are respected.

"And of course it will be something that we continue to talk to them about."

He's sadly lacking behind the Aussie footballers on this
petej
Posts: 2457
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:41 am
Location: Gwent

Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:46 am
Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:09 am
Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:28 am What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
As much as 'Government to gays - tone it down a bit' wasn't a headline I expected in this day and age I don't really see what choice he has, there are different laws and customs across the world and you abide by them when in other countries. Certainly all the gay guys I know are well aware of this. The whole 'they can act like they want' plays well here but you're encouraging people to take a potentially life ruining decision.
Yep. It was more a "be less western" bit of advice. Even unmarried heterosexual couples are on a sticky wicket and almost everyone who goes out there is going to have to accept that they have to abide by the culture of the host country and act accordingly or potentially face pretty significant consequences. Typical of a virtue signalling twat like Linekar to jump all over it.
Unfair on Lineker. Comes back to plain talking instead of bullshit to not upset the qatari's. Cleverley is essentially on the receiving end of criticism that should be aimed at fifa and qatar. Instead of this advice of being a bit less western just say if your LBTQ, want unmarried sex, are a women who wants to go unescorted, want to drink a lot of alcohol we advise you to not go because of the laws and culture in this country.
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6474
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

fishfoodie wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:00 am At the same time as she's being questioned on her integrity; the MPs are tearing apart the Bill for ending inquiries into events in NI, & pointing out that the Legal advice she dished out when she was AG, was the kind of thing Lionel Hutz would have been ashamed of, i.e. they point out that multiple parts of it violate fundamental ECHR rulings
That will just be more ammunition for the Rightists to leave it in another step towards more UKIP than UKIP territory
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 11155
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:22 am
Location: Hut 8

Slick wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:09 pm
Torquemada 1420 wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:05 pm
Slick wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 11:55 am This isn’t a criticism, but I’m interested as to why Sunak is congratulated on being the first Asian PM. His recent background is African, both parents being born there, so isn’t he the first African/British PM?

He seems quite happy about it but an interesting look at identity
The age old culture v country discussion. His grandparents were Punjabis who moved to EA. He's happy with it because the EA Asians never saw themselves as Africans and lived in what amounted to self imposed, enclave communities. Their kids mostly went to Asian only attendee and funded schools. Basically they did not want to integrate which is the problem the UK now has with some portions of the Asian communities here.
Thanks Torq. I thought there was a bit more integration than that, but fair enough. Just quite surprised there seems to have been no nod at all to the African part of his background
I think it's pretty polarised in the UK. You have the likes of Bury Park in Luton and Bradford (where "Bradistan" is an accurate dig) where there is total resistance to integration. And then you have the likes of the Wolverhampton Sikhs who are almost opposite in attitudes e.g. alcohol swilling, football supporters!
User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Have an old uni friend who's parents are Ugandan Asians. He certainly doesn't regard himself as having any African heritage. Also married a white Brit who he's got a kid with. Even back in uni days he ony dated white chicks.
Biffer
Posts: 9141
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:28 am What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
Basically it demonstrates the lack of any capability in Cleverley, and is a demonstration of how shit this government is. It would have been very possible to put together a statement that was at the same time massively critical of Qatar for their anti gay laws and warned gay football supporters to be on their guard in Qatar. So you could make a statement that is supportive of their rights and at the same time making them aware they may have to be on their guard. But Cleverly is such a dumb fuck he's not capable of it.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:46 am
Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:09 am
Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:28 am What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
As much as 'Government to gays - tone it down a bit' wasn't a headline I expected in this day and age I don't really see what choice he has, there are different laws and customs across the world and you abide by them when in other countries. Certainly all the gay guys I know are well aware of this. The whole 'they can act like they want' plays well here but you're encouraging people to take a potentially life ruining decision.
Yep. It was more a "be less western" bit of advice. Even unmarried heterosexual couples are on a sticky wicket and almost everyone who goes out there is going to have to accept that they have to abide by the culture of the host country and act accordingly or potentially face pretty significant consequences. Typical of a virtue signalling twat like Linekar to jump all over it.
Don't know the context and why the Minister felt the need to give comment, but if you're a tourist that's too stupid to obey the laws of the country you're in, God help you, because the British government probably won't.
Slick
Posts: 11913
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

Biffer wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:23 pm
Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:28 am What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
Basically it demonstrates the lack of any capability in Cleverley, and is a demonstration of how shit this government is. It would have been very possible to put together a statement that was at the same time massively critical of Qatar for their anti gay laws and warned gay football supporters to be on their guard in Qatar. So you could make a statement that is supportive of their rights and at the same time making them aware they may have to be on their guard. But Cleverly is such a dumb fuck he's not capable of it.
yup.
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
Slick
Posts: 11913
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

fishfoodie wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:00 am At the same time as she's being questioned on her integrity; the MPs are tearing apart the Bill for ending inquiries into events in NI, & pointing out that the Legal advice she dished out when she was AG, was the kind of thing Lionel Hutz would have been ashamed of, i.e. they point out that multiple parts of it violate fundamental ECHR rulings
Had the misfortune to listen to the shite coming out of Stormont this afternoon as well. My ears are still bleeding.
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
dpedin
Posts: 2975
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

Slick wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:17 pm
Biffer wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:23 pm
Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:28 am What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
Basically it demonstrates the lack of any capability in Cleverley, and is a demonstration of how shit this government is. It would have been very possible to put together a statement that was at the same time massively critical of Qatar for their anti gay laws and warned gay football supporters to be on their guard in Qatar. So you could make a statement that is supportive of their rights and at the same time making them aware they may have to be on their guard. But Cleverly is such a dumb fuck he's not capable of it.
yup.
Slick
Posts: 11913
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

A parody I presume!
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
User avatar
sturginho
Posts: 2432
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:51 pm

What's this poor guy gonna do there?

Image
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6474
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

Huh, I missed this gem in bold before now. WTF was she doing CC'ing to an MP's wife?
The sensitive government information, which Berry said related to cybersecurity, was sent by Braverman using a private email address to a fellow Tory MP, John Hayes, and while trying to copy in Hayes’s wife
User avatar
Paddington Bear
Posts: 5961
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:29 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

There is a serious security risk in being governed by a class of people who need assistance to open a pdf
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4154
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

tabascoboy wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 2:27 pm Huh, I missed this gem in bold before now. WTF was she doing CC'ing to an MP's wife?
The sensitive government information, which Berry said related to cybersecurity, was sent by Braverman using a private email address to a fellow Tory MP, John Hayes, and while trying to copy in Hayes’s wife
Apparently, getting her orders from the US dark money cunts with whom the Hayes are tight as a drum.

As for Cleverley, he is rolled out when something outrageously stupid or horrible occurs, because he seems to be impervious to logic, evidence or reasoning, and is happy to take the blows. He's essentially the meat shield.
User avatar
fishfoodie
Posts: 8223
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

When you were so fucking awful at your job, that your name immediately becomes a pejorative :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Leo Varadkar refers to Sinn Féin finance spokesman as ‘Kwasi Doherty’ in bad-tempered Dáil exchanges


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/p ... 00051.html
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

petej wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:16 am
Blackmac wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:28 am What's everyone's thoughts about the reaction to Cleverly's comments about LGBT issues at the WC. Okay we all feel it shouldn't be there, but it is, and warning people to take sensible precautions in hostile environments is hardly surprising.
Sensible comments but i dislike the pretending as it allows the qatari's and fifa to have their cake and eat it. A bit more honesty would help just say that Qatar is a homophobic and misogynistic society compared to western democracies.
It'd be really useful to know what happens to a British journo/subject if they write something that's pro gay rights whilst covering/watching the football in Qatar. But we don't actually know, still, something that doesn't seem to much bother the FCO and now Cleverly
User avatar
The sun god
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:40 am
Location: It's nice in Nice.

tabascoboy wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 2:27 pm Huh, I missed this gem in bold before now. WTF was she doing CC'ing to an MP's wife?
The sensitive government information, which Berry said related to cybersecurity, was sent by Braverman using a private email address to a fellow Tory MP, John Hayes, and while trying to copy in Hayes’s wife
I believe that Hayes and his Missus have been 'mentors' to her over the years. They apparently spend a lot of time together !!
Post Reply