Stop voting for fucking Tories

[GogLais]

As for Maths, sat GCSE twice, got a C both times and would have loathed having to do it as an A Level.

I hated maths at school. In fact, I hated just about every aspect of school, every subject, nearly everyone there etc etc. I posted this above but my preference was never to go to school if offered at the time, and I know I'm far from alone in that. So it isn't really relevant what kids do or don't want to do at school - some people (wildly overrepresented in politics) enjoyed the academic side of school, for most it was somewhere between a chore, a grind, and torture.

The real question is - what do we think are the key skills schools should be equipping children with? For me there's three broad areas schools can and should focus on:
- literacy
- numeracy
- physical fitness

Really everything else flows from those three IMHO.

AIUI the proposal is not mandatory maths A level, rather mandatory maths education to 18, which is different. We are very unusual globally in not insisting on it.

I resent the education focus on the young. If I was discussing something scientific the young people I know are far more likely to understand it than the old people i know. The last 7 years indicates that the stupidity and gullibility of the old should be discussed not that conmen in the media ever will. I still think without a cap on voting age the voting age should be lowered to 14. I can well recall my parents behaviour to my greatest generation grandparents and think there is a real need to fucking call out the older generations bullshit. We are too nice to our parents and grandparents.

I’m curious how you young people (however defined) acquired this moral superiority. Were you born with it or taught it or obtained it some other way? It’s just that you’re saying you would have responded differently to the environment and experiences we’ve grown up with and I wonder why.

[C69]

As for Maths, sat GCSE twice, got a C both times and would have loathed having to do it as an A Level.

I hated maths at school. In fact, I hated just about every aspect of school, every subject, nearly everyone there etc etc. I posted this above but my preference was never to go to school if offered at the time, and I know I'm far from alone in that. So it isn't really relevant what kids do or don't want to do at school - some people (wildly overrepresented in politics) enjoyed the academic side of school, for most it was somewhere between a chore, a grind, and torture.

The real question is - what do we think are the key skills schools should be equipping children with? For me there's three broad areas schools can and should focus on:
- literacy
- numeracy
- physical fitness

Really everything else flows from those three IMHO.

AIUI the proposal is not mandatory maths A level, rather mandatory maths education to 18, which is different. We are very unusual globally in not insisting on it.

Given that there are not enough teachers to manage normal lessons. Where exactly are these mythical staff members going to come from?

[Insane_Homer]

Given that there are not enough teachers to manage normal lessons. Where exactly are these mythical staff members going to come from?

Maybe Rishi's (only under investigation for the 6th time) wife has shares in a supply teaching firm that can fill the gap?

[Paddington Bear]

As for Maths, sat GCSE twice, got a C both times and would have loathed having to do it as an A Level.

I hated maths at school. In fact, I hated just about every aspect of school, every subject, nearly everyone there etc etc. I posted this above but my preference was never to go to school if offered at the time, and I know I'm far from alone in that. So it isn't really relevant what kids do or don't want to do at school - some people (wildly overrepresented in politics) enjoyed the academic side of school, for most it was somewhere between a chore, a grind, and torture.

The real question is - what do we think are the key skills schools should be equipping children with? For me there's three broad areas schools can and should focus on:
- literacy
- numeracy
- physical fitness

Really everything else flows from those three IMHO.

AIUI the proposal is not mandatory maths A level, rather mandatory maths education to 18, which is different. We are very unusual globally in not insisting on it.

Given that there are not enough teachers to manage normal lessons. Where exactly are these mythical staff members going to come from?

Think it's reasonably obvious from my posts - schools are currently trying to do too much with too little and getting mediocre outcomes across the board as a result. So I would retrench the curriculum around a smaller core as a start.
And yes, you can't escape for too long the reality that pay, conditions and other factors make teaching probably the least attractive of the professions to go into.

[Yeeb]

Did I read that right that Thatcher in drag, Yeeb, is not going to vote Tory?

Lolz - have voted LD before, thought that was widely known ? I just exaggerate my rightyness for effect at times as it annoys some I deem worthy, LD’s are an innocuous wet bag of fish and don’t really irk anyone.

[Yeeb]

Fucking moron. We've got the most predatory and crony capitalist model of my lifetime at the moment in the UK and that has caused stagnation, not whatever makey-uppy lefty conspiracy nonsense she either believes or is jumping on the back of in a bid for relevance. Funnily enough when the nation's wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that really don't need it, the economy stagnates. It's the masses making endless small to medium transactions daily that stimulate an economy, not an occasional luxury yacht purchase. Keep squeezing and low-balling such that all we can spend on is the essentials and that's what the economy will dwindle to.

Agreed. Even a righty such as me, won’t be voting Tory this time around, not that it will make a difference as it’s the top 5 safest Tory seats with a majority of 20k+ over Libdems (who will be horribly overlooked yet again)

Whatever your political viewpoint, Tories post Dcam have now become almost as unelectable as Corbyn was.

At risk of making two Lib Dem posts in a row. They may have fucked themselves.

Lib Dems did okay in 2019 went from 2.4m votes in 2017 to 3.7m votes in 2019, they had the largest upward vote swing (the Tories only added 300k votes in 2019 compared to 2017). This didn't translate into seats, but it was looking healthy in terms of voters. This was done on a core Lib Dem platform which included constitutional reform and being pro-EU.

The logical path would've been to build on that platform and adding something that appeals to voters under 50 years old who are more likely to agree with those core Lib Dem positions (house building and attacking planning laws, being the obvious move). Instead they've decided to target older disillusioned Tory voters (like your good self), with talk of "making Brexit work" (lol) and NIMBYism. They've decided to actively be a temporary home for Tories, there's always been an element of that with them, but they've never leaned into it like this before. The polling shows how bad this is becoming for them, when Labour have a leader that's acceptable to most people, this should boost the Lib Dem vote (because there's no fear of Labour being in power, so people who would vote Tory to keep Labour out switch to the Lib Dems). Instead people are switching from the Tories directly to Labour. I think it's because the Lib Dems aren't offering much distinctive.

What the Lib Dems haven't abandoned Labour have stolen. Labour now sound more credible than the Lib Dems on constitutional reform, which is remarkable given the time the Lib Dems have devoted to that topic over decades.

The Greens are a real danger to the Lib Dems now. They're not just a single issue party, they're the most green, most pro-EU, and most left wing. It took both the Lib Dems and Labour to gift the Greens that much space. They could become like a leftie version of UKIP and cause a lot of disruption.

Maybe the Lib Dems will get more seats next time. Seems like they've thrown it all away to me though, there's not as much difference between the amount of votes it takes to win 10 or 20 or 50 seats as most people think. All of those outcomes (which the Lib Dems see as bad/good/excellent), are in reality a failure. They would've been better going with something really bold and sticking to it (like the SNP/Greens/UKIP). But they think they're a big party so play the same games Labour and the Tories do, to try and win 20 to 50 seats, could end up paying and becoming the 4th or 5th largest party (depending how it's counted, seats or votes). The problem with targeting disillusioned Tories, is people like your good self will be voting Tory again soon enough, then the Lib Dems have to start over again.

Almost all the Lib Dem's winnable seats are Tory facing, so a lot of voters now have a choice between two versions of the Tories. If that Lib Dem strategy fails, they end up helping the Tories win seats and boosting the vote share of Labour and the Greens. The FPTP system doesn't really allow the Lib Dems to be a version of the Tories, when nearly all the Lib Dem winnable seats are Tory facing, because FPTP makes sure each seat is eventually sorted into a contest between two opposites. If enough people in Tory/Lib Dem seats decide "they're both the same, I'm going to 'waste my vote' on Labour/Greens" then maybe the time after that it's a Tory/Greens seat. Polling is showing this could happen.

Good post. Hard to disagree with anything there, just wish politics wasn’t so binary in the Uk, I don’t necessarily think ‘anyone but the Tories ‘ will be any better and Labour should really be miles more ahead than they are.
Truss was the nadir of pretty much everything and Sunak induced rise in credibility could perhaps keep them in power longer if it continues (which I don’t think will)

[eldanielfire]

So where are the Tories going to get all these nurses doctors and teachers from?

What a bunch of chancers

Yeah exactly - more of a focus on maths and related disciplines e.g. statistics is essential for the future economy. It will never be delivered as the Tories can't train or retain teachers especially so in technical disciplines related to maths, computing, sciences etc.

No issue with the policy, the issue is with how it won't be delivered.

Which si where the Tories betray themselves. Their addiction to small governemtn, free market BS is why they complain about Immigration crossing and how they disapepar into the British society, using rhetoric instead of funding say a string border force and accomodation and build a system that can return fake refugees quickly.

Their answer to everything is "cut funding and the market will magically sort it out", despite the fact this hasn't occured since Cameron was PM trying this with the'Big Society'. Big busienss love themselves government money now, Amazon and Googles biggest clients is the US government/military. The idea of low personal taxes stimulate growth, when billionaires just trade in assets which aren't taxed is 40 years out of date now. Business what government backing for economic growth but conservatives seem blind to this.

[Yeeb]

So where are the Tories going to get all these nurses doctors and teachers from?

What a bunch of chancers

Yeah exactly - more of a focus on maths and related disciplines e.g. statistics is essential for the future economy. It will never be delivered as the Tories can't train or retain teachers especially so in technical disciplines related to maths, computing, sciences etc.

No issue with the policy, the issue is with how it won't be delivered.

Which si where the Tories betray themselves. Their addiction to small governemtn, free market BS is why they complain about Immigration crossing and how they disapepar into the British society, using rhetoric instead of funding say a string border force and accomodation and build a system that can return fake refugees quickly.

Their answer to everything is "cut funding and the market will magically sort it out", despite the fact this hasn't occured since Cameron was PM trying this with the'Big Society'. Big busienss love themselves government money now, Amazon and Googles biggest clients is the US government/military. The idea of low personal taxes stimulate growth, when billionaires just trade in assets which aren't taxed is 40 years out of date now. Business what government backing for economic growth but conservatives seem blind to this.

Low personal taxes do stimulate economic growth , but has to be bottom up and not trickle down (which doesn’t really exist). Raising the personal base rate level to £20k up from £12k or whatever it currently is, would massively benefit large numbers of people at the bottom of society, make actually relatively little difference to overall tax harvest to the Uk (think bottom 25% of households raise 4% of total tax revenue ?). Then when there are lots of companies making money from more poor people buying their goods and services , the govt can get their tax revenue that way.

Lower corp tax arguably stimulates economy better , but EU isn’t keen on letting UK go down this route , and no voter gives a monkeys toss about what business rates are.

Fwiw even I think public sector spending cuts , have gone on too long, when other massive drains of money like pensions get gold plated triple lock increases for votes . Sooner current pensioners die off the better ;)

[eldanielfire]

Low personal taxes do stimulate economic growth , but has to be bottom up and not trickle down (which doesn’t really exist).

I beleive trickle down did work soemwhat. But not in a global system where money can go oevrseas. basically when it was enacted by Thatcher and Reagan it was bunk.

Also, to be clear I was talking genuinley abotu tax cuts for the rich being not much good at the moment. Hence the reference to billionaires. It's not the 1970s tax for the rich is not 90%. It's 45%. Truss's economic plans didn't work because tax rates for the rich are relatively low already.

Raising the personal base rate level to £20k up from £12k or whatever it currently is, would massively benefit large numbers of people at the bottom of society, make actually relatively little difference to overall tax harvest to the Uk (think bottom 25% of households raise 4% of total tax revenue ?). Then when there are lots of companies making money from more poor people buying their goods and services , the govt can get their tax revenue that way.

Lower corp tax arguably stimulates economy better , but EU isn’t keen on letting UK go down this route , and no voter gives a monkeys toss about what business rates are.

Fwiw even I think public sector spending cuts , have gone on too long, when other massive drains of money like pensions get gold plated triple lock increases for votes . Sooner current pensioners die off the better ;)

That is an idea. But I think the mdoern economic issues stem from a variety of problems. Housing costs for exampel is why plower and middle classes and comparitively poorer. It used to be a decent working class job could have the effort put in and a house brought by 30. Now we know graduates and reasonable value can't even buy by 40 without patrental help or luck. Enst and mortages are such a big portion of take hoem wages we wodner why the high street is struggling. Add in the recent inflation crisis where, which lets face it, lowering inflation rates won't solve as it won't reverse prices which are already too high.

[Hal Jordan]

The longer Sunak is in power the more he's revealed for the utter lightweight he is, fit only as a bagman for his wife's businesses.

[GogLais]

Yeah exactly - more of a focus on maths and related disciplines e.g. statistics is essential for the future economy. It will never be delivered as the Tories can't train or retain teachers especially so in technical disciplines related to maths, computing, sciences etc.

No issue with the policy, the issue is with how it won't be delivered.

Which si where the Tories betray themselves. Their addiction to small governemtn, free market BS is why they complain about Immigration crossing and how they disapepar into the British society, using rhetoric instead of funding say a string border force and accomodation and build a system that can return fake refugees quickly.

Their answer to everything is "cut funding and the market will magically sort it out", despite the fact this hasn't occured since Cameron was PM trying this with the'Big Society'. Big busienss love themselves government money now, Amazon and Googles biggest clients is the US government/military. The idea of low personal taxes stimulate growth, when billionaires just trade in assets which aren't taxed is 40 years out of date now. Business what government backing for economic growth but conservatives seem blind to this.

Fwiw even I think public sector spending cuts , have gone on too long, when other massive drains of money like pensions get gold plated triple lock increases for votes . Sooner current pensioners die off the better ;)

Embarrassing tbh. I won’t tell you what my pay rise was this year but you can work it out I’m sure.

[Yeeb]

Low personal taxes do stimulate economic growth , but has to be bottom up and not trickle down (which doesn’t really exist).

I beleive trickle down did work soemwhat. But not in a global system where money can go oevrseas. basically when it was enacted by Thatcher and Reagan it was bunk.

Also, to be clear I was talking genuinley abotu tax cuts for the rich being not much good at the moment. Hence the reference to billionaires. It's not the 1970s tax for the rich is not 90%. It's 45%. Truss's economic plans didn't work because tax rates for the rich are relatively low already.

Raising the personal base rate level to £20k up from £12k or whatever it currently is, would massively benefit large numbers of people at the bottom of society, make actually relatively little difference to overall tax harvest to the Uk (think bottom 25% of households raise 4% of total tax revenue ?). Then when there are lots of companies making money from more poor people buying their goods and services , the govt can get their tax revenue that way.

Lower corp tax arguably stimulates economy better , but EU isn’t keen on letting UK go down this route , and no voter gives a monkeys toss about what business rates are.

Fwiw even I think public sector spending cuts , have gone on too long, when other massive drains of money like pensions get gold plated triple lock increases for votes . Sooner current pensioners die off the better ;)

That is an idea. But I think the mdoern economic issues stem from a variety of problems. Housing costs for exampel is why plower and middle classes and comparitively poorer. It used to be a decent working class job could have the effort put in and a house brought by 30. Now we know graduates and reasonable value can't even buy by 40 without patrental help or luck. Enst and mortages are such a big portion of take hoem wages we wodner why the high street is struggling. Add in the recent inflation crisis where, which lets face it, lowering inflation rates won't solve as it won't reverse prices which are already too high.

You really messed that quote up there

[Yeeb]

Which si where the Tories betray themselves. Their addiction to small governemtn, free market BS is why they complain about Immigration crossing and how they disapepar into the British society, using rhetoric instead of funding say a string border force and accomodation and build a system that can return fake refugees quickly.

Their answer to everything is "cut funding and the market will magically sort it out", despite the fact this hasn't occured since Cameron was PM trying this with the'Big Society'. Big busienss love themselves government money now, Amazon and Googles biggest clients is the US government/military. The idea of low personal taxes stimulate growth, when billionaires just trade in assets which aren't taxed is 40 years out of date now. Business what government backing for economic growth but conservatives seem blind to this.

Fwiw even I think public sector spending cuts , have gone on too long, when other massive drains of money like pensions get gold plated triple lock increases for votes . Sooner current pensioners die off the better ;)

Embarrassing tbh. I won’t tell you what my pay rise was this year but you can work it out I’m sure.

No idea who you are or what you do so no idea what you earn, sorry old chap

[GogLais]

Fwiw even I think public sector spending cuts , have gone on too long, when other massive drains of money like pensions get gold plated triple lock increases for votes . Sooner current pensioners die off the better ;)

Embarrassing tbh. I won’t tell you what my pay rise was this year but you can work it out I’m sure.

No idea who you are or what you do so no idea what you earn, sorry old chap

I thought it was obvious I’m a pensioner. Never mind.

[Yeeb]

Embarrassing tbh. I won’t tell you what my pay rise was this year but you can work it out I’m sure.

No idea who you are or what you do so no idea what you earn, sorry old chap

I thought it was obvious I’m a pensioner. Never mind.

Sorry mate, never noticed you before. Was a generational rant rather than anything personal
I hope you Enjoy your index linked forever DB pension schemes , and index linked state funding fuel for your Aston, for many years to come.

[eldanielfire]

The longer Sunak is in power the more he's revealed for the utter lightweight he is, fit only as a bagman for his wife's businesses.

The issue is Starmer is a fair lightweight as well.

[eldanielfire]

It's mostly 3 but also quite a bit of 1, and they both feed off one another.

Her early life explains quite a bit of it. Her parents were lefty extremists and took her on demonstrations, she didn't end up sharing their politics, but does share their extremist style. When she was a student Lib Dem at Oxford, she was part of the most extreme wing on the Lib Dems demanding a republic and elected president (she lost the vote at the Lib Dem conference on this). By all accounts she was frustrated in the Lib Dems, at the time there was quite a large social democratic element that was forced into the Lib Dems by Labour internal battles in the 1980s, she disliked them, those that worked with her back then in Lib Dem student politics said she was uncompromising and impossible to work with. Her politics haven't really changed since she was a Lib Dem extremist, it's all about an absurd interpretation of individual liberty. Some thought went into this on her part, apparently at Oxford she was a book reading nerd that lived in the library (she wasn't out partying and riding, that came later). She's an extremist though, so she likely hasn't questioned her beliefs since. She then joins the Tories in 1996, which is an interesting move, it would be much like joining the Tories now (ie joining a sinking ship). So she's a conviction politician, just her convictions are "Thatcher was a fucking weakling and didn't go far enough". I Googled each person in her team when she became PM, quite a few had a similar trajectory of "Lib Dem extremist > Tory party > IEA and Tufton Street dark money stooges".

There's then some interesting bits about how she even became an MP. contested an unwinnable seat in the 2001 GE. 2005 GE tried to become a candidate in multiple seats, failed, eventually became a candidate in a winnable seat, then lost again in that election. Then Cameron becomes Tory leader and he wants more women and racial minority candidates, she is put on his "A List" (basically candidates to be parachuted into safe or winnable seats) she ends up becoming a candidate on an all woman short list in a Tory safe seat, for the 2010 GE (but the Tories say it's a coincidence there were only women candidates and they weren't copying Labour ...). Gets elected then starts her ministerial career in 2012, having spent no time at all in local government and only 2 years on the backbenches, having been rejected by multiple Tory branches to be their candidate (it's a very high number that's hard to track down, because of the nature of those elections, but above 5), and losing 2 of the 3 elections she had contested. In the end every informal element of the UK's electoral system was broken to get her into government.

Being brutal she's an Affirmative Action appointee much like Braverman. The interesting part about her, is there's clearly a political background there and some coherent political thought. Problem is she's extreme, so whatever intelligence she had is entirely destroyed by the extremism. She ends up being a moron with a series of simple (and wrong) answers, no one needs to go to Oxford to get answers so simplistic they're moronic. Something similar is going on with Kamikwasi Kwarteng.

Extremists do seem absurdly cynical looking in from outside the cult. But in their own minds they're the good guys.

A very well and fair account of her journey into politics. There's something comically bad about Truss, she has intelligence but is very self-unaware, she's got no personality, but eventually seemed to just make her way to the top. Still a perfect example about why affirmative action is a bad idea, it doesn't get people to the top. Blair's babes were routinely mostly useless and Cameron's more subtitle attempts seem to be as bad but with more ambition.

[Glaston]

The longer Sunak is in power the more he's revealed for the utter lightweight he is, fit only as a bagman for his wife's businesses.

The issue is Starmer is a fair lightweight as well.

At least Keith Vaz once appreciated him.




Next Liebour attack add

https://image.vuukle.com/727f7ac8-123b- ... c614a1a7a6

[Insane_Homer]

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain was the only country in western Europe with double-digit inflation in March after it fell less than expected, official data showed on Wednesday, bolstering bets that the Bank of England will raise interest rates again in May.

[I like neeps]

The longer Sunak is in power the more he's revealed for the utter lightweight he is, fit only as a bagman for his wife's businesses.

The issue is Starmer is a fair lightweight as well.

You know politics is broken when you have two people who have been very successful in their chosen fairly prestigious fields and resort to calling each other "Sir Softy" and "peado apologist" etc. It's just ridiculous, I'd end PMQs to be honest.

[Paddington Bear]

The longer Sunak is in power the more he's revealed for the utter lightweight he is, fit only as a bagman for his wife's businesses.

The issue is Starmer is a fair lightweight as well.

You know politics is broken when you have two people who have been very successful in their chosen fairly prestigious fields and resort to calling each other "Sir Softy" and "peado apologist" etc. It's just ridiculous, I'd end PMQs to be honest.

The entire system of parliamentary debate can’t cope with social media and packaged clips

[tabascoboy]

The longer Sunak is in power the more he's revealed for the utter lightweight he is, fit only as a bagman for his wife's businesses.

The issue is Starmer is a fair lightweight as well.

You know politics is broken when you have two people who have been very successful in their chosen fairly prestigious fields and resort to calling each other "Sir Softy" and "peado apologist" etc. It's just ridiculous, I'd end PMQs to be honest.

This would be better replaced with a simple weekly Q & A prepared in advance and issued online in text also as a press release, with all questions and responses given prior scrutiny by an oversight committee and questions approved/disapproved and responses rejected if they do not directly answer the question. Impartiality would be an issue of course, but while a bit "boring" this would put an end to the theatrics and trying to play the crowd.

[Slick]

The longer Sunak is in power the more he's revealed for the utter lightweight he is, fit only as a bagman for his wife's businesses.

The issue is Starmer is a fair lightweight as well.

You know politics is broken when you have two people who have been very successful in their chosen fairly prestigious fields and resort to calling each other "Sir Softy" and "peado apologist" etc. It's just ridiculous, I'd end PMQs to be honest.

I used to really enjoy the back and forth and slightly pantomime element to it but it has got to the stage where it is pointless and embarrassing. If they are not held to account on actually answering questions, what's the point. I also hate the "Mabel from Durham can't pay her bills" bollocks.

[C T]

The issue is Starmer is a fair lightweight as well.

You know politics is broken when you have two people who have been very successful in their chosen fairly prestigious fields and resort to calling each other "Sir Softy" and "peado apologist" etc. It's just ridiculous, I'd end PMQs to be honest.

I used to really enjoy the back and forth and slightly pantomime element to it but it has got to the stage where it is pointless and embarrassing. If they are not held to account on actually answering questions, what's the point. I also hate the "Mabel from Durham can't pay her bills" bollocks.

Next disagreement at a work meeting I should maybe just call the person "Fatty fatty bum bum" and see how things go.

[eldanielfire]

In 2016 Carney said the following about inflation once Brexit actually happened in what turned out to be 2020

Last month, Bank governor Mark Carney warned that Brexit could tip the UK into recession. He also said a vote to leave the EU could knock the pound sharply lower, stoke inflation and raise unemployment, leaving the Bank with a difficult balancing act as it decides whether to cut, hold or raise interest rates to counter opposing forces.

For all the Lawson luvvies this was his response

Earlier on Thursday, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont, Michael Howard and Iain Duncan Smith wrote a Telegraph article accusing the Treasury and the Bank of England of a “woeful failure” to offer a fair analysis of what might happen in the event of Brexit.

We all know what has happened the UK's employment date since 2020. We all know whats happened it's economy. It was basically sabotage and cunts like Rees Mogg knew it hence his 'we won't see the benefits in my lifetime' statements. I still can't grasp why you don't have them hanging from the lampposts

I think among other things sonce thing else was a major problem sicne 2020 and another problem piled on in 2022. It should be added Mar Carney was also wrong abotu various things from the EU vote, the UK hit record high employment after the vote.

You know sicne Germany is now in recession. Relaince on Russian stuff is the reason why. the Uk has one of the biggest reliance on natural gas for heating and electricity. Though I'll agree the Tories always doing fuck all in preparation for anything on the horison until forecd to has made these matters worse than they need to be.

[eldanielfire]

The issue is Starmer is a fair lightweight as well.

You know politics is broken when you have two people who have been very successful in their chosen fairly prestigious fields and resort to calling each other "Sir Softy" and "peado apologist" etc. It's just ridiculous, I'd end PMQs to be honest.

I used to really enjoy the back and forth and slightly pantomime element to it but it has got to the stage where it is pointless and embarrassing. If they are not held to account on actually answering questions, what's the point. I also hate the "Mabel from Durham can't pay her bills" bollocks.

Yup. I was surprised Starmer backed the "Sunak wants less peados in prison" tweet. Which shows what a shallow and unprincipled dick he is. Also shows how in thrawl he is to ex-New Labour figures in the party who are running things and using 20 year old style tactics and messages .

[I like neeps]

You know politics is broken when you have two people who have been very successful in their chosen fairly prestigious fields and resort to calling each other "Sir Softy" and "peado apologist" etc. It's just ridiculous, I'd end PMQs to be honest.

I used to really enjoy the back and forth and slightly pantomime element to it but it has got to the stage where it is pointless and embarrassing. If they are not held to account on actually answering questions, what's the point. I also hate the "Mabel from Durham can't pay her bills" bollocks.

Yup. I was surprised Starmer backed the "Sunak wants less peados in prison" tweet. Which shows what a shallow and unprincipled dick he is. Also shows how in thrawl he is to ex-New Labour figures in the party who are running things and using 20 year old style tactics and messages .

What was most stupid about that is that Starmer had more responsibility in creating the sentencing guidelines for sex offenders than Sunak ever did.

Sadly, Starmer is a charisma free, unprincipled bore with absolutely no idea of how to fix any of the country's problems who is also politically pretty inept. What a shame for the country.

[dpedin]

You know politics is broken when you have two people who have been very successful in their chosen fairly prestigious fields and resort to calling each other "Sir Softy" and "peado apologist" etc. It's just ridiculous, I'd end PMQs to be honest.

I used to really enjoy the back and forth and slightly pantomime element to it but it has got to the stage where it is pointless and embarrassing. If they are not held to account on actually answering questions, what's the point. I also hate the "Mabel from Durham can't pay her bills" bollocks.

Yup. I was surprised Starmer backed the "Sunak wants less peados in prison" tweet. Which shows what a shallow and unprincipled dick he is. Also shows how in thrawl he is to ex-New Labour figures in the party who are running things and using 20 year old style tactics and messages .

It made me cringe when the Blonde Bumblecunt used the silly name calling but you almost expected it from that piece of human excrement. However it is even worse with Sunak. It is almost like this is a throwback to their PG Woodehouse days in public school when Bertie Wooster would call out Tuppy Glossop for stealing his fiancé at the local tea dance. Do they really think the average man on the street thinks calling someone 'Sir Softy' is in any way clever or cutting? Have they no idea how bad and upper class it sounds? Also I am sure as DPP Starmer has been called a lot, lot worse when sending down some thugs for 10 years at the Old Bailey. I am surprised he didnt burst out laughing when the name calling started.

[Jockaline]

You know politics is broken when you have two people who have been very successful in their chosen fairly prestigious fields and resort to calling each other "Sir Softy" and "peado apologist" etc. It's just ridiculous, I'd end PMQs to be honest.

I used to really enjoy the back and forth and slightly pantomime element to it but it has got to the stage where it is pointless and embarrassing. If they are not held to account on actually answering questions, what's the point. I also hate the "Mabel from Durham can't pay her bills" bollocks.

Next disagreement at a work meeting I should maybe just call the person "Fatty fatty bum bum" and see how things go.

Someone like Boris could maybe get away with this sort of stuff, but it just made Sunak look like a pathetic childish loon. We deserve better and the speaker increasingly allows this sort of idiocy, which is bringing our country and parliament into disrepute. It's embarrassing, PMQs need chaired properly,

[Jockaline]

You know politics is broken when you have two people who have been very successful in their chosen fairly prestigious fields and resort to calling each other "Sir Softy" and "peado apologist" etc. It's just ridiculous, I'd end PMQs to be honest.

I used to really enjoy the back and forth and slightly pantomime element to it but it has got to the stage where it is pointless and embarrassing. If they are not held to account on actually answering questions, what's the point. I also hate the "Mabel from Durham can't pay her bills" bollocks.

Yup. I was surprised Starmer backed the "Sunak wants less peados in prison" tweet. Which shows what a shallow and unprincipled dick he is. Also shows how in thrawl he is to ex-New Labour figures in the party who are running things and using 20 year old style tactics and messages .

The Tories, and our media, have use this kind of dirty tactics far more and for far longer, why are you not holding them to the standard? I don't like it, but can understand why some think they need to meet fire with fire. Boris basically slandered Starmer in the commons knowing he was covered by parliamentary privilage. Do Labour just sit back and take it or fight back. Stammer may be uncharismatic, but he's determined and formidable, hopefully when in power he will also be effective.

[inactionman]

PMQs just needs to go, it's simply not fulfilling whatever purpose it was once intended to serve. It's just a distraction (which is perhaps why Government would want to continue with it)

[fishfoodie]

Has Rishi found an excuse for not sacking Dim Dom yet ?

[Jockaline]

PMQs just needs to go, it's simply not fulfilling whatever purpose it was once intended to serve. It's just a distraction (which is perhaps why Government would want to continue with it)

It's one of the few opportunities that MPs , particular the opposition, get any exposure to the public though. It's the only forum that I know anything about the SNP leader in Westminster for example. Needs reformed rather than ditched IMO, but the entertainment factor does make it more watchable than the Scottish Parliament equiviant which is too dry to hold my, and probably most peoples, attention.

[inactionman]

PMQs just needs to go, it's simply not fulfilling whatever purpose it was once intended to serve. It's just a distraction (which is perhaps why Government would want to continue with it)

It's one of the few opportunities that MPs , particular the opposition, get any exposure to the public though. It's the only forum that I know anything about the SNP leader in Westminster for example. Needs reformed rather than ditched IMO, but the entertainment factor does make it more watchable than the Scottish Parliament equiviant which is too dry to hold my, and probably most peoples, attention.

I'd argue this is the crux of the problem - it's not about exposure or entertainment, it's about holding the incumbent government party to account.

The real problem is that the PM could say utterly anything in response to a question, and as long as it's witty (and, by Christ, there's a pretty low bar on what is seen as witty) it's seen as acceptable. It's how the likes of Johnson get away with it. They should be forced - actually directed by the speaker - to provide honest responses under threat of contempt if they've misled. This does rather suggest having a set of questions submitted in advance so adequate responses can be created - which will also have the benefit of eliminating the tactic of opposition to ask detailed questions on side issues and trivia in the hope of catching an unprepared cabinet member out.

Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly, the braying makes us look like a nation of chimps.

[Slick]

Has Rishi found an excuse for not sacking Dim Dom yet ?

He's not a bully?

[fishfoodie]

Has Rishi found an excuse for not sacking Dim Dom yet ?

He's not a bully?

If that's the case, the Rishi is taking an awfully long time to let the rest of the world know that's whats in the report

[Slick]

Has Rishi found an excuse for not sacking Dim Dom yet ?

He's not a bully?

If that's the case, the Rishi is taking an awfully long time to let the rest of the world know that's whats in the report

To be honest, even if he is largely exonerated, he is gone, it's the climate at the moment. I suspect he may be digging his heels in making it difficult for Rishi though

[Lobby]

He's not a bully?

If that's the case, the Rishi is taking an awfully long time to let the rest of the world know that's whats in the report

To be honest, even if he is largely exonerated, he is gone, it's the climate at the moment. I suspect he may be digging his heels in making it difficult for Rishi though

If the report had exonerated him, we would have heard about it already; Rishi would have published it immediately and Raab would already be back to shouting at his subordinates and taking revenge on all the 'snowflakes' who dared to report him for bullying.

[Paddington Bear]

Has Rishi found an excuse for not sacking Dim Dom yet ?

He's not a bully?

Threw a tomato in a bin and said someone’s work wasn’t good enough - shocking stuff

[Slick]

If that's the case, the Rishi is taking an awfully long time to let the rest of the world know that's whats in the report

To be honest, even if he is largely exonerated, he is gone, it's the climate at the moment. I suspect he may be digging his heels in making it difficult for Rishi though

If the report had exonerated him, we would have heard about it already; Rishi would have published it immediately and Raab would already be back to shouting at his subordinates and taking revenge on all the 'snowflakes' who dared to report him for bullying.

I said largely exonerated. If completely, then yes.

In saying the above, I have a feeling that not doing it today might be to take the sting out of it and he’s staying