Its the carelessness of such statements - I really don't expect political leaders to put on some sackcloth and ashes 'man of the people' bullshit but be ware that the average salary in the UK is around 38k and with house prices most people wont be able to afford even John Lewis furniture.
It's not even so much that for me as basic understanding of your voters. I bet there is a strong correlation between shopping at John Lewis, feeling affluent and starting to vote Tory. At the very least they should be aware it's one of the most respected brands in the country, not to mention they have it's ex CEO standing in a very close race in the West Midlands.
Don't subscribe to the general tone of this thread but really think this one has the potential to do Boris in - it hits a sweetspot of genuine scandal, something understandable to the average voter and something that will piss said voter off.
Think of all the scandals to end Prime Ministers' careers, and Boris gets brought down by John Lewis
He'd have been brought down by his cock, realistically, which is less shocking
It's not really the language used - although it does show him to be at odds with the of the cabinet / Scientists - we did go into lock down
Assuming that he did say what he is reported to have said , it could have been explained away - turn of phrase etc
But no - ( again if he did actually say this ) - his go to was to lie - just easier to lie than try to explain - and if he lies about this .....
Maybe, maybe not but the fact that this has come to light just shows what an utterly revolting and venal place politics is. It’s a nothing event blown out of all proportion...
I think the issue is he said about bodies pilling up and then the bodies did indeed pile up.
I don't really care about the comment I'm sure a lot is said in anger during such intense meetings.
Surely the issue is that he said "let the bodies pile high" rather than lockdown again. The point is that he, as Prime Minister, was happy for a shit-ton of deaths to happen instead of another lockdown to prevent a shit-ton of deaths.
And the fact that it's only just come to light shows how captured our media is. Great work Peston, any reason why you didn't report on this at the time? Oh, right, that's because you might lose access or something. Twat.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:48 am
by tabascoboy
Notable that all this is happening at the time of Local Council elections, whether any discontent will be reflected in the results is moot as local issues per constituency should have more relevance to voters. While I don't expect the Cons to get a good hard kicking we can hope I suppose that any shock is seismic enough for a change of ways. However this government seems to have sufficient contempt for the electorate now that the results may well be of little concern even if there is disquiet at local party level.
And honestly it's not as if the whole political sphere in England particularly offers much scope for optimism from other parties.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 11:49 am
by SaintK
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:48 am
Notable that all this is happening at the time of Local Council elections, whether any discontent will be reflected in the results is moot as local issues per constituency should have more relevance to voters. While I don't expect the Cons to get a good hard kicking we can hope I suppose that any shock is seismic enough for a change of ways. However this government seems to have sufficient contempt for the electorate now that the results may well be of little concern even if there is disquiet at local party level.
And honestly it's not as if the whole political sphere in England particularly offers much scope for optimism from other parties.
Quite...................unfortunately!!!
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:16 pm
by tabascoboy
All the parties joining in on trying to give the PM a right good shoeing in PMQ.
And BoJo on the verge of totally losing it
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:01 pm
by SaintK
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:16 pm
All the parties joining in on trying to give the PM a right good shoeing in PMQ.
And BoJo on the verge of totally losing it
On the verge of? By the end he had completely lost it and was ranting and raving so much he could hardly string 3 consecutive words together
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:55 pm
by tabascoboy
Honestly PMQ has become a terrible advertisement for our parliament and politics, whichever side you look at it from.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:00 pm
by fishfoodie
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:55 pm
Honestly PMQ has become a terrible advertisement for our parliament and politics, whichever side you look at it from.
It's just an extension of the rest of the dumpster fire that is UK politics over the last decade plus.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:45 pm
by Lobby
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:48 am
Notable that all this is happening at the time of Local Council elections, whether any discontent will be reflected in the results is moot as local issues per constituency should have more relevance to voters. While I don't expect the Cons to get a good hard kicking we can hope I suppose that any shock is seismic enough for a change of ways. However this government seems to have sufficient contempt for the electorate now that the results may well be of little concern even if there is disquiet at local party level.
And honestly it's not as if the whole political sphere in England particularly offers much scope for optimism from other parties.
The Tories are still showing around a 10 point lead in the latest polls, including those taken in the last few days since Bojo's comments on piling the bodies high became public, so all of these allegations about sleaze and cronyism don't appear to be gaining much traction. Indeed, Labour look set to lose the Hartlepool bye election to the Tories as well, so Boris could end up with a slightly larger majority after these elections.
Even if the Tories do relatively badly in the local elections, they can still argue that this was to be expected as the last set of elections were held when Theresa May was riding high in the polls and did particularly well.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:02 pm
by tabascoboy
A couple of years ago, you'd expect UKIP to be the big gainers, the natural recipients of a protest vote but they're now a busted flush being an irrelevance, having boldly stridden even more to the right and losing their figurehead. Tactical voting may - as usual thanks to our system - play a part this time but there really isn't any sign of swings significant enough for wholesale changes. That is if the polls haven't got it badly wrong thanks to people being coy about their real voting intentions.
Parochially the Tory run county council has made some baffling and unpopular decisions since the last local elections but I don't foresee any change as their hold is too strong and they could put anyone up and get in thanks to the weakness of the other parties standing. Reduced majority maybe but nothing frightening for them.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:36 pm
by fishfoodie
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:02 pm
A couple of years ago, you'd expect UKIP to be the big gainers, the natural recipients of a protest vote but they're now a busted flush being an irrelevance, having boldly stridden even more to the right and losing their figurehead. Tactical voting may - as usual thanks to our system - play a part this time but there really isn't any sign of swings significant enough for wholesale changes. That is if the polls haven't got it badly wrong thanks to people being coy about their real voting intentions.
Parochially the Tory run county council has made some baffling and unpopular decisions since the last local elections but I don't foresee any change as their hold is too strong and they could put anyone up and get in thanks to the weakness of the other parties standing. Reduced majority maybe but nothing frightening for them.
Every ballot needs a Knight/Earl/Lord/Squire Buckethead on it; so people can express their disgust at the lack of candidates, that will ever be anything other than glove puppets for their Parties.
With a single, recognizable, protest candidate template; you can avoid spreading the votes of people who want to send a plague on all the houses of the major Parties
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:14 pm
by fishfoodie
As usual, Pie knocks it out of the Park !
You don’t want someone who likes seeing Boris Johnson naked in charge of your fixtures and fittings !
Openside wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:37 am
Maybe, maybe not but the fact that this has come to light just shows what an utterly revolting and venal place politics is. It’s a nothing event blown out of all proportion...
I think the issue is he said about bodies pilling up and then the bodies did indeed pile up.
I don't really care about the comment I'm sure a lot is said in anger during such intense meetings.
Surely the issue is that he said "let the bodies pile high" rather than lockdown again. The point is that he, as Prime Minister, was happy for a shit-ton of deaths to happen instead of another lockdown to prevent a shit-ton of deaths.
And the fact that it's only just come to light shows how captured our media is. Great work Peston, any reason why you didn't report on this at the time? Oh, right, that's because you might lose access or something. Twat.
The British media is a total disgrace. A total and absolute disgrace.
Yeah the bodies did pile high due to lockdown delays. But whether Johnson meant he'd rather loads of deaths than lockdown is another question. I personally think the comment was just a throwaway comment during a high stress meeting and we have a poor pandemic performance because Johnson is totally unfit to be PM and the cabinet are all power crazed untalented wet blankets (sorry slick if you are reading this).
I think the issue is he said about bodies pilling up and then the bodies did indeed pile up.
I don't really care about the comment I'm sure a lot is said in anger during such intense meetings.
Surely the issue is that he said "let the bodies pile high" rather than lockdown again. The point is that he, as Prime Minister, was happy for a shit-ton of deaths to happen instead of another lockdown to prevent a shit-ton of deaths.
And the fact that it's only just come to light shows how captured our media is. Great work Peston, any reason why you didn't report on this at the time? Oh, right, that's because you might lose access or something. Twat.
The British media is a total disgrace. A total and absolute disgrace.
Yeah the bodies did pile high due to lockdown delays. But whether Johnson meant he'd rather loads of deaths than lockdown is another question. I personally think the comment was just a throwaway comment during a high stress meeting and we have a poor pandemic performance because Johnson is totally unfit to be PM and the cabinet are all power crazed untalented wet blankets (sorry slick if you are reading this).
I don't think it's a question at all. That's exactly how it was reported initially by those with the sources: that Boris yelled that he'd rather see the bodies piled high than go into another lockdown. That was the context.
the charge that the prime minister said he would rather see "bodies pile high in their thousands" than order a third lockdown (as reported in the Daily Mail)
- from Peston, who "independently" corroborated the Mail's story with his own sources.
It's only once the BBC decided to report on it that they changed the headline to something like "Boris said the bodies 'could pile high'" because they're essentially a government mouthpiece these days and are absolutely terrified of No 10.
Openside wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:37 am
Maybe, maybe not but the fact that this has come to light just shows what an utterly revolting and venal place politics is. It’s a nothing event blown out of all proportion...
I think the issue is he said about bodies pilling up and then the bodies did indeed pile up.
I don't really care about the comment I'm sure a lot is said in anger during such intense meetings.
Surely the issue is that he said "let the bodies pile high" rather than lockdown again. The point is that he, as Prime Minister, was happy for a shit-ton of deaths to happen instead of another lockdown to prevent a shit-ton of deaths.
And the fact that it's only just come to light shows how captured our media is. Great work Peston, any reason why you didn't report on this at the time? Oh, right, that's because you might lose access or something. Twat.
Make sure you have a firm grasp of those pearls
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:53 am
by Tichtheid
Pie has a good point there, that this "man of the people" thinks John Lewis furniture isn't good enough.
Mark Steel tweeted, "two hundred grand to refurbish a flat? Did Beyonce do the electrics or something?"
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:28 am
by Woddy
One thing that confuses me, which no doubt you politicos can answer: there's been lots of media commentary on civil war inside No.10 between Cummings and his allies/backers on the one hand and Carrie and hers on the other; whether or not that is right, why has no one asked by the PM's partner should have any influence over policy or government workings at all? If they have, I haven't seen it. It's completely undemocratic, even by modern sleaze standards and I've never noticed anything similar with previous incumbents. Their partners were all firmly out of the way, with the possible exception of Cherie Blair on Human Rights issues (and setting up her own specialist barrister set shortly before the Human Rights Bill was put forward...). What gives?
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:25 am
by Paddington Bear
It's essentially impossible to stop a PM's partner having influence over policy if they want to have it.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:28 am
by Lobby
Woddy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:28 am
One thing that confuses me, which no doubt you politicos can answer: there's been lots of media commentary on civil war inside No.10 between Cummings and his allies/backers on the one hand and Carrie and hers on the other; whether or not that is right, why has no one asked by the PM's partner should have any influence over policy or government workings at all? If they have, I haven't seen it. It's completely undemocratic, even by modern sleaze standards and I've never noticed anything similar with previous incumbents. Their partners were all firmly out of the way, with the possible exception of Cherie Blair on Human Rights issues (and setting up her own specialist barrister set shortly before the Human Rights Bill was put forward...). What gives?
In Harold Wilson’s final term in office, there were lots of concerns expressed about the influence exerted by his private secretary (and suspected mistress) Marcia Falkender. She had links with plenty of very dubious businessmen, which she and Wilson kept quiet through judicious use of the libel laws.
She was suspected of composing Wilson’s resignation honours list, which included several businessmen who would later be convicted of fraud. Roy Jenkins later said that Wilson's retirement "was disfigured by his, at best, eccentric resignation honours list, which gave peerages or knighthoods to some adventurous business gentlemen, several of whom were close neither to him nor to the Labour Party.”
The situation wasn’t helped by the fact that Wilson was probably suffering from dementia at the time, and had also become completely paranoid that no.10 had been bugged by MI5.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:34 am
by Torquemada 1420
Lobby wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:28 am
In Harold Wilson’s final term in office, there were lots of concerns expressed about the influence exerted by his private secretary (and suspected mistress) Marcia Falkender. She had links with plenty of very dubious businessmen, which she and Wilson kept quiet through judicious use of the libel laws.
She was suspected of composing Wilson’s resignation honours list, which included several businessmen who would later be convicted of fraud. Roy Jenkins later said that Wilson's retirement "was disfigured by his, at best, eccentric resignation honours list, which gave peerages or knighthoods to some adventurous business gentlemen, several of whom were close neither to him nor to the Labour Party.”
The situation wasn’t helped by the fact that Wilson was probably suffering from dementia at the time, and had also become completely paranoid that no.10 had been bugged by MI5.
The (in)famous "Lavender List".
(Baroness.....) Falkender rumoured to be bastard child of Ed VII.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:42 am
by sturginho
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:53 am
Pie has a good point there, that this "man of the people" thinks John Lewis furniture isn't good enough.
He's also right that my fridge sounds like it's about to take off
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:47 pm
by Sandstorm
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:25 am
It's essentially impossible to stop a PM's partner having influence over policy if they want to have it.
Never happen in Blair's time in Downi.....oh wait.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:47 pm
by Woddy
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:25 am
It's essentially impossible to stop a PM's partner having influence over policy if they want to have it.
But it appears to be happening quite overtly, which I am surprised no one has called out as undemocratic.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:25 am
It's essentially impossible to stop a PM's partner having influence over policy if they want to have it.
But it appears to be happening quite overtly, which I am surprised no one has called out as undemocratic.
Would make sense if Carrie Symonds was a Lady Macbeth figure. Why else she'd date the bigoted bag of custard Harry Cole and the 20 year older than her serial cheat but powerful Boris Johnson is beyond me.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:25 am
It's essentially impossible to stop a PM's partner having influence over policy if they want to have it.
But it appears to be happening quite overtly, which I am surprised no one has called out as undemocratic.
The Spectator (of all news media!) are concerned about "The First Girlfriends" influence
Carrie Symonds herself is a perfectly nice, intelligent person who successfully worked her way through Conservative campaign headquarters. But she is having too great an impact on the course of government. There are issues the Prime Minister avoids because she does not favour them. And there are others — principally green issues — which he appears to adopt to satisfy her. The feeling is growing that the First Girlfriend wants political power without the trouble of having to run for office, and to wield it without any resulting criticism. This is not a sustainable state of affairs.
But he is having too great an impact on the course of government. There are issues the Prime Minister avoids because he does not favour them. And there are others — principally ministerial issues — which he appears to adopt to satisfy him. The feeling is growing that Dominic Cummings wants political power without the trouble of having to run for office, and to wield it without any resulting criticism. This is not a sustainable state of affairs.
But he is having too great an impact on the course of government. There are issues the Prime Minister avoids because he does not favour them. And there are others — principally ministerial issues — which he appears to adopt to satisfy him. The feeling is growing that Dominic Cummings wants political power without the trouble of having to run for office, and to wield it without any resulting criticism. This is not a sustainable state of affairs.
But he is having too great an impact on the course of government. There are issues the Prime Minister avoids because he does not favour them. And there are others — principally ministerial issues — which he appears to adopt to satisfy him. The feeling is growing that Dominic Cummings wants political power without the trouble of having to run for office, and to wield it without any resulting criticism. This is not a sustainable state of affairs.
Things I don't remember the Spectator writing
They didn't write this, either !, & they don't even express concern to his ongoing power.
But he is having too great an impact on the course of government. There are issues the Prime Minister avoids because he does not favour them. And there are others — principally ministerial issues — which he appears to adopt to satisfy him. The feeling is growing that David Frost wants political power without the trouble of having to run for office, and to wield it without any resulting criticism. This is not a sustainable state of affairs.
She's now rivaling North Korean levels of fawning, & sycophancy.
She manages to spend 80% of the article with fawning praise; & never even answers the question in the title ; "What is the PM's relationship with the truth?".
She also introduces a new concept to me; I'm used to seeing anonymous quotes, where someone is putting the boot in;
but this is the first time I've seen anonymous people, praising the subject.
Is there some reason they are unwilling to stand behind the comment ?, or is LK copying the, "Dear Leader", & just making shit up, to support her own narrative ?
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Sun May 02, 2021 11:04 am
by Tichtheid
I remember reading this at the time he wrote it, Jeremy Vine's "Boris" Johnson story
The Question isn't, "was he lying ?"; the question is; "Is there anything truthful, & authentic about him ?"
Every facet of his persona is a deceit; from his name, to the unkempt hair, to the supposedly erudite quotes.
I keep on coming back to, what for me was the most shocking thing; his own fucking family didn't think him a fit person to become the Tory Party Leader ...... his own Family !
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 6:56 am
by Insane_Homer
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 8:23 am
by Insane_Homer
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 9:33 am
by SaintK
The Tories may be scummy and sleazy but look like they're going to win Hartlepool quite convincingly
[media] [/media]
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 10:09 am
by Lobby
SaintK wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:33 am
The Tories may be scummy and sleazy but look like they're going to win Hartlepool quite convincingly
[media] [/media]
That's quite a small poll size, so the size of the lead may need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
However, it also looks as if the Tories will hold the Tees Valley mayoralty (which covers Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees) fairly comfortably
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 10:23 am
by Happyhooker
SaintK wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:33 am
The Tories may be scummy and sleazy but look like they're going to win Hartlepool quite convincingly
[media] [/media]
No Brexit party splitting the tory vote this election
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 10:33 am
by robmatic
SaintK wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:33 am
The Tories may be scummy and sleazy but look like they're going to win Hartlepool quite convincingly
[media] [/media]
Doesn't say much for Labour's efforts on industrial policy and poverty when Teesside isn't going for them.
SaintK wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:33 am
The Tories may be scummy and sleazy but look like they're going to win Hartlepool quite convincingly
[media] [/media]
No Brexit party splitting the tory vote this election
Yep looks like about 20% of Brexit Party voters have transferred to ConservativeRather than bacck to Labour
Bad news everywhere for the Labour Party. Tories 17 points ahed in the W Midlands mayoral election
The Survation poll from Hartlepool (see 9am) is not the only disappointing one for Labour this morning. As the Times’ Patrick Maguire reports, an Opinium poll suggests Andy Street is on course to win re-election as the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands quite easily, beating Labour’s Liam Byrne.
In 2017 Street was just one point ahead of his Labour rival (Siôn Simon) on the first ballot, and after second preferences were taken into account he won by less than 1%.
Re: Tory Scum
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 11:02 am
by Biffer
SaintK wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:33 am
The Tories may be scummy and sleazy but look like they're going to win Hartlepool quite convincingly
[media] [/media]
What's the deal with the two independent candidates? Looks like they've taken a slab of the Labour vote?
