Jump to content

Tory Sleaze


tommytunstall
 Share

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Another plan before another by-election which was about as successful as the wallpapergate and carrie holiday allegations.

This Twitter thing isn't working is it?

 

It’s obviously not working with you, but they are beginning to be found out. Mogg, Johnson, Patel, Jenrick, Hancock, Patterson, the list goes on, they are the most corrupt Government ever. And give it time but the penny is dropping.

interestingly FUA do you not believe the allegations against the Tories to be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, For Us All said:

Another plan before another by-election which was about as successful as the wallpapergate and carrie holiday allegations.

This Twitter thing isn't working is it?

 

I always really, really struggle with this line of argument, FUA.

The idea that at best immoral, at worst corrupt, actions don't matter because very busy people with busy jobs and families don't follow the minutiae of it is very dangerous.

It's effectively endorsing any behaviour politicians want, as long as they don't let the electorate know. If the electorate don't react, then play ball!

It's wrong to assume that, mid-way through a parliament, every elector should be bang up to speed and perfectly in tune with every issue and scandal. This doesn't reduce the importance of said issues and scandals. It probably heightens them; it's important this stuff is reported widely and accurately. If it was pre- general election, you know this would be a much bigger deal, without changing the issue in itself.

To say 'see! the bad thing my favourite party did doesn't matter because people in Shropshire still voted Tory in an unrelated by-election' is a really poor argument, and a complete failure to refute the actual charges.

The issue at hand is that, whilst many people were deprived from seeing loved ones at Christmas, and whilst others were denied the opportunity to say goodbye to dying family, the Conservatives broke their own law and guidance regarding office parties.

Whether the electors of Shropshire had the time to keep up with that amidst their own lives has no bearing on the severity of the misdemeanour itself.

Edited by Joe B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, tommytunstall said:

interestingly FUA do you not believe the allegations against the Tories to be true?

For some reason there's an increasing trend for people to bang on about issues 'cutting through'. If something doesn't 'cut through' to the electorate, then it is not an issue worth discussing/analysing.

It winds me up. FUA isn't really bothered about the issues of Tory immorality and corruption.

His only metric is 'does it cut through?'. Of course, in the middle of a parliament, coming out of a pandemic, not a great deal does 'cut through' to people who aren't hyper-engaged in politics and have 10,000 things to think about before they ruminate on Tory impropriety. This shouldn't lessen how bad some of the stuff the Conservatives have done is.

Just a dangerous path; political analysts holding their finger up to the wind to assess 'cut-throughability' is a slippery slope, and lads like FUA eat it up. If Dennis, 67, from Shropshire isn't fussed about this Christmas party story, or the Patterson affair, then we should accept it's a non-issue. As long as no one talks about it, the Tories can do as they wish.

'Don't look at the issue itself, look at the noise around it', is basically the approach.

Edited by Joe B
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Joe B said:

For some reason there's an increasing trend for people to bang on about issues 'cutting through'. If something doesn't 'cut through' to the electorate, then it is not an issue worth discussing/analysing.

It winds me up. FUA isn't really bothered about the issues of Tory immorality and corruption.

His only metric is 'does it cut through?'. Of course, in the middle of a parliament, coming out of a pandemic, not a great deal does 'cut through' to people who aren't hyper-engaged in politics and have 10,000 things to think about before they ruminate on Tory impropriety. This shouldn't lessen how bad some of the stuff the Conservatives have done is.

Just a dangerous path; political analysts holding their finger up to the wind to assess 'cut-throughability' is a slippery slope, and lads like FUA eat it up. If Dennis, 67, from Shropshire isn't fussed about this Christmas party story, or the Patterson affair, then we should accept it's a non-issue. As long as no one talks about it, the Tories can do as they wish.

'Don't look at the issue itself, look at the noise around it', is basically the approach.

It is the Govt way, get through the week without a disaster, look after themselves, the country can look after itself.  Handouts to marginals every few years ad infinitum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Joe B said:

For some reason there's an increasing trend for people to bang on about issues 'cutting through'. If something doesn't 'cut through' to the electorate, then it is not an issue worth discussing/analysing.

It winds me up. FUA isn't really bothered about the issues of Tory immorality and corruption.

His only metric is 'does it cut through?'. Of course, in the middle of a parliament, coming out of a pandemic, not a great deal does 'cut through' to people who aren't hyper-engaged in politics and have 10,000 things to think about before they ruminate on Tory impropriety. This shouldn't lessen how bad some of the stuff the Conservatives have done is.

Just a dangerous path; political analysts holding their finger up to the wind to assess 'cut-throughability' is a slippery slope, and lads like FUA eat it up. If Dennis, 67, from Shropshire isn't fussed about this Christmas party story, or the Patterson affair, then we should accept it's a non-issue. As long as no one talks about it, the Tories can do as they wish.

'Don't look at the issue itself, look at the noise around it', is basically the approach.

Have you heard the pub landlords version of events?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Have you heard the pub landlords version of events?

Do you have any opinion on the current corruption that don't deflect away from the issue? You really give off the impression that you feel like the government are being picked on somehow

Is Al Murray your guidance on this? 

 

Edited by WV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, For Us All said:

You'll have to wait for the public inquiry.I'm sure justice will be done.

Public inquiries are not worth the wait with the current shambles of a Government, like expecting them to change the rules on fiddling their pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, For Us All said:

You'll have to wait for the public inquiry.I'm sure justice will be done.

The gentleman in question responded to the accusations on LBC.  He claimed he barely knew Matt Hancock yet it seems Hancock was a regular visitor to his pub and had a photo of the pub on the wall in his office.  You may wish to read this although you will probably claim it's from a rabid left wing newspaper.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fosse69 said:

Public inquiries are not worth the wait with the current shambles of a Government, like expecting them to change the rules on fiddling their pay.

I'm not saying I disagree about public enquiries, but on a matter of detail, they can't "fiddle" their pay--by which I assume you mean fixing their own remuneration.  MPs (and ministers') pay is set by an independent body and to be really factual, on at least a couple of occasions, increases to salaries recommended by the independent body have not been activated by parliament.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Bycarsbill said:

I'm not saying I disagree about public enquiries, but on a matter of detail, they can't "fiddle" their pay--by which I assume you mean fixing their own remuneration.  MPs (and ministers') pay is set by an independent body and to be really factual, on at least a couple of occasions, increases to salaries recommended by the independent body have not been activated by parliament.

Pay from non Parliamentary sources because they are MPs,  corruption in my mind. When you set all the fiddles and rules yourself there is bound to be corruption to some degree. The only way is independent supervision, not holding my breath still waiting for a constitution instead of medieval mumbo jumbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

Pay from non Parliamentary sources because they are MPs,  corruption in my mind. When you set all the fiddles and rules yourself there is bound to be corruption to some degree. The only way is independent supervision, not holding my breath still waiting for a constitution instead of medieval mumbo jumbo.

Originally you didn't make it clear that you meant "fiddling" pay from outside sources--I thought you simply meant pay for being MPs--hence my comments about the independent pay review board.

However, IMO the second job debate isn't a totally clear cut one.  Do you stop every MP from undertaking any outside jobs?  If so, that leads to other questions: there are a number of MPs who are qualified doctors, some of whom, have worked on the 'front line' during the pandemic--do you want to stop those from practicising?  There are also many qualified lawyers who are MPs. This one, I grant you, is more opaque, but surely continuing some outside work gives them an insight into how legislation is working in the real world and therefore an almost unique opportunity to add sensible comment to any debate (after all, this is one of the main tasks of any parliament) on adding new, or amending existing legislation.

In terms of the required commitment and hours worked by the vast majority of MPs, their renumeration is probably on the low side.  Again, IMO we need better qualified MPs with real experience in the worlds' of medicine, law, business, arts, human resources and the sciences to enrich the quality of parliamentary debate.  Too many MPs go straight from university  into politics, firstly as researchers and then possibly advisors prior to becoming MPs without any suitable experience of the 'real world' outside politics!  It's a difficult conundrum-how do we attract and recruit the best brains and the most suitable people to help shape through public service and contributions the legislative processes that 'control' all our lives?  I, for one, certainly don't want to see only MPs  who are cocooned by the insularity of political experience alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a distinction between practicing law or medicine or SME consultancy stuff and blatant corruption through lobbying like Randox. We’re as bad as America now with the shameless corporate tentacles ripping through any semblance of democracy and transparency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumbo Raab strikes again. How many brainless do we have in this Cabinet. Raabs department left Afghan people who had worked for the allies, left to their deaths. And then Raab got promoted for his inactions.

Suppose their was no chance of money making to raise the urgency of the Tories 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris, influenced by Carrie, ordered that that animal charity were evacuated from Kabul, despite there being no evidence of them being in danger.

The processing capacity this evacuation took up led to 'thousands of Afghans (friends of UK) at risk of murder being removed from evacuation lists'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally you didn't make it clear that you meant "fiddling" pay from outside sources--I thought you simply meant pay for being MPs--hence my comments about the independent pay review board.
However, IMO the second job debate isn't a totally clear cut one.  Do you stop every MP from undertaking any outside jobs?  If so, that leads to other questions: there are a number of MPs who are qualified doctors, some of whom, have worked on the 'front line' during the pandemic--do you want to stop those from practicising?  There are also many qualified lawyers who are MPs. This one, I grant you, is more opaque, but surely continuing some outside work gives them an insight into how legislation is working in the real world and therefore an almost unique opportunity to add sensible comment to any debate (after all, this is one of the main tasks of any parliament) on adding new, or amending existing legislation.
In terms of the required commitment and hours worked by the vast majority of MPs, their renumeration is probably on the low side.  Again, IMO we need better qualified MPs with real experience in the worlds' of medicine, law, business, arts, human resources and the sciences to enrich the quality of parliamentary debate.  Too many MPs go straight from university  into politics, firstly as researchers and then possibly advisors prior to becoming MPs without any suitable experience of the 'real world' outside politics!  It's a difficult conundrum-how do we attract and recruit the best brains and the most suitable people to help shape through public service and contributions the legislative processes that 'control' all our lives?  I, for one, certainly don't want to see only MPs  who are cocooned by the insularity of political experience alone!
We need MPs who put public service first not personal gain. Experience before becoming MPs. Opportunities for corruption should be the restricting factor, especially when honesty and ethics are in short supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...