Jump to content

The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

There are various opinions on Sue Gray. My missus for example thinks her investigation was a whitewash because lots of stuff just didn't get investigated. Those opinions are pretty baked in, regardless.

The other opinion at play here that is baked in is Partygate, it's what started the Tory Party's rapid descent to where they are in the polls today.

What the Tory Party don't need right now, is people being reminded of Partygate

And that's exactly how Labour are commenting on this today. "Everyone remembers Tories smuggling in suitcases of booze"

That's what people will be reminded of, not that it was Sue Gray's inquiry.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bickster said:

What the Tory Party don't need right now, is people being reminded of Partygate

Partygate, Partygate, Partygate, Partygate, Partygate, Partygate, Partygate, Partygate, Partygate, Partygate, PARTYGATE,  PARTYGATE,  PARTYGATE, PARTYGATE, PARTYGATE,

P. A. R. T. Y. G. A. T. E

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just heard siddiq khans meltdown at a public meeting where he accused those who were against the ulez expansion of being “far right”, “covid deniers” and “tories”. What a disgraceful thing to say.

I’m none of those things but think what he’s doing is **** stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Just heard siddiq khans meltdown at a public meeting where he accused those who were against the ulez expansion of being “far right”, “covid deniers” and “tories”. What a disgraceful thing to say.

I’m none of those things but think what he’s doing is **** stupid.

You probably want to read the full context of what he said, because you're getting angry over nothing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Just heard siddiq khans meltdown at a public meeting where he accused those who were against the ulez expansion of being “far right”, “covid deniers” and “tories”. What a disgraceful thing to say.

I’m none of those things but think what he’s doing is **** stupid.

Does seem a bit of a leap. No denying that those people are likely to be against it but also your average 2cv driving leftie is likely to be against it too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

You probably want to read the full context of what he said, because you're getting angry over nothing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64833639
 

Quote

A spokesman said Mr Khan's remarks were made in relation to people holding placards with far-right motifs.

 

Quote

Amid heckles from some audience members inside Ealing Town Hall in west London, Mr Khan said: "What I find unacceptable is some of those who've got legitimate objections [about ULEZ] joining hands with some of those outside, who are part of a far-right group."

 

Quote

He added: "Let's be frank, let's call a spade a spade. Some of those outside are part of the far right. Some are Covid deniers, some are vaccine deniers and some are Tories."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he actually said was:

Quote

“What I find unacceptable is some of those who’ve got legitimate objections [about Ulez] joining hands with some of those outside, who are part of a far-Right group. “Let’s be frank. Some of those outside are part of the far-Right. Some are Covid deniers. Some are vaccine-deniers. And some are Tories.”

It's undeniable that there are some right-wing conspiracy nuts pushing ridiculous outrage bait around ULEZ and 15 minute cities. We've seen some of them posted on this forum, and his criticism is of people not just criticizing ULEZ but supporting the theories of far right idiots.

 

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-ulez-protest-ealing-far-right-b1064429.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I disagree with ULEZ (but not 15 minute cities), while discouraging traffic into built up areas is a good goal, it's an incredibly regressive tax that hits low earners trying to make a living, while the wealthy can just crack on as they did before.

I'm sure the £12 a day charge is no big deal to Mr Khan on his £150k salary. Can probably claim it on expenses anyway. But to normal people, it's going to be an amount they simply can't pay

Just don't take the media's outrage bait of a line taken out of context

Edited by Davkaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/03/2023 at 09:28, Wainy316 said:

As expected...

 

If the roles were reversed people would be calling it a yory cover up so i can see why it wokld piss people off. A own goal by starmer here i think. Dont think it will make any difference though as Conservatives are so unpopular.  Rishi hasnt been as bad as boris was but damage has been done. Labour will be in power next election for the next 12 years before tories gwt back in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

If the roles were reversed people would be calling it a yory cover up so i can see why it wokld piss people off

If the roles were reversed, she'd have been taking a job with an organisation that she investigated. That is a completely different ethical question. But when you have had the Tory Party praising he publicly for weeks leading up to the investigation saying that she was impartial and above reproach, even so far as Badenoch wanting her to be the Permanent Secretary in her department well after the investigation. The conspiracy theory really doesn't add up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bickster said:

If the roles were reversed, she'd have been taking a job with an organisation that she investigated. That is a completely different ethical question. But when you have had the Tory Party praising he publicly for weeks leading up to the investigation saying that she was impartial and above reproach, even so far as Badenoch wanting her to be the Permanent Secretary in her department well after the investigation. The conspiracy theory really doesn't add up.

No i meant if labour were the party in government and she joined the tory party who were not running the country 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashworth absolutely shitting the bed when asked when exactly was Sue Gray approached. Something dodgy going on here - if they cannot be open about it. 

Edited by Jareth
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/03/2023 at 01:02, Jareth said:

Ashworth absolutely shitting the bed when asked when exactly was Sue Gray approached. Something dodgy going on here - if they cannot be open about it. 

Keir Starmer won't answer the question either.  It is odd I agree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness, why would you trust him anyway? He's already shown himself to be completely without integrity or principle.

I'm aware this is a selling point amongst many.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody seriously think Sue Gray was approached for the job before the end of her Partygate Enquiry?

The only point of the question is to prove the new JRM / Daily Mail mental gymnastics about the inquiry being a stitch up

Otherwise, why does it matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gray might have been approached before the investigation. I'm not sure it matters though.

The Tories are whinging about it because it gives them an excuse to rehabilitate Johnson, to portray themselves as victims of an establishment stitch up, and try to undermine the current Labour party as dodgy.

I daresay they also would have their reasons for not wanting Gray to be in a senior position at the Labour party - Gray is supposedly a bit of 'power behind the throne' figure as far as government is concerned, she knows how the system works and it ticks to her rhythm, she'll be influential in getting a prospective Labour government to get the Civil Service and the wider instruments of government in line. She's also someone who's spent a lot of time in those kind of roles that let her have dirt on people that doesn't go away, that kind of person having a position of overt influence and power in a political party would worry their opposition. Plus she was a spy (...allegedly) so will have even more dirty tricks, favours and friends up her sleeve to hurt any opponent if she needs to. The Tories won't want her working for their enemies.

Which also tells you why Starmer's keen on having her and the signal it sends to the people in the know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Gray might have been approached before the investigation.

Given that she was put forward for the PS job at Badenoch's Dept and got the KB which precipitated her resignation and subsequently was appointed to the Labour position, it seems somewhat highly unlikely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â