The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[chrisp65]

Surely there should be a Panorama scheduled soon showing extremism and in fighting within the tory party?

Lots of talking heads with anecdotes of years of loyalty followed by being bullied by extremists.

[ml1dch]

18 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Surely there should be a Panorama scheduled soon showing extremism and in fighting within the tory party?

Lots of talking heads with anecdotes of years of loyalty followed by being bullied by extremists.

Also, given their rumoured choice of election date falls on the start of the Jewish festival of Sukkot, potentially disenfranchising the Jewish faith we should probably lay some pretty significant anti-Semitism charges at their feet as well.

[tonyh29]

27 minutes ago, peterms said:

He receives a minimum of £15k every month from them, and records either 20 or 30 hours spent in return for that payment.

I imagine he's not cleaning the khasi for that.

Received , he resigned that position  as already stated

but he still doesn’t do what mad twitter woman who you quoted said he does  , All I’ve seen back in replies is well yeah but he’s carrying out insider trading type allegations ( though I’ve not seen anyone back this claim up with anything factual) .

even his money from being a part owner is invested via a blind trust ... I’m sure you already know what that means?

 

Now time for my morning coffee and a small bet with myself on what amusing gif Chris will post as a reply

 

[peterms]

7 hours ago, KentVillan said:

It's not as if the Today programme influences voters, anyway.

As Mr Shankly might have observed, then what's it doing on the airwaves?

It is regarded, and sees itself, as setting the agenda for UK politics.  In doing this, it reflects a deeply establishment focus, apparently seeing it as just how things are rather than one view among others.  For example, comment on economic affairs most frequently comes from City financiers; when actual economists are used, they are overwhelmingly neoclassical.  Its "thought for the day" slot notoriously refuses to include people other than spokespeople for organised religion.  Its choice of what stories to give prominence to is heavily skewed by following the lead of the printed press, which as we all know is mostly right wing, and this helps reinforce perceptions of what is important.

It is tired and jaded.  These things may be part of the reason why it lost 800,000 listeners over the course of a year.

The influence it wields is not a simple and transparent "vote for this" line, but a more insidious shaping of perceptions to reinforce certain views, for example the relentless concentration on antisemitism and Labour, an extent and depth of coverage which was wildly out of proportion to any objective evidence of the extent of the problem.

I'd say it's still pretty influential, though probably a bit less than it used to be.

7 hours ago, KentVillan said:

The idea that this is all a big disaster capitalist conspiracy to profit from shorting the pound, buying up businesses on the cheap, (etc.) seems a bit far fetched to me. Even the fact that someone involved in Brexit has shorted the pound isn't necessarily the damning evidence it appears to be. They could be gambling on market psychology or it could be a hedge.

I don't doubt that there are some nasty, immoral, acquisitive, empire-building, borderline criminal, wealthy people in the world - the Murdochs, Trumps, Putins, etc. all have a mafioso quality to them. But it would be a hell of a conspiracy to make something like Brexit happen purely to serve those ends

Conspiracy is a word often used to distract, by suggesting that something is ridiculously paranoid.  Did a bunch of people sit in a room and plan the financial crash, and Brexit, so they could buy assets cheaply?  No.  Do they form part of a very large grouping which acts in mutually reinforcing ways to benefit themselves at the expense of others, eg by ensuring that the costs of the financial crash were borne by others and not by the people who had caused it, absolutely, and I doubt anyone would seriously dispute it. 

In the current situation, many of those will be planning to make money by profiting from chaos, and they are certainly using the networks that exist in order to do so.  Perhaps the best known quote about that type of influence was Murdoch saying that he dislikes the EU because when he goes into Downing Street they do what he says, and when he goes to Brussels they take no notice, but it's not something unique to him.  It goes back to the old question, who benefits from this.  Under the no-deal brexit that still remains a possibility, those who benefit will be the Crispin Odeys of this world, using their connections to get a bit of insight here, have a word in an ear there.  Conspiracy would suggest a level of pre-planning that isn't there, but the deep and entrenched influence certainly is.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

All I’ve seen back in replies is well yeah but he’s carrying out insider trading type allegations ( though I’ve not seen anyone back this claim up with anything factual) .

even his money from being a part owner is invested via a blind trust

He remains a partner and will receive a share of profits - I gather the last share was £25m between various partners.  He is now not supposed to convey to people involved with the firm any information which could constitute insider trading.

It would be very hard for anyone to know whether he honours this arrangement, as it would presumably happen during informal chats rather than minuted meetings.  The "blind trust" arrangement seems to rely on people acting correctly.

I see that he has previously been criticised for speaking in parliamentary debates about industries in which his firm had a financial interest, withour declaring that interest.  Presumably this was a momentary lapse, rather than an indication of his general outlook and approach to such matters.

[bickster]

Opps. Phillip Lee defects to LibDems, govt has no working majority

 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

In the next sitting of parliament will the Tories have to play with some of their benches closed after Boris’ No surrender chants? 

[snowychap]

21 minutes ago, bickster said:

Opps. Phillip Lee defects to LibDems, govt has no working majority

 

I have the Parliament channel on and I somehow missed that!

[ml1dch]

She looks a bit happier than she used to.

[NurembergVillan]

7 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

She looks a bit happier than she used to.

Wind.

They'll all have their ties over their noses in a minute.

[hippo]

I thought Boris would have a devise effect on the Tories - but didn't expect it to happen quite this quickly. There seems to an anti Boris alliance growing   

[Xann]

 

Quote

 

The first phase of the HS2 high-speed railway between London and Birmingham will be delayed by up to five years, Transport Minister Grant Shapps says.

That section of the line was due to open at the end of 2026, but it could now be between 2028 and 2031 before the first trains run on the route.

HS2's total cost has also risen from £62bn to between £81bn and £88bn, but Mr Shapps said he was keeping an "open mind" about the project's future.

The second phase has also been delayed.

The route - from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds - was due to open in 2032-33, but that has been pushed back to 2035-2040.

Mr Shapps' statement was based on a report from the chairman of HS2, Allan Cook, which concluded that the new railway could not be delivered within the current budget.

"I want the House to have the full picture. There is no future in obscuring the true costs of a large infrastructure project - as well as the potential benefits," said Mr Shapps.

Mr Cook said the delay had occurred because the original plans did not account for the effect of building through densely-populated areas with difficult geographical features.

His report comes ahead of a government decision on whether HS2 will go ahead at all.

Last month, the government said it planned to review the costs and benefits of the rail project, with a "go or no-go" decision by the end of the year.

The government has said that construction work will continue while the review is ongoing.

 

BBC

[hippo]

7 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Received , he resigned that position  as already stated

but he still doesn’t do what mad twitter woman who you quoted said he does  , All I’ve seen back in replies is well yeah but he’s carrying out insider trading type allegations ( though I’ve not seen anyone back this claim up with anything factual) .

even his money from being a part owner is invested via a blind trust ... I’m sure you already know what that means?

 

Now time for my morning coffee and a small bet with myself on what amusing gif Chris will post as a reply

 

Hold on - has JRM got a fan ? 

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, hippo said:

Hold on - has JRM got a fan ? 

Not really  .. Just as Abraham Lincoln once said  " I dislike it when people don't at least make  a token effort to check facts they see on the internet  "

[hippo]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Not really  .. Just as Abraham Lincoln once said  " I dislike it when people don't at least make  a token effort to check facts they see on the internet  "

So you don't like JRM then ?   (A yes or no will suffice ?) 

[tonyh29]

5 minutes ago, hippo said:

So you don't like JRM then ?   (A yes or no will suffice ?) 

You've been watching too much of today's parliament debate

I don't dislike anyone particularly , with Corbyn as the exception of course   ..  oh nearly forgot the racist hypocrite  Diane Abbot  .. so 2 people i dislike

I thought Mogg handled the rabid student hecklers well that time , he is capable of putting across an articulate argument , he makes me laugh when he talks about not taking the Bentley out campaigning as it only does  six miles to the gallon   , he occasionally speaks some sense  .... Equally, sometimes he comes across as a spoilt child out of touch with reality

I could probably say the same about every MP , apart from the Bentley part of course

 

[KentVillan]

Mogg isn't insider trading on Brexit for the following reasons:

• He's not as influential as people think.
• He's not as well informed as people think.
• He's a mediocre, cautious investor, by all accounts.
• There really isn't that much "inside information" to trade on, anyway. It's a multi-way negotiation, and he has a bit of an inside scoop on one section of one party. He hardly has any privileged information on Brussels, Paris, Berlin, Washington, Boris's inner circle, the 'Rebel Alliance', etc.

So he's agitating for Brexit and also betting on what he thinks the outcome of Brexit will be? I honestly have no problem with that, so long as it's declared. At least he's relatively up front about what he believes in and who he is. Given he's behaved that way since he was a child, I don't doubt his sincerity. He's just a prat.

The people to really pay attention to are the 55 Tufton St gang (TaxPayer's Alliance, Big Brother Watch, Global Warming Policy Foundation, Business for Britain, also the Institute for Economic Affairs and Adam Smith Institute just around the corner). All of these organisations are tentacles of the same opaquely funded super-entity, nobody knows where their backing comes from, and they have become hugely influential across a wide range of policy areas. Here I do suspect massive conflicts of interest, and attempts to open up the British state to asset strippers and price gougers, with Brexit weakening the defences.

Matthew Elliott is the main man there, but there are loads of other weird figures floating around that grouping of organisations. Worth a Google.

[chrisp65]

8 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Received , he resigned that position  as already stated

but he still doesn’t do what mad twitter woman who you quoted said he does  , All I’ve seen back in replies is well yeah but he’s carrying out insider trading type allegations ( though I’ve not seen anyone back this claim up with anything factual) .

even his money from being a part owner is invested via a blind trust ... I’m sure you already know what that means?

 

Now time for my morning coffee and a small bet with myself on what amusing gif Chris will post as a reply

 

I simply cannot believe that Rees Mogg isn’t trying to profit from the situation.

He just isn’t an altruistic conservative that’s in this ‘for the people’.

He’s after the deal, the profit, the angle, the edge. If he thought Brexit would even out society or reduce his wealth comparative to others, he’d drop it like a dried up nanny’s tit.

[chrisp65]

Beginning to look like even career Tory MP’s have decided they can’t work with a bullying compulsive liar.

[KentVillan]

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I simply cannot believe that Rees Mogg isn’t trying to profit from the situation.

He just isn’t an altruistic conservative that’s in this ‘for the people’.

He’s after the deal, the profit, the angle, the edge. If he thought Brexit would even out society or reduce his wealth comparative to others, he’d drop it like a dried up nanny’s tit.

The question isn't whether he's trying to profit from it (no doubt he is), it's whether that is his principal motivation.

I suspect in Mogg's case there are a whole load of cultural motivations at play here - preservation of the traditional English class hierarchy, protection of Christianity and its influence over British culture, a reflexive dislike of continental Europeans, a desire to be more closely aligned with the "White Commonwealth", a return to Victorian values, traditional education standards, a world of nation-states, etc. It might not be altruistic but it's probably sincere. Of course it helps that he and his family sit in a privileged position in that order, but that's not quite the same as saying that he's after "the angle, the edge".

People are getting too carried away with the idea that everyone has a hidden agenda. Some people are just openly ignorant, selfish words removed, and should be respected for that at face value. No need to dig deeper for an ulterior motive. It usually credits them with too much devious genius.