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

[The Fun Factory]

12 hours ago, Genie said:

As soon as EV cars are in the majority they will get taxed in some way.

We will be charged per mile of driving, with certain times (rush hour) being charged more than others. Its inevitable given the future cliff fall in revenue from fuel duty and car tax.

[lapal_fan]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

I saw something at work a couple of years back of wireless charging pads for your driveway. Just park over it and bingo, it’s charging. No messing with a cable.

They will eventually bed them under the tarmac / blocks so you don’t even see them.

Yea, I've seen prototypes of roads as they are now, but with an almost Scalextric metal strip in them.  They'll probably only do motorways and inner city roads, but it'll be good for the commuters.  That said about inner city roads, with the pedestrianisation of them and whatnot, it wouldn't surprise me if cars are banned from cities by 2050.  

[The Fun Factory]

20 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

 That said about inner city roads, with the pedestrianisation of them and whatnot, it wouldn't surprise me if cars are banned from cities by 2050.  

I'll be honest, I'm dead against it. People forget that traders need access to Dixons.

[bickster]

Ouch. That gloss is certainly coming off Sunak. Is it an entirely fair question? no, probably not but the fact they asked it shows the shine is getting rather dull.

 

[Genie]

“Absolutely nothing” hmmm, if money is coming into his house from that company I’d suggest that he does have a direct connection.

This question is the first step in the dance, Sunak says he has no idea. Now we discover he knows very well if there are sanctions and we get him to respond to the fact he previously lied.

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Genie

[foreveryoung]

Thats not bad, but petrol/deisel version of the kia SUV would be around 25k.

[ml1dch]

Obviously you wouldn't expect a billionaire Chancellor Of The Exchequer to be just like "the rest of us" but crikey. 

Waving his card at the barcode scanner because he has no idea how you pay for things in a shop.

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Obviously you wouldn't expect a billionaire Chancellor Of The Exchequer to be just like "the rest of us" but crikey. 

Waving his card at the barcode scanner because he has no idea how you pay for things in a shop.

That is Jason Mcateer levels of stupidity

[Davkaus]

42 minutes ago, bickster said:

Ouch. That gloss is certainly coming off Sunak. Is it an entirely fair question? no, probably not but the fact they asked it shows the shine is getting rather dull.

 

It's an absolutely ludicrous question, to be honest.

His wife has a minor (sub 1%) stake, in an Indian business which has offices or staff in pretty much every city in the world, including Moscow. They make some money in Russia, but it's an absolutely miniscule income for a globally distributed business. Using that as evidence of "family links to Russia" is absolutely absurd.

I know you've not posted it because you think it's a good interview, but christ, there's plenty of genuine corruption to look into without trying to make a scoop out of this.

On a side note, in 15 years of occasionally working with Infosys, I've never heard anyone pronounce it like that  

[Stevo985]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

That is Jason Mcateer levels of stupidity

That's a lovely dig

[OutByEaster?]

52 minutes ago, bickster said:

Ouch. That gloss is certainly coming off Sunak. Is it an entirely fair question? no, probably not but the fact they asked it shows the shine is getting rather dull.

 

I'd agree with @bickster on this, it's not whether the question is relevant, any good, or helpful, it's that they felt comfortable to ask it.

It's interesting to note the horror that Sunak immediately shows that people would be stupid enough to try to link the very important business of making money with his job in politics. He's here purely as a politician, the operation of all companies is up to them, perish the thought that one thing should have anything to do with the other. In that reply, he's not just protecting his own position (or his wife's) he's protecting everyone in the donor class that is involved in the serious business of making money from the silly ideas the rest of us sometimes have about what politicians are for or what democracy means.

 

 

[choffer]

Quote

"We all have different breads in my house," Rishi Sunak tells BBC

All the breads? What a lucky boy. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by choffer
Can’t find a link to the interview on the beeb

[Genie]

40 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Obviously you wouldn't expect a billionaire Chancellor Of The Exchequer to be just like "the rest of us" but crikey. 

Waving his card at the barcode scanner because he has no idea how you pay for things in a shop.

I love that he grabs a coke too, just like regular people. What a guy. 

[tom_avfc]

25 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It's an absolutely ludicrous question, to be honest.

His wife has a minor (sub 1%) stake, in an Indian business which has offices or staff in pretty much every city in the world, including Moscow. They make some money in Russia, but it's an absolutely miniscule income for a globally distributed business. Using that as evidence of "family links to Russia" is absolutely absurd.

I know you've not posted it because you think it's a good interview, but christ, there's plenty of genuine corruption to look into without trying to make a scoop out of this.

On a side note, in 15 years of occasionally working with Infosys, I've never heard anyone pronounce it like that  

Couldn't agree more with this.

There's enough questions to be asked of those in the current government without having to resort to ridiculous lines of questioning like this. I feel it detracts from the genuine corruption to make stupid accusations with no substance to them.

I bet the Tories love being asked these sort of questions though. It makes it easy to avoid answering the serious allegations when you're being asked about easily refuted claims. Much easier to hide away the genuine questions/allegations when it becomes a bit of a witch hunt of throwing every accusation under the sun at people. 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, tom_avfc said:

Couldn't agree more with this.

There's enough questions to be asked of those in the current government without having to resort to ridiculous lines of questioning like this. I feel it detracts from the genuine corruption to make stupid accusations with no substance to them.

I bet the Tories love being asked these sort of questions though. It makes it easy to avoid answering the serious allegations when you're being asked about easily refuted claims. Much easier to hide away the genuine questions/allegations when it becomes a bit of a witch hunt of throwing every accusation under the sun at people. 

As I said, it could be that they are setting him up. He says he knows nothing about it, if they (the media) now produce something to show he does know something he’s managed to dig himself a nice big hole.

[tom_avfc]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

As I said, it could be that they are setting him up. He says he knows nothing about it, if they (the media) now produce something to show he does know something he’s managed to dig himself a nice big hole.

His wife has a less than 1% stake in a company with some operations in Russia. I'm not sure he's digging himself any holes over that. To me its one (pretty small) step above throwing accusations at people who shop with brands or companies with links to corrupt regimes. Its a ridiculous line of questioning and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to realise this. 

This government shouldn't need to be "set up". They appear to be amongst the most corrupt set of politicians that we've seen in this country. This isn't an example of it though in my opinion. 

[Genie]

6 minutes ago, tom_avfc said:

His wife has a less than 1% stake in a company with some operations in Russia. I'm not sure he's digging himself any holes over that. To me its one (pretty small) step above throwing accusations at people who shop with brands or companies with links to corrupt regimes. Its a ridiculous line of questioning and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to realise this. 

This government shouldn't need to be "set up". They appear to be amongst the most corrupt set of politicians that we've seen in this country. This isn't an example of it though in my opinion. 

I agree on the size of the stake etc and that there’s plenty of other things to take a pop at, but if they are pushing the narrative that Boris and his top line are are liars then this might be another notch. 
Next week it could be “Rishi, you told us you knew nothing about this company but documents here show you were at 2 meetings and opposed sanctions against them”.

At that point the size of the stake is irrelevant.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Genie

[Davkaus]

8 minutes ago, tom_avfc said:

His wife has a less than 1% stake in a company with some operations in Russia. I'm not sure he's digging himself any holes over that. To me its one (pretty small) step above throwing accusations at people who shop with brands or companies with links to corrupt regimes. Its a ridiculous line of questioning and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to realise this. 

 

I do wonder what the logic is. I mean, obviously there's nothing in it but trying to get a clickbait headline, but if they spent a while trying to think through their questioning.

There's no requirement for an Indian business to stop doing business in Russia. Even if there was this requirement, we know his wife is a minority shareholder with little to no influence on the company.

There's no requirement for Brits to divest themselves of overseas assets which have any miniscule link to Russia.

There's no suggestion that every business with any presence whatsoever in Russia is in the pockets of the Kremlin.

Is the suggestion that not only should the chancellor go above and beyond the economic sanctions that are in place, but that he needs to "control his woman" and force her to sell her own assets too? 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Davkaus

[tom_avfc]

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

I agree on the size of the stake etc and that there’s plenty of other things to take a pop at, but if they are pushing the narrative that Boris and his top line are are liars then this might be another notch. 
Next week it could be “Rishi, you told us you knew nothing about this company but documents here show you were at 2 meetings and opposed sanctions against them”.

Then make it a news story when it is a news story. They're politicians, they lie. The scandal would be that Sunak was opposing sanctions against a company based on his wife's miniscule shareholding in it. The fact that he then lied about it wouldn't be that much of a shock to anybody would it?

[OutByEaster?]

26 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I do wonder what the logic is. I mean, obviously there's nothing in it but trying to get a clickbait headline, but if they spent a while trying to think through their questioning.

It's likely that the asking of the question has very little to do with international politics and everything to do with Conservative party politics. 

Perhaps that nice Mr Gove will appear on Sky's politics programme with a special interview in the next few weeks.