Jump to content

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


blandy

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, choffer said:

 

Pretty much you will be allowed to protest once every 5 years or probably go to jail. 

I thought Patel was bad but Braverman is even worse. She is a genuinely awful human being and the further away she is from any form of actual power the better. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

The only entry he has in the trivia list of shit MPs that I hold in my brain for some reason - he was kicked out of Tory conference a few years ago when he got into a fight with security staff.

Other than that, nada. 

Yep, I only realised that was him when I read his wiki. Tried to take an unaccredited person into a conference meeting and when told he couldn't by security staff, he played the "don't you know who I am card" (which is funny enough in context of this conversation)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mozzavfc said:

Lib Dems getting in on the trolling 

Amusing, but Tim Farron showing why he was such an unserious choice for Lib Dem leader. He was very much in the Truss mould tbh - someone who his own party members loved at party conferences, but completely useless on the national stage.

Think we should just let MPs pick their own leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, choffer said:

 

Given, in particular Braverman's record and legal knowledge added to those of previous incumbents of her position, I'd be amazed if this new law wasn't picked apart and deemed illegal by the judiciary in a test case probably brought to the courts in part by everyone's favourite fox clubber (and saviour of chickens).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

Given, in particular Braverman's record and legal knowledge added to those of previous incumbents of her position, I'd be amazed if this new law wasn't picked apart and deemed illegal by the judiciary in a test case probably brought to the courts in part by everyone's favourite fox clubber (and saviour of chickens).

100% right. As if you could slap a tag on someone without due process. I suspect/worry that this is the usual way of doing things now though. Brief the most draconian thing ever to then give a little, retreating to a position that's only mostly draconian. You've consulted, taken on board feedback and people power had an influence. All the while things got a lot worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping the lords kick back the fracking bill as long as they can until these **** are out. Whipping your party to force through something explicitly against the manifesto that won your party a majority is up there with the most disgracefully undemocratic things we've seen this lot do over the last decade.

Frankly, I think it ought to be criminal.

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fracking thing is a complete red herring.

It will not mean the re-introduction of fracking in the UK

Given the current political climate and the timescale and expense involved in recovering any meaningful product from the ground, no company is going to invest in fracking right now because it currently looks like the next government will be Labour and Labour will abandon it in the first weeks of power.

This is just more grandstanding by the Tories but it does make people like William Wragg look like a tit and the Tory Party to be the shambles that it is so the debate in itself does serve a meaningful purpose, it just isn't the one they want

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Hold on, if you vote against the government on anything, then you aren't allowed to have a say in whether the PM should continue or not?

They've made it a confidence vote, and whipped their MPs. If they vote against, they'll be removed from the party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Hold on, if you vote against the government on anything, then you aren't allowed to have a say in whether the PM should continue or not?

No, if you vote against the Government on something considered to be a confidence motion (as they have said that this is), then you are no longer considered to be an MP of that party.

And if you're not an MP of that party, you have no say over who leads it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

This is just more grandstanding by the Tories but it does make people like William Wragg look like a tit and the Tory Party to be the shambles that it is so the debate in itself does serve a meaningful purpose, it just isn't the one they want

To be fair, William Wragg is a proper nobber, so anything that makes him look like a tit is fine by me.

Not to mention the oldest looking 34 year old in the world. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Hold on, if you vote against the government on anything, then you aren't allowed to have a say in whether the PM should continue or not?

That's what whips are there for. They'll remove the whip from the MP and they become an Independent.

William Wragg if he had a brain should have got together with enough like minded MPs (and it is likely that there are many on this issue) and collectively threatened to all vote against the Government and see if they had the balls to remove the whip from the lot of them. Hell it may even have removed their majority if the party had the balls to go through with it (which they obviously wouldn't)

If he felt that the issue was that important, that is what he'd have done. He didn't and neither did the many others, that tells you all you need to know

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â