Genie Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Sunak filled the cabinet with scum so he gets what he inevitably deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 26 Moderator Share Posted February 26 13 minutes ago, Genie said: Sunak filled the cabinet with scum so he gets what he inevitably deserves. Sunak filled the cabinet with members of the various factions in an attempt to keep them all happy. It's a delusional tactic, it's not picking the best people for the job, it's picking people for posts based on keeping an illusion of party unity. It really is no way to run a country (or even a jumble sale) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 3 minutes ago, bickster said: Sunak filled the cabinet with members of the various factions in an attempt to keep them all happy. It's a delusional tactic, it's not picking the best people for the job, it's picking people for posts based on keeping an illusion of party unity. It really is no way to run a country (or even a jumble sale) The lack of foresight from all the recent Tory PM’s is quite staggering. Johnson would say anything to survive the hour not realising it’ll come back to haunt him. Truss found out faster than most that you need a plan behind the big policies. and Sunak, surrounded by scum spends far too much of his time answering questions about the scummy things they’ve been saying and doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post cyrusr Posted February 26 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted February 26 3 minutes ago, Genie said: The lack of foresight from all the recent Tory PM’s is quite staggering. Johnson would say anything to survive the hour not realising it’ll come back to haunt him. Truss found out faster than most that you need a plan behind the big policies. and Sunak, surrounded by scum spends far too much of his time answering questions about the scummy things they’ve been saying and doing. You can add Cameron and May to that as well. Cameron for being naive enough to call the referendum in the first instance to unify the party. May for calling the election to gain control of the party but then losing a working majority. Every decision they have made since 2010 has been purely for the benefit of the party not the people. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 26 VT Supporter Share Posted February 26 4 minutes ago, cyrusr said: Every decision they have made since 2010 has been purely for the benefit of the party not the people. And hasn't even worked for that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 26 Moderator Share Posted February 26 And Paul Scully MP has come out and said there are now Religious No Go areas of London and Birmingham. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, bickster said: The defence yesterday was risible. Laura K even asked the question but Dowden said they were completely different because Anderson mentioned Khan and refused to apologise but Braverman was making a wider point that didn't cross the line of acceptability. In true Laura K style, she didn't really press the question much. That Sadiq Khan was specifically mentioned is largely irrelevant in the unacceptability states. Braverman said the whole country was being controlled by Islamists, Anderson limited it to Sadiq Khan. If Islamists was replaced by Jews, there would rightly be uproar at the antisemitism on display, if Islamists was replace by Blacks, there would rightly be uproar... The Conservative Party has a problem and one that it cannot easily squirm out of but it does require a less compliant media to press the question repeatedly I was going to put something similar over the weekend, but its easily read as begrudging the special status of being able to claim anti semitism. I do believe there is a good chance in the current climate an MP claiming the Jews have control of London would result in a house call from plod. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, cyrusr said: You can add Cameron and May to that as well. Cameron for being naive enough to call the referendum in the first instance to unify the party. May for calling the election to gain control of the party but then losing a working majority. Every decision they have made since 2010 has been purely for the benefit of the party not the people. 2010 be damned. It’s in their DNA. Never been a time when their Party interest hasn’t trumped the good of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 26 Moderator Share Posted February 26 15 minutes ago, meregreen said: 2010 be damned. It’s in their DNA. Never been a time when their Party interest hasn’t trumped the good of the country. The only difference being that pre-2010 they used to be much better at hiding it. They used to have a party discipline that is now long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 26 Moderator Share Posted February 26 Ah, the Guardian running a story about the Chancellor now… Quote Jeremy Hunt gave advice at a Conservative fundraiser to a senior Fujitsu executive who lobbied him in relation to government spending on AI and supercomputers, according to released emails Same old, same old… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, bickster said: And Paul Scully MP has come out and said there are now Religious No Go areas of London and Birmingham. They seem to have forgotten they are still in charge and not in opposition yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 7 hours ago, Genie said: Who is actually blocking her return then? She's obviously being monitored over there. The authorities know more than us, an I guess it ain't good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 5 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: She's obviously being monitored over there. The authorities know more than us, an I guess it ain't good. If she’s a terrorist then lock her up, here. My point was really to do with the fact if senior politicians are suggesting she should be here then who is keeping her out there? It seems like the answer is that (shock horror) the senior politicians are not aligned on what should be done with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 26 Moderator Share Posted February 26 1 minute ago, foreveryoung said: She's obviously being monitored over there. The authorities know more than us, an I guess it ain't good. I highly doubt she’s being monitored that closely, she’s living in a tent in a refugee camp. Also the decision by the court had nothing to do with her, her circumstances or what she’s been up to, it was all about whether Sajid Javid was legally correct in removing her citizenship. What you appear to be suggesting is that the court is acting in the interest of the government and not being a component of our democracy. Given how many times the UK courts have gone against the government on immigration issues recently, I think your suggestion has no real basis. All they were deciding was whether he could remove it and he could because technically she was still a Bangladeshi citizen when the decision was made, she chose not to take up that citizenship, which was hers by right until the age of 21, she had plenty of time to do it but opted not to. If she didn’t have dual nationality, Javid couldn’t have removed it. And that is all the decision was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 4 minutes ago, Genie said: If she’s a terrorist then lock her up, here. My point was really to do with the fact if senior politicians are suggesting she should be here then who is keeping her out there? It seems like the answer is that (shock horror) the senior politicians are not aligned on what should be done with her. It seems to me the answer is people will be pissed of it costing another 10m to put her though the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 2 hours ago, bickster said: And Paul Scully MP has come out and said there are now Religious No Go areas of London and Birmingham. Does he have homes in both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 2 minutes ago, bickster said: I highly doubt she’s being monitored that closely, she’s living in a tent in a refugee camp. Also the decision by the court had nothing to do with her, her circumstances or what she’s been up to, it was all about whether Sajid Javid was legally correct in removing her citizenship. What you appear to be suggesting is that the court is acting in the interest of the government and not being a component of our democracy. Given how many times the UK courts have gone against the government on immigration issues recently, I think your suggestion has no real basis. All they were deciding was whether he could remove it and he could because technically she was still a Bangladeshi citizen when the decision was made, she chose not to take up that citizenship, which was hers by right until the age of 21, she had plenty of time to do it but opted not to. If she didn’t have dual nationality, Javid couldn’t have removed it. And that is all the decision was. You don't now much if you believe this. Last time she was interviewed she had brand new clothes and a mobile phone, probably being monitored by that phone too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Just now, foreveryoung said: You don't now much if you believe this. Last time she was interviewed she had brand new clothes and a mobile phone, probably being monitored by that phone too. 1) How do you know her clothes were brand new and even so, why is that relevant? 2) It’s 2024, everyone has a mobile phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 26 VT Supporter Share Posted February 26 3 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: It seems to me the answer is people will be pissed of it costing another 10m to put her though the courts. Hey, you've hit on a great idea there. Let's not bother with the expense of trials - or prisons - let's just dump every suspect in a refugee camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 5 minutes ago, mjmooney said: Hey, you've hit on a great idea there. Let's not bother with the expense of trials - or prisons - let's just dump every suspect in a refugee camp. Not really interested in her to be honest, like the majority of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts