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

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Maglev style?

Don't start him, no one knows how to turn the magnet off

[HanoiVillan]

 

[Chindie]

Cough

 

[Xann]

Quote

In 1985, a young MP – only two years in the job – stood up in the House of Commons to oppose the government’s plans to withdraw from Unesco, the UN agency created after the second world war to encourage global development and collaboration in the fields of education, culture and science. Responding to the Thatcher government citing Unesco’s bureaucratic and budgetary problems, he said: “The basis of this debate is not the finances or the administrative arrangements of Unesco, but the power of the far right in the United States.”

That was Jeremy Corbyn, the only Labour MP who took part in that debate who is still standing in the House of Commons today, and not for the first or last time standing on the right side of history. But now, history is repeating itself, with the news that Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, plans to follow the recent lead of Donald Trump and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu by once again withdrawing the UK from Unesco, 21 years after Robin Cook restored our country’s membership.

As in 1985, she is blaming the agency’s budgetary problems, but – again, just like then – it is nothing but a smokescreen for the Tories’ shameful obsession with pleasing this US president. When the Trump administration announced its withdrawal from Unesco jointly with Netanyahu’s last year, it was explicit about the supposed “anti-Israel bias” that had driven its decision, by which it meant Unesco’s temerity in accepting the overwhelming vote of its members in 2011 to admit the state of Palestine as a full member. For Mordaunt to blame concerns over Unesco’s finances instead is not only to take the public for fools but also a surprisingly cowardly move for a minister who is usually willing to speak her mind.

In doing so, however, she has contradicted herself. Only nine months ago, she praised Unesco’s new director-general, Audrey Azoulay, as being “very focused on the reform agenda”, and reassured her that “we will support her” in the “tough job” ahead. What has changed in nine months? And what has changed since, only last month, Matthew Lodge, the UK’s ambassador to Unesco reassured his colleagues of the UK government’s view that “although challenges remain, Unesco’s finances are on a sounder footing. The political disputes that have plagued this organisation for too long have been de-escalated and there is a renewed sense of optimism for the future.” Four weeks on, the same government proposes to walk away.

And let us be clear what we are walking away from: the UN agency that – among many other things – is responsible for driving up literacy rates across the globe, promoting gender equality in education, protecting press freedom, coordinating tsunami warnings, and preserving more than 1,000 of the world’s most important heritage sites, including 31 here in Britain.

Grauniad

[bickster]

On 12/11/2018 at 11:14, Chindie said:

Cough

 

I believe they conceded in this case because to proceed, they would have had to reveal where their funding came from. One can only conclude that their funding comes from somewhere they really really don't want to reveal. There are a number of people currently trying to trace that funding

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, bickster said:

I believe they conceded in this case because to proceed, they would have had to reveal where their funding came from. One can only conclude that their funding comes from somewhere they really really don't want to reveal. There are a number of people currently trying to trace that funding

Pretty sure I read somewhere that there is some dodginess going on with charity funding here. TPA isn't a charity, but a charity was set up that then gives money to TPA, so TPA is getting funds from the taxpayer. And this also helps hide the original source of (some) money.

[tonyh29]

38 minutes ago, bickster said:

I believe they conceded in this case because to proceed, they would have had to reveal where their funding came from. One can only conclude that their funding comes from somewhere they really really don't want to reveal. There are a number of people currently trying to trace that funding

didn't think it was any secret ?  it's people like Gallagher UK , IM Group , Midlands Industrial Council , JCB  .. or is the twitter looking for a Russian angle ?

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Pretty sure I read somewhere that there is some dodginess going on with charity funding here. TPA isn't a charity, but a charity was set up that then gives money to TPA, so TPA is getting funds from the taxpayer. And this also helps hide the original source of (some) money.

The TPA is rated as E (the worst) for financial transparency by Who Funds You, the UK Campaign for Think Tank transparency. No shock there

But yes, there are financial laws that may indeed have been broken too

[blandy]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

The TPA is rated as E (the worst) for financial transparency by Who Funds You, the UK Campaign for Think Tank transparency. No shock there

But yes, there are financial laws that may indeed have been broken too

They're more like a political party or lobbying group than a "think tank", in reality, as well.

[Chindie]

They're a 'think tank' in name only. They're s lobbying group.

One that's very good at getting national audiences via the BBC.

[Chindie]

 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

didn't think it was any secret ?  it's people like Gallagher UK , IM Group , Midlands Industrial Council , JCB  .. or is the twitter looking for a Russian angle ?

It's a huge secret, the only reason people know about the ones mentioned above is that those businesses/organisations have declared those donations. The TPA, however, do not disclose the donations themselves (Irony Alert: they campaign for financial transparency in government), which leaves a rather big hole. They don't wish to disclose where the hole gets filled from, so much so they conceded that they did indeed act criminally in another matter so as not to reveal the source of that funding. They wouldn't do that for the funds already publically declared 

[NurembergVillan]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

It's a huge secret, the only reason people know about the ones mentioned above is that those businesses/organisations have declared those donations. The TPA, however, do not disclose the donations themselves (Irony Alert: they campaign for financial transparency in government), which leaves a rather big hole. They don't wish to disclose where the hole gets filled from, so much so they conceded that they did indeed act criminally in another matter so as not to reveal the source of that funding. They wouldn't do that for the funds already publically declared 

Never had Andrew Neil down as a massive bell end.

Whoops, that's wrong.  I DID have him down as a bell end.

 

[Chindie]

Neil also has ties with the Adam Smith Institute.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Neil also has ties with the Adam Smith Institute.

Well he literally has a tie, didn't realise he had more than one

[tonyh29]

So , cabinet being summoned  ..what time do we think May will resign tomorrow ?

Has Jo Johnson timed it right to do an "Ed" and knife his brother for the top job ?

Edited November 13, 2018 by tonyh29

[blandy]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

So , cabinet being summoned  ..what time do we think May will resign tomorrow ?

Has Jo Johnson timed it right to do an "Ed" and knife his brother for the top job ?

None of them have the bottle for being leader of a clusterpork, apart from May.

[NurembergVillan]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

So , cabinet being summoned  ..what time do we think May will resign tomorrow ?

Has Jo Johnson timed it right to do an "Ed" and knife his brother for the top job ?

You reckon that's a possibility?

That's to both questions!

[bickster]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

So , cabinet being summoned  ..what time do we think May will resign tomorrow ?

Has Jo Johnson timed it right to do an "Ed" and knife his brother for the top job ?

Boris has zero chance of becoming leader, he's a busted flush both in Parliament and the grass roots

[bickster]