Jump to content

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


blandy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

When the next Jo Cox inevitably happens, the Conservative Party can consider themselves as accessories to it.

A new low even by VT standards 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

There is a whole heap of difference from testing the water to passing into law  , at present there is zero evidence to suggest its going to be the case  , I think you can divert your angst back to the Brexit thread for now :)

There is indeed a big difference between 'testing the water' and 'passing into law', but the whole point about testing the water is that it to see what public reaction something would get. You don't get any prizes for being so savvy that you just don't react to people testing the water; instead, they get the strong impression they should go ahead and do whatever it was. 

If we, as a society, don't want most working class men to die before they finish work then we need to vigorously oppose this policy *now*, not at its Third Reading. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

oppose this policy

They have made it so it doesn't really matter what the public do anymore.  People oppose Brexit and it still continues.  

On health,  once you reach retirement age(working class) ,  you are of zero use to them anymore, simple as that really.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

There is indeed a big difference between 'testing the water' and 'passing into law', but the whole point about testing the water is that it to see what public reaction something would get. You don't get any prizes for being so savvy that you just don't react to people testing the water; instead, they get the strong impression they should go ahead and do whatever it was. 

If we, as a society, don't want most working class men to die before they finish work then we need to vigorously oppose this policy *now*, not at its Third Reading. 

everyone loves a fact check

 

We previously fact checked a Daily Mirror article which incorrectly claimed that the government planned to raise the state pension age to 75 over the next 16 years.

The Mirror has corrected its article, but the claim continues to circulate on social media.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my current work environment, I work with a female teacher who is part of the cohort of women who have had to work two extra years to receive their state pension. Last year, she had time off having suffered cancer; she is in remission now, but visibly struggles to maintain the pace of what is a comparatively relaxed position by the standards of this industry. Yesterday, while we were walking and talking together, she fell to the floor and I had to help her up with another teacher. 

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I fully understand that it is not current government policy, *merely* being proposed by a highly-influential thinktank closely associated with a former party leader and chair of the current PM's leadership campaign. However, as you said yourself, the announcement of this plan is 'testing the water'. Therefore, it needs to be reacted to, before it *does* become government policy. 

 

It wasn't me that said they were testing the water , that was other posters commenting upon a new policy that isn't planned  , isnt being implemented  and probably never will be

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

 

It wasn't me that said they were testing the water , that was other posters commenting upon a new policy that isn't planned  , isnt being implemented  and probably never will be

 

Oh okay, I was confused because when you wrote 'there is a whole heap of difference from testing the water to passing into law', seemingly you actually meant 'they aren't testing the water'. Silly me. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

 

It wasn't me that said they were testing the water , that was other posters commenting upon a new policy that isn't planned  , isnt being implemented  and probably never will be

 

It’s the “probably” bit that worries me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Oh okay, I was confused because when you wrote 'there is a whole heap of difference from testing the water to passing into law', seemingly you actually meant 'they aren't testing the water'. Silly me. 

Instead of taking the lazy route trawling for cheap likes , read what was said ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Been a bit busy telling off one of her sons

Give the guy a break, how could he have known his mate the convicted paedo pimp was a paedo pimp? Besides the 10 years of files, tapes, videos and photos used for the conviction, where was the evidence?

Royals, eh! We’re lucky to have them really. They do a lot of good that could not otherwise be done by mere mortals.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

They do a lot of good that could not otherwise be done by mere mortals.

Until you can approve suspending parliament I'm sticking with Queenie :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Until you can approve suspending parliament I'm sticking with Queenie :)

I think that’s my point. Why shouldn’t it be one of us. What’s so special about Queenie, other than a few hundred years of wilful subservience that really should have stopped once we learnt to read.

They’re not supernatural wunder beings. They are fallible like us. There have been royal drunks, royal racists, royal shaggers, con men, druggies and sex pests.

Given that they appear to be ‘normal’, why has someone in the mediaeval past given them this untouchable status enshrined in law that we still play along with?

Makes us all look a bit thick. Given the kickings VT dishes out for people that believe in various gods, this looks to me worthy of similar ridicule.

We pay people to pretend they are better than us. They’re not very good at it, but we pretend they are. That’s **** up.

 

I may have wondered off the main news of the day, Queen consents to nutjob Tory non plan. She’ll probably manage to get through it all somehow, bless her. She won the war.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

I think that’s my point. Why shouldn’t it be one of us. What’s so special about Queenie, other than a few hundred years of wilful subservience that really should have stopped once we learnt to read.

They’re not supernatural wunder beings. They are fallible like us. There have been royal drunks, royal racists, royal shaggers, con men, druggies and sex pests.

Given that they appear to be ‘normal’, why has someone in the mediaeval past given them this untouchable status enshrined in law that we still play along with?

Makes us all look a bit thick. Given the kickings VT dishes out for people that believe in various gods, this looks to me worthy of similar ridicule.

We pay people to pretend they are better than us. They’re not very good at it, but we pretend they are. That’s **** up.

 

I may have wondered off the main news of the day, Queen consents to nutjob Tory non plan. She’ll probably manage to get through it all somehow, bless her. She won the war.

 

you seem to have an obsession with the war today ...

I don't' know that anyone holds them up as super natural wunder beings  , they are what they are through luck of birth , same reason we are lucky that we were born here rather than in France or some other back water  ...  We are a monarchy  ... but also a democracy so you have the right to campaign for madame guillotine to do her job if you so wish , these days it doesn't 't get you executed for treason

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â