Jump to content
blandy

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

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

‘...and she was calling me her dirty Churchill, and well, kid number 7 conceived right there on the office floor, we’re calling him Axminster.’

EbliRQxWoAIEQ3p?format=jpg&name=small

 

Best shag he's had.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, avfcDJ said:

Best shag he's had.

Thats because he's more likely to wilt on the job

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to overlook with so much else happening, but the Houses of Parliament are literally falling down:

The government will let the building collapse around their ears rather than take any action to move, even temporarily, to a more suitable venue. The only thing I feel a true sense of kinship with Jacob Rees-Mogg over is that I think I feel about as strongly as he does about the symbolism of the place, even if I have come to the exact opposite conclusions about the shithole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

 

Should be a bit worrying for the government . . . she rebelled on the bullying amendment recently where the government were defeated, so it will be interesting to see if this is the start of another nascent backbench revolt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Should be a bit worrying for the government . . . she rebelled on the bullying amendment recently where the government were defeated, so it will be interesting to see if this is the start of another nascent backbench revolt.

I Hope Please GIF

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my sympathies are actually vaguely more with the government on this than with May*, but I don't really care and it would be funny to see them lose again.

*There's no reason why you should have to be a career civil servant (or spook, as Mark Sedwill appears to have been) for the role. Most national security concerns are the results of political decisions, and in other countries it's considered perfectly normal for people who are not government lifers to do the equivalent role (it might be better performed by an academic, for instance).

Edited by HanoiVillan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, government seems about the only area I know of where you can be hired into a role/field you know nothing about and have no prior experience in.

 

Even Boots will sometimes stipulate you must have prior retail experience to work for them......in government it's just finger in the air stuff and nepotism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I dunno, government seems about the only area I know of where you can be hired into a role/field you know nothing about and have no prior experience in.

 

Even Boots will sometimes stipulate you must have prior retail experience to work for them......in government it's just finger in the air stuff and nepotism.

Funny you should mention retail, as I came upon a pretty remarkable advert earlier for a restaurant in Washington DC:

Joking apart, it depends what you accept as 'credentials' doesn't it. Mark Sedwill spent a number of years being a spook for the intelligence services in different countries (or at least working with them), and clearly 'desk-bound James Bond' is one form of preparation for life in the national security space. Then again, there have been at least half a dozen successful terror attacks in this country since the start of 2017, so maybe we could try a slightly different model*.

*Not saying I think David Frost is the different model I would choose, just questioning whether the current arrangement is really the only conceivable way to organise things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think my sympathies are actually vaguely more with the government on this than with May*, but I don't really care and it would be funny to see them lose again.

*There's no reason why you should have to be a career civil servant (or spook, as Mark Sedwill appears to have been) for the role. Most national security concerns are the results of political decisions.... (it might be better performed by an academic, for instance).

It would be funny (and good) to see them lose again.

I don't agree that an academic might perform the role better. Overseeing the national security organisations and infrastructure etc. (to me) requires an understanding of more than just "political decisions" taken in the past (which might have led to security concerns) and something/someone with broader knowledge and experience than an "academic". The threats to UK security from (to list just a few) Russian espionage, Chinese Espionage, Cyber attacks, Terrorist groups and organisations of wildly differing natures, Corruption, Social media pot stirring (Russia again), Russia funding e.g. Brexit or Tory party donations, Domestic groups like the EDL and so on - not terrorists, but with the potential and aim to cause significant social unrest and division....Then there's looking at the shape and needs of the armed forces and Police and MI-5 and MI-6...and co-operation with other nations and international agencies (Interpol, NATO...). It is unlikely that an academic would be able to perform the role better than someone with experience, intelligence and knowledge of these areas. I don't completely rule it out as "never", but I have my doubts.

Appointing your loyal Brexit chum, is of course the worst choice of the lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

just questioning whether the current arrangement is really the only conceivable way to organise things.

Agree with this. It's only a recent (ish) way of organising anyway. The role (whatever you call it) needs doing, by one or more SQEPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic of requiring experience would suggest the Health Minister should have worked in health or have medical qualifications and the Education minister would require a functioning brain. Or that the Brexit Minister would know stuff comes in at docks and France is over the water.

It’s just not a workable prerequisite.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Funny you should mention retail, as I came upon a pretty remarkable advert earlier for a restaurant in Washington DC:

Joking apart, it depends what you accept as 'credentials' doesn't it. Mark Sedwill spent a number of years being a spook for the intelligence services in different countries (or at least working with them), and clearly 'desk-bound James Bond' is one form of preparation for life in the national security space. Then again, there have been at least half a dozen successful terror attacks in this country since the start of 2017, so maybe we could try a slightly different model*.

*Not saying I think David Frost is the different model I would choose, just questioning whether the current arrangement is really the only conceivable way to organise things.

I'm not sure any strategy could eradicate terrorism as it exists today.

Terrorism is a really wide ranging term too these days, it used to be obvious, see a guy wearing a balaclava and he's probably a wrong'un but nowadays they're often just fairly regular young guys who get exposed to radicalism via platforms which are really difficult to control.

The only way to stamp out terrorism is to address the widening gaps in global society, that and eradicating all forms of religion. Two things that will never happen.

But I guess that's all a bit off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clown today with his ‘build, build, build’ re announcement of £5 billion of already announced spending and the BBC reading their lines like good little boys about it being ‘like’ Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Absolutely sickening.

To put the already previously announced £5 billion in to perspective, that train to get you from Birmingham to London 20 minutes faster, that’s going to cost about £100 billion.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British political media do not listen to details, or seek them out; instead, they simply respond emotionally to noises. Johnson has told them that money will be spent, therefore he is generous, and The Tories Have Changed, and therefore people who doubt it are jealous and bitter.

Edited by HanoiVillan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

The clown today with his ‘build, build, build’ re announcement of £5 billion of already announced spending and the BBC reading their lines like good little boys about it being ‘like’ Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Absolutely sickening.

To put the already previously announced £5 billion in to perspective, that train to get you from Birmingham to London 20 minutes faster, that’s going to cost about £100 billion.

  

The BBC news reader earlier today called it the ‘Level Up’ government campaign.

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry, in fact for about 90% of my waking life right now I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

The BBC news reader earlier today called it the ‘Level Up’ government campaign.

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry, in fact for about 90% of my waking life right now I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Have you ever tried "cranking"?  Might help you through this difficult time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Have you ever tried "cranking"?  Might help you through this difficult time.

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

 

Irrelevant anyway, I completed Pornhub weeks ago.......

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â