Dr Strangelove (how I learned to stop worrying and love Boris)

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Has anyone noticed that this economic black hole we have to fill seems to be getting smaller? Down to £35bn now reportedly. Are our government correcting their own errors quickly perhaps, and we are seeing signs of proven tory economic stewardship. Or are seeing the guesswork of our media unravel. Or are the spin doctors working overtime? A few weeks ago I read £70bn somewhere, something is changing that is for sure.
 
The Exile II said:

We know all about the Tories. We know next to nothing about Labour. But just trust them, they'll be better.

Like replacing Will Grigg with John Stead because he's better looking.
Click to expand...

Not really, there's a new scandal appears every other day ...

... keep on ignoring them though, you have a one track mind so I'll leave it there.
 
Smug in Boots said:
Not really, there's a new scandal appears every other day ...

... keep on ignoring them though, you have a one track mind so I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...

Acknowledging their shortfalls isn't ignoring. People are more than capable of doing that for themselves - that's my point. So why are Labour wasting time telling us what they already know, when they could be telling us what they want to do? Winning votes rather than relying on the Tories losing votes (and there's that 30% that vote for them no matter what to consider, nothing is changing their mind).

No wonder you want to leave it there - you don't seem to be able to compute anything other than 'tories bad'. Nuance? Tilt.
 
The Exile II said:
Here's an example of what I'm talking about -

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...k-fossil-fuel-prime-minister-in-renewable-age

90% of the article is whining about the Tories, the other 10% is vague and shows no understanding of the consequences of what he wants to do. Onshore wind is a right **** on and there are some very dodgy people involved. How GB Energy would work when you've got the government setting policy that could directly advantage their own company, who knows. I'd imagine a lot of Shell's profits will go into stopping that happening. If only he'd used the other 90% expanding on the idea he might have worked that out for himself.
Click to expand...

What is the Dail Heil and the Daily Gets Much Worse say as compared to the grunudid about this?
 
Sunderpitt said:
What is the Dail Heil and the Daily Gets Much Worse say as compared to the grunudid about this?
Click to expand...

No idea. I doubt they'll be as sympathetic though. Imagine if the article was 100% about what Labour would do though. What could they say?
 
It’s all a mess . And we have to remember that an election result is down to voters. Yesterday there were voters on a cost of living crisis demonstration demanding an election. So I assume these people think that prices will drop and inflation will be resolved the moment someone else takes over. And if it’s not in 6 months time , well just demonstrate for another .
 
  • Like
Reactions: clockstander
Gavlar's in big bother now. Interesting that he was brought in without portfolio though - and therefore sacking him wouldn't be too difficult in terms of a replacement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smug in Boots
Blond Bombshell said:
The Liar has set the tone, they think they are above the law. A civil servant would be sacked for what Braverman and Williamson have done...

https://news.sky.com/story/gavin-wi...ut-pm-wasnt-aware-of-specific-claims-12739791
Click to expand...
I would rob a bank tomorrow if I thought I could get away scot free. That is exactly why these people are doing what they are doing, because they know they can do so with impunity. As you said Bonko set the bar so low and they just follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blond Bombshell
Smug in Boots said:
He knew Williamson was under investigation before he appointed him.

He knew Braverman was lying before he appointed her.

He's about as honest as Truss was capable
Click to expand...
Is it much different on the other side of the house? A candidate in a safe seat is ushered through as a candidate, despite some dubious comments, construed as racist. Members resigning over the rationale for a candidate being rejected, who is a known anti-racist campaigner. Seemingly they liked a Caroline Lucas tweet, hence they are not fit. All against the backdrop of the Forde report.
 
FellTop said:
Is it much different on the other side of the house? A candidate in a safe seat is ushered through as a candidate, despite some dubious comments, construed as racist. Members resigning over the rationale for a candidate being rejected, who is a known anti-racist campaigner. Seemingly they liked a Caroline Lucas tweet, hence they are not fit. All against the backdrop of the Forde report.
Click to expand...

This fella?

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...odwell-had-worst-tan-possible-for-a-black-man

Aye. The lady he beat seems to have had a parking problem as well.

Still, it's complete accountability for everyone except those I support, so nowts a bother eh?
 
FellTop said:

Is it much different on the other side of the house? A candidate in a safe seat is ushered through as a candidate, despite some dubious comments, construed as racist. Members resigning over the rationale for a candidate being rejected, who is a known anti-racist campaigner. Seemingly they liked a Caroline Lucas tweet, hence they are not fit. All against the backdrop of the Forde report.
Click to expand...

I'd say there's quite a difference between a non-entity candidate and a Government minister appointed by the PM, yes.

Both very poor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prehab26, DH4, DELETED ACCOUNT 1234 and 1 other person
Smug in Boots said:
I'd say there's quite a difference between a non-entity candidate and a Government minister appointed by the PM, yes.

Both very poor.
Click to expand...

The problem starts in letting these kind of people into parliament in the first place. Johnson was once a 'non-entity candidate'.
 
Smug in Boots said:
Yes of course 'they're all as bad as each other' <doh>

Your argument gets weaker and more predictable by the day tbh.
Click to expand...

Today's non entity candidate can be a government minister appointed by the PM in a few years time.

As I said, 'accountability for everyone except anyone wearing my rosette colour'
 
Smug in Boots said:
I specifically said they're both very poor.

You're not very good at this are you?
Click to expand...

You're the one saying Labour selecting a known racist as a prospective MP is a lesser issue than a Tory sending abusive texts (that we'd absolutely expect from an arsehole of his calibre) tbf.
 
The Exile II said:
You're the one saying Labour selecting a known racist as a prospective MP is a lesser issue than a Tory sending abusive texts (that we'd absolutely expect from an arsehole of his calibre) tbf.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't realise he'd even been to court, let alone found guilty.

The fact Williamson was a lead story on the news, and condemned by the PM, shows which is the most serious ...

... that you're twisting yourself inside out, to claim the opposite, says how biased you really are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blond Bombshell and DH4
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back