Off Topic The Politics Thread

Come up with some moronic unworkable laws to appear tough to frothing gammon on issue they’ve created, blame Labour/lefties/lawyers/Meghan Markle when it does nothing, stoke another culture war for week or two. Repeat. Genius.

 

is rwanda full already

 

please log in to view this image

End Wokeness

@EndWokeness


What a time to be alive

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

3:50 PM · Mar 5, 2023

 

please log in to view this image

 

Roddy Dunlop KC

@RoddyQC


Breaking: Scotland has inadvertently entered a time vortex, taking it back to the year 1910 in which it is impermissible for a woman to have a political view that differs from her husband. Next up: should women have the vote? What do you think, men?
Quote Tweet

please log in to view this image

Paul Hutcheon
@paulhutcheon
·
Mar 3
EXC: SNP leadership contender Kate Forbes’ husband attended private Tory hustings. The Forbes campaign says he was a ‘guest’ but the Scottish Tories say it was for party members only https://dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-leadership-contender-kate-forbes-29359739…

1

 

please log in to view this image

 

On the Norway case, we seem to be entering a new age of intolerance

 

Blimey, Sue Gray is coming in for some crap from the Johnson gang.
I can't quite believe her and Starmer managed to bamboozle the then PM into making up lockdown rules and laws, then organising piss ups and parties on their behalf, then making sure that Johnson actually attended them. If that isn't absolutely amazing they then manufactured emails from no.10 about bringing your own booze etc and got someone to take photos of it all. The masterstroke was making sure first choice investigator, Simon Case, was at a party making him unable to look into them and then manoeuvring Gray into a position where Johnson would choose her to report. Why oh why did they stop there, so many more parties they could have set him up for. One for the conspiracy thread maybe??

 

Why isn't Keir Starmer being frank about when he started talking to Gray about the Labour role? He's refusing to say, which is at least suspicious. Her son is close to Starmer apparently.

 

The important thing is right wing Twitter cheerleaders spend days if not weeks pretending it’s a massive issue in a desperate attempt to make any **** stick to Starmer.

See also when he had a curry.
See also when he bought a donkey sanctuary for his sick mum.

 

Do you think they manufactured the whole partygate mess up Goldy? They've done an unbelievable job hey! Can't quite believe nobody in govt figured it out sooner. What a stitch up eh

 

No, Bob, but if Gray was negotiating terms with Starmer before she carried out her Partygate report, there's a classic conflict of interest, and the report should be set aside

 

Step 1: create trap by appointing Sue Gray.

Step 2: invite Tory backbenchers to walk into trap by banging on about Party-gate and reminding the public about it, just when the new PM - who only came about because of Party-gate - has actually started doing some good things.

Step 3: crack open beer.

Step 4: probably send Rishi a sympathetic text apologising for how easy it is to manipulate his lunatic fringe.

 

Excellent, who would you appoint to re-run the inquiry and write a new report?

What's your optimal length of time for people to keep talking about Party-gate? 6 months? 12?

 

"Who" is beyond my pay grade, but if you have any ideas, I'd be interested to hear them. People are heartily sick of Partygate. But you cannot allow a fatally flawed report, which contributed to some extent anyway, to the downfall of a prime minister, to stand based solely on the fact that it would take too long to get an impartial review.

Of course, this all depends on when Starmer and Gray started to negotiate the new role for Labour. If there was no contact of this kind from anyone in the Shadow Government before the Gray Report was published, then it may simply be a technical breach of civil service rules and de minimis.

But Starmer is being awfully cagey about this.

 

Pity Johnson couldn't let Case do the inquiry, if only Gray and Starmer didn't force him to attend a party that they set up.

 

Yes, the Gray report should be set aside. It wasn't nearly critical enough of Johnson, who also got off lightly with the police. The Privileges Committee has conducted its own inquiry, independent of Gray, and will almost certainly conclude that Johnson knowingly misled parliament about partying at number 10.

 

The problem is, the Privileges Committee will almost certainly have taken the Gray report into account and it will form part of its findings.

All this is probably theoretical. Starmer could not possibly be stupid enough to start negotiating on a senior position in Labour with Gray when she was writing a damning report on the current Tory prime minister, could he?

 

Yep, put the report to one side, in fact scrap it totally. Johnson never partied while everyone was in lockdown, the emails and photos are totally fake. Everyone with the slightest bit of common sense knows what he did. It actually becomes more damning for the Tory party everytime it's brought up. Quite embarrassing really.

 

Do you remember when Gray was appointed to produce her report? There was widespread concern that she would come under such pressure from the government that it would turn out to be a whitewash, so senior Tories were falling over themselves to tell us how independent and unimpeachable she was. Gray actually held a reputation in Whitehall for actively limiting potential damage to the Government during internal inquiries and her report, whilst fairly damning of the culture at number 10, wasn't particularly so of Johnson himself. She declined to investigate the 'ABBA party' in Johnson's flat, saying that it would not have been “appropriate or proportionate” to do so. Not the actions of an anti-Tory plotter.