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

[Smug in Boots]

If Sunak falls ill or whatever ...

... Oliver Dowden.would become our fourth PM in the last few months.

A man who's basically Liz Truss but without the possibility of a titwank

 

[Daz]

If Sunak falls ill or whatever ...

... Oliver Dowden.would become our fourth PM in the last few months.

A man who's basically Liz Truss without the possibility of a titwank

Plus he’s done nowt since Game On

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Blond Bombshell]

If I had to bet, it would all be going on not professional.

Which seems to be the rule rather than the exception these days.

So just your opinion then. The way you phrased it wasn't quite the same

 

[Blond Bombshell]

Spoiler Alert. If you dont like a challenge to the Labour party, stop reading. If you dont like any criticism of historic labour behaviour, dont read on. For me though, it is really interesting to consider the behaviour of the current opposition as opposed to their behaviour when last in power. After all they are about to become those who govern us all...

I was reading Raabs letter with disdain. But I was struck by his clear attack on Angela Rayner. She called him a thug and suggested he threw things, intimidated etc. However, I was thinking back to Gordon Browns time as PMs and the stories that surrounded his alleged behaviour. It ranged from throwing phones and staplers, to physical threats and to extraordinary shouty outbursts towards his aids. All of the things Angela finds offensive about the claims against Dom, but which dont appear to have been proven. Now Angela is switching attack to Sunak, and ignoring her seemingly false accusations, but then we know sorry is the hardeat word for her. All this when Gordon Brown is apparently playing a key part in Labour policy. It seems like Labour, once again, have no memory of their past failures, which makes me think they will be as inept a government as the current shower. If the labour party language of late does not breach the bullying guidelines outlines against Dom then I would be staggered.

We are lurching from one bunch of people we cant rely on or trust, to another. In my opinion. What a time to be alive.

Didn't read. Why bother?

 

[Blond Bombshell]

If Sunak falls ill or whatever ...

... Oliver Dowden.would become our fourth PM in the last few months.

A man who's basically Liz Truss without the possibility of a titwank

Brilliant, corking pair like

 

[The Exile II]

Didn't read. Why bother?

Because it's good to see different opinions? Maybe be presented with something you haven't considered?

Dismissing any opinion that isn't your own without any consideration puts you on the wrong side. Complete ideological capture.

 

[FellTop]

Didn't read. Why bother?

Didnt expect you to. It is why I helped you with the alert. Imagine an alternative to your stuck record. It was for others. The last thing I expected was a reply. You shouldnt have bothered. It was pointless.

 

[safc-noggieland]

Didnt expect you to. It is why I helped you with the alert. Imagine an alternative to your stuck record. It was for others. The last thing I expected was a reply. You shouldnt have bothered. It was pointless.

What l find so so sad is when a free thinking, articulate adult says that they/we should ignore, not accept, an opposition based on what happened 10/15/20/25 years ago - it defies logic.
lt would mean that we could never, ever vote for the Conservative, Labour or Liberal party again. That we must ‘create’ new parties every few years like phoænixes from their ashes.

lt beggars belief and if one of my grandbairns came to me from school with this notion l could just about accept and try with patience to help them see the error in their reasoning.
I really have no problem in anyone saying they intend to vote for any party of their choice. But to say they will not/can not vote for a party because of their past, to me, is saying democracy is not for them but a single party/person should govern uninterupted for eternity regardless of they do or fail to do.

 

[rooch 3]

What l find so so sad is when a free thinking, articulate adult says that they/we should ignore, not accept, an opposition based on what happened 10/15/20/25 years ago - it defies logic.
lt would mean that we could never, ever vote for the Conservative, Labour or Liberal party again. That we must ‘create’ new parties every few years like phoænixes from their ashes.

lt beggars belief and if one of my grandbairns came to me from school with this notion l could just about accept and try with patience to help them see the error in their reasoning.
I really have no problem in anyone saying they intend to vote for any party of their choice. But to say they will not/can not vote for a party because of their past, to me, is saying democracy is not for them but a single party/person should govern uninterupted for eternity regardless of they do or fail to do.

Is that not the reason we just go round in circles? Haven’t a clue what the alternative is mind.

 

[Sunderpitt]

You must log in or register to see images

Sounds like politicians have always been the same...

2,500 years ago yet could be said of Rabid, Truss and Bonko?

 

[The Norton Cat]

What l find so so sad is when a free thinking, articulate adult says that they/we should ignore, not accept, an opposition based on what happened 10/15/20/25 years ago - it defies logic.
lt would mean that we could never, ever vote for the Conservative, Labour or Liberal party again. That we must ‘create’ new parties every few years like phoænixes from their ashes.

lt beggars belief and if one of my grandbairns came to me from school with this notion l could just about accept and try with patience to help them see the error in their reasoning.
I really have no problem in anyone saying they intend to vote for any party of their choice. But to say they will not/can not vote for a party because of their past, to me, is saying democracy is not for them but a single party/person should govern uninterupted for eternity regardless of they do or fail to do.

I agree with most of what you say there although, in some cases, a party's past can be relevant.

In this case, and excuse me for answering for someone else, that doesn't appear to be the argument. The issue appears to be that by attacking Raab for something that a prominent member of their campaign team has also been accused of, Labour are showing a significant degree of hypocrisy. By acting like that they are, arguably, behaving no better than the cesspool of a Conservative party.

Anyway, is not voting for a party based on their past giving up on democracy? Maybe it is. But I would have said that not being impartial is equally giving up on democracy. Surely if you 'support' a political party, you always want them to win, which is contrary to the point of democracy.

 

[DH4]

Raab would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling " aggressive activist Civil Servants"

 

[safc-noggieland]

I agree with most of what you say there although, in some cases, a party's past can be relevant.

In this case, and excuse me for answering for someone else, that doesn't appear to be the argument. The issue appears to be that by attacking Raab for something that a prominent member of their campaign team has also been accused of, Labour are showing a significant degree of hypocrisy. By acting like that they are, arguably, behaving no better than the cesspool of a Conservative party.

Anyway, is not voting for a party based on their past giving up on democracy? Maybe it is. But I would have said that not being impartial is equally giving up on democracy. Surely if you 'support' a political party, you always want them to win, which is contrary to the point of democracy.

I have probably not made my point as clear as l would of liked -
What l would like is for voters who are dissatified with any government not be put off voting for an opposition party based on failings of dozens of years ago. I found it illogical that an incompetant and/or corrupt government should not be voted out just because of historic faults of another party.
I must then think that any person who suggests this or offers it as an excuse in reality reluctant to throw out said corrupt/incompetent because of their loyalty and all theyuse to justify this blind loyalty is (to use a current phrase) deflection.
Conversely someone who has historic dislike of one party might NEVER vote for them even in the face of said failings of a current government.
Greetins from sunny Crete

 

[Smug in Boots]

I agree with most of what you say there although, in some cases, a party's past can be relevant.

In this case, and excuse me for answering for someone else, that doesn't appear to be the argument. The issue appears to be that by attacking Raab for something that a prominent member of their campaign team has also been accused of, Labour are showing a significant degree of hypocrisy. By acting like that they are, arguably, behaving no better than the cesspool of a Conservative party.

Anyway, is not voting for a party based on their past giving up on democracy? Maybe it is. But I would have said that not being impartial is equally giving up on democracy. Surely if you 'support' a political party, you always want them to win, which is contrary to the point of democracy.

It would be hypocritical if this person was found guilty, as Raab has, and not dealt with.

It would be strange if Raab wasn't attacked by the opposition.

Bad eggs in any party need to be dealt with ...

... but surely their presence can't preclude that party speaking about certain subjects.

Raab was found guilty by an independent KC so surely it's a justified attack.

 

[Smug in Boots]

Raab would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling "activist Civil Servants"

I think you spelled 'aggressive activists' wrong there mate

 

[DH4]

I think you spelled 'aggressive activists' wrong there mate

Fixed

 

[Sunderpitt]

I have probably not made my point as clear as l would of liked -
What l would like is for voters who are dissatified with any government not be put off voting for an opposition party based on failings of dozens of years ago. I found it illogical that an incompetant and/or corrupt government should not be voted out just because of historic faults of another party.
I must then think that any person who suggests this or offers it as an excuse in reality reluctant to throw out said corrupt/incompetent because of their loyalty and all theyuse to justify this blind loyalty is (to use a current phrase) deflection.
Conversely someone who has historic dislike of one party might NEVER vote for them even in the face of said failings of a current government.
Greetins from sunny Crete

Greetings you lucky so and so... from very wet Durham

 

[Smug in Boots]

Fixed

It would be really easy for Raab to say,
'Fair enough, I'll have to look at how I come across in the heat of government business, perhaps people take me the wrong way.'

Instead, as Boris, Truss, etc, did, he has to blame everyone else and undermine people's confidence in the country's core administration. If he really believed he was blameless, and the enquiry wrong, why resign as Deputy Prime Minister.

'Resigning to clear my name' seems to be the latest Tory slogan.
(Or 'lie' as the layman would say.)

 

[DH4]

To "lose" one minister is unfortunate, to "lose" 39 seems like downright carelessness

 

[The Norton Cat]

I have probably not made my point as clear as l would of liked -
What l would like is for voters who are dissatified with any government not be put off voting for an opposition party based on failings of dozens of years ago. I found it illogical that an incompetant and/or corrupt government should not be voted out just because of historic faults of another party.
I must then think that any person who suggests this or offers it as an excuse in reality reluctant to throw out said corrupt/incompetent because of their loyalty and all theyuse to justify this blind loyalty is (to use a current phrase) deflection.
Conversely someone who has historic dislike of one party might NEVER vote for them even in the face of said failings of a current government.
Greetins from sunny Crete

No, I understood your point. I read it as the current Labour party being off putting, not anyone being put off by a previous Labour party.