Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

The best thing about our system is that every single person in the country gets an equal vote under equal circumstances. Unless a National ID card scheme is introduced this will just alienate poorer voters. Just another way to rig the system.

Poll came out in Batley and Spen a few days ago:

CON: 47%; LAB: 41%; WPGB: 6%; LDEM: 3%

Looks like Galloway's party is getting the Tories over the line.

I went to Galloway's party. Rula Lenska embarrassed herself again.

Is that an example of Galloways humour?

Well it seems like Matt Hancock might be a dead man walking after pictures of him having it away with his aide have surfaced.

Although we have a serial adulterer in No. 10 so Im not exactly holding my breath.

Says it all that having an affair is what gets the media riled up, not the 150k deaths

The obvious sacrificial lamb has reached the end of his useful life

They'll brazen it out if they can. You can forget about any of them 'doing the decent thing.'

I note that the BBC, in its article on the subject, has omitted the fact that Gina Coladangelo is a director and major shareholder at a lobbying firm that offers a 'deep understanding of the mechanics of government'. Seems a rather important detail to me!

It gives the perfect chance for Boris to get rid of him, but not have to say its because he is incompetent

Be awkward for Boris to sack someone for being incompetent

Or for having an affair.

BamBam wrote:Says it all that having an affair is what gets the media riled up, not the 150k deaths

The vaccine rollout cancels out the deaths apparently.

Afro wrote:It gives the perfect chance for Boris to get rid of him, but not have to say its because he is incompetent

Apparently the CCTV is from inside the ministerial office, which you need very high security clearance to access. So not only is it about a minister shagging about, but theres been a major security breach from someone very high up the chain.

If Johnson was the one to leak this so he had an excuse to get rid of Hancock then thats a scandal of Nixon levels and he should be prosecuted.

I often think of the London Olympics of 2012. Look at the state of us now.

Huge respect to Ken Bruce's team on Radio 2 for following a chat about Matt Hancock's alleged affair with 'Afternoon Delight' by Starland Vocal Band

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I often think of the London Olympics of 2012. Look at the state of us now.

Why, what's changed? Political scandal still existed then. That was around the same time as Chris Huhne getting banged up and 'plebgate'.

You know what's changed, Duty. You don't need me to tell you.

Yeah, I don't like the sugar tax, either.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:You know what's changed, Duty. You don't need me to tell you.

Evidently not

Well there we have it:

'Downing Street said Boris Johnson accepted Mr Hancock's apology and "considers the matter closed".

'Asked whether the prime minister had "full confidence" in Mr Hancock, the PM's spokesman replied: "Yes."'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57612441

You have to worry about the way things are going here. It's not good that a minster can be caught breaking the rules he helped devise, and for there to be no consequences. It shouldn't be a partisan thing either. We should all expect better.

The thing is the adultery/whatever is not an issue in itself. Says a lot about the man (and the aide. Her retail magnate husband won't be happy) but its not a hanging offence

What is - is how she got the role in the first place.

Joylon Maugham wrote:
He appointed Ms Coladangelo as a non-executive director of DHSC in September 2020. The role entitles her to substantial payments from public funds.
The relationship is reported to have begun or have been on-going in early 2020 (i.e. before Ms Coladangelo’s appointment as a non-executive director of DHSC.)
Insofar as the Secretary of State had any involvement in the appointment process, the process and appointment decision was vitiated by actual bias (which could very well be a criminal offence.)

In any event, because of the facts stated above, the decision was unlawful because of apparent bias.
And, in in appointing Ms Coladangelo, Matt Hancock had regard (whether consciously or unconsciously) to irrelevant considerations.

There is also the Nial Ferguson argument. Hancock claimed Ferguson had to go for visiting his lover during lockdown. One rule for the plebs, another for the government

I wonder how we managed to fall so far as a nation. From one where principles and dialogue ruled the discourse to one where jingoism and populism wins. We dont care about policies any more we care about slogans. We have the worst government in living memory and the people just accept it - why? I refuse to accept that the Tories are made of teflon because they come up with some pithy slogans around election time, or because they “got Brexit done”. Theres got to be more to it than that.

This will be difficult for most to understand but what you consider important may not be important to others. I accept the Tories as the alternative is Labour and economically they stand in opposition to what I believe. Were the Lib Dems a realistic prospect my opinion may well change.

Politics isn't as simple as you want it to be, give the people a viable alternative and you may see the change you desire.

So what would this current government have to do before you said “thats it, I cant vote for this party anymore.”?

Soul Requiem wrote:This will be difficult for most to understand but what you consider important may not be important to others. I accept the Tories as the alternative is Labour and economically they stand in opposition to what I believe. Were the Lib Dems a realistic prospect my opinion may well change.

Politics isn't as simple as you want it to be, give the people a viable alternative and you may see the change you desire.

This is just about the weakest post you've ever made on this site, and that's saying something. You're effectively saying absolutely nothing here. You have no idea how Labour would govern, they've not been in power for over 10 years. The Lib Dems very well could be a realistic prospect, particularly if power-sharing discussions come into play, as the last bi-election showed.

Your last sentence is just laughable, declaring "politics isn't as simple as you want it to be" while making a ridiculously simplistic argument.

Past year or so have shown how damaging this government is regardless of their priorities

Pr4wn wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:This will be difficult for most to understand but what you consider important may not be important to others. I accept the Tories as the alternative is Labour and economically they stand in opposition to what I believe. Were the Lib Dems a realistic prospect my opinion may well change.

Politics isn't as simple as you want it to be, give the people a viable alternative and you may see the change you desire.

This is just about the weakest post you've ever made on this site, and that's saying something. You're effectively saying absolutely nothing here. You have no idea how Labour would govern, they've not been in power for over 10 years. The Lib Dems very well could be a realistic prospect, particularly if power-sharing discussions come into play, as the last bi-election showed.

Your last sentence is just laughable, declaring "politics isn't as simple as you want it to be" while making a ridiculously simplistic argument.

It's laughable because it doesn't fit your agenda which is fairly predictable. It's far from a simplistic argument, your priorities are not my priorities but for some reason you believe your opinion to matter more. It's a very simple concept and one so few can grasp.

If we all thought the same there would be no need for elections, the enlightened few would simply decide for the rest of us.

I enjoy you resorting attacking me personally as demonstrated by your first sentence however.

Never been a Tory voter but I am interested in the qualities of the politicians we have. The current cabinet must be one of the weakest least talented selections ever, and fully representative of the kind of blind optimisim and refusal to accept reality that was necessary for Brexit to actually happen. There were better Tory politicians but there are few if any left as the party as has morphed into Ukip.

We all know that the Labour party has problems. It is a broad church with some real nutters who, in recent history, had too much influence, taking the party still further away from power than ever. But it still has the likes of Lammy, and Cooper, and Starmer too. There are of course questions about his leadership, not least because those self same nutters seem to want to undermine him at every opportunity, but he is a genuinely smart and self made man who had an actual successful career in public service before going into politics.

I really don't know if this version of Labour can get back into power, or at what cost as they will almost certainly need the SNP, but for the sake of the country we need this government gone. As for the tories themselves they need time out of power to either sort themselves out or to disappear.

Samo wrote:So what would this current government have to do before you said “thats it, I cant vote for this party anymore.”?

This honestly isnt some kind of clever “gotcha” moment, I’m genuinely curious as to where the line for acceptable conduct is for some people.

Hancock resigns, so quite what the point of Boris standing by him was I have no idea

GSC wrote:Hancock resigns, so quite what the point of Boris standing by him was I have no idea

Impeccable leadership from Johnson as always.

Sajid Javid to take over. Strange one, didnt think he and Johnson got on.

Samo wrote:

GSC wrote:Hancock resigns, so quite what the point of Boris standing by him was I have no idea

Impeccable leadership from Johnson as always.

Sajid Javid to take over. Strange one, didnt think he and Johnson got on.

Preferable to Gavin Williamson anyway.

guildfordbat wrote:

Samo wrote:

GSC wrote:Hancock resigns, so quite what the point of Boris standing by him was I have no idea

Impeccable leadership from Johnson as always.

Sajid Javid to take over. Strange one, didnt think he and Johnson got on.

Preferable to Gavin Williamson anyway.

Preferable to most of them tbh, although its got a bit of a Sophies Choice feel to it.

I'm enjoying the Beebs headline that he resigned for breaching guidelines and not for shagging someone who also happened to received a paid position at a health department

Soul Requiem wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:This will be difficult for most to understand but what you consider important may not be important to others. I accept the Tories as the alternative is Labour and economically they stand in opposition to what I believe. Were the Lib Dems a realistic prospect my opinion may well change.

Politics isn't as simple as you want it to be, give the people a viable alternative and you may see the change you desire.

This is just about the weakest post you've ever made on this site, and that's saying something. You're effectively saying absolutely nothing here. You have no idea how Labour would govern, they've not been in power for over 10 years. The Lib Dems very well could be a realistic prospect, particularly if power-sharing discussions come into play, as the last bi-election showed.

Your last sentence is just laughable, declaring "politics isn't as simple as you want it to be" while making a ridiculously simplistic argument.

It's laughable because it doesn't fit your agenda which is fairly predictable. It's far from a simplistic argument, your priorities are not my priorities but for some reason you believe your opinion to matter more. It's a very simple concept and one so few can grasp.

If we all thought the same there would be no need for elections, the enlightened few would simply decide for the rest of us.

I enjoy you resorting attacking me personally as demonstrated by your first sentence however.

What are you talking about? I don't care whether you support the Tories or the Loonies. My point is that you're saying politics "isn't simple" when presenting the most ridiculously simplistic argument. You haven't at all justified why you think that Labour or the Lib Dems are not alternatives, let alone why you support the Tories over them despite their enormous shortcomings.

As I said, you're effectively saying nothing and being flippant. You can't say that things are not simple when posting such drivel

The old adage of "look at the alternatives" without any justification is just nonsense.

Pr4wn wrote:

What are you talking about? I don't care whether you support the Tories or the Loonies. My point is that you're saying politics "isn't simple" when presenting the most ridiculously simplistic argument. You haven't at all justified why you think that Labour or the Lib Dems are not alternatives, let alone why you support the Tories over them despite their enormous shortcomings.

As I said, you're effectively saying nothing and being flippant. You can't say that things are not simple when posting such drivel

Ahh your usual dismissive attitude towards anyone who dares to have a different opinion to you. I don't need to offer up my reasoning for voting the way I do, as I've said previously my post was to merely highlight that not everyone thinks the same way. This is not a difficult concept particularly when you take into account the 11+ years of Tory governance and recent polling.

This is just another example of you attacking certain posters and to be honest it's an absurd way of approaching debate.

If you'd bothered to read my post you would have known that I gave economic policy as a reason for voting Tory. I also put forward my reasons for not voting for the Lib Dems, while they're performing so badly in general elections it's a wasted vote.

Samo wrote:

GSC wrote:Hancock resigns, so quite what the point of Boris standing by him was I have no idea

Impeccable leadership from Johnson as always.

Sajid Javid to take over. Strange one, didnt think he and Johnson got on.

Sontar ha!

Soul Requiem wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

What are you talking about? I don't care whether you support the Tories or the Loonies. My point is that you're saying politics "isn't simple" when presenting the most ridiculously simplistic argument. You haven't at all justified why you think that Labour or the Lib Dems are not alternatives, let alone why you support the Tories over them despite their enormous shortcomings.

As I said, you're effectively saying nothing and being flippant. You can't say that things are not simple when posting such drivel

Ahh your usual dismissive attitude towards anyone who dares to have a different opinion to you. I don't need to offer up my reasoning for voting the way I do, as I've said previously my post was to merely highlight that not everyone thinks the same way. This is not a difficult concept particularly when you take into account the 11+ years of Tory governance and recent polling.

This is just another example of you attacking certain posters and to be honest it's an absurd way of approaching debate.

If you'd bothered to read my post you would have known that I gave economic policy as a reason for voting Tory. I also put forward my reasons for not voting for the Lib Dems, while they're performing so badly in general elections it's a wasted vote.

So what would it take (other than a viable alternative) for the Tories to lose your vote?

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

What are you talking about? I don't care whether you support the Tories or the Loonies. My point is that you're saying politics "isn't simple" when presenting the most ridiculously simplistic argument. You haven't at all justified why you think that Labour or the Lib Dems are not alternatives, let alone why you support the Tories over them despite their enormous shortcomings.

As I said, you're effectively saying nothing and being flippant. You can't say that things are not simple when posting such drivel

Ahh your usual dismissive attitude towards anyone who dares to have a different opinion to you. I don't need to offer up my reasoning for voting the way I do, as I've said previously my post was to merely highlight that not everyone thinks the same way. This is not a difficult concept particularly when you take into account the 11+ years of Tory governance and recent polling.

This is just another example of you attacking certain posters and to be honest it's an absurd way of approaching debate.

If you'd bothered to read my post you would have known that I gave economic policy as a reason for voting Tory. I also put forward my reasons for not voting for the Lib Dems, while they're performing so badly in general elections it's a wasted vote.

So what would it take (other than a viable alternative) for the Tories to lose your vote?

Presumably for them to have lower than the worst economic performance in the G7.

GSC wrote:Hancock resigns, so quite what the point of Boris standing by him was I have no idea

Buckland was doing the rounds this morning, and on the BBC at least it went something like this:

Robert Buckland: Matt Hancock did the right thing in resigning

Dan Walker: Why did Johnson consider an apology sufficient and say the case was closed?

Robert Buckland: The Prime Minister didn't want to rush to judgement (!)

He was also saying that there were 'a lot of things swirling around over the weekend', but fundamentally, if he accepts that the breach of social distancing guidance is what merited the resignation, Hancock admitted to that on Friday, and Johnson was happy to keep him on.

In hate how little respect they have for our intelligence.

The Tories have done a good job of handling the narrative of Hancock's indiscretion - a breach of social distancing rules?

He was having an extra-marital affair with an old university friend who had somehow gained a very lucrative position as an adviser within his department, a position for which she appears to have no relevant qualification or experience, although her father is a former hospital trust managing director and is now CEO of a pharmaceutical consultancy. And this following Hancock's unlawful handling of PPE purchasing contracts.

GSC wrote:Hancock resigns, so quite what the point of Boris standing by him was I have no idea

Because if Boris starts firing people for things like having affairs with people he is giving public money to it opens a can of worms?

JDizzle wrote:

GSC wrote:Hancock resigns, so quite what the point of Boris standing by him was I have no idea

Because if Boris starts firing people for things like having affairs with people he is giving public money to it opens a can of worms?

OK, how about sacking him for carrying that silly red suitcase? That's a crime in itself.

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

What are you talking about? I don't care whether you support the Tories or the Loonies. My point is that you're saying politics "isn't simple" when presenting the most ridiculously simplistic argument. You haven't at all justified why you think that Labour or the Lib Dems are not alternatives, let alone why you support the Tories over them despite their enormous shortcomings.

As I said, you're effectively saying nothing and being flippant. You can't say that things are not simple when posting such drivel

Ahh your usual dismissive attitude towards anyone who dares to have a different opinion to you. I don't need to offer up my reasoning for voting the way I do, as I've said previously my post was to merely highlight that not everyone thinks the same way. This is not a difficult concept particularly when you take into account the 11+ years of Tory governance and recent polling.

This is just another example of you attacking certain posters and to be honest it's an absurd way of approaching debate.

If you'd bothered to read my post you would have known that I gave economic policy as a reason for voting Tory. I also put forward my reasons for not voting for the Lib Dems, while they're performing so badly in general elections it's a wasted vote.

So what would it take (other than a viable alternative) for the Tories to lose your vote?

Again it's not difficult to understand. I am as it stands a Conservative voter, will never be voting Labour under the current leadership. That therefore means that until the Lib Dems have a platform for a majority my vote will continue to go blue.

Is anyone else more than a little bit curious about where the leaked CCTV came from?

The second an inquiry into that was announced my brain flashed to Malcolm Tucker at the Goolding inquiry trying to answer why he was photographed with Mr Tickel's NHS number just before it was leaked to the press.

Soul Requiem wrote:Again it's not difficult to understand. I am as it stands a Conservative voter, will never be voting Labour under the current leadership. That therefore means that until the Lib Dems have a  platform for a majority my vote will continue to go blue.

You didn't answer the question. Your total non-response just makes you look blinkered.

Pr4wn wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Again it's not difficult to understand. I am as it stands a Conservative voter, will never be voting Labour under the current leadership. That therefore means that until the Lib Dems have a  platform for a majority my vote will continue to go blue.

You didn't answer the question. Your total non-response just makes you look blinkered.

That is my answer, I'll stop voting Tory the moment the Lib Dems are a viable option. Am I supposed to care if you of all people think I'm blinkered?

Quite possible that if everyone who said "I'll stop voting Tory the moment the Lib Dems are a viable option" actually went out and voted Lib Dem, they would become a viable option.