Politics

[kent_white]

32 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

He uses more human shields than Hamas. 

I'm principle, you're right, but it conveniently happens.

He wanted Mandelson, and pressed ahead, making it clear that this was his appointment. 

Putting pressure on others, while keeping his plausible deniability.

Maybe, in this instance, he should have double checked.

There are serious, separate concerns over him raised in Maggie Oliver's recent interview too.

Then there is the fact that no. 10 was informed of the failure of the security vetting anyway. 

He also suggested that other PMs and ministers should resign purely for being investigated over an allegation.

He's blown his own party away.

 

As for not being able to call him a liar in parliament- probably for the best to keep a semblance of order.

Nevertheless, parliamentary privilege allows an mp to make an allegation in parliament about other people.

A bit of a double standard there too.

Can't remember which one, but one mp alleged something about Farage a while back, in parliament. 

Farage legally couldn't do anything, but challenged the mp to repeat it outside parliament. 

Needless to say, he wouldn't.

I'm fascinated by parliament, and some of its traditions and quirks, but it has started to lose its traditional soul and become increasingly maddening to the public.

I've always said PMQs is a waste of time, and it's getting worse, and now this performative crap is spreading.

Filibustering, avoidance etc.

No wonder it takes so long for our system to get anything done: image over substance.

I'm with you on PMQs. It's just politics reduced to 5 second clips they can edit for the news nowadays. 

[Ani]

4 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

He uses more human shields than Hamas. 

I'm principle, you're right, but it conveniently happens.

He wanted Mandelson, and pressed ahead, making it clear that this was his appointment. 

Putting pressure on others, while keeping his plausible deniability.

Maybe, in this instance, he should have double checked.

There are serious, separate concerns over him raised in Maggie Oliver's recent interview too.

Then there is the fact that no. 10 was informed of the failure of the security vetting anyway. 

He also suggested that other PMs and ministers should resign purely for being investigated over an allegation.

He's blown his own party away.

 

As for not being able to call him a liar in parliament- probably for the best to keep a semblance of order.

Nevertheless, parliamentary privilege allows an mp to make an allegation in parliament about other people.

A bit of a double standard there too.

Can't remember which one, but one mp alleged something about Farage a while back, in parliament. 

Farage legally couldn't do anything, but challenged the mp to repeat it outside parliament. 

Needless to say, he wouldn't.

I'm fascinated by parliament, and some of its traditions and quirks, but it has started to lose its traditional soul and become increasingly maddening to the public.

I've always said PMQs is a waste of time, and it's getting worse, and now this performative crap is spreading.

Filibustering, avoidance etc.

No wonder it takes so long for our system to get anything done: image over substance.

The Farage thing was in the European Parliament, said he was shagging a press secretary and paying her from his expenses. It was I think an ex UKIP MP 

[Ani]

4 hours ago, kent_white said:

That's not what I'm saying, no.

I've no idea whether he's lied about anything since he's been in power. I don't really follow him all that closely. But he's never come across as being particularly dishonest to me. There's nothing that I can think of where he's been demonstrated to have told deliberate lies about something.

Like I said earlier. If he can be proven to have lied to the house. Then he should walk/get booted. 

But what he seems to be implying is that this information was deliberately kept from him. Which is an incredible accusation for a prime minister to make. Which begs the question, was it? And if it was, then by whom and to what end?

I was listening to some bod on the radio the other day. The process is incredibly invasive and the questions very personal. To ensure the candidates answer honestly their responses are strictly confidential to a very pre defined group. so Starmer would not know the specific answers.

Where it gets more weird is the idea that the outcome is somehow withheld from the PM. The checks also used to happen after the appointment 
 

 

[kent_white]

5 hours ago, Ani said:

Where it gets more weird is the idea that the outcome is somehow withheld from the PM. The checks also used to happen after the appointment 

I suppose I can understand why the details might be witheld from the PM (although not the outcome obviously). Although it does sound a bit weird to do it AFTER the appointment. Maybe it's a bit like a very enhanced DBS - I that you sometimes apply for it after you get the job? You'd have thought we'd have a better process for a position this high profile though eh? 

[Ani]

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

I suppose I can understand why the details might be witheld from the PM (although not the outcome obviously). Although it does sound a bit weird to do it AFTER the appointment. Maybe it's a bit like a very enhanced DBS - I that you sometimes apply for it after you get the job? You'd have thought we'd have a better process for a position this high profile though eh? 

Aye. I get the feeling that the checks have been used so that the Civil Service know about any skeletons in the applicants cupboard so are ready to react rather than being used to exclude someone from a role. 

[Cheese]

 

[bolty58]

22 hours ago, kent_white said:

Just seems a bit of a storm in a teacup as far as Starmer is concerned to me. Perpetuated by people who have been baying for him to lose his job from the moment he set foot in Number 10. 

We can't carry on binning off prime ministers at the rate we are doing and expect things to get any better. 

OK then. Not after this one who needs to fuck off yesterday.

[bolty58]

21 hours ago, Sweep said:

You wait until the next GE, when everyman and his dog is digging up what they can on the grifters at/in Reform  -  the next GE won't be about manifestos, it'll be about discrediting Farage and his gang of idiots, to try and keep them out (if he's still around by then of course)

 'Gang of idiots'.

They are already in power mate

[kent_white]

1 hour ago, Ani said:

Aye. I get the feeling that the checks have been used so that the Civil Service know about any skeletons in the applicants cupboard so are ready to react rather than being used to exclude someone from a role. 

Which is crazy if it's true. 

It definitely needs a review though. One way or another this has uncovered a glaring hole in the way our procedures work. 

And if the reason the information wasn't acted upon was a deliberate intention to mislead - then the heads responsible for doing the misleading should roll, up to and including the PM. 

We're some way away from that stage as I read it at the moment though. 

[bolty58]

14 hours ago, frank_spencer said:

How the fuck is voting reform in council elections going to get Starmer out?

If he does step down it doesn't mean reform are suddenly in power as Labour will appoint a new leader to be PM

You know how. The beginning of the slippery slope for the slippery cunts.

[kent_white]

3 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

OK then. Not after this one who needs to fuck off yesterday.

OK then. We'll just ignore what's right on this occasion so that you get your own way. But after this one then that's DEFINITELY it! 😉😁

[bolty58]

14 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Yeah, calling another member a liar is a no go

Even when it's true. Sultana got fucked off for the same thing. They can keep her out permanently for mine.

[bolty58]

3 minutes ago, kent_white said:

OK then. We'll just ignore what's right on this occasion so that you get your own way. But after this one then that's DEFINITELY it! 😉😁

Not 'my own way'. The 'own way' for everybody where a PM lying to the House and the nation does the honourable thing and goes.

[kent_white]

4 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Not 'my own way'. The 'own way' for everybody where a PM lying to the House and the nation does the honourable thing and goes.

I'm 100% with you if it's proven that he's been lying to the house. Lying to the nation is a bit shonkier though. Does this extend to having to walk if you roll back on a manifesto commitment (for example)?

I'm also 100% that people accusing other people of lying to the house without evidence should be asked to leave. We can't descend into that kind of nonsense either. 

[Sweep]

23 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Even when it's true. Sultana got fucked off for the same thing. They can keep her out permanently for mine.

I thought you were all for "democracy" - she was voted in by her constituency, so surely she should be allowed to stay until they decide otherwise?

For what it's worth, she was only showboating, she knew what would happen after Anderson had been turfed out, purely to give her and her shit party even the tiniest bit of publicity.

[Cheese]

45 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Which is crazy if it's true. 

It definitely needs a review though. One way or another this has uncovered a glaring hole in the way our procedures work. 

And if the reason the information wasn't acted upon was a deliberate intention to mislead - then the heads responsible for doing the misleading should roll, up to and including the PM. 

We're some way away from that stage as I read it at the moment though. 

They've already changed the rules to prevent it from happening again.

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/cabinet-office-launches-overhaul-of-appointment-and-vetting-in-whitehall

[kent_white]

Just now, Cheese said:

They've already changed the rules to prevent it from happening again.

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/cabinet-office-launches-overhaul-of-appointment-and-vetting-in-whitehall

Be interesting to see what this Robbins bloke says today. 

Apparently he's going to argue that he was only carrying out what the PM had implied he should. 

Which seems like a shonky argument (unless it was EXPLICITLY) ordered. And even if it was - then he should have been shouting about the corruption from the rooftops. 

Time for calm heads while we figure out what went on. Not knee jerk reactions because we do/don't like someone. 

[Ani]

48 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Be interesting to see what this Robbins bloke says today. 

Apparently he's going to argue that he was only carrying out what the PM had implied he should. 

Which seems like a shonky argument (unless it was EXPLICITLY) ordered. And even if it was - then he should have been shouting about the corruption from the rooftops. 

Time for calm heads while we figure out what went on. Not knee jerk reactions because we do/don't like someone. 

So far he has basically said we did everything right and made the right decision. He also said he did not see the final form with the failed box ticked. The vetting picked up serious risks but his team thought the risks could be mitigated. 

[kent_white]

4 minutes ago, Ani said:

So far he has basically said we did everything right and made the right decision. He also said he did not see the final form with the failed box ticked. The vetting picked up serious risks but his team thought the risks could be mitigated. 

I suppose the only thing that really matters is what information they passed onto KS. In terms of his position at least. 

[Spider]

It is what it is, lads.

I thought we’d all agreed that hounding ministers out for stuff that’s happened in the past was just a waste of time?

There’s work to do.

Also, and correct me if I’m wrong, but Mandelson isn’t working for the government is he?

 

[Sweep]

2 minutes ago, Spider said:

It is what it is, lads.

I thought we’d all agreed that hounding ministers out for stuff that’s happened in the past was just a waste of time?

There’s work to do.

Also, and correct me if I’m wrong, but Mandelson isn’t working for the government is he?

 

We need to move on

[Spider]

Just now, Sweep said:

We need to move on

In fairness

I I was very vocal when Boris Johnson lied about the parties, but I was often mocked as being a bit over dramatic and in some way letting a lie get in the way of political work needing to be done.

What goes around.

[Traf]

Elsewhere...

[Traf]

2 hours ago, Cheese said:

 

Yeah, but the boats / Corbyn / Starmer blah blah blah

[Sweep]

1 hour ago, Spider said:

In fairness

I I was very vocal when Boris Johnson lied about the parties, but I was often mocked as being a bit over dramatic and in some way letting a lie get in the way of political work needing to be done.

What goes around.

Yes, but he was an eccentric, with scruffy hair and ill fitting suits

Not to mention, he was "Churchillian" - I'm not sure if he is more or less Churchillian than Farage though