Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[icowden]

What part of 'I'm not interested in whataboutery' don't you understand? Your defence of Labour seems to be 'but, but nasty Tories'. You need to justify why Labour aren't messing things up rather than trying to compare to a previous administration.

Again, I'm questioning your literacy. You keep saying that Labour are doing worse but failing to compare them to their predecessors. Then you accuse everyone else of whataboutery. You have to have a baseline to compare to, if you are going to assert that something is doing worse. If that baseline is not the previous Conservative Government then what is it?

 

[briantrumpet]

Honesty? Eh, Laura K? Has she been taking Chris Mason's medication?

View attachment 12861

The irony is that they rarely get proper scrutiny from the BBC. Russian connection? Nope. Who really paid for the Clacton house? Nope. etc.

 

[Dorset Boy]

The irony is that they rarely get proper scrutiny from the BBC. Russian connection? Nope. Who really paid for the Clacton house? Nope. etc.

Here's an idea Brian. Maybe actually watch the programme first?
I have no idea what is in it, but why keep pre-judging things from a snippit?
She may suck to to Fagash, she may not, she may be balanced. But until you have watched the programme for yourself, you just won't really know.
That said, there's probably some editorial control from Fagash or the show wouldn't get made. That's normal for this sort of thing though.

 

[First Aspect]

The irony is that they rarely get proper scrutiny from the BBC. Russian connection? Nope. Who really paid for the Clacton house? Nope. etc.

She is confusing honesty with superficial charm.

 

[Shortfall]

Again, I'm questioning your literacy. You keep saying that Labour are doing worse but failing to compare them to their predecessors. Then you accuse everyone else of whataboutery. You have to have a baseline to compare to, if you are going to assert that something is doing worse. If that baseline is not the previous Conservative Government then what is it?

Maybe compare them with what they put in their own manifesto then?

 

[monkers]

Maybe compare them with what they put in their own manifesto then?

David Cameron put an ultimatum before the EU Council which he thought he might win and fend off Major's remaining 'bastards'.
However he also thought losing a clever strategy so he could call a referendum and get the public to finish them off.

However he told the public if we lose that the public would decide without parliamentary permission. Sovereignty bleaters convinced themselves this was democratic.

He then got a letter from Tusk saying he'd pretty much won.

However he told the public that he hadn't won what he had.

Then he held a referendum that he thought he could win. However he didn't.

He won a general election that he didn't expect to win. However he did, so he promptly resigned.

Theresa May had not agreed to any of this. However she decided it sensible to replace David Cameron and honour his pledges - you know the ones that he thought he couldn't. However the Supreme Court did not agree with said pledges and sovereignty bleaters were disappointed to learn that parliament was allowed to be sovereign after all.

Theresa May and the EU were both accused of blocking without the perception of the public that the process stalled because both sides agreed with the red lines. The Brexit favouring media told us otherwise. However it was decided by Tories that they needed a person who would find a way to turn agreement into disagreement as a most favourable outcome.

Enter Boris Johnson who thought he could get the disagreement that would find the most agreement, so he withdrew the whip from all those MPs who were being loyal to the consituents they represented who argued that red lines should be respected.

He then again attempted to thwart the sovereignty of parliament by saying, 'don't bother turning up as we won't be bothering to turn up to listen. However sovereignty bleaters had again to voice their displeasure that parliament was indeed sovereign when Lady Hale told Johnson that sovereignty means 'them not you'.

However he then quoted the same red line that there could be no border on land or at sea between Britain and Northern Ireland, and the EU with Nothern Ireland while he did so. However he then broke the British and EU red line and did it anyway, and called it a settlement. Even the TV spectacle of Nadine Dories giving BJ virtual BJs was enough to save him.

Nadine Dories not having gotten over her sulks then joins the Brexit Party. However her brand becomes tarnished by other defecting Tories with even worse reputations of propriety in office.

Still without all that could we otherwise have had so much fun as being governed by an American born Prime Minister demanding British sovereignty over Downing Street parties during lockdown with the name of Johnson whose initials also happen to be BJ?

Sorry what was that about comparing manifestos?

 

[TailWindHome]

Comparing your performance to the previous lot is limited by the electorate saying 'Yes, we know, that's why we beat the shite out of them for you'

 

[Blazing Saddles]

Maybe compare them with what they put in their own manifesto then?

Best one wins the Booker prize?

 

[Shortfall]

David Cameron put an ultimatum before the EU Council which he thought he might win and fend off Major's remaining 'bastards'.
However he also thought losing a clever strategy so he could call a referendum and get the public to finish them off.

However he told the public if we lose that the public would decide without parliamentary permission. Sovereignty bleaters convinced themselves this was democratic.

He then got a letter from Tusk saying he'd pretty much won.

However he told the public that he hadn't won what he had.

Then he held a referendum that he thought he could win. However he didn't.

He won a general election that he didn't expect to win. However he did, so he promptly resigned.

Theresa May had not agreed to any of this. However she decided it sensible to replace David Cameron and honour his pledges - you know the ones that he thought he couldn't. However the Supreme Court did not agree with said pledges and sovereignty bleaters were disappointed to learn that parliament was allowed to be sovereign after all.

Theresa May and the EU were both accused of blocking without the perception of the public that the process stalled because both sides agreed with the red lines. The Brexit favouring media told us otherwise. However it was decided by Tories that they needed a person who would find a way to turn agreement into disagreement as a most favourable outcome.

Enter Boris Johnson who thought he could get the disagreement that would find the most agreement, so he withdrew the whip from all those MPs who were being loyal to the consituents they represented who argued that red lines should be respected.

He then again attempted to thwart the sovereignty of parliament by saying, 'don't bother turning up as we won't be bothering to turn up to listen. However sovereignty bleaters had again to voice their displeasure that parliament was indeed sovereign when Lady Hale told Johnson that sovereignty means 'them not you'.

However he then quoted the same red line that there could be no border on land or at sea between Britain and Northern Ireland, and the EU with Nothern Ireland while he did so. However he then broke the British and EU red line and did it anyway, and called it a settlement. Even the TV spectacle of Nadine Dories giving BJ virtual BJs was enough to save him.

Nadine Dories not having gotten over her sulks then joins the Brexit Party. However her brand becomes tarnished by other defecting Tories with even worse reputations of propriety in office.

Still without all that could we otherwise have had so much fun as being governed by an American born Prime Minister demanding British sovereignty over Downing Street parties during lockdown with the name of Johnson whose initials also happen to be BJ?

Sorry what was that about comparing manifestos?

Sorry you must be mistaking me for someone who has any fücks to give about the Conservative Party. Why do you assume that my answer to Icdowden means I must be a supporter of the Tories? I'm genuinely confused. Yes the Tories were pretty fücking useless and often failed to implement their manifesto promises. Did you think I was going to leap to their defence of something?
Back on topic, Icdowden asked if Labour couldn't be judged against the previous government then what? So I said judge them on what they put in their manifesto. You know, stuff like promising not to increase NI?

 

[monkers]

Sorry you must be mistaking me for someone who has any fücks to give about the Conservative Party. Why do you assume that my answer to Icdowden means I must be a supporter of the Tories? I'm genuinely confused. Yes the Tories were pretty fücking useless and often failed to implement their manifesto promises. Did you think I was going to leap to their defence of something?
Back on topic, Icdowden asked if Labour couldn't be judged against the previous government then what? So I said judge them on what they put in their manifesto. You know, stuff like promising not to increase NI?

It doesn't. Sorry you've slightly misinterpreted my intention to the point of your annoyance.

My reply has a satirical tone because my point is that a manifesto is not a map of what reality exposes. Also to note that a manifesto is only operational within the life of the winning party under that leader, or otherwise the same leader in a subsequent general election. All competing manifestos go in the bin..

And just to note, that we mostly tend to say, that parties tend to make great promises in a manifesto when they have no expectation of winning. And if they do win, this point becomes their own defence ''sorry we hadn't expected to win''.

Final point, challenging Labour about tax increases is nothing to do with comparing the present manifesto with any other manifesto, it is about holding them to account to keep to their current manifesto - a separate issue.

 

[BoldonLad]

It doesn't. Sorry you've slightly misinterpreted my intention to the point of your annoyance.

My reply has a satirical tone because my point is that a manifesto is not a map of what reality exposes. Also to note that a manifesto is only operational within the life of the winning party under that leader, or otherwise the same leader in a subsequent general election. All competing manifestos go in the bin..

And just to note, that we mostly tend to say, that parties tend to make great promises in a manifesto when they have no expectation of winning. And if they do win, this point becomes their own defence ''sorry we hadn't expected to win''.

Wouldn’t disagree with any of that, which, IMHO, rather makes the Manifesto a rather pointless basis for voting decisions, so, how to decide?

 

[monkers]

Wouldn’t disagree with any of that, which, IMHO, rather makes the Manifesto a rather pointless basis for voting decisions, so, how to decide?

A manifesto shows a mindset, or a kind of mind map. You are then able to see how closely it fits with your own mindset. If it costed you might then try to see if their plan is affordable or campaigning under false manifesto.

However what we can glean from almost every headline at the moment, is that trust in the political classes has become very much in the minds of people, possibly as much as policy. Maybe time to imitate Wilde, and thereon to conveniently bastardise his words - 'faith in a government a second time around is a triumph of faith over experience.' But by that token most of us live under many such marriages.

You might agree or disagree and that is fine, but my own thoughts are that the electorate are no longer just disillusioned by modern political deceits and wranglings, but made angry by them.

Further point. The Gorton and Denton by-election makes the point rather well, does it not - the two leading parties in that competition have never been in government, and promise change from the old ways.

 

[Shortfall]

It doesn't. Sorry you've slightly misinterpreted my intention to the point of your annoyance.

My reply has a satirical tone because my point is that a manifesto is not a map of what reality exposes. Also to note that a manifesto is only operational within the life of the winning party under that leader, or otherwise the same leader in a subsequent general election. All competing manifestos go in the bin..

And just to note, that we mostly tend to say, that parties tend to make great promises in a manifesto when they have no expectation of winning. And if they do win, this point becomes their own defence ''sorry we hadn't expected to win''.

Final point, challenging Labour about tax increases is nothing to do with comparing the present manifesto with any other manifesto, it is about holding them to account to keep to their current manifesto - a separate issue.

You've used up.a lot of words there just to say "Don't believe what politicians put in their manifestos"

I don't.

But you better believe I'm going to use it as a stick to beat them with when they fail to deliver or do the exact opposite.

 

[monkers]

You've used up.a lot of words there just to say "Don't believe what politicians put in their manifestos"

I don't.

But you better believe I'm going to use it as a stick to beat them with when they fail to deliver.

Yes I once worked in a profession that uses too many words most of the time. Apologies.

Just maybe though a manifesto lasts too long to withstand the changes that time impinges upon it, or is that the election cycle is too long?

 

[Shortfall]

Yes I once worked in a profession that uses too many words most of the time. Apologies.

Just maybe though a manifesto lasts too long to withstand the changes that time impinges upon it, or is that the election cycle is too long?

Maybe, but mainly it's because most of them are lying b@stards.