The United Kingdom and the Death of Boris Johnson as we know it.

[Fan The Flames]

10 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What you’re incapable of grasping is it’s the process that’s wrong, not the personalities. If Nadine, JRM, Connor Burns & Dominic Raab were on it, you’d be the first moaning about it. You wouldn’t be banging on about their integrity or independence would you? 

Scroll a few posts up and you were banging on about the personalities, now it's not about them. Then the last bit of your post is back to being about the personalities. You're all over the place, it's like debating with a son-in-law.

[badgerx16]

43 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s funny isn’t it, there’s  universal calls for inquiries to be independent, that HoC shouldn’t “mark their own homework”, yet when it comes to the fundamental question of representing constituents in parliament, MP’s can suspend other MP’s and deny their voters that representation. They work for the people who elected them & therefore the people alone should decide. Not politicians, many of whom can’t act without bias or party loyalty. 
 
 

So in your mind MPs are unable/unfit to decide if they have been lied to.

[rallyboy]

Claiming that Boris isn't a liar has to be the 'bravest' hill to die on - and if you don't know where it is, it's the huge ugly one adjoined to Mount Brexit, the only hill in the world with so few uplands it's a fucking crater.

[Sheaf Saint]

 

"Famed as one of the wittiest and most original writers in the business"

Dear fucking lord!

[Weston Super Saint]

32 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

 

"Famed as one of the wittiest and most original writers in the business"

Dear fucking lord!

Another day, another rule broken.

I guess he's the man for whom rules do not apply.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65930008

Quote

Boris Johnson has committed a "clear breach" of the ministerial code by not clearing a new role writing a column for the Daily Mail with the Parliamentary authorities.

 

Edited 16 June, 2023 by Weston Super Saint

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What you’re incapable of grasping is it’s the process that’s wrong, not the personalities. If Nadine, JRM, Connor Burns & Dominic Raab were on it, you’d be the first moaning about it. You wouldn’t be banging on about their integrity or independence would you? 
 

 

Oh dear Duckie, I did warn you about overdoing the weed!

The bloke you voted for was the one banging on about their integrity (until they found him bang to rights guilty 😂). I believe he was the one who put the committee together so perhaps complain to him that he didn’t have enough far right nut jobs on it? These committees take their duties very seriously as I am sure they all did, including the four Tories who also found him bang to rights guilty. If Suella Braverman had chaired the committee and he had still been found guilty you would be looking for another reason to show that the verdict was bent.

It is clear now that the rules that the rest of us had to follow were not upheld under his watch in no 10. He could have shut the parties and regular gatherings (wine time Fridays for example) down but he chose not to. We know that the rules apply to everyone else but not to Johnson and his anointed few. He lied and lied and lied again, but you chose to ignore the facts. Given that you persist in calling me a racist and an anti-Semite it is clear that the years of smoking dope and getting tanked up on real ale before trying to kop off with 9 pinters down at your local ale house have not been kind to your little grey cells. As I have said here many times, the further right on the political spectrum people are, the thicker they are. Like Johnson, you form an alternative reality in your head and that becomes your truth. You backed a wrong ‘un and not for the first time. 

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

 If Suella Braverman had chaired the committee........

Set a thief to catch a thief ?

[moonraker]

33 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

 

"Famed as one of the wittiest and most original writers in the business"

Dear fucking lord!

And he didn’t consult Acroba, more disregard for Parliament and democracy.  He should have asked them for clearance to accept this job, apparently he informed them 30 mins before he accepted the post.  Either he believes it outside their remit and therefore he had no need to tell them, or he knows he needs their OK but left it to the last minute, you decide which one the slimy entitled hog thinks.   It would be so joyous if the6 blocked his appointment especially after the gas lighting over Sue Gray.

 

[revolution saint]

Apparently the Daily Mail gig is just the first of a few jobs he's lined up.  Due to be a contestant on "The Great British Bake Off" and the new host of "Would I lie to you".

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

 

This leave it to the constituents to decided, is 'the people v elites' nonsense, designed to give these wankers the space they need to do whatever they like. There are rules in every aspect of life and the government shouldn't be let off them.

It beggers belief that people, from MPs to pub bores, ignore all the evidence and denigrate our democracy, just because Johnson is their man. 

What a load of old pony. The system was devised like this to protect MP’s, to stop their constituents holding them to account. It’s not for you, or me, or certainly not other Parliamentarians to judge whether someone is a good MP or not. 
 

You only have to look at the reasons we got this watered down recall pony, that tells you all you need to know about what the process is designed for. Boris would probably have lost his seat under proper recall as well, but that doesn’t make this particularly process right. As with everything it will end up being abused by the party machines, party machines that people like you rally against. It’s all part of the Stepford wife cloning  of politicians. Eventually this will be used the next time a George Galloway or Enoch Powell comes along, and the process will become part of the political landscape.

You lefties used to be for the people exerting power over politicians, “power to the people”, now it’s “power to the establishment “. 
 

For highly intelligent remainers, you do seem to struggle with the concept that criticism of the process isn’t the same as claiming Boris didn’t mislead parliament. 

Edited 16 June, 2023 by Lord Duckhunter

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

So in your mind MPs are unable/unfit to decide if they have been lied to.

Were they lied to by Tony Blair during the Iraq war debate? I’m sure there were some that would say they were. That doesn’t make it so, & doesn’t prove he did. Did Nick Clegg lie to the electorate when he said he’d abolish tuition fees, some will say he did. They’re all economic with the truth. Liars judging whether someone lied to them. Far better for employees to judge if they’ve been lied to, but they don’t want that because they’ll actually have to enact what they campaigned on. 

[whelk]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What you’re incapable of grasping is it’s the process that’s wrong, not the personalities. If Nadine, JRM, Connor Burns & Dominic Raab were on it, you’d be the first moaning about it. You wouldn’t be banging on about their integrity or independence would you? 
 

 

Get out of the sunshine old boy. Brain seems to be getting shrivelled. Maybe put a Spectator podcast and come back re-energised with your oh so plagiarised original thought

[whelk]

19 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Were they lied to by Tony Blair during the Iraq war debate? I’m sure there were some that would say they were. That doesn’t make it so, & doesn’t prove he did. Did Nick Clegg lie to the electorate when he said he’d abolish tuition fees, some will say he did. They’re all economic with the truth. Liars judging whether someone lied to them. Far better for employees to judge if they’ve been lied to, but they don’t want that because they’ll actually have to enact what they campaigned on. 

You are basically quite a stupid person. 

[moonraker]

52 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Were they lied to by Tony Blair during the Iraq war debate? I’m sure there were some that would say they were. That doesn’t make it so, & doesn’t prove he did. Did Nick Clegg lie to the electorate when he said he’d abolish tuition fees, some will say he did. They’re all economic with the truth. Liars judging whether someone lied to them. Far better for employees to judge if they’ve been lied to, but they don’t want that because they’ll actually have to enact what they campaigned on. 

Blair certainly lied.  Nick Clegg did not lie about tuition fees.  It was in the  LD manifesto however the Government whilst a coalition was led by the Tories and to form a coalition as the junior partner the LDs did not have sufficient leverage to retain everything in their manifesto.  Of coarse you know that but as usual choose to be deliberately ignorant of reality.  And as anyone who has a passing interest in politics knows manifestos are not promises but a statement of policy intent provided the circumstances following an election allow.  The Tories have been in power for 13 years and we are in a far worse state than we were in 2010 but carry on believing in the unicorns and sunlit uplands your social superiors keep telling you exist.  The sad thing about Clegg it was not parliamentary process that did for him but right wing press.

Edited 16 June, 2023 by moonraker

[trousers]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Did Nick Clegg lie to the electorate when he said he’d abolish tuition fees

No, he didn't lie... It's a big tricky to implement your manifesto when you don't win the election....#rocketscience

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Oh dear Duckie, I did warn you about overdoing the weed!

The bloke you voted for was the one banging on about their integrity (until they found him bang to rights guilty 😂). I believe he was the one who put the committee together so perhaps complain to him that he didn’t have enough far right nut jobs on it? These committees take their duties very seriously as I am sure they all did, including the four Tories who also found him bang to rights guilty. If Suella Braverman had chaired the committee and he had still been found guilty you would be looking for another reason to show that the verdict was bent.

It is clear now that the rules that the rest of us had to follow were not upheld under his watch in no 10. He could have shut the parties and regular gatherings (wine time Fridays for example) down but he chose not to. We know that the rules apply to everyone else but not to Johnson and his anointed few. He lied and lied and lied again, but you chose to ignore the facts. Given that you persist in calling me a racist and an anti-Semite it is clear that the years of smoking dope and getting tanked up on real ale before trying to kop off with 9 pinters down at your local ale house have not been kind to your little grey cells. As I have said here many times, the further right on the political spectrum people are, the thicker they are. Like Johnson, you form an alternative reality in your head and that becomes your truth. You backed a wrong ‘un and not for the first time. 

You mean just like how you looked for a reason the institutional racism enquiry was bent?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, moonraker said:

Blair certainly lied.  Nick Clegg did not lie about tuition fees.  It was in the  LD manifesto however the Government whilst a coalition was led by the Tories and to form a coalition as the junior partner the LDs did not have sufficient leverage to retain everything in their manifesto.  Of coarse you know that but as usual choose to be deliberately ignorant of reality.  

What a load of old pony. 
 

Candidates signed pledges to abolish tuition fees. They then walked through the lobbies, not even to maintain them, but to increase them. They put something in their manifesto they didn’t think they’d have to enact, purely to get more MP’s elected. That’s dishonest pure & simple. Anyone with any integrity wouldn’t have done it, luckily the British public felt like me and their sorry arses were kicked out at the next GE. 
 

You’ve also reinforced my point. Both the Cons & The Lib Dem’s had proper recall in their manifesto’s. Why was that enacted instead of this watered down version? They could have done it, didn’t need to compromise that. I’ll tell you why, because the Lib Dem’s knew their MPs would face recall over the tuition fees lies, so watered it down & got the establishment to protect them. 
 

You’ve got a party going directly against a pledge, because they wanted to stay in power,  a party watering down a manifesto commitment because they may lose MP’s & a PM lying to parliament to take Britain into war, and you’re jumping up and down over a bit of cake & a half arsed piss up. Fucking hell……
 

[moonraker]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What a load of old pony. 
 

Candidates signed pledges to abolish tuition fees. They then walked through the lobbies, not even to maintain them, but to increase them. They put something in their manifesto they didn’t think they’d have to enact, purely to get more MP’s elected. That’s dishonest pure & simple. Anyone with any integrity wouldn’t have done it, luckily the British public felt like me and their sorry arses were kicked out at the next GE. 
 

You’ve also reinforced my point. Both the Cons & The Lib Dem’s had proper recall in their manifesto’s. Why was that enacted instead of this watered down version? They could have done it, didn’t need to compromise that. I’ll tell you why, because the Lib Dem’s knew their MPs would face recall over the tuition fees lies, so watered it down & got the establishment to protect them. 
 

You’ve got a party going directly against a pledge, because they wanted to stay in power,  a party watering down a manifesto commitment because they may lose MP’s & a PM lying to parliament to take Britain into war, and you’re jumping up and down over a bit of cake & a half arsed piss up. Fucking hell……
 

You really do not understand how parliamentary democracy works do you.  A manifesto is not a pledge, it is statement of policy intent, every Government has been in a position where it cannot deliver on some of its intent,  there are numerous and valid reasons for this, but trying to discuss them with you has no intellectual or mind broadening value.

[Whitey Grandad]

10 minutes ago, moonraker said:

You really do not understand how parliamentary democracy works do you.  A manifesto is not a pledge, it is statement of policy intent, every Government has been in a position where it cannot deliver on some of its intent,  there are numerous and valid reasons for this, but trying to discuss them with you has no intellectual or mind broadening value.

It’s a wish list, not a contract.

[badgerx16]

20 minutes ago, moonraker said:

You really do not understand how parliamentary democracy works do you.  A manifesto is not a pledge, it is statement of policy intent, every Government has been in a position where it cannot deliver on some of its intent,  there are numerous and valid reasons for this, but trying to discuss them with you has no intellectual or mind broadening value.

 

9 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It’s a wish list, not a contract.

And much, if not most, Government Policy implemented over the lifetime of a Parliament will not have been in the election manifesto.

[Lord Duckhunter]

18 minutes ago, moonraker said:

You really do not understand how parliamentary democracy works do you.  A manifesto is not a pledge, it is statement of policy intent, every Government has been in a position where it cannot deliver on some of its intent,  there are numerous and valid reasons for this, but trying to discuss them with you has no intellectual or mind broadening value.

For somebody critical of another’s intellectual argument, I’d have thought you would at least know the subject you’re discussing. The pledge was in regards to individuals & how they’d vote, nothing to do with being in Government. It didn’t say “if we form the government”, it was signed as individuals and those that voted to increase fees lied to their constituents. If there was proper recall you wouldn’t get people making ridiculous statements they’ve no intention of keeping. 

“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament“ 

 

 

 

 

[moonraker]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

And much, if not most, Government Policy implemented over the lifetime of a Parliament will not have been in the election manifesto.

I would also add the time required to draft, debate, scrutinise and vote on legislation is so much more complex compared to a general manifesto of policy intent and direction.  
 

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

And much, if not most, Government Policy implemented over the lifetime of a Parliament will not have been in the election manifesto.

Why do you think that is? 
 

Because manifesto’s aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. That stems from the lack of any meaningful sanction if commitments aren’t met. This place is full of people moaning about the Government, moaning about Tory MP’s moaning about lies, half truths and incompetence. Yet suggest constituents should be able to recall their MP’s , bd able to chuck them out mid term and you’re all horrified. You want MO’s to decide whether they have done wrong not the people. I suggest that a genuine recall act, will eventually lead to better & cleaner politics, and might start ensuring commitments, pledges and manifesto’s are honoured. 

[moonraker]

3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

For somebody critical of another’s intellectual argument, I’d have thought you would at least know the subject you’re discussing. The pledge was in regards to individuals & how they’d vote, nothing to do with being in Government. It didn’t say “if we form the government”, it was signed as individuals and those that voted to increase fees lied to their constituents. If there was proper recall you wouldn’t get people making ridiculous statements they’ve no intention of keeping. 

“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament“ 

 

 

 

 

I would concede it was extreme political naivety to make the pledge.  The LD did not for a government the propped up a Tory one, by far a bigger act of naivety than the pledge and failed to extract key policy concessions from them, that was naive.

[moonraker]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

Why do you think that is? 
 

Because manifesto’s aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. That stems from the lack of any meaningful sanction if commitments aren’t met. This place is full of people moaning about the Government, moaning about Tory MP’s moaning about lies, half truths and incompetence. Yet suggest constituents should be able to recall their MP’s , bd able to chuck them out mid term and you’re all horrified. You want MO’s to decide whether they have done wrong not the people. I suggest that a genuine recall act, will eventually lead to better & cleaner politics, and might start ensuring commitments, pledges and manifesto’s are honoured. 

Please could you outline what a genuine recall act would look like, I am serious, because if you have one in mind I am sure we would all be interested in it.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, moonraker said:

I would concede it was extreme political naivety to make the pledge.  The LD did not for a government the propped up a Tory one, by far a bigger act of naivety than the pledge and failed to extract key policy concessions from them, that was naive.

Had their been genuine recall in place, where somebody who signed that pledge and then voted to increase fees,  could face a poll, do you think so many would have signed. Of course not. It’s not just Lib Dem’s, Cameron put an EU  referendum in the manifesto thinking he’d be in another coalition & could trade it away (although to be fair to the guy he honoured it). They all promise things to gain our vote, there should be a proper mechanism holding them to account. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

10 minutes ago, moonraker said:

Please could you outline what a genuine recall act would look like, I am serious, because if you have one in mind I am sure we would all be interested in it.

 

Zac Goldsmith who was probably the main driver behind it proposed 4% of the electorate signing a recall proposal, then 20% signing a recall petition in a 2 week timescale. This would be followed to by a by election. Those numbers feel a bit low to me, I’d probably go 20%  to generate a petition, then 40% to get the poll. Id imagine if the petition % is higher than his/her majority then they’d probably quit anyway. The danger is constant petitions for the same MP so the first demand needs to be high to stop political activists organising. It needs to be ordinary joes rising up in disgust. 

[moonraker]

35 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Zac Goldsmith who was probably the main driver behind it proposed 4% of the electorate signing a recall proposal, then 20% signing a recall petition in a 2 week timescale. This would be followed to by a by election. Those numbers feel a bit low to me, I’d probably go 20%  to generate a petition, then 40% to get the poll. Id imagine if the petition % is higher than his/her majority then they’d probably quit anyway. The danger is constant petitions for the same MP so the first demand needs to be high to stop political activists organising. It needs to be ordinary joes rising up in disgust. 

That’s sounds reasonable, however you stated you wanted a genuine recall act, there are problems as I see it. One  it is that it is difficult enough to get the electorate to engage in the democratic political process especially “ordinary joes (and Jill’s)” 20-40% is typical local election turnout territory.  There would also have to be a trigger to initiate such a recall, in the case of Johnson and the charge he misled Parliament unless this were first “proven” to at least civil court standards should the electorate have the right to recall him?  There would have to be a process that demonstrates that the reason for a recall is genuine not here say or biased media reporting.  Johnson choose not to take the findings of the inquiry to his own electorate.  Despite all his wailing and winging he has avoided the one part of the process that you deem would be democratic.  To be genuine it must have a real prospect of succeeding, and as you rightly state must not be a mechanism for political activists to cause mischief.   If in some future hypothetical recall scenario a sitting MP decides to jump before the process has run its course that cannot be seen as admission of “guilt”.  Without due process of inquiry, evidence, witnesses and informed judgement an otherwise good MP may decide to move on and avoid having to defend themselves against baseless accusations and biased media reporting.  So my initial view that whilst it passes the reasonable test it fails totally on the fairness, practical and due process test.  

Edited 16 June, 2023 by moonraker

[Warriorsaint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Zac Goldsmith who was probably the main driver behind it proposed 4% of the electorate signing a recall proposal, then 20% signing a recall petition in a 2 week timescale. This would be followed to by a by election. Those numbers feel a bit low to me, I’d probably go 20%  to generate a petition, then 40% to get the poll. Id imagine if the petition % is higher than his/her majority then they’d probably quit anyway. The danger is constant petitions for the same MP so the first demand needs to be high to stop political activists organising. It needs to be ordinary joes rising up in disgust. 

Pony, pony, pony, pony, pony. I’m beginning to think smugfunter likes ponies,

I suggest we set up watchpoints and around the clock security surveillance in the New Forest.

[trousers]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What a load of old pony. 
 

Candidates signed pledges to abolish tuition fees. They then walked through the lobbies, not even to maintain them, but to increase them. They put something in their manifesto they didn’t think they’d have to enact, purely to get more MP’s elected. That’s dishonest pure & simple. Anyone with any integrity wouldn’t have done it, luckily the British public felt like me and their sorry arses were kicked out at the next GE. 
 

You’ve also reinforced my point. Both the Cons & The Lib Dem’s had proper recall in their manifesto’s. Why was that enacted instead of this watered down version? They could have done it, didn’t need to compromise that. I’ll tell you why, because the Lib Dem’s knew their MPs would face recall over the tuition fees lies, so watered it down & got the establishment to protect them. 
 

You’ve got a party going directly against a pledge, because they wanted to stay in power,  a party watering down a manifesto commitment because they may lose MP’s & a PM lying to parliament to take Britain into war, and you’re jumping up and down over a bit of cake & a half arsed piss up. Fucking hell……
 

 

[Fan The Flames]

15 hours ago, moonraker said:

I would concede it was extreme political naivety to make the pledge.  The LD did not for a government the propped up a Tory one, by far a bigger act of naivety than the pledge and failed to extract key policy concessions from them, that was naive.

It was naive, because they were played by the tories. Got the tories into power at the cost of their reputation, which damaged their chances in the next election. Win win for the Eton boys.

The LD exist to be the junior member of a coalition and they have to go into power with the largest party, not just labour. Otherwise they just become Labour's joker card.

The problem is they didn't exract enough policy, they just tempered the tories and that's what dented their reputation.

The lessson for the LDs is they shouldn't appear desperate to get into power, they should hold their position and be prepared for another election and make the other party desperate for their seats. 

[Fan The Flames]

Personally I think you should only have a recall for standards, not policy. There needs to be a trigger, not just because the constituents want one, otherwise its a neverendum.

[sadoldgit]

It is sickening that Duckhunter dismisses this as jumping up and down over a bit of cake and a half arsed pissed up (no one gives a toss about the cake and the so called half arsed piss up was in fact a number of full on piss ups where people were shagging in cupboards and throwing up in waste paper baskets - normal behaviour in his local ale house no doubt).

I can only assume that Duckhunter does not have any empathy towards the many people who could not say goodbye to loved ones properly (including the Queen) and whose stories were recently told again after the Covid inquiry kicked off. They were heartbreaking and their anger and anguish were still as fresh as when it happened. While these people were in the depths of despair Johnson was presiding over and endorsing dozens of gatherings and parties which flouted his own laws and then lied repeatedly about them. His attempts to dismiss them as not worth getting upset about shows what contempt people who support the far right think about the people they share this country with. As with Johnson, it is all about looking after number 1.

What finally did for Johnson as PM was the Pincher affair, not Partygate. As damning as this report is, Johnson chose to bottle it rather than fight his corner. He could still be an MP today but he chose to resign.

No surprise that Duckhunter is trying to diffuse Johnson’s actions and shame by dragging Blair into the picture. I did not vote for Blair, nor did I believe that the invasion of Iraq was right. But what Duckhunter ignores is the fact that the Chilcot inquiry, although very critical of Blair, stopped short of concluding that he lied to parliament.

Another inquiry concluded that Johnson did lie to parliament.

146 of the Tory party voted in favour of the invasion. Only 2 voted against and 17 abstained. 27% of the Labour MPs (153) voted against it or abstained. The LDs voted against it. The party you vote for were very happy to support that war despite the clear misgivings by many in parliament on the other side of the house about it. Clearly Blair didn’t do a great job of convincing a large chunk of his own party but your mob went with it.

But this isn’t about Blair, it is about Johnson and his very long list of actions that prove, beyond doubt, that he is an unfit person to hold public office. No doubt you will be rushing out to buy your copy of the Daily Mail to read his article today, will continue to support him in any future political venture and will continue to back him when he does it all again.You really need to think about the way you form conclusions. When his shrinking band of supporters and enablers features Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Lord Duckhunter, it is a pretty sad state of affairs.
 

 

 

[whelk]

54 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It is sickening that Duckhunter dismisses this as jumping up and down over a bit of cake and a half arsed pissed up (no one gives a toss about the cake and the so called half arsed piss up was in fact a number of full on piss ups where people were shagging in cupboards and throwing up in waste paper baskets - normal behaviour in his local ale house no doubt).

I can only assume that Duckhunter does not have any empathy towards the many people who could not say goodbye to loved ones properly (including the Queen) and whose stories were recently told again after the Covid inquiry kicked off. They were heartbreaking and their anger and anguish were still as fresh as when it happened. While these people were in the depths of despair Johnson was presiding over and endorsing dozens of gatherings and parties which flouted his own laws and then lied repeatedly about them. His attempts to dismiss them as not worth getting upset about shows what contempt people who support the far right think about the people they share this country with. As with Johnson, it is all about looking after number 1.

What finally did for Johnson as PM was the Pincher affair, not Partygate. As damning as this report is, Johnson chose to bottle it rather than fight his corner. He could still be an MP today but he chose to resign.

No surprise that Duckhunter is trying to diffuse Johnson’s actions and shame by dragging Blair into the picture. I did not vote for Blair, nor did I believe that the invasion of Iraq was right. But what Duckhunter ignores is the fact that the Chilcot inquiry, although very critical of Blair, stopped short of concluding that he lied to parliament.

Another inquiry concluded that Johnson did lie to parliament.

146 of the Tory party voted in favour of the invasion. Only 2 voted against and 17 abstained. 27% of the Labour MPs (153) voted against it or abstained. The LDs voted against it. The party you vote for were very happy to support that war despite the clear misgivings by many in parliament on the other side of the house about it. Clearly Blair didn’t do a great job of convincing a large chunk of his own party but your mob went with it.

But this isn’t about Blair, it is about Johnson and his very long list of actions that prove, beyond doubt, that he is an unfit person to hold public office. No doubt you will be rushing out to buy your copy of the Daily Mail to read his article today, will continue to support him in any future political venture and will continue to back him when he does it all again.You really need to think about the way you form conclusions. When his shrinking band of supporters and enablers features Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Lord Duckhunter, it is a pretty sad state of affairs.
 

 

 

He was pissing his pants and telling all about his personal circumstances and grief at the start. Immoral cunts just don’t get it so wouldn’t waste your time SOG

[Turkish]

6 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It is sickening that Duckhunter dismisses this as jumping up and down over a bit of cake and a half arsed pissed up (no one gives a toss about the cake and the so called half arsed piss up was in fact a number of full on piss ups where people were shagging in cupboards and throwing up in waste paper baskets - normal behaviour in his local ale house no doubt).

I can only assume that Duckhunter does not have any empathy towards the many people who could not say goodbye to loved ones properly (including the Queen) and whose stories were recently told again after the Covid inquiry kicked off. They were heartbreaking and their anger and anguish were still as fresh as when it happened. While these people were in the depths of despair Johnson was presiding over and endorsing dozens of gatherings and parties which flouted his own laws and then lied repeatedly about them. His attempts to dismiss them as not worth getting upset about shows what contempt people who support the far right think about the people they share this country with. As with Johnson, it is all about looking after number 1.

What finally did for Johnson as PM was the Pincher affair, not Partygate. As damning as this report is, Johnson chose to bottle it rather than fight his corner. He could still be an MP today but he chose to resign.

No surprise that Duckhunter is trying to diffuse Johnson’s actions and shame by dragging Blair into the picture. I did not vote for Blair, nor did I believe that the invasion of Iraq was right. But what Duckhunter ignores is the fact that the Chilcot inquiry, although very critical of Blair, stopped short of concluding that he lied to parliament.

Another inquiry concluded that Johnson did lie to parliament.

146 of the Tory party voted in favour of the invasion. Only 2 voted against and 17 abstained. 27% of the Labour MPs (153) voted against it or abstained. The LDs voted against it. The party you vote for were very happy to support that war despite the clear misgivings by many in parliament on the other side of the house about it. Clearly Blair didn’t do a great job of convincing a large chunk of his own party but your mob went with it.

But this isn’t about Blair, it is about Johnson and his very long list of actions that prove, beyond doubt, that he is an unfit person to hold public office. No doubt you will be rushing out to buy your copy of the Daily Mail to read his article today, will continue to support him in any future political venture and will continue to back him when he does it all again.You really need to think about the way you form conclusions. When his shrinking band of supporters and enablers features Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Lord Duckhunter, it is a pretty sad state of affairs.
 

 

 

This thread has been a great growth opportunity for you Sog. Take other people’s opinions, discuss them debate them, understand the chances of every single persons opinion of the world aligning exactly with yours. Instead of that you’ve thumped away at your keyboard dismissing other people’s views as “sickening” “no empathy” and generally behaving like a narrow minded hypocrite. Too bad you’ve wasted a chance for growth and instead behaved like those you insist you are opposed too.

[Warriorsaint]

This video release surely shows the Tory cabal at its finest.

People actually vote for this lot. 
Neanderthals like Sir likesponiesalot defend this lot. Such twats the lot of them!

[Sheaf Saint]

9 hours ago, Warriorsaint said:

This video release surely shows the Tory cabal at its finest.

People actually vote for this lot. 
Neanderthals like Sir likesponiesalot defend this lot. Such twats the lot of them!

 

It was just a bit of cake FFS 🙄

[whelk]

Did I hear correctly that the cunt in the braces was on Johnson’s award list?

[Warriorsaint]

Where Sir shagsducks to defend the smoking gun video eh? “Its just a bit of cake” lol 😂 

[Weston Super Saint]

21 minutes ago, Warriorsaint said:

Where Sir shagsducks to defend the smoking gun video eh? “Its just a bit of cake” lol 😂 

To be fair, I reckon it's the type of party where you would feel right at home. Secretly I suspect you are jealous.

[Fan The Flames]

2 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

 

It was just a bit of cake FFS 🙄

What a bunch of dorks, why do people look up to these dullards.

[Lord Duckhunter]

21 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It is sickening that Duckhunter dismisses this as jumping up and down over a bit of cake and a half arsed pissed up (no one gives a toss about the cake and the so called half arsed piss up was in fact a number of full on piss ups where people were shagging in cupboards and throwing up in waste paper baskets - normal behaviour in his local ale house no doubt).

I can only assume that Duckhunter does not have any empathy towards the many people who could not say goodbye to loved ones properly (including the Queen) and whose stories were recently told again after the Covid inquiry kicked off. They were heartbreaking and their anger and anguish were still as fresh as when it happened. 

 

 

 

Your “empathy” only extends to the fact Boris got fined and appeared to break the ridiculous rules, not the actual ridiculous rules themselves.
Whether Boris obeyed the rules or not, they’d have faced the exact same heartbreak and distress. I’m well aware of the consequences of these ridiculous lock downs (the ones Starmer wanted more of), my father in law died, was sent off by 9 of us & was denied the chance to say goodbye to his son. The snap dragon was able to see him because she knew the nurses & doctors involved with his treatment and they  sneaked her in (breaking your precious rules). As a night club owner & restaurateur he wouldn’t give a shiny shite about people having a drink whilst he lay there dying (he’d probably agree with me that it was a half arsed piss up), and I know for a fact that none of the family do either. I, unlike you, do not speak for others, every person and family is different. Some will be genuinely upset and others (you for example) are only making a fuss because it’s a Tory involved. 

[Sheaf Saint]

44 minutes ago, whelk said:

Did I hear correctly that the cunt in the braces was on Johnson’s award list?

Yep. He got an OBE.

[Lord Duckhunter]

21 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

 

No surprise that Duckhunter is trying to diffuse Johnson’s actions and shame by dragging Blair into the picture. I did not vote for Blair, nor did I believe that the invasion of Iraq was right. But what Duckhunter ignores is the fact that the Chilcot inquiry, although very critical of Blair, stopped short of concluding that he lied to Parliament. 

 

 

 

Thanks for making my point.

Chilcot, an independent chair not an MP, stopped short of saying he “deliberately “ misled Parliament. That used to be the measure, this mob changed it & deliberate is now irrelevant. It will lead to worse Government & more secretive government as ministers will shy away from full disclosure in case their advisors had made an error. Blair was told about the 45 mins, he advised the house. It wasn’t true, but only he knows if he knew it wasn’t true. If Harmen, Jenkin,  & other pitchfork carrying arses were sitting in judgement under their pony remit,  they’d have to conclude he’d lied. 

[Fan The Flames]

LD you still don't get it, it not all about the parties, the rules or whatever you want to shuffle the argument on to. It's about contempt or parliment, we can not have MPs lying to parliment. They lie to the media, to constituents all the time, so there has to be a place where they have to tell the truth. Just like business needs the rule of law to thrive, democracy needs truth. Otherwise parties of all colours will be making cunts out of us all.

Argue all you want about the fluff but there is no where to go with Johnson's lying to parliment.

[Whitey Grandad]

21 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Your “empathy” only extends to the fact Boris got fined and appeared to break the ridiculous rules, not the actual ridiculous rules themselves.
Whether Boris obeyed the rules or not, they’d have faced the exact same heartbreak and distress. I’m well aware of the consequences of these ridiculous lock downs (the ones Starmer wanted more of), my father in law died, was sent off by 9 of us & was denied the chance to say goodbye to his son. The snap dragon was able to see him because she knew the nurses & doctors involved with his treatment and they  sneaked her in (breaking your precious rules). As a night club owner & restaurateur he wouldn’t give a shiny shite about people having a drink whilst he lay there dying (he’d probably agree with me that it was a half arsed piss up), and I know for a fact that none of the family do either. I, unlike you, do not speak for others, every person and family is different. Some will be genuinely upset and others (you for example) are only making a fuss because it’s a Tory involved. 

Yes the rules were ridiculous. And who was responsible for signing them off?

[Warriorsaint]

11 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Thanks for making my point.

Chilcot, an independent chair not an MP, stopped short of saying he “deliberately “ misled Parliament. That used to be the measure, this mob changed it & deliberate is now irrelevant. It will lead to worse Government & more secretive government as ministers will shy away from full disclosure in case their advisors had made an error. Blair was told about the 45 mins, he advised the house. It wasn’t true, but only he knows if he knew it wasn’t true. If Harmen, Jenkin,  & other pitchfork carrying arses were sitting in judgement under their pony remit,  they’d have to conclude he’d lied. 

There he is wingnut horse shagger defending the indefensible.

Tis all very predictable!

[Warriorsaint]

37 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, I reckon it's the type of party where you would feel right at home. Secretly I suspect you are jealous.

No big titted Germans! I think I’ll pass. 

I suspect it may be the type of party you would go to though, any chance to be a gimp to these titans of the community eh?

[whelk]

33 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

What a bunch of dorks, why do people look up to these dullards.

Who looks up to them? They look dull as fuck people full of their own importance. 

[whelk]

27 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yep. He got an OBE.

Ha. No compensation for the fact that he can’t satisfy his missus