They're not, for the most part. They're evil. Just like there were no good, intelligent Nazis there are no good, intelligent tory politicians.
People often misunderstand propaganda in repressive regimes; when people in North Korea are told that Kim Jong Il hit 18 holes in one, the demonstration of power is not so much that people believe it, but that no one dares openly express disbelief. It's a similar case here, they have such contempt for the rest of society that they couldn't care less about making a plausible argument.
Yes, it's hard to work out whether they are right wing because they're nasty, or nasty because they're right wing. A bit like the coalition government here who are about to crack down on people who are unemployed - after making many of them unemployed.
They are also about to cut the pay for junior doctors too, many of whom will vote with their feet, like police officers and nurses already have.
I have not been living under a rock. It's merely a consultation to try and reduce the massive benefits bill. which will become a problem for a Labour government later this year.
Sadly people on benefits are not going to stop needing the money just because the bill is massive.
There will always be the need for some people to be on benefits. It would appear that the government are merely saying that those capable of work should go to work.
No. That is not the case. It is to look tough. It will hurt a lot of people in several ways. There are more sick notes because of the pandemic. Because people are being pressured by the terrible economic situation, going without, not putting the heating on and more. Also the health system is a mess. People are not being treated quickly. A proper functional health system means people are treated quicker and get back to work quicker.
Whatever one may say about individual tory MPs, they are ALL tainted by association with - and support for - such evil gobshites as Johnson, Patel, Braverman, Sunak etc. etc.
Whatever one may say about individual tory MPs, they are ALL tainted by association with - and support for - such evil gobshites as Johnson, Patel, Braverman, Sunak etc. etc.
and (as far as I can see) they all voted repeatedly for the country to be involved with this nauseating people trafficking scheme. They have nowhere to hide.
Whatever one may say about individual tory MPs, they are ALL tainted by association with - and support for - such evil gobshites as Johnson, Patel, Braverman, Sunak etc. etc.
and (as far as I can see) they all voted repeatedly for the country to be involved with this nauseating people trafficking scheme. They have nowhere to hide.
Precisely. There are only two explanations for an MP voting for this bill: first is being so irredeemably stupid as to not understand the consequences, second is being sufficiently evil that either you delight in the suffering that will be caused or are willing to put your career and personal interests ahead of any pang of conscience. Given that most MPs are capable of talking in sentences and operating door handles we can rule out the first.
I know this party opposite is desperate to talk about my living arrangements, but the public want to know what this government is going to do about theirs.
Maybe - just maybe - if people with mental health issues could all be seen by a consultant psychiatrist within a reasonable time, the mental health issues could be reduced to a more manageable size.
I know it's a radical suggestion. It's so much better to set them before glorified clerks and give the glorified clerks a big bonus for declaring them fit to work. After all, employers are mad keen to take on people with unresolved mental issues. What could possibly go wrong?
Maybe - just maybe - if people with mental health issues could all be seen by a consultant psychiatrist within a reasonable time, the mental health issues could be reduced to a more manageable size.
I know it's a radical suggestion. It's so much better to set them before glorified clerks and give the glorified clerks a big bonus for declaring them fit to work. After all, employers are mad keen to take on people with unresolved mental issues. What could possibly go wrong?
If we could sort out the whole mental health system - seen by qualified people, provision for people who need help, support for those who need it - we would be in a very different place.
Not Tory Britain, for a start. Which would be a much better place.
Also add in support for primary care so people are less likely to get sick in the first place. Dentists, opticians, GPs, etc. And, get treatment across the board quicker, so there's faster healing and fewer complications caused by delayed treatment. For example, if people are largely immobile because they need surgery on a hip or something then it's surely got to be better for them to have that surgery than leave them for years sitting around needing assistance to do things (and, not getting exercise with the benefits of that).
We need a holistic approach to health, as an audience member on Debate Night put it last night. We need quality housing, because housing that's cold, damp, etc makes people ill. We need better access to healthy foods which are affordable, and help for people to learn how to cook (including time to do so). We need jobs that pay well enough that people don't need to cram in overtime or another job to get by, and hence suffer from stress and poor sleep and don't eat properly etc, and we need jobs that are secure so people aren't stressed about whether their job will be there for them in a months time. We need people to have regular health checkups, so that signs of poor health are picked up early. We need quality, efficient and timely treatments when people do get ill. We need quality and efficient care packages for those in need of help at home, or in a good care facility, so that people aren't blocking beds in hospital and are also getting appropriate care (for many, hospital isn't appropriate). We need our health and care staff to be properly paid, and for there to be enough that they're not getting sick from all the work piled on them themselves.
I don't see the current Tory government doing that. They might throw lots of money at consultants or bringing in external contractors, especially approaching an election so they can say "we're spending more than ever" - but it needs to be sustained funding, and not to their mates who skim a substantial personal income off the top.
I'm trying to decide, is it amusing or totally hysterically rolling on the floor that Boris Johnson who decided that voter suppression by requiring photo id to vote turned up at his polling station having forgotten to bring any photo id, and found that the rules apply to everyone including him and got turned away.
I'm trying to decide, is it amusing or totally hysterically rolling on the floor that Boris Johnson who decided that voter suppression by requiring photo id to vote turned up at his polling station having forgotten to bring any photo id, and found that the rules apply to everyone including him and got turned away.
Oh please let there be a link so we can spread his embarrassment!
Well, if someone turned up and said he was Boris Johnson without proof I wouldn't believe him. Either he isn't Johnson and he's lying or he is Johnson and he's lying.
Well, if someone turned up and said he was Boris Johnson without proof I wouldn't believe him. Either he isn't Johnson and he's lying or he is Johnson and he's lying.
🤣
I wonder if it's the first time in his life that he had to abide by the same rules as everyone else?
Kudos to the polling station that turned him away. I bet he tried to argue with them.
If we could sort out the whole mental health system - seen by qualified people, provision for people who need help, support for those who need it - we would be in a very different place.
Not Tory Britain, for a start. Which would be a much better place.
We need a holistic approach to health, as an audience member on Debate Night put it last night. We need quality housing, because housing that's cold, damp, etc makes people ill. We need better access to healthy foods which are affordable, and help for people to learn how to cook (including time to do so). We need jobs that pay well enough that people don't need to cram in overtime or another job to get by, and hence suffer from stress and poor sleep and don't eat properly etc, and we need jobs that are secure so people aren't stressed about whether their job will be there for them in a months time. We need people to have regular health checkups, so that signs of poor health are picked up early. We need quality, efficient and timely treatments when people do get ill. We need quality and efficient care packages for those in need of help at home, or in a good care facility, so that people aren't blocking beds in hospital and are also getting appropriate care (for many, hospital isn't appropriate). We need our health and care staff to be properly paid, and for there to be enough that they're not getting sick from all the work piled on them themselves.
Who are these 'we's on whose behalf you are both claiming to speak please? Who appointed you to speak for them? Where do you get your titles to do so from?
I don't think there's any group of people in the UK for whom these days I have any title to speak. Certainly, I recognise no 'we' that contains both me and the Conservative government.
Am I just being a cynical old piglet, or was Johnson's no-ID stunt just that - a publicity stunt to get his supporters all riled up, and get them to think "good old Boris - he's one of us"*
Am I just being a cynical old piglet, or was Johnson's no-ID stunt just that - a publicity stunt to get his supporters all riled up, and get them to think "good old Boris - he's one of us"*
I really wouldn't put it past him.
* which he most certainly isn't.
A stunt is always possible. Maybe he did this so that he didn't have to admit not wanting to vote Tory?
So, obliteration in the local elections. Waiting to hear about the other elections yesterday.
And, now what's that? The UK Government has lost a case in the courts, again? Yes indeed, for the second time the UK Government has been told it needs to have an actual plan to meet the climate targets it's set in law. BBC News.
Am I just being a cynical old piglet, or was Johnson's no-ID stunt just that - a publicity stunt to get his supporters all riled up, and get them to think "good old Boris - he's one of us"*
I really wouldn't put it past him.
* which he most certainly isn't.
A stunt is always possible. Maybe he did this so that he didn't have to admit not wanting to vote Tory?
Of course it was a stunt. How did the press get hold of the story? It certainly wouldn’t have been from the staff at the polling station as they are governed by very strict rules regarding confidentiality, so there’s only one other person who could possibly have known
Which polling station he'd be going to would be known, dropping a time to the press and there'd be journalists there to get the picture of him going in/coming out for the 24h news cycle showing senior politicians going to vote. It's a regular part of election media coverage. He could have easily come out and just told the waiting photographers how silly he'd been. Or, other voters in the room may well have been aware of what was going on. It's not as though someone waiting in the queue behind him (passport in hand) wasn't going to over hear the conversation where the election officer asks for id and Johnson mumbles something about not having any.
Anyone else who happened to be in the polling station waiting to get their voting slip might have overhead. But you're right, it could well have been a stunt, in the 'any attention is good' sense. I wouldn't put anything past him.
Anyone else who happened to be in the polling station waiting to get their voting slip might have overhead. But you're right, it could well have been a stunt, in the 'any attention is good' sense. I wouldn't put anything past him.
Pity the poor creature, if he has to resort to a silly stunt like this in order to get noticed. It could, of course, have been a genuine mistake - I think he went back later (with ID) and duly voted then.
Meanwhile, Robert *Halfwit* Halfon shows how detached the tories are from reality:
The Tories hailed hanging on to Harlow as an enormous triumph, with the local MP Robert Halfon saying it was the “biggest comeback since Lazarus”. But the council only remained under Tory control by one seat thanks to the re-election of a councillor who was suspended last month over remarks he made about Muslims. The Conservative party refused to respond to queries about whether he had been readmitted.
I think @Cameron wins the internet today for that spiffing quip...
Also a great album by Canterbury Scene legends Caravan…
Some friends of mine had a flat over Caravan founder Richard Sinclair's in St Dunstans. It took me 30 years to use that story, when we saw Caravan at Cropredy.
They reckoned they couldn't complain about the noise when Caravan were practising because they were better than their band...
Lots of rumours flying around that Labour have lost London. It sounds like dirty tricks to me, saying that Starmer's position on Gaza has lost votes. Probably true. In any case, they haven't started counting the votes yet.
Am I just being a cynical old piglet, or was Johnson's no-ID stunt just that - a publicity stunt to get his supporters all riled up, and get them to think "good old Boris - he's one of us"*
I really wouldn't put it past him.
* which he most certainly isn't.
Whether it was a stunt or yet another manifestation of his deep-seated belief that he is somehow mysteriously exempt from the rules that govern everyone else, I don't know and don't entirely care. Both fit with the lack of esteem I have for him. It's comparable with Ms Truss's reaction to the sad death of the late queen, "I found myself thinking: 'Why me? Why now?'"
It's a pity that there is currently whole thread in Hell exhorting shipmates not to use the word that springs naturally to mind to describe "good old Boris - he's one of us".
Lots of rumours flying around that Labour have lost London. It sounds like dirty tricks to me, saying that Starmer's position on Gaza has lost votes. Probably true. In any case, they haven't started counting the votes yet.
Those rumours were around yesterday, I think. Labour concede that their stance on Gaza has lost them votes in other places, but for the tory quarter-wit Hall to win in London would be...well, not perhaps cataclysmic, though certainly disheartening.
As you say, the votes are still to be counted, but an apparently low turnout is disappointing.
I've seen a few folk posting screenshots of the same tory shit stirring rumours from the last mayoral election. I fear it's intended to drum up expectations of a tory win so that when Khan wins roughly in line with polling Hall can pull a Trump.
I've seen a few folk posting screenshots of the same tory shit stirring rumours from the last mayoral election. I fear it's intended to drum up expectations of a tory win so that when Khan wins roughly in line with polling Hall can pull a Trump.
Most likely.
There are some sensible commentators (i.e. not Laura K.) who have picked up on it and added some reasons why it's not entirely fanciful. That is, that we have turnout figures as they are published on the Friday when the number of votes for each area is verified. Because the turnout figures are published by London Assembly constituency, there is some speculation that can be built on it. I.e. If turnout is high in Tory areas and low in Labour areas then that can be interpreted as implying more turnout of one group of supporters compared to another. There is a little bit of this but probably not enough to matter.
Having had a look around both social media to get a sense of what's out there and read some sensible analysis from people who know what they're talking about, I have two thoughts.
1. I think that Khan will win but it'll be closer than some polls suggested.
2. There's a lot of conspiracy / Islamophobic nonsense being circulated. I.e. That Khan will 'find the postal votes' he needs etc. It is very Trumpian. Whether Hall herself is connected and interested in this nonsense, time will tell.
The discussion on BBC News this morning has been reporting the swing from Labour (to Greens, or ex-Labour independents or other independents calling for a Gaza ceasefire) in areas with large Muslim populations, which seems to be standing up to scrutiny as a real effect. The commentators are then trying to extrapolate that to predictions of mayoral election results in areas with larger Muslim populations as though this will be applied equally and reduce Labour vote shares, specifically London and West Midlands.
The problem with that analysis is that it ignores who the candidates are. I don't know who the Labour candidate in the West Midlands is, someone more familiar with that election might be able to say whether Richard Parker is seen as the Labour Candidate or has his own identity. But, for London, Sadiq Khan is most definitely an individual who happens to wear a red rosette, and in relation to the Gaza issue has taken a much stronger stand than the national Labour leadership, calling for a ceasefire and stopping selling military equipment to Israel. Thus I expect the Muslim vote to hold up for him in a way that it hasn't held up for Labour elsewhere.
The discussion on BBC News this morning has been reporting the swing from Labour (to Greens, or ex-Labour independents or other independents calling for a Gaza ceasefire) in areas with large Muslim populations, which seems to be standing up to scrutiny as a real effect. The commentators are then trying to extrapolate that to predictions of mayoral election results in areas with larger Muslim populations as though this will be applied equally and reduce Labour vote shares, specifically London and West Midlands.
The problem with that analysis is that it ignores who the candidates are. I don't know who the Labour candidate in the West Midlands is, someone more familiar with that election might be able to say whether Richard Parker is seen as the Labour Candidate or has his own identity. But, for London, Sadiq Khan is most definitely an individual who happens to wear a red rosette, and in relation to the Gaza issue has taken a much stronger stand than the national Labour leadership, calling for a ceasefire and stopping selling military equipment to Israel. Thus I expect the Muslim vote to hold up for him in a way that it hasn't held up for Labour elsewhere.
Indeed. If it's the 'muslim-block' not voting for Labour that's made Labour's vote share less than might otherwise be expected then expecting Khan votes to be the same is silly. Khan is a proud Muslim and has been vocal on Israel/Palestine.
I agree about Khan, he distanced himself from Starmer over Gaza. And the guys above sound right to me, right wing trolls are spreading the rumour that Hall has won. Whether there will be a Trumpian denial when Khan wins is unclear.
I was at the count for our new Mayor yesterday. The winning candidate lost narrowly in our council area, mainly because the Tory is a local lad, but won handsomely elsewhere. The look on the Tory hopefully when he lost was priceless, I think he thought he was popular. It did make me realise our solid Tory seat with high-profile MP is winnable, but it is going to be very hard work.
I'm hoping Khan wins with a better majority than is forecast. It would extremely annoying if a protest vote let in the piss-poor Tory candidate. I was in London for the last election and there was a lot of talk then that Khan would lose, but again the chosen candidate was dire. The time before Zac Goldsmith had a lot of fans among non-Labour green/liberal voters in my area until he launched into his anti-Muslim rhetoric. I bet he wishes he hadn't been persuaded to do that.
I have an odd sort of personal interest in Mr Khan winning.
When he became Mayor for the first time (2016), I was in King's College Hospital recovering from brain surgery. I suffered a series of post-op seizures, and the question they almost always asked me, when I came round, was *Who is the Mayor of London?*.
Fortunately, a friend who visited on the day the result was announced had told me (with some glee) that Mr Khan had won, so I was able to answer correctly...so, in a way, his name and persona have stuck in my head ever since...
I don't live in London, but if I did, I would vote for him.
Just watching the various results in from London, and so far, no sign of a Tory resurgence. In fact, Khan is getting a swing towards Labour. I think disinformation has been at large.
Comments
They're not, for the most part. They're evil. Just like there were no good, intelligent Nazis there are no good, intelligent tory politicians.
People often misunderstand propaganda in repressive regimes; when people in North Korea are told that Kim Jong Il hit 18 holes in one, the demonstration of power is not so much that people believe it, but that no one dares openly express disbelief. It's a similar case here, they have such contempt for the rest of society that they couldn't care less about making a plausible argument.
A sweeping statement which should be ignored.
They are also about to cut the pay for junior doctors too, many of whom will vote with their feet, like police officers and nurses already have.
No. That is not the case. It is to look tough. It will hurt a lot of people in several ways. There are more sick notes because of the pandemic. Because people are being pressured by the terrible economic situation, going without, not putting the heating on and more. Also the health system is a mess. People are not being treated quickly. A proper functional health system means people are treated quicker and get back to work quicker.
And yet you didn't take your own advice.
Can anyone name me a sitting tory MP who isn't stupid, evil, or both?
and (as far as I can see) they all voted repeatedly for the country to be involved with this nauseating people trafficking scheme. They have nowhere to hide.
Precisely. There are only two explanations for an MP voting for this bill: first is being so irredeemably stupid as to not understand the consequences, second is being sufficiently evil that either you delight in the suffering that will be caused or are willing to put your career and personal interests ahead of any pang of conscience. Given that most MPs are capable of talking in sentences and operating door handles we can rule out the first.
Perhaps a supporter of the government could name one or two tory MPs who are not stupid and/or evil?
I know this party opposite is desperate to talk about my living arrangements, but the public want to know what this government is going to do about theirs.
I know it's a radical suggestion. It's so much better to set them before glorified clerks and give the glorified clerks a big bonus for declaring them fit to work. After all, employers are mad keen to take on people with unresolved mental issues. What could possibly go wrong?
If we could sort out the whole mental health system - seen by qualified people, provision for people who need help, support for those who need it - we would be in a very different place.
Not Tory Britain, for a start. Which would be a much better place.
We need a holistic approach to health, as an audience member on Debate Night put it last night. We need quality housing, because housing that's cold, damp, etc makes people ill. We need better access to healthy foods which are affordable, and help for people to learn how to cook (including time to do so). We need jobs that pay well enough that people don't need to cram in overtime or another job to get by, and hence suffer from stress and poor sleep and don't eat properly etc, and we need jobs that are secure so people aren't stressed about whether their job will be there for them in a months time. We need people to have regular health checkups, so that signs of poor health are picked up early. We need quality, efficient and timely treatments when people do get ill. We need quality and efficient care packages for those in need of help at home, or in a good care facility, so that people aren't blocking beds in hospital and are also getting appropriate care (for many, hospital isn't appropriate). We need our health and care staff to be properly paid, and for there to be enough that they're not getting sick from all the work piled on them themselves.
I don't see the current Tory government doing that. They might throw lots of money at consultants or bringing in external contractors, especially approaching an election so they can say "we're spending more than ever" - but it needs to be sustained funding, and not to their mates who skim a substantial personal income off the top.
Oh please let there be a link so we can spread his embarrassment!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-elections-polling-station-b2538777.html
🤣🤣🤣
It'll hit Fartbook in a few minutes. Thank you!
🤣
I wonder if it's the first time in his life that he had to abide by the same rules as everyone else?
Kudos to the polling station that turned him away. I bet he tried to argue with them.
originally written by @Alan Cresswell Who are these 'we's on whose behalf you are both claiming to speak please? Who appointed you to speak for them? Where do you get your titles to do so from?
I don't think there's any group of people in the UK for whom these days I have any title to speak. Certainly, I recognise no 'we' that contains both me and the Conservative government.
I really wouldn't put it past him.
* which he most certainly isn't.
A stunt is always possible. Maybe he did this so that he didn't have to admit not wanting to vote Tory?
And, now what's that? The UK Government has lost a case in the courts, again? Yes indeed, for the second time the UK Government has been told it needs to have an actual plan to meet the climate targets it's set in law. BBC News.
Of course it was a stunt. How did the press get hold of the story? It certainly wouldn’t have been from the staff at the polling station as they are governed by very strict rules regarding confidentiality, so there’s only one other person who could possibly have known
Pity the poor creature, if he has to resort to a silly stunt like this in order to get noticed. It could, of course, have been a genuine mistake - I think he went back later (with ID) and duly voted then.
Meanwhile, Robert *Halfwit* Halfon shows how detached the tories are from reality:
The Tories hailed hanging on to Harlow as an enormous triumph, with the local MP Robert Halfon saying it was the “biggest comeback since Lazarus”. But the council only remained under Tory control by one seat thanks to the re-election of a councillor who was suspended last month over remarks he made about Muslims. The Conservative party refused to respond to queries about whether he had been readmitted.
My italics.
In what way?
Other than William Archibald Spooner, who would have connected Mr Johnson and a cunning stunt?
Also a great album by Canterbury Scene legends Caravan…
Some friends of mine had a flat over Caravan founder Richard Sinclair's in St Dunstans. It took me 30 years to use that story, when we saw Caravan at Cropredy.
They reckoned they couldn't complain about the noise when Caravan were practising because they were better than their band...
It's a pity that there is currently whole thread in Hell exhorting shipmates not to use the word that springs naturally to mind to describe "good old Boris - he's one of us".
Those rumours were around yesterday, I think. Labour concede that their stance on Gaza has lost them votes in other places, but for the tory quarter-wit Hall to win in London would be...well, not perhaps cataclysmic, though certainly disheartening.
As you say, the votes are still to be counted, but an apparently low turnout is disappointing.
Most likely.
There are some sensible commentators (i.e. not Laura K.) who have picked up on it and added some reasons why it's not entirely fanciful. That is, that we have turnout figures as they are published on the Friday when the number of votes for each area is verified. Because the turnout figures are published by London Assembly constituency, there is some speculation that can be built on it. I.e. If turnout is high in Tory areas and low in Labour areas then that can be interpreted as implying more turnout of one group of supporters compared to another. There is a little bit of this but probably not enough to matter.
Having had a look around both social media to get a sense of what's out there and read some sensible analysis from people who know what they're talking about, I have two thoughts.
1. I think that Khan will win but it'll be closer than some polls suggested.
2. There's a lot of conspiracy / Islamophobic nonsense being circulated. I.e. That Khan will 'find the postal votes' he needs etc. It is very Trumpian. Whether Hall herself is connected and interested in this nonsense, time will tell.
AFZ
The problem with that analysis is that it ignores who the candidates are. I don't know who the Labour candidate in the West Midlands is, someone more familiar with that election might be able to say whether Richard Parker is seen as the Labour Candidate or has his own identity. But, for London, Sadiq Khan is most definitely an individual who happens to wear a red rosette, and in relation to the Gaza issue has taken a much stronger stand than the national Labour leadership, calling for a ceasefire and stopping selling military equipment to Israel. Thus I expect the Muslim vote to hold up for him in a way that it hasn't held up for Labour elsewhere.
Indeed. If it's the 'muslim-block' not voting for Labour that's made Labour's vote share less than might otherwise be expected then expecting Khan votes to be the same is silly. Khan is a proud Muslim and has been vocal on Israel/Palestine.
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/02/right-wing-newspapers-killing-tories-with-kindness
I'm hoping Khan wins with a better majority than is forecast. It would extremely annoying if a protest vote let in the piss-poor Tory candidate. I was in London for the last election and there was a lot of talk then that Khan would lose, but again the chosen candidate was dire. The time before Zac Goldsmith had a lot of fans among non-Labour green/liberal voters in my area until he launched into his anti-Muslim rhetoric. I bet he wishes he hadn't been persuaded to do that.
When he became Mayor for the first time (2016), I was in King's College Hospital recovering from brain surgery. I suffered a series of post-op seizures, and the question they almost always asked me, when I came round, was *Who is the Mayor of London?*.
Fortunately, a friend who visited on the day the result was announced had told me (with some glee) that Mr Khan had won, so I was able to answer correctly...so, in a way, his name and persona have stuck in my head ever since...
I don't live in London, but if I did, I would vote for him.