Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[Toast 14,805]

After all the build-up it was just a blow job.  

I was expecting it to be something more kinky and embarrassing.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,204]

43 minutes ago, Toast said:

After all the build-up it was just a blow job.  

I was expecting it to be something more kinky and embarrassing.

What's this about a blowjob?

[gcreptile 10,214]

Christopher Pincher probably losing his position as the conservative whip after allegedly groping two men.

...First of all... his name is Pincher? Heh... Also, apparently his second sexual misconduct scandal.

 

Edit:

 

[time 7,940]

33 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

Christopher Pincher probably losing his position as the conservative whip after allegedly groping two men.

...First of all... his name is Pincher? Heh... Also, apparently his second sexual misconduct scandal.

 

Edit:

 

Chap, Man Pincher.

[Toast 14,805]

From 2017

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5050563/ALEX-STORY-tells-awkward-moment-Tory-whip.html
 

Quote

 

At that point, I decided to make my apologies and left promptly.

As I made my way back home, I had the feeling of awkwardness that one gets when one’s leg is being dry-humped by an overly keen chihuahua in front of elderly relatives.

 

 

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,204]

2 hours ago, Toast said:

From 2017

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5050563/ALEX-STORY-tells-awkward-moment-Tory-whip.html
 

 

My sort of cynical political theory  is that as both a personal ally of Boris Johnson and deputy chief whip  keeping mps on the pms side in terms of passing legislation and avoiding the ousting of Johnson.  Also being privy possibly  to any shenanigans or plotting mps are trying  - he may have been seen as one of the key pillars in the house of commons keeping him in office.

   In other words tory  mps that want Johnson  gone know they need to take out/weaken  his support structure  and his key supporters if they are to succeed soon.

 This guys previous bad behaviour  was well known but tolerated and ignored in the main by the same people who are now happy to see him resign. 

Lots of dirty politics going on here behind the scenes besides arse grabbing imo.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,204]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/01/chris-pincher-loses-tory-whip-over-misconduct-allegations-conservative-mp

 

Tory whip loses the whip.

[msc 17,738]

21 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/01/chris-pincher-loses-tory-whip-over-misconduct-allegations-conservative-mp

 

Tory whip loses the whip.

 

 

Always makes me think of Rik. Perhaps not his finest bit of satire but it cracked me up as a kid. And now!

[Bibliogryphon 8,624]

Just a thought about Chris Pincher.

 

Do you think he has been treated differently because his victims are male? 

 

Are the MPs who would behave in the same way towards woman who don't get called out?

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

1 hour ago, Bibliogryphon said:

Just a thought about Chris Pincher.

 

Do you think he has been treated differently because his victims are male? 

 

Are the MPs who would behave in the same way towards woman who don't get called out?

If he had done it to  women he would now be under investigation by the Police, a prosecution would be a virtual certainty and, at the very least, he would be stuck on the sex offenders register.

That's the difference and it fucking stinks.

[TQR 12,065]

Hark at this silly cunt.
 

 

28 hours apart. What a comedy. Not a lot has changed in that time; just yet another example coming to light of the Tories being a bunch of wilfully deceitful pervs. Obviously dopey Dan here has today been briefed by a leadership hopeful.

[TQR 12,065]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

Obviously dopey Dan here has today been briefed by a leadership hopeful.

And just as I say this, Health Secretary Sajid Javid resigns, saying he can no longer serve in this govt.

[TQR 12,065]

…and so does Rishi Sunak!

 

 

[msc 17,738]

18 minutes ago, TQR said:

…and so does Rishi Sunak!

 

 

 

 

And nothing of value was lost!

 

 

(Yeah I know, it "pressurises" Boris Johnson. My point stands!)

[RoverAndOut 3,405]

So, I'll put this in here, despite all the discussion in the Boris thread, because this has nothing specifically to do with Boris and is more about procedure. I consider myself more clued up than the average Joe when it comes to politics but can someone confirm whether I'm missing something or whether all the political commentators don't understand how the constitution works (imagine!)?

 

Re: the motion of no confidence being mooted by Starmer. I keep seeing and hearing lots of discussion about its likelihood of failure because Tory MPs would be voting down the government and that would mean a general election but that's surely not the case. Presumably, they're thinking of 1979, when Callaghan's government lost a vote of no confidence and an election ensued. But that was because the Lib-Lab pact had collapsed and Callaghan was running a minority government.

 

In this scenario, Tory MPs would still be in the overwhelming majority. A vote of no confidence, as I understand it, doesn't lead to an automatic general election, it just usually does because no member of the largest party can form a majority in the Commons. But if Tory MPs united around Raab as caretaker PM (with the alternative being a general election held with no leader and a civil war brewing) then Raab could command a Commons majority and the Queen would invite him to form a government. In other words, the charge that they're still enabling Johnson to remain in power is a perfectly valid one. Or am I missing something?

[msc 17,738]

1 hour ago, RoverAndOut said:

So, I'll put this in here, despite all the discussion in the Boris thread, because this has nothing specifically to do with Boris and is more about procedure. I consider myself more clued up than the average Joe when it comes to politics but can someone confirm whether I'm missing something or whether all the political commentators don't understand how the constitution works (imagine!)?

 

Re: the motion of no confidence being mooted by Starmer. I keep seeing and hearing lots of discussion about its likelihood of failure because Tory MPs would be voting down the government and that would mean a general election but that's surely not the case. Presumably, they're thinking of 1979, when Callaghan's government lost a vote of no confidence and an election ensued. But that was because the Lib-Lab pact had collapsed and Callaghan was running a minority government.

 

In this scenario, Tory MPs would still be in the overwhelming majority. A vote of no confidence, as I understand it, doesn't lead to an automatic general election, it just usually does because no member of the largest party can form a majority in the Commons. But if Tory MPs united around Raab as caretaker PM (with the alternative being a general election held with no leader and a civil war brewing) then Raab could command a Commons majority and the Queen would invite him to form a government. In other words, the charge that they're still enabling Johnson to remain in power is a perfectly valid one. Or am I missing something?

 

Yes, a government which falls on a confidence vote could avoid an election by finding someone else who can command the confidence of the house, but there is confusion because this has only happened once in a hundred years and in that instance, the party of the Prime Minister changed. 

 

Also, note in 2019 when Jeremy Corbyn held once under the Fixed Terms Parliament Act, when a majority of the Tory party wanted rid of Theresa May, and when the FTPA meant that there was a 14 day grace period to find an alternative Prime Minister before an election needed called. So, pretty much as bullet proof a way of preventing Corbyn becoming PM as possible and just getting rid of May. Despite this, parliament decided it was in fact a choice of May or Corbyn and so voted to keep her in place. I don't think the understanding of parliamentary procedure has improved much in the last three years...

[Toast 14,805]

WHY is the massive turd still Prime Minister?  He's effectively been sacked, yet he's allowed to form a cabinet and carry on? 

FFS, surely there must be a way to get rid of him before he does any more damage. 

We all know he can't be trusted.

 

[TQR 12,065]

2 hours ago, Toast said:

WHY is the massive turd still Prime Minister?  He's effectively been sacked, yet he's allowed to form a cabinet and carry on? 

FFS, surely there must be a way to get rid of him before he does any more damage. 

We all know he can't be trusted.

 

It’s ridiculous, isn’t it?

 

The argument here is that May and Cameron stayed on whilst a leadership election took place, but the difference with them is they weren’t removed from office as a result of horrendous misconduct or a total and provable lack of integrity. Sure, they were both shite, but they weren’t a national security risk. Johnson definitely is. He should be removed NOW. By force, if need be.

 

They should bring in Theresa May as caretaker PM until the conclusion of the leadership contest.

[Toast 14,805]

What's the point of having a Deputy Prime Minister?  I know it's Raab, but still ..... that's no excuse for leaving Billy Bunter in charge of the tuck shop.

 

Quote

Bunter's defining characteristics are his greediness and overweight appearance. His character is, in many respects, that of a highly obnoxious anti-hero. As well as his gluttony, he is obtuse, lazy, racist, nosy, deceitful, slothful, self-important and conceited. These defects, however, are not recognised by Bunter. In his own mind, he is an exemplary character: handsome, talented and aristocratic; and he dismisses most of those around him as "beasts". The negative sides of Bunter are offset by several genuine redeeming features; such as his tendency, from time to time, to display courage in aid of others; his ability to be generous, on the rare occasions when he has food or cash; and above all his very real love and concern for his mother. All these, combined with Bunter's cheery optimism, his comically transparent untruthfulness and inept attempts to conceal his antics from his schoolmasters and schoolfellows, combine to make a character that succeeds in being highly entertaining but which rarely attracts the reader's lasting sympathy.

 

 

[Toast 14,805]

People don't put up with this sort of shit everywhere ....

 

Thousands of protesters have stormed President Gotabaya Rajapaksa's residence in the capital of Sri Lanka.

 

 

[msc 17,738]

8 minutes ago, Toast said:

What's the point of having a Deputy Prime Minister?  I know it's Raab, but still ..... that's no excuse for leaving Billy Bunter in charge of the tuck shop.

 

I'm aware this is likely rhetorical, but in case it was a legit question, there is none. It's a ceremonial role. In the past it was given to the important party heavyweight who could keep dissenters on side (the Willie Whitelaw, John Prescott type) who were clearly an important liasion and control between the Prime Minister and his MPs. (In fact, MPs hoping to push policies on Thatcher would sound out Whitelaw to sound her out on them.)

 

But it largely sounds more important than it is, and its a job that looks good when a certain person has it, not one that makes people look good because they have it. Certainly not one of the big jobs of state. That's why it was so telling when Nick Clegg demanded it. 

 

It's not even an automatic "stand in if the PM is unavailable spot" as Cameron got George Osborne to do that!

[RoverAndOut 3,405]

3 minutes ago, msc said:

It's not even an automatic "stand in if the PM is unavailable spot" as Cameron got George Osborne to do that!

 

Thought Hague usually stood in for Cameron?

[msc 17,738]

Just now, RoverAndOut said:

 

Thought Hague usually stood in for Cameron?

 

That was towards the end when Hague was doing his clearly well deserved last bow. Although, Cameron had about 3 or 4 people deputise for him over that parliament, which only furthers my point!

[Toast 14,805]

Yes, but the point is that there IS a post called Deputy PM and there's no reason why they shouldn't make use of it.  Even if they shuffle someone else into it, eg Theresa May.

Utterly ridiculous that the clown retains power when he is no longer party leader. 

Not that he has even resigned, as far I can see.  He never actually said so, and if there's a letter I haven't seen it.

[Windsor 2,142]

On 09/07/2022 at 11:33, RoverAndOut said:

 

Thought Hague usually stood in for Cameron?

Hague was First Secretary of State, which I think made him the next most senior in the cabinet after the Prime Minister.

 

Theresa May briefly had the same set up with Damian Green. 
 

Isn’t Raab Deputy PM and First Secretary of State?