Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

thievin' Tories at it again

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Truss was quite right. It is time to put a stop to identity politics, and those who use identity politics to create anarchy. The emphasis, as she says, is to tackle poverty, which is not bound up in protected identity groups but in class and geography.

Her speech has been redacted by Tory head office even in the link you've included. She digs into Foucault and it's clear she doesn't understand him to begin with. I cannot take seriously Truss stating that we have to tackle poverty. It's why I used the word 'irony'. At least she is obvious and there's very little to unmask, I will give her that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Her speech has been redacted by Tory head office even in the link you've included. She digs into Foucault and it's clear she doesn't understand him to begin with. I cannot take seriously Truss stating that we have to tackle poverty. It's why I used the word 'irony'. At least she is obvious and there's very little to unmask, I will give her that.

It merely highlights where some are at

There are those like Marcus Rashford and tens of thousands of others who recognise the need to feed those struggling

And there are those like Rees-Mogg who sneer at such actions.

Decent folk know who has an understanding of this problem, just as they can see who are the cretinous 'righties' trying to defend such contemptible comments.

Perhaps, they think, that if they sit up and beg long enough a few more crumbs will fall from their masters table

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bill said:

It merely highlights where some are at

There are those like Marcus Rashford and tens of thousands of others who recognise the need to feed those struggling

And there are those like Rees-Mogg who sneer at such actions.

Decent folk know who has an understanding of this problem, just as they can see who are the cretinous 'righties' trying to defend such contemptible comments.

Perhaps, they think, that if they sit up and beg long enough a few more crumbs will fall from their masters table

 

I feel positive about the future. I'm in my sixties and won't be around to see it probably but younger people are far more alert and knowledgeable about politics. Okay, so we have Brexit, but the kind of ideas that have led to it won't last long....the older Brexiters and their ideas will fade very quickly. You don't need much convincing about that.

A new generation will be far more enlightened and right wing dogma will be seen for what it is. Capitalism, if ethical and responsible, can work but the sheer degree of inequality will diminish it  as a model later in the 21st century. That is my belief and I accept an idealistic one.

Politics is slightly more transparent.  Our political system is increasingly unstable.  Already we see populism filling the gaps and the holes in the system... symbols of the decay. We have a current crop of very poor quality MP's in the current administration too and the standard of public discourse plus faith in institutions are at a low ebb.

I always think though that there is cause for hope. New paradigms will emerge if only because they have to. The using up of resources will force the hand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, sonyc said:

Her speech has been redacted by Tory head office even in the link you've included. She digs into Foucault and it's clear she doesn't understand him to begin with. I cannot take seriously Truss stating that we have to tackle poverty. It's why I used the word 'irony'. At least she is obvious and there's very little to unmask, I will give her that.

Good to read an historian's analysis this morning. Far better described than my puny efforts in answer to @Rock the Boat and yet the word 'irony' appears a few times too.

It shows just the extent of  hollowness / lack of depth this country has in the current administration. And it will have taken Truss a few days to write no doubt. Misunderstanding someone like Foucault and using it for your own dubious world view demonstrates such amateurism. 

Truss should stick to talking about cheese. She would be better advised not to associate her ideas about educational attainment and her understanding of poverty with the thoughts of this philosopher even though she might think she looks good and clever to try. It's a terrible match up. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/19/liz-truss-foucault-rightwing-zombie-postmodernism?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sonyc said:

Good to read an historian's analysis this morning. Far better described than my puny efforts in answer to @Rock the Boat and yet the word 'irony' appears a few times too.

It shows just the extent of  hollowness / lack of depth this country has in the current administration. And it will have taken Truss a few days to write no doubt. Misunderstanding someone like Foucault and using it for your own dubious world view demonstrates such amateurism. 

Truss should stick to talking about cheese. She would be better advised not to associate her ideas about educational attainment and her understanding of poverty with the thoughts of this philosopher even though she might think she looks good and clever to try. It's a terrible match up. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/19/liz-truss-foucault-rightwing-zombie-postmodernism?

 

Indeed! Only someone as seriously thick as her could even begin to imagine that she has anything useful to say about these matters. If she now counts of one of the "thinkers" in the Tory Party, it's no suprise that it's an utter shambles bereft of competence and integrity. The very idea that "identity politics" ravaged the educational opportunities of the less advantaged children in the 80's is one of the most stupid things ANY politician has commited to paper. Particularly hilarious is that she seems to have forgotten who had complete political power during the 80s. Sadly she knows that her stunted, lickspittle, intellectually indolent base only require a few trigger phrases to be spewed out in order to garner their obsequious admiration. Thus it's no suprise she has the full support of Jools and RTB. 

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" the equalities minister talked about her own childhood in Leeds in the 1980s, where, apparently, schoolchildren in were taught about racism and sexism, but – inexplicably – not how to read and write. "

which rather begs the question

which government was in power throughout the 80's ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bill said:

" the equalities minister talked about her own childhood in Leeds in the 1980s, where, apparently, schoolchildren in were taught about racism and sexism, but – inexplicably – not how to read and write. "

which rather begs the question

which government was in power throughout the 80's ?

Wouldn't be the same party that introduced that famous piece of "woke" legislation "Clause 28" would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

" the equalities minister talked about her own childhood in Leeds in the 1980s, where, apparently, schoolchildren in were taught about racism and sexism, but – inexplicably – not how to read and write. "

which rather begs the question

which government was in power throughout the 80's ?

She's a contemporary of mine and I can categorically say she is talking utter nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

''David Cameron is facing fresh accusations that he 'blurred the lines' with his role at a failed financial firm after new details emerged of a business trip to Singapore ''

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9412309/Now-David-Cameron-faces-questions-Far-East-trip-tycoon.html

"David Cameron told friends that he stood to make $60 million from the listing of a company at the heart of a lobbying scandal, it has been claimed.

"A friend of the former prime minister said that he was “candid” about the potential windfall from his shareholdings in Greensill after it was valued at $7 billion.

Cameron subsequently sent a series of texts to Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, lobbying him to grant hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer-funded loans to the company.

Sunak referred him to senior officials at the Treasury, who decided to reject the company’s applications for loans. The company went bust, leaving Cameron’s share options worthless. The claim that Cameron had told friends about the potential value of his share options was denied yesterday by sources close to him.

Greensill used complex financial engineering to fuel the rapid rise of the steel tycoon Sanjeev Gupta, who employs 5,000 people in the UK but is fighting to save his empire after the company’s collapse."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-cameron-greensill-deal-claims-lobbying-tfd6j7ln3

 
Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of more concern is

"Boris spoke at a series of technology events organised by Jennifer, who went on to receive £126,000 of taxpayer money in event sponsorships and grants."

"Boris Johnson faces an inquiry by the Greater London Authority - responsible for the mayor’s office - over claims his failure to declare his relationship with Arcuri may have been a breach of the Nolan Principles of Public Life, which are contained in the Mayor of London’s code of conduct. Arcuri was granted access to events at three top level trade missions, despite her businesses not meeting the criteria for the trips."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like his latest floozy has her snout in the trough as well

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9424517/GUY-ADAMS-No-wonder-Carrie-Symonds-desperate-play-gravity-initial-probe.html

meanwhile the previous one will see the investigation into grants given to her by fatso investigated, later in the year - fatso, the one who was given £160,000 by some dodgy Russians for......................................err, a game of tennis 🤔

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/city-hall-probe-jennifer-arcuri-relationship-boris-johnson-b926813.html

elsewhere, Cameron is up to his neck in his own allegations of sleaze and corruption

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-greensill-capital-lobbying-explained-b1823786.html

 

"Six members of Prime Minister Johnson's Cabinet including Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Business Secretary Alok Sharma, as well as eight junior ministers, have received donations either personally or through their constituency parties from individuals or companies linked to Russia."

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-report-donors-boris-johnson-conservative-party-2020-7?r=US&IR=T

Germany, Hesse, Close up of dung heap - CSF020897 - Dieter  Heinemann/Westend61

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bill said:

"Six members of Prime Minister Johnson's Cabinet including Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Business Secretary Alok Sharma, as well as eight junior ministers, have received donations either personally or through their constituency parties from individuals or companies linked to Russia."

Just like his mentor Donald, Johnson can't hide his infactuation with Russian dictators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yet another one

'A prominent Tory donor lobbied a government minister to speed up the award of a £65m government contract to his company supplying face masks, according to documents obtained by the Guardian.

David Meller personally contacted the minister by phone last year to seek help overcoming delays in negotiations between the government and a fashion company he co-owned that was offering to supply personal protective equipment (PPE).'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/01/tory-donor-lobbied-minister-to-speed-up-his-65m-ppe-deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Herman said:

 

Perhaps we misunderstood his infamous flop of a speech when he protested "never underestimate a quiet man". Clearly he meant, never underestimate the duplicity of a man who keeps quiet about his hypocritical double dealing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I highly recomment the following by Martin Williams (Although it will however make you very depressed and angry):

Parliament Ltd: A journey to the dark heart of British politics 

'Eye-popping analysis of politicians' finances... a ground-breaking study... a fascinating and important work.' Sunday Times

'Immaculately researched... 
A powerful reminder that reporters can serve the public good... 
Should make journalists proud - and may even help to make the world a better place' Peter Oborne, New Statesman


Who do our politicians work for? The public, or big business? If you want to understand why British politics isn't working, the first place to start is here. 

 

https://www.waterstones.com/book/9781473633858

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I highly recomment the following by Martin Williams (Although it will however make you very depressed and angry):

Parliament Ltd: A journey to the dark heart of British politics 

'Eye-popping analysis of politicians' finances... a ground-breaking study... a fascinating and important work.' Sunday Times

'Immaculately researched... 
A powerful reminder that reporters can serve the public good... 
Should make journalists proud - and may even help to make the world a better place' Peter Oborne, New Statesman


Who do our politicians work for? The public, or big business? If you want to understand why British politics isn't working, the first place to start is here. 

 

https://www.waterstones.com/book/9781473633858

Lobbying - if a field / company wasn't so repugnant in some way, why would it need lobbyists? (After all, Amazon pays a heck of a lot for lobbyists)...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Herman said:

And more......

 

Just further examples of what these greedy bas*tards do on a daily basis. It's typified in the following quote from from Hollinrake:

"When I was elected to Parliament in 2015, I knew it would mean a substantial reduction in earnings compared with my earnings in the private sector, which I was more than willing to accept to have the chance to try and make a difference to people’s lives. I do not consider it reasonable to have to pay my own accommodation expenses in London in addition to other costs incurred while living away from home in order to fulfil my role as a parliamentarian.”

Said the man raking in cash from five rental properties in York, and who voted against extending free school meals for the poorest children in society. Frankly, he can pi*ss off back to the private sector an do his constituents a favour. 

When I chose to accept a university post a significant distance from my Norfolk home I took on the financial responsibility of paying for the upkeep of two residences and paying my own living expenses, that was my choice. And let's not forget the enormous  expenses MPs get to claim on other things the rest of us have to pay for out of our wages (for example the completely unjustifiable food allowances of £25 for every night outside of their constituencies- is Hollinrake really trying to claim that he and his fellow MPs would not have incurred food expenses if they were at home?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What an egregious toad Cameron is, this pusillanimous response to his blatant attempt to fill his pockets only makes him look even more of a spiv. Is he seriously trying to convince us that an ex-PM of the UK was unaware that it is completely unacceptable for him to personally contact the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Health Secretary in an attempt to persuade them to throw £millions of tax-payers money at a company he has shares in? Perhaps he thought that since Robert Jenrick could get away with stuffing £millions into Richard Desmond's pockets, and Hancock made sure his pals made £millions from the covid crisis,  then why shouldn't he cash in too. The only lesson he will take out of this is that it is not wise to brag to your mates that you're about to make multi-millions in profit from a company that actually ends up going bust (despite your best efforts to corrupt the process). An independent  public inquiry is the minimum that should happen now; it is beyond belief that an ex-PM should seek to fleece his own country in this fashion. Indeed, it is high time that all current and ex-politicians (of all parties) are made aware that the public will not tolerate the abuse of the extraordinary privilege of representing them in parliament.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/lessons-to-be-learnt-david-cameron-breaks-silence-over-greensill-lobbying-controversy/ar-BB1fxsS8?ocid=msedgntp

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, horsefly said:

What an egregious toad Cameron is, this pusillanimous response to his blatant attempt to fill his pockets only makes him look even more of a spiv. Is he seriously trying to convince us that an ex-PM of the UK was unaware that it is completely unacceptable for him to personally contact the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Health Secretary in an attempt to persuade them to throw £millions of tax-payers money at a company he has shares in? Perhaps he thought that since Robert Jenrick could get away with stuffing £millions into David Sullivans' pockets, and Hancock made sure his pals made £millions from the covid crisis,  then why shouldn't he cash in too. The only lesson he will take out of this is that it is not wise to brag to your mates that you're about to make multi-millions in profit from a company that actually ends up going bust (despite your best efforts to corrupt the process). An independent  public inquiry is the minimum that should happen now; it is beyond belief that an ex-PM should seek to fleece his own country in this fashion. Indeed, it is high time that all current and ex-politicians (of all parties) are made aware that the public will not tolerate the abuse of the extraordinary privilege of representing them in parliament.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/lessons-to-be-learnt-david-cameron-breaks-silence-over-greensill-lobbying-controversy/ar-BB1fxsS8?ocid=msedgntp

When you said David Sullivan did you mean Richard Desmond?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

When you said David Sullivan did you mean Richard Desmond?

Cheers for the correction, I've altered it. Often get those two mixed up, I wonder why?

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

When you said David Sullivan did you mean Richard Desmond?

I am sure he did, although Sullivan was involved in one of the deals of the century for the Olympic Stadium. This debacle was presided over by the Mayor of London. 
The following is an interesting read. 
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/14/west-ham-deal-century-olympic-stadium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...