Tory Party watch

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Tory Party watch

#6341  Postby Alan C » Jan 25, 2022 10:41 pm

Are British satirists also being challenged to outdo reality concerning this lot?

Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 2821
Age: 45
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6342  Postby minininja » Jan 26, 2022 2:43 pm

What's worrying me is the question of what happens next if Johnson goes, because almost all of the criticism is being aimed specifically at him as if the only problems are his personal moral failings, and not wider issues of Tory policy and ideology. It feels like it will be too easy for the establishment to sweep away everything that's going wrong as "well that all happened under Boris, let's not talk about it any more".
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1563

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6343  Postby newolder » Jan 26, 2022 3:13 pm

Beware: vicious ambush ahead
Image
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7813
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6344  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 26, 2022 3:49 pm

minininja wrote:What's worrying me is the question of what happens next if Johnson goes, because almost all of the criticism is being aimed specifically at him as if the only problems are his personal moral failings, and not wider issues of Tory policy and ideology. It feels like it will be too easy for the establishment to sweep away everything that's going wrong as "well that all happened under Boris, let's not talk about it any more".



Well, sure, but that's because it isn't Tory policy and ideology that is 'on trial' so to speak. It's the potentially illegal, and certainly morally questionable decisions made by specific members of the administration including Johnson.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30702
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6345  Postby minininja » Jan 26, 2022 7:25 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
minininja wrote:What's worrying me is the question of what happens next if Johnson goes, because almost all of the criticism is being aimed specifically at him as if the only problems are his personal moral failings, and not wider issues of Tory policy and ideology. It feels like it will be too easy for the establishment to sweep away everything that's going wrong as "well that all happened under Boris, let's not talk about it any more".

Well, sure, but that's because it isn't Tory policy and ideology that is 'on trial' so to speak. It's the potentially illegal, and certainly morally questionable decisions made by specific members of the administration including Johnson.

But it should be. The Tories have been enacting policies far more morally reprehensible than the PM having parties during lockdown, some of which have also been found to be unlawful, or are still resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, or are deliberate attacks on people's basic human rights. Yet most of these things are being largely glossed over in the media and by the establishment in favour of cakegate and "isn't Boris a naughty boy".
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1563

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6346  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2022 5:21 am

I agree, but they were elected to enact policies - either the electorate is stupid or just as cruel. The PM having parties while the rest of the country is unable to visit their dying loved ones no one ever was elected to do, and it's thus not surprising to me that this is what the public is most enraged about. It shows a fundamental disregard for the general public, and a sense of being above the law. I don't think they can survive this, although they could readily survive initiating dozens of horrid policies because that's how it works.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30702
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6347  Postby Tortured_Genius » Jan 29, 2022 5:59 am

Ukraine: Boris Johnson to call Vladimir Putin and visit region (BBC)

So that's the Ukraine fucked.

But at least it should serve to bury Sue Gray's report which, if it completely exonerated the PM and his staff, would have been published in full last Monday. It's obviously bad, the only question is how bad?
None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
User avatar
Tortured_Genius
 
Posts: 2247
Age: 60
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6348  Postby Tortured_Genius » Jan 31, 2022 5:22 pm

Hahahahahahaha- Theresa May questions Boris Johnson over lockdown rules (BBC Video)

Almost as good as if she'd pulled out a knife and hurled it straight into his back...
None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
User avatar
Tortured_Genius
 
Posts: 2247
Age: 60
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6349  Postby BlackBart » Jan 31, 2022 7:41 pm

Tortured_Genius wrote:Hahahahahahaha- Theresa May questions Boris Johnson over lockdown rules (BBC Video)

Almost as good as if she'd pulled out a knife and hurled it straight into his back...


:tehe:

Image
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12592
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6350  Postby Tortured_Genius » Jan 31, 2022 11:51 pm

None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
User avatar
Tortured_Genius
 
Posts: 2247
Age: 60
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6351  Postby Spearthrower » Feb 01, 2022 2:30 am



What a crying shit-show that you are not allowed to call a spade a spade. It's not even debatable - BoJo clearly has misled the House, and other MP's are supposed to pretend it was inadvertent?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30702
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6352  Postby Matt_B » Feb 01, 2022 3:20 am

For a serious answer, MPs benefit from Parliamentary Privilege, which is the freedom to say whatever they want without fear of the legal consequences from slander, contempt of court or breaching the official secrets act. This encourages more open debate, albeit at the price of allowing them to tell bare face lies as Johnson frequently does, among others.

The only restriction is that they must not use 'unparliamentary language.' 'Misled' is a word categorized as such, alongside many more.

Blackford is no stranger to this, having previously called Johnson a 'racist' and 'has made a career out of lying' escaping sanction both times. Indeed, he passed up several opportunities to back down this time too even once appearing to allow a correction - 'inadvertently misled' to the record that would have allowed him to remain.

I'm pretty sure he chose to double down this time because it will draw far more attention to Johnson's attempts to bluff his way out of trouble than merely stating the facts already known that contradict his accounts.
"Last night was the most horrific for Kyiv since, just imagine, 1941 when it was attacked by Nazis."
- Sergiy Kyslytsya
User avatar
Matt_B
 
Posts: 4750
Male

Country: Australia
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6353  Postby Hermit » Feb 01, 2022 3:32 am

God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4867
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6354  Postby Matt_B » Feb 01, 2022 9:25 am

"Last night was the most horrific for Kyiv since, just imagine, 1941 when it was attacked by Nazis."
- Sergiy Kyslytsya
User avatar
Matt_B
 
Posts: 4750
Male

Country: Australia
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6355  Postby Spearthrower » Feb 01, 2022 11:35 am

Matt_B wrote:For a serious answer, MPs benefit from Parliamentary Privilege, which is the freedom to say whatever they want without fear of the legal consequences from slander, contempt of court or breaching the official secrets act. This encourages more open debate, albeit at the price of allowing them to tell bare face lies as Johnson frequently does, among others.

The only restriction is that they must not use 'unparliamentary language.' 'Misled' is a word categorized as such, alongside many more.



I'm aware that it's proscribed language, and I am aware that the accusation/implication of lying is serious because a minister who is shown to have lied to parliament is expected to resign or be sacked, but neither of these quantities help address a scenario in which all the evidence supports the conclusion that the PM's statements to Parliament were shown not to be true - how are other MP's meant to challenge this repeated behavior if they're not allowed to characterize it?

On top of that, were we to strictly talk just semantics, the concept of misleading someone doesn't necessarily imply that it was done intentionally, thus the insistence of the addition of 'inadvertently' is pointless as it actually offers no further meaning. If I am ignorant and I tell you something wrong in honest belief that I am right, then I am misleading you regardless of my intentions.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30702
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6356  Postby Spearthrower » Feb 01, 2022 11:45 am

This Prime Minister misled the public!

Inadvertently... the Right Honorable Member will amend his statement!

Ahh yes, I inadvertently said the PM misled the House when I meant to say he lied through his fucking teeth!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30702
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6357  Postby Matt_B » Feb 02, 2022 12:13 am

Spearthrower wrote:I'm aware that it's proscribed language, and I am aware that the accusation/implication of lying is serious because a minister who is shown to have lied to parliament is expected to resign or be sacked, but neither of these quantities help address a scenario in which all the evidence supports the conclusion that the PM's statements to Parliament were shown not to be true - how are other MP's meant to challenge this repeated behavior if they're not allowed to characterize it?


It might be the expectation that a minister who has lied to parliament be sacked or resign but I'm not sure why as, in practice, the only person who can make such a call is the Prime Minister. It might say so in the Ministerial Code, but anyone who actually read the thing would soon conclude that there's little semblance between it and reality, and that's been the case since long before Johnson took office.

If you want to accuse someone of lying in the Parliament there's absolutely nothing stopping you though, so long as you choose your language carefully. The best way to go about it is just to quote your opponent and present evidence that contradicts what they said. It'll then go on the record for everyone to read and be reported upon by anyone in the wider media who cares. It's a bit like the FUA here; attack the argument, not the person.

That happens at practically every PMQs though, so it's not really noteworthy. Indeed, it's only getting attention here because everyone knows that Johnson had his illegal parties covered up from the information that's already public.

On top of that, were we to strictly talk just semantics, the concept of misleading someone doesn't necessarily imply that it was done intentionally, thus the insistence of the addition of 'inadvertently' is pointless as it actually offers no further meaning. If I am ignorant and I tell you something wrong in honest belief that I am right, then I am misleading you regardless of my intentions.


Sure, the rules are inflexible and a bit of a joke in themselves because they just lead to a list of proscribed words without much accounting for context. Rather, it's more about slapping a veneer of civility over an institution that's decidedly not and, despite the intent, still allows considerable room for personal insults.

Earlier on, for instance, Johnson accused Keir Starmer of covering up Jimmy Saville's abuses and that went unsanctioned because no unparliamentary language was used and Parliamentary Privilege frees him from any legal consequences. I'm pretty sure that most people would consider that a far more serious accusation than lying about some parties that everyone already knew about, but it's still within the rules.

Similarly, Blackford only went outside the rules to make a point, not because that was the only way he could express that Johnson's statement was contradictory to events. He had plenty of opportunities to back down too, but chose not to take them.
"Last night was the most horrific for Kyiv since, just imagine, 1941 when it was attacked by Nazis."
- Sergiy Kyslytsya
User avatar
Matt_B
 
Posts: 4750
Male

Country: Australia
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6358  Postby Spearthrower » Feb 02, 2022 12:37 am

Matt_B wrote:
It might be the expectation that a minister who has lied to parliament be sacked or resign but I'm not sure why as, in practice, the only person who can make such a call is the Prime Minister.


Actually, I believe the genuine working assumption of the code is that a Minister so exposed would voluntarily resign - I don't think the PM can sack them, only accept their resignation.


Matt_B wrote:It might say so in the Ministerial Code, but anyone who actually read the thing would soon conclude that there's little semblance between it and reality, and that's been the case since long before Johnson took office.


It's definitely not up to the job at the moment, assuming integrity is fine until someone comes along absent any.


Matt_B wrote:If you want to accuse someone of lying in the Parliament there's absolutely nothing stopping you though, so long as you choose your language carefully. The best way to go about it is just to quote your opponent and present evidence that contradicts what they said. It'll then go on the record for everyone to read and be reported upon by anyone in the wider media who cares. It's a bit like the FUA here; attack the argument, not the person.


I agree, and nearly wrote the same in my first post with examples the SNP Leader could've chosen, but I think ironically they all fall foul of the same charge, regardless of the wording.

Funny how the PM can insinuate that the leader of the opposition let a pedophile go free, and can make fat jokes about the leader of another party... but accuse a politician of not telling the truth! Despicable.

Similar again to FUA shenanigans, this reminds me a bit about not being able to call a troll a 'troll' here - a great win for the trolls.


Matt_B wrote:
On top of that, were we to strictly talk just semantics, the concept of misleading someone doesn't necessarily imply that it was done intentionally, thus the insistence of the addition of 'inadvertently' is pointless as it actually offers no further meaning. If I am ignorant and I tell you something wrong in honest belief that I am right, then I am misleading you regardless of my intentions.


Sure, the rules are inflexible and a bit of a joke in themselves because they just lead to a list of proscribed words without much accounting for context. Rather, it's more about slapping a veneer of civility over an institution that's decidedly not and, despite the intent, still allows considerable room for personal insults.

Earlier on, for instance, Johnson accused Keir Starmer of covering up Jimmy Saville's abuses and that went unsanctioned because no unparliamentary language was used and Parliamentary Privilege frees him from any legal consequences. I'm pretty sure that most people would consider that a far more serious accusation than lying about some parties that everyone already knew about, but it's still within the rules.



Yes, and I should've read the rest of your post before replying to the first part! :mrgreen:


Similarly, Blackford only went outside the rules to make a point, not because that was the only way he could express that Johnson's statement was contradictory to events. He had plenty of opportunities to back down too, but chose not to take them.


There's another inescapable irony here in that, given the evidence establishes it beyond doubt, if Blackford were to say that BoJo 'inadvertently misled the House' that itself could be considered misleading the House.

It's a fucking tangle, and I am starting to think that the Speaker needs more powers - something he's actually pointed out. He can rap knuckles here and there, but he can't hold anyone to account for lying.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30702
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6359  Postby Spearthrower » Feb 02, 2022 5:45 pm

Ugh, just seen a comment series on BBC's Have Your Say page with a bunch of proto-fascists claiming that criticism of the democratically elected government amounts to treason.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30702
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tory Party watch

#6360  Postby Seabass » Feb 02, 2022 6:06 pm

I just noticed Boris gave up his US citizenship in 2017. That's unfortunate. He could have finished up over there, and then come over here to run for President. It could have been hilarious.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka
User avatar
Seabass
 
Name: Gazpacho Police
Posts: 3857

Country: Covidiocracy
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest