Reports in the Sunday Times that Boris is going to challenge May soon with Gove as Deputy and Rees-Mogg his Chancellor. Boris's dream team! Go Boris. He can't be any worse than May surely.

 

just so you don't think I'm making it up about Rees-Mogg:

 

Voting Record:

 

How Jacob Rees-Mogg voted on Welfare and Benefits #

 

Consistently voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax") Show votes

16 votes for, 0 votes against, 1 absence, between 2012–2014

Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices Show votes

0 votes for, 5 votes against, in 2013

Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability Show votes

0 votes for, 14 votes against, 1 absence, between 2011–2016

Consistently voted for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support Show votes

4 votes for, 0 votes against, in 2012

Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits Show votes

52 votes for, 0 votes against, 2 absences, between 2012–2016

Consistently voted against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed Show votes

0 votes for, 9 votes against, between 2011–2014

Share a screenshot of these votes: Share

 

 

Very Victorian.

Fat-shaming - how un-PC of you... ;)

It just serves to underline what a liar and a fraud he is. He claims to be a keen cyclist and to run regularly. Does he look like he get a lot of exercise to you, or does he look more like someone who only exercises if there are cameras present?

It just serves to underline what a liar and a fraud he is. He claims to be a keen cyclist and to run regularly. Does he look like he get a lot of exercise to you, or does he look more like someone who only exercises if there are cameras present?

 

Surely you're not saying it is OK to break '-isms' as long as it's someone you don't like? :teresa:

Surely you're not saying it is OK to break '-isms' as long as it's someone you don't like? :teresa:

I note you haven't answered the question. Do you think Johnson is a keep-fit enthusiast? Or do you think he is lying?

Unlike race, sexuality and gender - your weight is something YOU have control over, so Johnson deserves the hatred, particularly as Suedehead points out he blatantly lies and uses photo-ops to put forward a public image that is contrived/fake. IMO that is very illuminating and why I have never trusted the man on ANYthing he says.

I note you haven't answered the question. Do you think Johnson is a keep-fit enthusiast? Or do you think he is lying?

 

He is a politician, therefore he *is* a liar.

 

 

Unlike race, sexuality and gender - your weight is something YOU have control over, so Johnson deserves the hatred.

 

Somehow I don't think that 'defence' would do any good if you said it about Diane Abbott... :rolleyes:

You are aware presumably that Dianne Abbott gets around 45% of all abuse sent to female MPs, the majority racially motivated and some of it incited by that awful paper/website that you read every day.

You are aware presumably that Dianne Abbott gets around 45% of all abuse sent to female MPs, the majority racially motivated and some of it incited by that awful paper/website that you read every day.

 

I am well aware of that - but I was responding to Suedehead's apparent suggestion that it is OK to abuse someone because of their weight, as long as they are a politician & a liar.

 

As for 'that awful newspaper' - the Mail does not *create* racist morons - they are already out there, and, correct me if I'm wrong, the Mail has never racially abused Ms Abbott.

They hardly need to, when she's as gaffe prone as Boris Johnson!

*Cough* Darren Osborne *Cough*

 

He is a politician, therefore he *is* a liar.

Somehow I don't think that 'defence' would do any good if you said it about Diane Abbott... :rolleyes:

As I've said before, the attitude that "all politicians lie" is the sort of lazy thinking that has got us into this mess. Cameron clearly decided that, if people expected politicians to lie, he might as well go ahead and do so on a regular basis. It is still the case that most politicians do NOT lie. Unfortunately, a high proportion of those who do are in the Cabinet.

 

As for Dianne Abbott, most of the hatred towards her is clearly racist.

As I've said before, the attitude that "all politicians lie" is the sort of lazy thinking that has got us into this mess. Cameron clearly decided that, if people expected politicians to lie, he might as well go ahead and do so on a regular basis. It is still the case that most politicians do NOT lie. Unfortunately, a high proportion of those who do are in the Cabinet.

 

As for Dianne Abbott, most of the hatred towards her is clearly racist.

 

It's not lazy, it's realistic - problem is on the occasions they do tell the truth, no-one believes them - it's the 'Boy who cried wolf' syndrome.

 

Are you saying that the reporting of Diane Abbott's gaffes are disguised racism, then?

Edited February 5, 20188 yr by vidcapper

You missed the point. Still, there's a D in the day so it is to be expected.

 

Before Cameron, it was rare for a politician to tell a blatant lie but that didn't stop people parroting the lazy cliche that politicians always lie. With his constant lies, Cameron has encouraged others - principally May, Johnson, Gove etc. - to follow in his footsteps.

 

Dianne Abbott is hardly alone in making the odd gaffe. You could fill a book with Johnson's cock-ups. However, Abbtt's get far more coverage and result in her being the target pop even more vitriol. The same does not apply to the gaffes made by May, Johnson, Hammond, etc. etc.

Yes, yes they are.

 

They focused on her minor 'gaffes' when Boris Johnson has had FAAAAAR worse on a Daily Basis, as has Gove or lying through his back teeth privatising overlord Hunt, or Mad May - 'nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!'

 

And it is lazy. Politicians should never outright lie. We now have a case where voting for Tories is voting for NHS privatisation, but as they lie and the BBC etc are skewed right wing, a lot of people don't even realise this. Saying one thin and doing the other invalidates your mandate ... not that the Tories have one.

You missed the point. Still, there's a D in the day so it is to be expected.

 

Before Cameron, it was rare for a politician to tell a blatant lie but that didn't stop people parroting the lazy cliche that politicians always lie. With his constant lies, Cameron has encouraged others - principally May, Johnson, Gove etc. - to follow in his footsteps.

 

Dianne Abbott is hardly alone in making the odd gaffe. You could fill a book with Johnson's cock-ups. However, Abbtt's get far more coverage and result in her being the target pop even more vitriol. The same does not apply to the gaffes made by May, Johnson, Hammond, etc. etc.

 

Lmao we essentially made the same post at the same time!

Before Cameron, it was rare for a politician to tell a blatant lie but that didn't stop people parroting the lazy cliche that politicians always lie. With his constant lies, Cameron has encouraged others - principally May, Johnson, Gove etc. - to follow in his footsteps.

 

Exactly, and it is being damaged further by people like Rees-Mogg accusing civil servants within the treasury of 'fiddling the books' based on nothing more than him not getting the answer he would have liked.

 

There is a reason 'post-truth' was declared word of the year in 2016, and its consequences will be felt for some time to come I fear.

At the weekend a speech by Jacob Rees-Mogg was interrupted by protesters chanting slogans. There was a scuffle and one of the protestors (a woman) was punched. The government's response was to announce that there should be a review to consider whether new laws against intimidation are required. Also over the last few days a man has been convicted of trying to mow down Muslims and also plotting to attack Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan. The government response - silence. Another man has been convicted of plotting to attack a gay pride march. Government response - silence.

 

Here are a few more incidents where the Tory response (whether in government or opposition) has fallen some way short of demanding new laws.

 

A Labour MP was murdered by a right wing extremist.

Another Labour MP was attacked and seriously injured.

A man working for a Lib Dem MP was murdered in the constituency office.

 

All MPs, of course, should be protected from violent attacks. However, Mogg wasn't actually attacked physically. There are already public order offences on the statute book aimed, in part, at protecting freedom of speech. I can't help worrying about what sort of restrictions the government have in mind.

You missed the point. Still, there's a D in the day so it is to be expected.

 

Very droll.

 

Before Cameron, it was rare for a politician to tell a blatant lie but that didn't stop people parroting the lazy cliche that politicians always lie.

ISTM part of it must be that they are under greater scrutiny than ever before?

 

Dianne Abbott is hardly alone in making the odd gaffe. You could fill a book with Johnson's cock-ups. However, Abbtt's get far more coverage and result in her being the target pop even more vitriol. The same does not apply to the gaffes made by May, Johnson, Hammond, etc. etc.

 

So is that a yes or no to the question I asked?

 

And it is lazy. Politicians should never outright lie. We now have a case where voting for Tories is voting for NHS privatisation, but as they lie and the BBC etc are skewed right wing, a lot of people don't even realise this. Saying one thin and doing the other invalidates your mandate ... not that the Tories have one.

 

They have a stronger case to govern than Labour, at least.

 

I would suggest that politicians be connected to polygraphs & electric shocks whenever they make a public statement, except that would mean we'd be having by-elections every day. :w00t:

 

 

At the weekend a speech by Jacob Rees-Mogg was interrupted by protesters chanting slogans. There was a scuffle and one of the protestors (a woman) was punched. The government's response was to announce that there should be a review to consider whether new laws against intimidation are required. Also over the last few days a man has been convicted of trying to mow down Muslims and also plotting to attack Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan. The government response - silence. Another man has been convicted of plotting to attack a gay pride march. Government response - silence.

 

Here are a few more incidents where the Tory response (whether in government or opposition) has fallen some way short of demanding new laws.

 

A Labour MP was murdered by a right wing extremist.

Another Labour MP was attacked and seriously injured.

A man working for a Lib Dem MP was murdered in the constituency office.

 

All MPs, of course, should be protected from violent attacks. However, Mogg wasn't actually attacked physically. There are already public order offences on the statute book aimed, in part, at protecting freedom of speech. I can't help worrying about what sort of restrictions the government have in mind.

 

So the point you are making is that the Tories take attacks on their own people more seriously than on others? :unsure:

 

Any party in power - or that aspires to be in power - should take all politically=motivated attacks seriously. When they appear to take a few people shouting more seriously than murder or attempted murder, they make themselves look as if they only care about themselves.

At the weekend a speech by Jacob Rees-Mogg was interrupted by protesters chanting slogans. There was a scuffle and one of the protestors (a woman) was punched. The government's response was to announce that there should be a review to consider whether new laws against intimidation are required.

 

I didn't think to check this before, but was that response an official statement, or an unattributed comment by a 'government spokesperson'?

 

 

Any party in power - or that aspires to be in power - should take all politically=motivated attacks seriously. When they appear to take a few people shouting more seriously than murder or attempted murder, they make themselves look as if they only care about themselves.

 

That's why 'power corrupts...' is more of a truism than a cliche. :(

The statement about a law change came from a minister - I can't remember which one.