The beginning of the end?
- Thread starter Newchodge
- Start date
T
The Byre
Ladies and gintlepong, I bring you a new theory. My Westminster spies (bloke wot I know who is a senior MP) is telling me of the Hokey-Cokey tactic. (You put your left leg in, left leg out!)
Johnson's allies are said to have submitted between five and ten letters of no confidence in a "hokey cokey" strategy. This means that if the number of letters goes over the 54 threshold, Johnson loyalists will withdraw them when Sir Graham Brady phones round to check their views have not changed.
Other whacky rumours are available! There are enough of them!
Johnson's allies are said to have submitted between five and ten letters of no confidence in a "hokey cokey" strategy. This means that if the number of letters goes over the 54 threshold, Johnson loyalists will withdraw them when Sir Graham Brady phones round to check their views have not changed.
Other whacky rumours are available! There are enough of them!
Upvote
0
A cunning plan though - i'll give that to them. Means they can ascertain when it gets close to the threshold but before it actually reaches it even though it is meant to be a secret process
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #47
I DON'T believe it.
Johnson appears to be aiming to get by through blaming civil servants, having a clear out and appearing to be a serious politician who gets things done. He has appointed Guto Harri as his new director of comunicaitions. Who thinks it is appropriate to make this announcement to the public
www.bbc.co.uk
I will survive?
Johnson appears to be aiming to get by through blaming civil servants, having a clear out and appearing to be a serious politician who gets things done. He has appointed Guto Harri as his new director of comunicaitions. Who thinks it is appropriate to make this announcement to the public
Boris Johnson sang 'I Will Survive' to new communications chief Guto Harri
The PM's new director of communications Guto Harri reveals how he accepted the new job in Downing Street.
www.bbc.co.uk
I will survive?
Upvote
0
The problem is because of the way things have changed, the way social media is and the way journalists dig for anything detrimental it is almost impossible to find anyone squeaky clean (and do we really want that type anyway)
Anyone over 50 has probably said a few things in the past that wouldn't be acceptable now, as soon as anyone new comes along journalists, bloggers, twitterers, etc. will be going through everything they did and said over the past 40 years looking for the slightest thing they can use against them.
Upvote
0
Like most people I couldn't care less. You are complaining about a bit of silliness that has harmed no-one whereas your ex leader started a war based on lies in which many Brits were killed and the after effects are still felt today
Upvote
0
I am not a rabid left winger (I reckon i sit fairly centreist with a right learning economic outlook)
How long in your mind should the labour party be held accountable for Blair ?
How long after now should the conservatives be held liable for Johnson (or Brexit) ?
In my opinion once the main players have left the stage look forward not back - otherwise we will be left with a country going "Yeah but Blair", "Yeah but I'll never forgive Thatcher" - "Oh but look what Clegg did to the students when in coalition"
How does that help us move onwards ?
Upvote
0
Spot on...
In some quarters there is more intent to punish for the past rather than sort out the present.
Historical slavery versus modern slavery for example.
Upvote
0
I occasionally visit a Facebook page for a rough part of town where residents regularly complain about the lack of services 'we pay our taxes', and a day later ask where they can buy black market cigarettes.
The county Police football team turned out to play the village 11, one of the players of which had a van full of questionably acquired beer. No guesses who his biggest customers were.
The bottom line is we are all, or the majority of us, live outside the law of the land be it judicial or moral. Only when politicians or those in high positions falter do we develop selective memories.
Upvote
0
I'm not sure that has ever really changed.
Social media has exacerbated it with non-context soundbites.
It does raise the question of whether there is actually such a thing as neutral or impartial views though
Upvote
0
As long as people keep holding the Tories responsible for Margaret Thatcher and forget the inconvenient Labour truths, such as...
Labour closed far more pits that the Conservatives. Labour would have had to close the remainder eventually if Maggie hadn't done their dirty work for them.
Labour were the first to axe school milk but Short, Short. milk snatcher doesn't have quite the same ring. Labour then finished the job after The conservatives restricted it further.
Upvote
0
Were you imposing ridiculous rules on others under threat of fines whilst smirking a smug smirk?
Upvote
0
Did you fudge the system is the question. I notice there has not been an avalanche of claimants.
Upvote
0
No. I did cycle 102 miles one day in the first week of the first lockdown, but that was only because nobody was able to define what ‘local’ exercise was.
Upvote
0
Not a fallacy at all :
"Over the course of their time in office, we estimate that the average annual growth rate in healthcare spending under Labour was 5.6 per cent – even accounting for inflation.
Since 2010, annual growth in the health budget has been significantly slower than it was under most of Labour’s time in office. The IFS says: “UK public health spending grew in real terms by an average of 1.3 per cent per year between 2009-10 and 2015-16.”
This doesn’t just put the Conservatives below Labour’s average spend – the IFS point out that this is “substantially below” the long-term trend growth between 1955 and 2016, when health budgets grew by 4.1 per cent a year on average"
FactCheck: how generous have the Conservatives been with the NHS?
Even with the extra cash, the health budget is growing much slower than it did under the last Labour government.
www.channel4.com
Upvote
0
I can honestly say i did 2 things
1. Arranged for my brother to get my daughter out of West London to his house as it went into tier 3 lockdown so she was not locked into a near empty uni hall of residence over Xmas 20 - officially she was allowed to return home but not go elsewhere but we had covid
2. Attend a party in a field when 30 were allowed to meet outdoors - we were a group of 20 and there was another similar sized group the other side of the field but we did share a toilet block which made it iffy legality wise. When i say party I mean we were in our own tents but had a table and chairs under a big gazebo - the other group had similar. The 2 gazebos were roughly 100m apart and the toilet block (for the women basically) was the other corner of a 100m sided triangle
Other than that - nope, stuck to the letter of the law
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well i think I will go with the fact that whilst the Met are investigating the No10 parties as pretty much definately illegal but the Police have stated that Starmer was doing nothing illegal
Either the plod are reasonably apolitical or we have a more serious problem than parties in this country (and in general i think the Police are considered to be right of centre on average)
Upvote
0
No starmer followed an anti lockdown protester into a pub (legally open at the time) without realising the guy was the landlord and that guy proceeded to very loudly eject and bar him from the premises as he blamed him for supporting the govt's lockdown restrictions which were damaging his trade
Not really him barging in and the landlord was anti covid restrictions so not really a valid comparison either. (It was in Bath if you want to hunt down the story - a pub called The Raven)
Upvote
0
It's not the 'parties' themselves, it's the question of whether members of the government broke the laws that were used to fine members of the public and, if they did, should the fines be reversed? Nobody should be above the law, if the law has been broken, various people should be answerable and punished accordingly.
The parties are the only thing that is sticking at the moment. It chimes with the public and gets column inches. Other things haven't stuck and now Johnson is just throwing around wild accusations to try and get the mess off his shirt.
And no...I have not attended any meetings or parties with 30 odd strangers at the time it was prohibited. I don't know many people that did so, as it was punishable by way of a fine. If you knew of people attending mass gatherings, I hope you reported it.
Upvote
0
What law is he flouting by singing to a new member of staff? - which was the question that I replied to
Upvote
0
Singing wasn’t allowed. Same as shouting. Spreads the virus.
Remember ‘control the virus’?
How does singing do that?
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #80
I was commenting on the news that the new director of communications thought it was a good idea to publicise that, during discussions about his post, Johnson sang 'I will survive' to him. That appears to me to be a director of communications who takes very seriously the plan for Johnson to come across as more serious and committed to the job.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
At What Point Do Courier Losses Just Become a Cost of Doing Business?If you sell physical products online, you already know the feeling. You...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Is AI Making the Internet Worse?It started with a comment about music. @JEREMY HAWKE , a courier...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The AI Divide: What UKBF Members Really Think in 2026Every few months on UK Business Forums, a thread appears that refuses...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
