The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[Mister M 1,671]

2 hours ago, steved32 said:

At the party conference Princess Nut Nut cuddled up to Johnson to tell him his speech was "really good."  His MPs have a very different view after the past two weeks.

 

And voters in the North are seeing his pledges on social care subsidies and levelling up for the lies that they are.

That's going to hit poorer voters in the pocket big time. 

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Well, it's about time....

 

I'm also sick of hearing that  'Labour are unelectable...' 

Who says?

Mostly the Tories of course, but widely quoted by the media as a fact, with no supporting evidence.  Go figure.

Perhaps Kier Starmer ought to do what Johnson does: continuously lie, over promise and under deliver, make jokes at other people's expense, and walk around like he slept in his suit for 2 days.

[altus 550]

3 hours ago, Tony said:

It's a very fair question. I checked, it's a three day a week role so that's not executive territory.  By the same token, surely it's really only a divisive proposal among people who are on the wrong side of popular feeling and lose elections? Big picture!

The idea that a role being only three days a week guarantees it isn't an executive one is nonsense. Ofcom is a regulator - it make time sensitive rulings.

 

Have you got an explanation for why you think "Dacre seems very well qualified for such a role" yet? Or perhaps an answer to people pointing out reasons why they think Dacre is not suitable for the role that aren't just disliking the Daily Mail?

 

I see you're now suggesting the only people who think he's not suitable are doing so because they are upset they didn't support the Tories in the election.

 

So far you've just come up with spurious dismissals of why people don't think he's suitable for the role and have studiously ignored any reasons people have given that don't fit with your spurious reasons. Have you got a single, positive, reason why Dacre should get the role?

[Anna B 1,434]

3 hours ago, Tony said:

It's a very fair question. I checked, it's a three day a week role so that's not executive territory.  By the same token, surely it's really only a divisive proposal among people who are on the wrong side of popular feeling and lose elections? Big picture!

 

 

 

Nick Clegg? Now you're just being silly  

I seem to remember that Nick Clegg, an honourable man, lost his seat / leadership of the Lib Dems, because he reneged on a promise regarding student fees thanks to the machinations of David Cameron.

 

Boris lies every day of the week. Regularly makes promises he has no intention of keeping. And sees corruption simply as a normal way of life.

-But he's still here doing the damage.

 

So now who's being silly...? 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Anna B

[hobinfoot 25]

5 hours ago, Anna B said:

Well, it's about time....

 

I'm also sick of hearing that  'Labour are unelectable...' 

Who says?

Mostly the Tories of course, but widely quoted by the media as a fact, with no supporting evidence.  Go figure.

With the government in trouble Labour should be have a double digit lead in the polls. This is why they are still unelectable.

[tinfoilhat 11]

4 hours ago, Tony said:

It's a very fair question. I checked, it's a three day a week role so that's not executive territory.  By the same token, surely it's really only a divisive proposal among people who are on the wrong side of popular feeling and lose elections? Big picture!

 

 

 

Nick Clegg? Now you're just being silly  

I'll do it for half the cost as Dacre and be twice as good.

[Mister Gee 842]

On 18/11/2021 at 13:12, Tony said:

AIUI, OFCOM is an arms length quango which is essentially established to ensure that government policy is implemented across industry as well as carrying out the day to day regulatory functions. Dacre wouldn't' really be in a position to  unilaterally "wade in" any more than any other Chair would be. Perhaps too many people think that Dacre should get up every morning and work his evil levers to make the whole of UK media and telecoms into a version of the Daily Mail? We (you / @altus / me) all know that OFCOM is an supervisory organisation and that the Chair is less executive than the teaboy.  I expect that most people who "object" know half of bugger all about what the role is and what Dacre's impact would be, or not, on the day to day workings. They just don't like Dacre's version of the Daily Mail and that's good enough reason for them to bang on about it.

 

Look, I'm not especially exercised by this and wouldn't know Dacre from Adam and care even less whether he's chairing OFCOM. My point is made and hasn't changed.

What an absolute load of ********.

[RollingJ 2,108]

12 minutes ago, Mister Gee said:

What an absolute load of ********.

As Dacre has withdrawn from the list of possibles, you can put this line of **** to bed.

[Mister Gee 842]

On 15/11/2021 at 08:33, Tony said:

@Mister M Dacre seems very well qualified for such a role, knowing the inner workings of the media business. Poachers make very good gamekeepers.

Seems like an entitled ****, three times divorced from the reality of life in the UK, throws a tantrum because he doesn't get to impose his will in media regulation. Gets the support of a **** on SF. 

3 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

As Dacre has withdrawn from the list of possibles, you can put this line of **** to bed.

What are your thoughts on Paul Dacre? Personally I think he’s a ****.

[RollingJ 2,108]

8 minutes ago, Mister Gee said:

Seems like an entitled ****, three times divorced from the reality of life in the UK, throws a tantrum because he doesn't get to impose his will in media regulation. Gets the support of a **** on SF. 

What are your thoughts on Paul Dacre? Personally I think he’s a ****.

And the relevance is??

[altus 550]

11 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

As Dacre has withdrawn from the list of possibles, you can put this line of **** to bed.

The comments he's made while/after withdrawing have amply demonstrated why he's not suitable for a position that requires the holder to be unbiased.

[RollingJ 2,108]

2 minutes ago, altus said:

The comments he's made while/after withdrawing have amply demonstrated why he's not suitable for a position that requires the holder to be unbiased.

As he has withdrawn, further 'discussion' is a bit irrelevant?

[Mister M 1,671]

9 minutes ago, altus said:

The comments he's made while/after withdrawing have amply demonstrated why he's not suitable for a position that requires the holder to be unbiased.

The comments he makes nicely shows his victim mentality, in spite of being very rich, very powerful. I particularly like how he criticises  "omnipotent, ruthless, amoral tech giants" without any shred of self awareness.

What a ****