Jump to content

The Conservative Party - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, El Cid said:

'We have... built more homes than at any time in the last 30 years'

We would mean the Johnson Government, surely? Even the fact checkers are biased, in my opinion.

Any sensible fact checker would throw a sickie on the day that Johnson makes a speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, RJRB said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/58818531

I listened to Johnson’s speech this morning and admit that he has the charisma that lifts him above many other politicians.

However his main task is not to amuse and nor should he seek to con the public with his interpretation of statistics.

Every statement uttered by him requires scrutiny so the above shortcut is a useful guide .

The Independent has also produced similar - including some claims not covered by the BBC.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-speech-false-claims-b1933390.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting look at the Tories at the conference by Owen Jones and they are blaming everybody but themselves for everything and denying everything else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Go on....

The Scandinavian countries. They finish top of many league tables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Cid said:

That is certainly very different to the BBCs fact-check.

Very similar in the “facts” covered I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian's Larry Elliott reckons that "The prime minister thinks he has hit on a winning formula with an interventionist, left-of-centre approach to the economy and a tough right-of-centre approach to law and order, immigration and culture wars."  In other words, under Johnson the Tories are morphing into something like the old BNP, or Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National.

 

Meanwhile Labour is morphing (back) into something like the Tories.

 

Interesting times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Boris Johnson is always upbeat which I admit is is appealing. But he's either genuinely that way because he's so out of touch he has no idea of the trials and tribulations ordinary people face in the real world, or it's a deliberate act of telling porkies to to the plebs and the brainless to keep them quiet. You decide...

Either way it shows patronising contempt for the man in the street.

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't going to go down well.

 

It’s grim having to live on £82,000 a year, wails Sir Peter Bottomley, UK’s longest-serving MP

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/06/sir-peter-bottomley-bemoans-having-live-82000-year/

 

Quote

Sir Peter went on to say that the situation is “desperately difficult” for some of his colleagues in the House of Commons. “I don’t know how they manage,” he said. “It’s really grim.”

 

The basic annual salary for an MP is £81,932. It is, by anyone’s standards, a serious amount of money.

 

To describe it as “really grim” – the median salary in the UK is just over £31,000 – is tactless, particularly at a time when the government is cutting universal credit and when millions of people are still feeling the financial impact of Brexit and Covid.

 

I am sure, given the chance, Sir Peter would want to rephrase his remarks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@alchresearch he has a point generally but IMO not for the reasons he's expressed.

 

£82k isn't an especially high professional salary and if we are to expect that that legislators should bring talent and knowledge to the post (rather than second-hand rhetoric and a geography degree) it's not unreasonable to expect appropriate remuneration that allows careers to be made. OR at least a career break if they are Lib-Dems. 

 

Because it's neither fish-nor-fowl politics attracts people who either have no talent or more money that Croesus. The average middle of the road professional with potential just won't be attracted to politics. 

 

So yes, I think that MPs should be paid considerably more. Much more. I also think that there should be far fewer of them and that they should spend at least half the year in their constituencies. 

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.