The Politics Thread

[salmonbuddie]

I was wondering - I still am - as to why there should be such unrelenting whataboutery, comparing Sturgeon's situation with that of the Tory denigrates in London, not Scotland (and this matter is a determinedly Scottish affair!), whereas I suspected there is a perfectly good - no, better - example nearer to home.
And having read a little more about it, it seems that the holier-than-thou SNP were more than complicit in hounding McLeish (and his wife) so that he did the honourable thing and left office as his personal life was becoming bigger than the job, itself.
I've always disliked Salmond (no relation, I hope?) but considered Sturgeon to be a very able politician and probably more trustworthy than usual.  (A bit like I kinda thought McLeish was.)
SNP demanded high standards and now don't want to uphold them, it appears to me - a humble outsider.  [emoji4]
 
 
I admire your unwavering belief in the "reported" 10 million new members that this debacle has generated...   
 
 

Our definitions of "whataboutery" appear to be polar opposites so let's leave it there.

[antrin]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

You can't accuse salmonbuddie of indulging in whataboutery and then do the very same thing yourself.

What has McLeish and the actions of the SNP from 20 years ago got to do with the current situation?

I asked a question earlier, to which no one responded - I explained why other comparisons might be considered less invidious.

I have tried to do the opposite of whataboutery.  I explained why that might be.

 

Read my f**kin posts, ya clown!

 

(I may be a bit terse as the editing function was earlier not allowing me to do what should have been a simple edit.   Sigh...)

 

[oaksoft]

4 minutes ago, antrin said:

I asked a question earlier, to which no one responded - I explained why other comparisons might be considered less invidious.

I have tried to do the opposite of whataboutery.  I explained why that might be.

 

Read my f**kin posts, ya clown!

 

(I may be a bit terse as the editing function was earlier not allowing me to do what should have been a simple edit.   Sigh...)

 

I do love it when octogenarian crusties get ansty just before their morning nap.

[antrin]

Who would that octogenarian be - or are you just bad at counting? 

 

Also Ansty is somewhere that I've never visited, let alone want to buy.

 

 

ETA:

I've got it, at last. 

Your post is not about me, you just misquoted.

Edited March 4, 2021 by antrin

[Slarti]

I was wondering - I still am - as to why there should be such unrelenting whataboutery, comparing Sturgeon's situation with that of the Tory denigrates in London, not Scotland (and this matter is a determinedly Scottish affair!), whereas I suspected there is a perfectly good - no, better - example nearer to home.
And having read a little more about it, it seems that the holier-than-thou SNP were more than complicit in hounding McLeish (and his wife) so that he did the honourable thing and left office as his personal life was becoming bigger than the job, itself.
I've always disliked Salmond (no relation, I hope?) but considered Sturgeon to be a very able politician and probably more trustworthy than usual.  (A bit like I kinda thought McLeish was.)
SNP demanded high standards and now don't want to uphold them, it appears to me - a humble outsider.  [emoji4]
 
 
I admire your unwavering belief in the "reported" 10 million new members that this debacle has generated...   
 
 

I think it was more about the differences in responses by the Tory party to actual/perceived breaches of code than anything to do with Westminster/Holyrood.

[Slarti]

I do love it when octogenarian crusties get ansty just before their morning nap.

Now, would you have made that comment if antrin was female?

[Buddymarvellous]

Just now, Slarti said:

Now, would you have made that comment if antrin was female?

How do yo7 know he’s male...

[BuddieinEK]

Now, would you have made that comment if antrin was female?

Maybe she is!

[Slarti]

How do yo7 know he’s male...

Maybe she is!

Definitely male. Ask him to send you his dick pic. [emoji1787]

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Sturgeon did absolutely fine yesterday and frankly this should be closed down right now as she has no case to answer. This is a creepy man (Salmond) pulling the usual creepy man shite by trying to deflect the blame for his self-confessed creepy behaviour onto someone else by playing the victim card. He should be hunted for the utter c**t that he is.

Those who think Salmond performed better might want to consider that he made no attempt whatsoever to apologise to the victims of what he himself described as his inappropriate behaviour whereas Sturgeon made a point of doing exactly that.

The bigger picture is that Salmond made it all about him. Sturgeon showed plenty of empathy and humility about her own failings.

That will have gone down very well with the electorate and is why she is the only game in town when it comes to running our country. There isn't another politician at Holyrood fit to lick her boots right now.

Creepy. 😲

[antrin]

55 minutes ago, Slarti said:

1 hour ago, antrin said:

I was wondering - I still am - as to why there should be such unrelenting whataboutery, comparing Sturgeon's situation with that of the Tory denigrates in London, not Scotland (and this matter is a determinedly Scottish affair!), whereas I suspected there is a perfectly good - no, better - example nearer to home.
And having read a little more about it, it seems that the holier-than-thou SNP were more than complicit in hounding McLeish (and his wife) so that he did the honourable thing and left office as his personal life was becoming bigger than the job, itself.
I've always disliked Salmond (no relation, I hope?) but considered Sturgeon to be a very able politician and probably more trustworthy than usual.  (A bit like I kinda thought McLeish was.)
SNP demanded high standards and now don't want to uphold them, it appears to me - a humble outsider. 
 
 
I admire your unwavering belief in the "reported" 10 million new members that this debacle has generated...   
 
 

I think it was more about the differences in responses by the Tory party to actual/perceived breaches of code than anything to do with Westminster/Holyrood.

I perfectly understood that.  (Even baz would have got that!)

I have no surprise that nationalists would prefer that to be the focus of recriminations rather than something their party members did to McLeish - who was put in what seems to be a similar position to that in which Sturgeon finds herself.

[antrin]

Despite all your interest, boys (?)

I refuse to share my gender willy-nilly on here.

 

Or even my non-willy-nilly, if needs be... 

 

[Slarti]

I perfectly understood that.  (Even baz would have got that!)
I have no surprise that nationalists would prefer that to be the focus of recriminations rather than something their party members did to McLeish - who was put in what seems to be a similar position to that in which Sturgeon finds herself.

Maybe he would have but he would probably have went an oblate-spheroid-about way of getting there. [emoji16]

[Cookie Monster]

Despite all your interest, boys (?)
I refuse to share my gender willy-nilly on here.
 
Or even my non-willy-nilly, if needs be... 
 

What a fanny. [emoji14]

[Slarti]

What a fanny. [emoji14]

Now, would you have made that statement if ...

Oops, wrong person. [emoji16]

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, Slarti said:

Now, would you have made that comment if antrin was female?

A crusty is a crusty.

[salmonbuddie]

Not going to hold my breath waiting for DRoss calling for a vote of no confidence in BoJos for misleading Westminster.

"3 days after the High Court ruled Government had acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts, Boris Johnson stood up in the House of Commons and reassured MPs and the public that all Covid-related contracts were “on the record”. However, the final Order handed down by the Judge today shows that what the Prime Minister told the House was not true. 

"The Judge confirmed:

“The Defendant has published 608 out of 708 relevant contracts for supplies and services relating to COVID-19 awarded on or before 7 October 2020. In some or all of these cases, the Defendant acted unlawfully by failing to publish the contracts within the period set out in the Crown Commercial Service’s Publication of Central Government Tenders and Contracts: Central Government Transparency Guidance Note (November 2017).”

"Remarkably, the Judge’s Order is based on Government’s own figures – so at the same time as Johnson was falsely reassuring MPs, Government lawyers were preparing a statement contradicting him – revealing 100 contracts and dozens of Contract Award Notices were missing from the public record. You can read the final Court Order here and consequential judgment in full here. 

"Over the course of the judicial review, Government made no less than four attempts to provide an accurate witness statement setting out the number of contracts and Contract Award Notices that had been published late – and they kept getting it wrong. As late as the hearing itself, they said they had published 28% of Contract Award Notices within the 30 day legal limit. 

"But when asked by the Judge to follow up with evidence of the figures so he could make his final Order, it transpired that Government had actually only published 3% of CANs in the legal timeframe. 

" Government has not only misled Parliament and placed inaccurate information before the Court, it has misled the country. 

" Unless contract details are published they cannot be properly scrutinised – there’s no way of knowing where taxpayers’ money is going and why. Billions have been spent with those linked to the Conservative Party and vast sums wasted on PPE that isn’t fit for purpose. 

"We have a Government, and a Prime Minister, contemptuous of transparency and apparently allergic to accountability. The very least that the public deserves now is the truth." 

From Jolyon Maugham, Director of Good Law Project

[FTOF]

27 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

Not going to hold my breath waiting for DRoss calling for a vote of no confidence in BoJos for misleading Westminster.

"3 days after the High Court ruled Government had acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts, Boris Johnson stood up in the House of Commons and reassured MPs and the public that all Covid-related contracts were “on the record”. However, the final Order handed down by the Judge today shows that what the Prime Minister told the House was not true. 

"The Judge confirmed:

“The Defendant has published 608 out of 708 relevant contracts for supplies and services relating to COVID-19 awarded on or before 7 October 2020. In some or all of these cases, the Defendant acted unlawfully by failing to publish the contracts within the period set out in the Crown Commercial Service’s Publication of Central Government Tenders and Contracts: Central Government Transparency Guidance Note (November 2017).”

"Remarkably, the Judge’s Order is based on Government’s own figures – so at the same time as Johnson was falsely reassuring MPs, Government lawyers were preparing a statement contradicting him – revealing 100 contracts and dozens of Contract Award Notices were missing from the public record. You can read the final Court Order here and consequential judgment in full here. 

"Over the course of the judicial review, Government made no less than four attempts to provide an accurate witness statement setting out the number of contracts and Contract Award Notices that had been published late – and they kept getting it wrong. As late as the hearing itself, they said they had published 28% of Contract Award Notices within the 30 day legal limit. 

"But when asked by the Judge to follow up with evidence of the figures so he could make his final Order, it transpired that Government had actually only published 3% of CANs in the legal timeframe. 

" Government has not only misled Parliament and placed inaccurate information before the Court, it has misled the country. 

" Unless contract details are published they cannot be properly scrutinised – there’s no way of knowing where taxpayers’ money is going and why. Billions have been spent with those linked to the Conservative Party and vast sums wasted on PPE that isn’t fit for purpose. 

"We have a Government, and a Prime Minister, contemptuous of transparency and apparently allergic to accountability. The very least that the public deserves now is the truth." 

From Jolyon Maugham, Director of Good Law Project

 

Indeed.

Makes our "lover's tiff" shenanigans pale into insignificance.

I'm sure once Ruth slinks into the HOL she'll be the first one asking the PM if he'll resign for breaching ministerial code.

[saintnextlifetime]

On 2/11/2021 at 10:29 PM, ALBIONSAINT said:

Listened for first five minutes (34 mins is far too long) however if the first five minutes are representative of the rest I won’t be listening. It’s amazing that unregulated media reports like this are not involved in long expensive litigation cases. “ SNP MP Johanna is in a safe house because SNP MPs have made threats to rape her” 

Why don’t they discuss the more important factor about Scottish politics; ie the utter dearth of quality opposition. 
 

You'd be safer just sticking to the msm , mate. .

[saintnextlifetime]

I fear that l may run outa popcorn watching this latest Scottish fiasco unfold . .

Although it pains me to say it , it would now appear that Mr Stuart Dixon was actually on the money about much that he said about the SNP and stinking fish. .

Who'd a thunk it..................................................

[FTOF]

Downing Street: Millions spent on new media briefing room - BBC News

I wonder if Boris has any mates that own construction companies..............................

[antrin]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/07/most-scots-would-back-remaining-in-uk-new-poll-suggests
 

oh dear.

how sad.

never mind.

 

[FTOF]

Scotland would ‘fare better’ outside the UK, more than two thirds of Scots say | The Independent

[antrin]

2 hours ago, FTOF said:

Scotland would ‘fare better’ outside the UK, more than two thirds of Scots say | The Independent

I know, I know, I know....
they got it wrong last time.  I agree.

It’s good that they caught that, readdressed it and published the correction.

 

 

😛

 

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, antrin said:

I know, I know, I know....
they got it wrong last time.  I agree.

It’s good that they caught that, readdressed it and published the correction.

 

 

😛

 

Same poll, totally different outcomes - with one result announced without having been weighted first. Statistics eh?

It's all bollox antrin, until one of them starts routinely hitting 60%. Everything else can be considered too close to call. Both sides getting way too excited over very little.