The Conservative Party

argyle said:
Interesting thread about this.

Click to expand...


So, apart from a clear statement that some newspapers can't publish (not sure why the Observer can't print about Banks - is there an agreement not too based on past matters or maybe current matters in court?), what does that suggest?

That Williamson has been given a knighthood as payment to not say anything?
 
MillionMilesAway said:
So, apart from a clear statement that some newspapers can't publish (not sure why the Observer can't print about Banks - is there an agreement not too based on past matters or maybe current matters in court?), what does that suggest?

That Williamson has been given a knighthood as payment to not say anything?
Click to expand...
Is there some legal protections being a knight of the realm?
 
What’s happening with the police enquiry about party gate quietly slipped away now never to be heard of again I suppose
 
MillionMilesAway said:
None that I know of.

Doing it as a stand-alone event is rare, and there seems no cause for it. Politicians do get them, but not at 45.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The fact he has gotten it so soon, even if he never deserved it, is what is so suspicious about it. Clearly no other government would give it to him. To put it in perspective, John Major was a former PM, who played a huge role in setting the stage for the GFA and peace in NI, received his Knighthood in his 60's.
 
Marlo said:
Exactly. The fact he has gotten it so soon, even if he never deserved it, is what is so suspicious about it. Clearly no other government would give it to him. To put it in perspective, John Major was a former PM, who played a huge role in setting the stage for the GFA and peace in NI, received his Knighthood in his 60's.
Click to expand...

Major isn't a very good comparison as his knighthood was a KG - Order of the Garter - which is traditionally given to ex-Prime Ministers and isn't given by the prime minister - it's given by the monarch. It was 8 years after he was PM.

Basically WIlliamson is too young for a service honour (even if his service deserved one) and it's not given in the two main batches that honours are announced. So there's a reason it's suddenly happened.
 
There’s an interesting feature of the government’s response to questions about the current war. From time to time, an issue arises where there is an apparent need to do one thing, but actually there is a good reason to do the opposite.

When this happens, whichever minister has been wheeled out for the day tends to explain the government’s thinking. So when asked why we haven’t banned Russia Today, the answer was that they would ban the BBC in retaliation and that would mean Russian civilians aren’t able to get accurate information about what’s happening. When asked why we haven’t expelled Russian diplomats, the answer was we are using that channel for various reasons, for example pointing out Geneva Convention violations that Russia will be required to answer for, so it is useful to keep that back channel open. And of course, why can’t we sent planes in? Because that risks all out war with a nuclear armed state.

What is interesting about this is when the the media round minister starts to bullshit. Dominic Raab was asked today why we had given VTB 30 days’ grace for people to sort their shit out before sanctions bite. His answer was back to the party gate/Covid standard response of bullshit and bluster, using up the time they can be asked anything while completely avoiding the actual question.

Needless to say, there was no follow up of the ‘you haven’t answered my question’ variety.

So what is the real reason for that 30 day period? So far as I am aware, no other country imposing sanctions on Russia has acted similarly. There is no benefit I can see to either this country or Ukraine in doing so. The only benefit is that it gives wealthy Russian individuals/Conservative party donors plenty of time to get their money out of VTB before the sanctions bite.

When you look at it that way, it’s easy to see why Raab wouldn’t answer the question. But if there is some legitimate reason, why on Earth wouldn’t he provide it?

But the wider lesson I think is this. When they have got an actual answer to the question, they provide it. When the answer is inconvenient, or politically embarrassing, that’s when they bullshit.

Which is sort of obvious, but sometimes it’s helpful to see the obvious laid out with complete clarity.
 
Chris in London said:
There’s an interesting feature of the government’s response to questions about the current war. From time to time, an issue arises where there is an apparent need to do one thing, but actually there is a good reason to do the opposite.

When this happens, whichever minister has been wheeled out for the day tends to explain the government’s thinking. So when asked why we haven’t banned Russia Today, the answer was that they would ban the BBC in retaliation and that would mean Russian civilians aren’t able to get accurate information about what’s happening. When asked why we haven’t expelled Russian diplomats, the answer was we are using that channel for various reasons, for example pointing out Geneva Convention violations that Russia will be required to answer for, so it is useful to keep that back channel open. And of course, why can’t we sent planes in? Because that risks all out war with a nuclear armed state.

What is interesting about this is when the the media round minister starts to bullshit. Dominic Raab was asked today why we had given VTB 30 days’ grace for people to sort their shit out before sanctions bite. His answer was back to the party gate/Covid standard response of bullshit and bluster, using up the time they can be asked anything while completely avoiding the actual question.

Needless to say, there was no follow up of the ‘you haven’t answered my question’ variety.

So what is the real reason for that 30 day period? So far as I am aware, no other country imposing sanctions on Russia has acted similarly. There is no benefit I can see to either this country or Ukraine in doing so. The only benefit is that it gives wealthy Russian individuals/Conservative party donors plenty of time to get their money out of VTB before the sanctions bite.

When you look at it that way, it’s easy to see why Raab wouldn’t answer the question. But if there is some legitimate reason, why on Earth wouldn’t he provide it?

But the wider lesson I think is this. When they have got an actual answer to the question, they provide it. When the answer is inconvenient, or politically embarrassing, that’s when they bullshit.

Which is sort of obvious, but sometimes it’s helpful to see the obvious laid out with complete clarity.
Click to expand...
You're right - every time I spot someone not answering the question, I wonder why they aren't and what that suggests they are hiding.

see also "were you at the party" "you'll have to wait for Sue Grey" - if he wasn't there, just say so!

It's why people quite appreciated his answer to the Ukrainian journalist when he was in Poland - there was only one answer possible, and he gave it.
 
Chris in London said:
There’s an interesting feature of the government’s response to questions about the current war. From time to time, an issue arises where there is an apparent need to do one thing, but actually there is a good reason to do the opposite.

When this happens, whichever minister has been wheeled out for the day tends to explain the government’s thinking. So when asked why we haven’t banned Russia Today, the answer was that they would ban the BBC in retaliation and that would mean Russian civilians aren’t able to get accurate information about what’s happening. When asked why we haven’t expelled Russian diplomats, the answer was we are using that channel for various reasons, for example pointing out Geneva Convention violations that Russia will be required to answer for, so it is useful to keep that back channel open. And of course, why can’t we sent planes in? Because that risks all out war with a nuclear armed state.

What is interesting about this is when the the media round minister starts to bullshit. Dominic Raab was asked today why we had given VTB 30 days’ grace for people to sort their shit out before sanctions bite. His answer was back to the party gate/Covid standard response of bullshit and bluster, using up the time they can be asked anything while completely avoiding the actual question.

Needless to say, there was no follow up of the ‘you haven’t answered my question’ variety.

So what is the real reason for that 30 day period? So far as I am aware, no other country imposing sanctions on Russia has acted similarly. There is no benefit I can see to either this country or Ukraine in doing so. The only benefit is that it gives wealthy Russian individuals/Conservative party donors plenty of time to get their money out of VTB before the sanctions bite.

When you look at it that way, it’s easy to see why Raab wouldn’t answer the question. But if there is some legitimate reason, why on Earth wouldn’t he provide it?

But the wider lesson I think is this. When they have got an actual answer to the question, they provide it. When the answer is inconvenient, or politically embarrassing, that’s when they bullshit.

Which is sort of obvious, but sometimes it’s helpful to see the obvious laid out with complete clarity.
Click to expand...


And also why have the Premier League agreed to ''fast track' the sale of Chelsea FC ?


www.thetimes.co.uk

Premier League plans to fast-track Chelsea sale

The Premier League has encouraged Roman Abramovich to agree a deal to sell Chelsea quickly, saying it could approve new owners within ten days. Abramovich, th
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
 
mr raab, what is the reason for amnesty for russian gangsters?
Cloudy with a chance of showers.
Headlines, raab grilled by woke reporter, his statesmanship was a credit to our government...in fact the whole cabinet, showing the world what true democracy is all about.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Major isn't a very good comparison as his knighthood was a KG - Order of the Garter - which is traditionally given to ex-Prime Ministers and isn't given by the prime minister - it's given by the monarch. It was 8 years after he was PM.

Basically WIlliamson is too young for a service honour (even if his service deserved one) and it's not given in the two main batches that honours are announced. So there's a reason it's suddenly happened.
Click to expand...
The fact WIllaimson has done nothing to
 
Sir Fuckwit has been given a knighthood says a lot about Johnson government and the levels of incompetence. I can only conclude Johnson either doesn't give a fuck about handing out gongs to fuckwits because they mean nothing to him. Or Williamson knows where some of the bodies are buried and this was Johnson's way of paying him off when he sacked him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top