|
Post by gazz on May 23, 2024 18:52:52 GMT
Cheers, Duds, that's superb! Whoever it was that managed to get close enough to blast him with D:Ream should be knighted! Not sure if you know of Steve Bray Gazzman, he is the pro EU guy who has been hanging around Westminster wearing blue and yellow and annoying the tories by daring to ask them questions. It was him and he subsequently has been banned from the Westminster area after two people complained. x.com/snb19692/status/1793326656825819623?s=46 No bulls**t, Duds, before clicking on that link, the first thing I thought regarding the two people that complained was "Sunak and his wife", and that's the 100% truth! Do I win a prize? 🏆
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 23, 2024 18:58:30 GMT
Well done, Rishi. Great start to the campaign. Apparently he asked a few Welsh people if they were looking forward to the Euro Football Comp in Germany !! What a man of the people. All of which is no doubt why it turned out that at yesterday's question and answer session with "ordinary" members of the voting public it turned out that at least one of them was a deliberately planted Tory Councillor primed with a question on immigration. Sunak is a charlatan, a fraud who apparently wants to be measured against his record in office. Would that be record amounts of raw sh*t tipped into our coastlines, rivers and lakes by water companies taking advantage of post Brexit reductions in environmental protection legislation whilst paying huge amounts of their profits to shareholders and CEO's? Or perhaps he means the record amounts of public money handed over to failing businesses like Carrillion who were awarded contracts after some highly dubious tender processes. Or maybe he means the record number of scandals allowed to develop by the sheer bloody complacency of tw##s like him and the right-wing fundamentalists and zealots of his repulsive party who have systematically destroyed the social fabric of this country and much of the infrastructure that underpins it. Scandals such as Grenfell, the Post Office pursuing fraudulent prosecutions of sub-post masters, the NHS in general but more specifically, maternity care or mental health care or the malicious prosecution of carers who have saved the public purse millions but were overpaid by, in some instances, miserly amounts frequently through no fault of their own. On the other hand, he possibly means the vast amounts of public money handed over to mates of Tory MP's for over priced PPE, much of which turned out to be f***ing useless and is still being stored at vast expense. Or perhaps he means his own half-arsed "eat out to help out" scheme which led directly to a spike in covid infections and subsequent deaths. Maybe he is referring to the tainted blood scandal, or of the huge cut in the size of the economy brought about by their Brexit or the huge amounts of cash handed over to Rwanda for absolutely nothing at all, etc, etc, etc. Frankly I doubt it. The man possesses a self-awareness in inverse proportion to his vaulting ago which is, I've no doubt at all, one of the few things that can be seen from space! This is a man who managed to pay less tax as a percentage on an income in excess of £2 million last year than most people reading this whose income will be a fraction of his. A man whose wife "earns" a reported £1 million a year from businesses continuing to trade with Russia thereby propping up the Russian economy and assisting their ability to finance their continued illegal war in the Ukraine at the same time as her husband hands over millions of quid's worth of this country's wealth in the form of munitions to assist the Ukrainians defend themselves. And still, there are people who will look at his "record" and convince themselves that their future and that of the wider country at large is best entrusted to the Tories. The type of people who would vote for a dog turd if it wore a blue rosette. But the really depressing thing? The really depressing thing is that thanks to the right-wing press who faithfully repeat and amplify the lies and deceit of their political favourites, in many respects the Labour Party has moved so far to the right that there isn't that much difference in many policies, not least the most important, how to finance it. This is the same party in which there is apparently no room for Corbyn or Abbott but there is room for that swivel-eyed far right wing-nut Elphicke. There is also room for neoliberal f**kwits like Reeves and Streeting. Streeting in particular gives the impression that he'd flog his own Grandmother for another 1/2 inch up the greasy pole. He is also a man given to making false claims about the capacity of private hospitals to back up his policy ambition of privatising the NHS which is soooo very Tory. Sorry, but Reeves is just a f***ing clown. It will be great to see the back of the Tories and one hopes that the kicking they get is so severe it precipitates the complete destruction of their revolting party but the kind of change this increasingly dismal, third rate country is crying out for from Starmer's Labour Party? Don't hold your breath folks. As I've said to my fellow left-leaning mates that argue against this Labour party, Yorks, the only way you'll make change is to get these bastards out. For those that don't think the party is 'left' enough, I'd rather they be in office and have the left of the party trying influence the party while in government, than heckling from the sidelines in opposition. As for Corbyn, he had his chance, May was an open goal and he blazed it over the f***ing bar. Brexit is as much on his head than anyone else's, mate, and his failure helped put Boris Johnson in power. Sorry, mate, but the man is a useless c***.
|
|
|
Post by woznorthyorksexile on May 23, 2024 19:39:45 GMT
All of which is no doubt why it turned out that at yesterday's question and answer session with "ordinary" members of the voting public it turned out that at least one of them was a deliberately planted Tory Councillor primed with a question on immigration. Sunak is a charlatan, a fraud who apparently wants to be measured against his record in office. Would that be record amounts of raw sh*t tipped into our coastlines, rivers and lakes by water companies taking advantage of post Brexit reductions in environmental protection legislation whilst paying huge amounts of their profits to shareholders and CEO's? Or perhaps he means the record amounts of public money handed over to failing businesses like Carrillion who were awarded contracts after some highly dubious tender processes. Or maybe he means the record number of scandals allowed to develop by the sheer bloody complacency of tw##s like him and the right-wing fundamentalists and zealots of his repulsive party who have systematically destroyed the social fabric of this country and much of the infrastructure that underpins it. Scandals such as Grenfell, the Post Office pursuing fraudulent prosecutions of sub-post masters, the NHS in general but more specifically, maternity care or mental health care or the malicious prosecution of carers who have saved the public purse millions but were overpaid by, in some instances, miserly amounts frequently through no fault of their own. On the other hand, he possibly means the vast amounts of public money handed over to mates of Tory MP's for over priced PPE, much of which turned out to be f***ing useless and is still being stored at vast expense. Or perhaps he means his own half-arsed "eat out to help out" scheme which led directly to a spike in covid infections and subsequent deaths. Maybe he is referring to the tainted blood scandal, or of the huge cut in the size of the economy brought about by their Brexit or the huge amounts of cash handed over to Rwanda for absolutely nothing at all, etc, etc, etc. Frankly I doubt it. The man possesses a self-awareness in inverse proportion to his vaulting ago which is, I've no doubt at all, one of the few things that can be seen from space! This is a man who managed to pay less tax as a percentage on an income in excess of £2 million last year than most people reading this whose income will be a fraction of his. A man whose wife "earns" a reported £1 million a year from businesses continuing to trade with Russia thereby propping up the Russian economy and assisting their ability to finance their continued illegal war in the Ukraine at the same time as her husband hands over millions of quid's worth of this country's wealth in the form of munitions to assist the Ukrainians defend themselves. And still, there are people who will look at his "record" and convince themselves that their future and that of the wider country at large is best entrusted to the Tories. The type of people who would vote for a dog turd if it wore a blue rosette. But the really depressing thing? The really depressing thing is that thanks to the right-wing press who faithfully repeat and amplify the lies and deceit of their political favourites, in many respects the Labour Party has moved so far to the right that there isn't that much difference in many policies, not least the most important, how to finance it. This is the same party in which there is apparently no room for Corbyn or Abbott but there is room for that swivel-eyed far right wing-nut Elphicke. There is also room for neoliberal f**kwits like Reeves and Streeting. Streeting in particular gives the impression that he'd flog his own Grandmother for another 1/2 inch up the greasy pole. He is also a man given to making false claims about the capacity of private hospitals to back up his policy ambition of privatising the NHS which is soooo very Tory. Sorry, but Reeves is just a f***ing clown. It will be great to see the back of the Tories and one hopes that the kicking they get is so severe it precipitates the complete destruction of their revolting party but the kind of change this increasingly dismal, third rate country is crying out for from Starmer's Labour Party? Don't hold your breath folks. As I've said to my fellow left-leaning mates that argue against this Labour party, Yorks, the only way you'll make change is to get these bastards out. For those that don't think the party is 'left' enough, I'd rather they be in office and have the left of the party trying influence the party while in government, than heckling from the sidelines in opposition. As for Corbyn, he had his chance, May was an open goal and he blazed it over the f***ing bar. Brexit is as much on his head than anyone else's, mate, and his failure helped put Boris Johnson in power. Sorry, mate, but the man is a useless c***. I didn't say that I was a fan of Corbyn. For the record I think he is what he has always been, a political non-entity whose political achievements amount to the thick end of f*** all despite a parliamentary career of 40 years however, in comparison to someone who criticised Marcus Rashford during his attempt to feed hungry children and whose voting record suggests she thinks that child hunger is a lifestyle choice, he's a saint. Take it from someone who has been a member of the Labour Party, the left cannot influence Starmer. This is a man who proposed a number of distinctly left wing policies during his campaign for election as leader and, once elected, reneged on every single one of them. The left of the party, including its membership are seen as something to be managed. Why to you think that malignant tw## Mandelson is once again acting behind the scenes? As I recall, Brexit was the policy of the Government of the day, and it was May, not Corbyn, who usurped a non-binding, advisory only vote and dishonestly presented the votes of 37% of the electorate as somehow the "will of the people". We'll have to agree to differ on this one mate. I for one will, for the first time since I've been old enough to vote at a General Election, not be voting for the Labour Party.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 23, 2024 23:16:43 GMT
When I say Brexit is on his head too, mate, I refer to his failure to topple May, which would then have given him the power and ability to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by woznorthyorksexile on May 24, 2024 9:54:24 GMT
When I say Brexit is on his head too, mate, I refer to his failure to topple May, which would then have given him the power and ability to stop it. To be fair Corbyn was personally in favour of Brexit but the party membership and most Labour voters were in favour of remain. The net result was that his support was lukewarm at best. Whether or not that had an effect on the voters of former Labour strongholds such as Hartlepool is a moot point but I think in the scheme of things Corbyn role in the fiasco falls a long way short of that of Cummings, Johnson, Farage, Cameron, Osbourne and the loonies of the ERG and such as the very odd Kate Hoey and their shady financiers. In terms of his failure to beat May well, there are those who have plausibly suggested that he was a very small number of votes away from victory. Votes that can be counted in the low thousands in a handful of key seats. What effect the, in some cases high profile and very public, opposition from the Parliamentary Labour Party had is debateable. Personally I think had the PLP (the party's own MP's) got behind him then given the small margins concerned, The Labour Party would have won the election.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 24, 2024 22:18:24 GMT
When I say Brexit is on his head too, mate, I refer to his failure to topple May, which would then have given him the power and ability to stop it. To be fair Corbyn was personally in favour of Brexit but the party membership and most Labour voters were in favour of remain. The net result was that his support was lukewarm at best. Whether or not that had an effect on the voters of former Labour strongholds such as Hartlepool is a moot point but I think in the scheme of things Corbyn role in the fiasco falls a long way short of that of Cummings, Johnson, Farage, Cameron, Osbourne and the loonies of the ERG and such as the very odd Kate Hoey and their shady financiers. In terms of his failure to beat May well, there are those who have plausibly suggested that he was a very small number of votes away from victory. Votes that can be counted in the low thousands in a handful of key seats. What effect the, in some cases high profile and very public, opposition from the Parliamentary Labour Party had is debateable. Personally I think had the PLP (the party's own MP's) got behind him then given the small margins concerned, The Labour Party would have won the election. I'm not going to argue with you, because your points are valid and you obviously know a hell of a lot more about the inner workings than i do. However, the bottom line is this, you either vote for the party with the best chance of getting the Tories out, or you vote for a party that is never going to get in government just to give Labour a fat lip - but don't be complaining on here if you and many others like you do the latter and the Tories get back in for another 5 years. You're an intelligent bloke, and I'm with you on a lot of what you say, but you're cutting your nose off to spite your face, and it's this mentality that's f***ing frustrating, because this is what the Tories are f***ing banking on. You're fighting the right battle at the wrong time, mate, and deep down you know you are. There's a bigger battle to be won right now. Question: you're trapped on a ship and getting whipped daily by those in charge, constantly under duress, struggling to survive with no hope of escape. Then, you see an open window and another boat in the distance ,but the water is choppy, you don't know what lurks beneath. Do you stay and keep getting whipped, or do you dive through that window into unfamiliar waters and swim for your f***ing life and see what's on the other boat? You can stay onboard this ship and get whipped again tomorrow if you want, mate, but I know what I'll be doing.
|
|
|
Post by woznorthyorksexile on May 25, 2024 12:16:01 GMT
To be fair Corbyn was personally in favour of Brexit but the party membership and most Labour voters were in favour of remain. The net result was that his support was lukewarm at best. Whether or not that had an effect on the voters of former Labour strongholds such as Hartlepool is a moot point but I think in the scheme of things Corbyn role in the fiasco falls a long way short of that of Cummings, Johnson, Farage, Cameron, Osbourne and the loonies of the ERG and such as the very odd Kate Hoey and their shady financiers. In terms of his failure to beat May well, there are those who have plausibly suggested that he was a very small number of votes away from victory. Votes that can be counted in the low thousands in a handful of key seats. What effect the, in some cases high profile and very public, opposition from the Parliamentary Labour Party had is debateable. Personally I think had the PLP (the party's own MP's) got behind him then given the small margins concerned, The Labour Party would have won the election. I'm not going to argue with you, because your points are valid and you obviously know a hell of a lot more about the inner workings than i do. However, the bottom line is this, you either vote for the party with the best chance of getting the Tories out, or you vote for a party that is never going to get in government just to give Labour a fat lip - but don't be complaining on here if you and many others like you do the latter and the Tories get back in for another 5 years. You're an intelligent bloke, and I'm with you on a lot of what you say, but you're cutting your nose off to spite your face, and it's this mentality that's f***ing frustrating, because this is what the Tories are f***ing banking on. You're fighting the right battle at the wrong time, mate, and deep down you know you are. There's a bigger battle to be won right now. Question: you're trapped on a ship and getting whipped daily by those in charge, constantly under duress, struggling to survive with no hope of escape. Then, you see an open window and another boat in the distance ,but the water is choppy, you don't know what lurks beneath. Do you stay and keep getting whipped, or do you dive through that window into unfamiliar waters and swim for your f***ing life and see what's on the other boat? You can stay onboard this ship and get whipped again tomorrow if you want, mate, but I know what I'll be doing. Whether I know more about it than you or not is immaterial mate. My interest stems from a deep interest in British history from the late 17th century on and so am well aware of the fight for universal suffrage and consequently very aware of the importance of voting. I've been a Labour supporter since my teens, ever since reading The Making of the English Working Class by E.P Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm's books, particularly those on Capitalism and Socialism so I can assure you that the decision to vote elsewhere has not been taken lightly. I haven't abandoned the Labour Party, the Labour Party under the leadership of an individual without a single political conviction and who, as a consequence has no political principles (witness the number of shameless u-turns) has abandoned me so no, deep down I don't know anything of the sort but I do know for sure is that I will be voting for the party who most closely represents my views.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 25, 2024 13:20:57 GMT
I'm not going to argue with you, because your points are valid and you obviously know a hell of a lot more about the inner workings than i do. However, the bottom line is this, you either vote for the party with the best chance of getting the Tories out, or you vote for a party that is never going to get in government just to give Labour a fat lip - but don't be complaining on here if you and many others like you do the latter and the Tories get back in for another 5 years. You're an intelligent bloke, and I'm with you on a lot of what you say, but you're cutting your nose off to spite your face, and it's this mentality that's f***ing frustrating, because this is what the Tories are f***ing banking on. You're fighting the right battle at the wrong time, mate, and deep down you know you are. There's a bigger battle to be won right now. Question: you're trapped on a ship and getting whipped daily by those in charge, constantly under duress, struggling to survive with no hope of escape. Then, you see an open window and another boat in the distance ,but the water is choppy, you don't know what lurks beneath. Do you stay and keep getting whipped, or do you dive through that window into unfamiliar waters and swim for your f***ing life and see what's on the other boat? You can stay onboard this ship and get whipped again tomorrow if you want, mate, but I know what I'll be doing. Whether I know more about it than you or not is immaterial mate. My interest stems from a deep interest in British history from the late 17th century on and so am well aware of the fight for universal suffrage and consequently very aware of the importance of voting. I've been a Labour supporter since my teens, ever since reading The Making of the English Working Class by E.P Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm's books, particularly those on Capitalism and Socialism so I can assure you that the decision to vote elsewhere has not been taken lightly. I haven't abandoned the Labour Party, the Labour Party under the leadership of an individual without a single political conviction and who, as a consequence has no political principles (witness the number of shameless u-turns) has abandoned me so no, deep down I don't know anything of the sort but I do know for sure is that I will be voting for the party who most closely represents my views. Absolutely your democratic right, mate, but if that kind of thinking takes votes away from the party with the best chance of removing the Tories and gives the b******s another 5 years, then you will have no right to complain. I'm done trying to reason with you, but don't moan about it if these tw##s are still in charge on July 5th. I find it pretty ironic that you're putting your own interests before the good of the majority that are struggling to live. I'm no political mastermind, but I wouldn't call that very socialist, mate.
|
|
|
Post by woznorthyorksexile on May 25, 2024 13:58:08 GMT
Whether I know more about it than you or not is immaterial mate. My interest stems from a deep interest in British history from the late 17th century on and so am well aware of the fight for universal suffrage and consequently very aware of the importance of voting. I've been a Labour supporter since my teens, ever since reading The Making of the English Working Class by E.P Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm's books, particularly those on Capitalism and Socialism so I can assure you that the decision to vote elsewhere has not been taken lightly. I haven't abandoned the Labour Party, the Labour Party under the leadership of an individual without a single political conviction and who, as a consequence has no political principles (witness the number of shameless u-turns) has abandoned me so no, deep down I don't know anything of the sort but I do know for sure is that I will be voting for the party who most closely represents my views. Absolutely your democratic right, mate, but if that kind of thinking takes votes away from the party with the best chance of removing the Tories and gives the b******s another 5 years, then you will have no right to complain. I'm done trying to reason with you, but don't moan about it if these tw##s are still in charge on July 5th. I find it pretty ironic that you're putting your own interests before the good of the majority that are struggling to live. I'm no political mastermind, but I wouldn't call that very socialist, mate. Reeves has already stated that she intends to pursue the Tories so called "fiscal rules" and it is her hope that by maintaining those rules she will be remembered as the "Iron Chancellor". Her words not mine. Those "fiscal rules" are an entirely arbitrary figure but apparently they are designed to bring down the national debt. We hear a lot about the national debt, particularly from the right wing press who like to mislead their readership into believing that it must be repaid. Why? The Bank of England was founded in 1696 to assist the Govt of the day raise money, in part to finance its foreign policy aims in Europe. It did it by raising loans. The manner in which national debt is raised may have changed somewhat but the principle remains. It is how govt finances its activities. In the intervening 330 or so years, the national debt has never been repaid, not once. The Tories "Fiscal Rules" have been set as a means of reducing the size of the state, that was Osbornes aim because the right-wing zealots of the Tory Party see all government as bad by definition so how, if it isn't a stupid question does Reeves intend to finance the kind of activities required to put right the ills inflicted on this country particularly since 2010 if she isn't prepared to borrow the money to finance it? She is either lying or she is full of sh*t. Since she has already attempted to dampen enthusiasm for the re-nationalisation of public transport by reiterating her commitment to the Tories fiscal rules. I'll tell you what I think isn't socialist. For example, encouraging private business, driven solely by profit from running key public services, including the NHS. Streeting has already stated that private health companies have the capacity to resolve NHS backlogs. It took less than 48 hours to expose that for the lie it is. I could go on but frankly, it would be tedious. Unless and until the political classes in general and the Labour Party in particular are prepared the nail the lie that underpins all of this, the Thatcherite lie that the country's finances are like your household finances and if not reined in will cause the country to be bankrupt, nothing will change. The country will never become bankrupt, it is impossible, it can never run out of money, also impossible but hey! If you believe Starmer is the man to stop this country's long term decline, it's your democratic right to vote for his party. I don't and won't.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 25, 2024 14:27:14 GMT
Absolutely your democratic right, mate, but if that kind of thinking takes votes away from the party with the best chance of removing the Tories and gives the b******s another 5 years, then you will have no right to complain. I'm done trying to reason with you, but don't moan about it if these tw##s are still in charge on July 5th. I find it pretty ironic that you're putting your own interests before the good of the majority that are struggling to live. I'm no political mastermind, but I wouldn't call that very socialist, mate. Reeves has already stated that she intends to pursue the Tories so called "fiscal rules" and it is her hope that by maintaining those rules she will be remembered as the "Iron Chancellor". Her words not mine. Those "fiscal rules" are an entirely arbitrary figure but apparently they are designed to bring down the national debt. We hear a lot about the national debt, particularly from the right wing press who like to mislead their readership into believing that it must be repaid. Why? The Bank of England was founded in 1696 to assist the Govt of the day raise money, in part to finance its foreign policy aims in Europe. It did it by raising loans. The manner in which national debt is raised may have changed somewhat but the principle remains. It is how govt finances its activities. In the intervening 330 or so years, the national debt has never been repaid, not once. The Tories "Fiscal Rules" have been set as a means of reducing the size of the state, that was Osbornes aim because the right-wing zealots of the Tory Party see all government as bad by definition so how, if it isn't a stupid question does Reeves intend to finance the kind of activities required to put right the ills inflicted on this country particularly since 2010 if she isn't prepared to borrow the money to finance it? She is either lying or she is full of sh*t. Since she has already attempted to dampen enthusiasm for the re-nationalisation of public transport by reiterating her commitment to the Tories fiscal rules. I'll tell you what I think isn't socialist. For example, encouraging private business, driven solely by profit from running key public services, including the NHS. Streeting has already stated that private health companies have the capacity to resolve NHS backlogs. It took less than 48 hours to expose that for the lie it is. I could go on but frankly, it would be tedious. Unless and until the political classes in general and the Labour Party in particular are prepared the nail the lie that underpins all of this, the Thatcherite lie that the country's finances are like your household finances and if not reined in will cause the country to be bankrupt, nothing will change. The country will never become bankrupt, it is impossible, it can never run out of money, also impossible but hey! If you believe Starmer is the man to stop this country's long term decline, it's your democratic right to vote for his party. I don't and won't. Ok, let's not give the man a chance and leave the corrupt, disgusting Tories in power then, problem solved. I think we need to just agree that we disagree, mate. I'm moving on from this now, it's the first Bank Holiday I've had off in years thanks to my arsehole employers, and I'm not spoiling it by constantly coming back to this thread and risking falling out with a guy I genuinely respect. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, mate.
|
|
|
Post by bringbacklenwhite on May 26, 2024 16:32:58 GMT
Well done guys.
An excellent debate and one I don't think this election will solve.
|
|
|
Post by bringbacklenwhite on Jun 12, 2024 14:12:02 GMT
Rishi opens his mouth.......... only so he can change feet (in wellingtons)
"Pushed on what he’d gone without as a child, Mr Sunak said: "Oh, we went without lots of things because my parents wanted to put everything into our education and that was a priority." But when asked what sort of things had to be sacrificed, he could only say "lots of things" before laughing. When pressed again by ITV interviewer Paul Brand, the PM awkwardly said: “All sorts of things like lots of people. There'll be all sorts of things that I would've wanted as a kid that I couldn't have.” He added: “ Famously, Sky TV, so that was something that we never had growing up, actually.”
That's what happens when your parents piss £48K a year to send you to Winchester Boarding School. I wonder how his folks back home coped with living in their cardboard box and ate tarmac for tea and drank from a muddy puddle.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Jun 12, 2024 16:04:39 GMT
That's what happens when your parents piss £48K a year to send you to Winchester Boarding School. I wonder how his folks back home coped with living in their cardboard box and ate tarmac for tea and drank from a muddy puddle.
|
|
|
Post by woznorthyorksexile on Jun 12, 2024 17:00:13 GMT
Rishi opens his mouth.......... only so he can change feet (in wellingtons) "Pushed on what he’d gone without as a child, Mr Sunak said: "Oh, we went without lots of things because my parents wanted to put everything into our education and that was a priority." But when asked what sort of things had to be sacrificed, he could only say "lots of things" before laughing. When pressed again by ITV interviewer Paul Brand, the PM awkwardly said: “All sorts of things like lots of people. There'll be all sorts of things that I would've wanted as a kid that I couldn't have.” He added: “ Famously, Sky TV, so that was something that we never had growing up, actually.” That's what happens when your parents piss £48K a year to send you to Winchester Boarding School. I wonder how his folks back home coped with living in their cardboard box and ate tarmac for tea and drank from a muddy puddle. How does one satirise the clown? This from a man who's Government's policies mean that millions of children are experiencing poverty and routinely do without breakfast. A man who famously crowed to his audience comprising residents of "impoverished" Tunbridge Wells that, as Chancellor, he had amended the funding formula to shift money from some of the poorest parts of the country to some of the richest.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Jun 12, 2024 17:08:01 GMT
Rishi opens his mouth.......... only so he can change feet (in wellingtons) "Pushed on what he’d gone without as a child, Mr Sunak said: "Oh, we went without lots of things because my parents wanted to put everything into our education and that was a priority." But when asked what sort of things had to be sacrificed, he could only say "lots of things" before laughing. When pressed again by ITV interviewer Paul Brand, the PM awkwardly said: “All sorts of things like lots of people. There'll be all sorts of things that I would've wanted as a kid that I couldn't have.” He added: “ Famously, Sky TV, so that was something that we never had growing up, actually.” That's what happens when your parents piss £48K a year to send you to Winchester Boarding School. I wonder how his folks back home coped with living in their cardboard box and ate tarmac for tea and drank from a muddy puddle. How does one satirise the clown? This from a man who's Government's policies mean that millions of children are experiencing poverty and routinely do without breakfast. A man who famously crowed to his audience comprising residents of "impoverished" Tunbridge Wells that, as Chancellor, he had amended the funding formula to shift money from some of the poorest parts of the country to some of the richest. Scumdog Millionaire.
|
|