Tories 2022

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Secret ?

Fiddled his expenses
Kids sent to private school
Moved out of his council house upbringing
Wouldn't give that orphan a lift on Christmas day
Works two days a week

My god.

He’d make the Moggster retch.

I wonder what mental gymnastics Jen will go thru to justify voting for that vacuous b**** at the next GE?

Originally Posted by Fat Al

I wonder what mental gymnastics Jen will go thru to justify voting for that vacuous b**** at the next GE?

maybe stop wondering and start reading?

Originally Posted by Fat Al

I wonder what mental gymnastics Jen will go thru to justify voting for that vacuous b**** at the next GE?

Let's try and give him the chance shall we?

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/619781

Originally Posted by jem

maybe stop wondering and start reading?

What's the point, we all know what you say bears no relation to what you do.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Let's try and give him the chance shall we?

Originally Posted by red red robbo

What's the point, we all know what you say bears no relation to what you do.

um....


in any case, you have no idea what I do, except what I tell you, so.... you know nothing.

Originally Posted by jem

um....


in any case, you have no idea what I do, except what I tell you, so.... you know nothing.

That's true of course, although I don't see why anyone would claim to have voted the way you claim if it wasn't true, unless you enjoy the abuse of course

Will be amazed if this lot get more than a 20% share of the vote next time out, which is no more than the tories should ever get, even with their total media backing.

Remember a right wing political professor talking about the more liberal a society becomes, the more radical the working class becomes (they call it empowered today) So hopefully, it will be onwards and upwards

Originally Posted by tatty

Amongst pages of bluster and rage let us pause for a moment to absorb an amazing progressive truth.

The Conservatives have now had 3 female Prime Ministers.

Labour have yet to elect a permanent female leader.

Ok - the Tories revel in Thatcher. So we have a wanabee, who stands in tanks & stands in Red Square, trying to perpetuate a former Tory leader. Get your own material FFS

So, why is it an issue that Labour have not elected a permanent female leader? Didn't have you down as a feminist

Originally Posted by big chief

Ok - the Tories revel in Thatcher. So we have a wanabee, who stands in tanks & stands in Red Square, trying to perpetuate a former Tory leader. Get your own material FFS

So, why is it an issue that Labour have not elected a permanent female leader? Didn't have you down as a feminist

I prefer to support a progressive party that elected their first female leader almost 50 years ago and have had 3 female Prime Ministers since.

If others prefer to support a party still stuck in the sexist dark ages that is up to them.

Originally Posted by tatty

I prefer to support a progressive party that elected their first female leader almost 50 years ago and have had 3 female Prime Ministers since.

If others prefer to support a party still stuck in the sexist dark ages that is up to them.

I prefer to lend my support to the party that is going to do the best (or at least the least worst) for the majority of the population personally.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

I prefer to lend my support to the party that is going to do the best (or at least the least worst) for the majority of the population personally.

None of us would vote for that party even if it existed.

Originally Posted by big chief

Ok - the Tories revel in Thatcher. So we have a wanabee, who stands in tanks & stands in Red Square, trying to perpetuate a former Tory leader. Get your own material FFS

So, why is it an issue that Labour have not elected a permanent female leader? Didn't have you down as a feminist

also probs a female deputy pm, female (yet again) and non-white (again) home secretary, non-white chancellor (again) and non-white foreign secretary.

personally, I think diversity is overrated compared to competence. priti patel was awful, whichever way you look at it. but still....

Originally Posted by jem

also probs a female deputy pm, female (yet again) and non-white (again) home secretary, non-white chancellor (again) and non-white foreign secretary.

personally, I think diversity is overrated compared to competence. priti patel was awful, whichever way you look at it. but still....

That depends. When you're talking about a team, which the government are supposed to be, then diversity can bring something to the table that individual competencies can't. When making decisions that effect a large group of people, in order to make the best decisions it is better to have representatives from as wide a selection of that groups as possible.

Of course, they aren't making decisions to benefit a large group of people, so they only need rich people, but you still want as many different rich people as possible.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

That depends. When you're talking about a team, which the government are supposed to be, then diversity can bring something to the table that individual competencies can't. When making decisions that effect a large group of people, in order to make the best decisions it is better to have representatives from as wide a selection of that groups as possible.

mmmk.

Originally Posted by jem

mmmk.

Been proved, scientifically.


OK, maybe not scientifically as such , but there have been studies. It's the same as a football team, we all know that just buying the best player in each position doesn't guarantee success, it's all about the blend and the way the players compliment each other.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

That depends. When you're talking about a team, which the government are supposed to be, then diversity can bring something to the table that individual competencies can't. When making decisions that effect a large group of people, in order to make the best decisions it is better to have representatives from as wide a selection of that groups as possible.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Been proved, scientifically.


OK, maybe not scientifically as such , but there have been studies. It's the same as a football team, we all know that just buying the best player in each position doesn't guarantee success, it's all about the blend and the way the players compliment each other.

Can you link to them? Because everything I can currently think of that had prioritised diversity in recent years has not been what I’d call “successful”.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Been proved, scientifically.

OK, maybe not scientifically as such , but there have been studies. It's the same as a football team, we all know that just buying the best player in each position doesn't guarantee success, it's all about the blend and the way the players compliment each other.

I'm not disputing the principle. I just wondered why you think it needed saying in response to my comment. it's obvious that there is value in diversity, generally. however, the value is overrated, compared to competence. if everyone is competent, diversity can be a bonus. putting someone in a position primarily to increase diversity, even if that person is not competent, doesn't necessarily help the team.

so... yeah... it depends.

Originally Posted by NedKelly

Can you link to them? Because everything I can currently think of that had prioritised diversity in recent years has not been what I’d call “successful”.

Not really, heard it talked about on podcasts and maybe TV programmes. There were several examples of decisions that had been taken that completely cut out parts of the population because there was no one that thought like them in the decision making process.

It's a little bit like the problem AI facial recognition has with identifying non-white faces, because it was trained only to recognise white people. If your source data is not representative then the decision you make will be biased. In the case of a policy making group, their own experiences and prejudices make up part of the source data. It's common sense really.

Originally Posted by jem

I'm not disputing the principle. I just wondered why you think it needed saying in response to my comment. it's obvious that there is value in diversity, generally. however, the value is overrated, compared to competence. if everyone is competent, diversity can be a bonus. putting someone in a position primarily to increase diversity, even if that person is not competent, doesn't necessarily help the team.

so... yeah... it depends.

Hence my opening two words

My point being, you could accept some people of lower competency in order to increase the diversity and it would boost the performance of the group as a whole. It's all about getting the balance right of course. The only thing Priti Patel was brining to any party is the view point of a poisonous, bitter and twisted sociopath, something the tory party is not short of.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Hence my opening two words

well, yeah. hence referencing them. you could just have said "I agree: priti patel is horrid. still would, mind.*"


* you speaking, obvs. I've got standards.

Originally Posted by jem

well, yeah. hence referencing them. you could just have said "I agree: priti patel is horrid. still would, mind.*"


* you speaking, obvs. I've got standards.

So there was really no need for your reply at all then

Nah, this is one of those rare occasions where I really wouldn't