Boris and his fines part 4

[Roussette]

Previous thread. More to come on the subject matter

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4536641-boris-has-been-fined-part-3?reply=117100091

The point you seem so determined to miss is that Boris has consistently behaved in such a way as to indicate that he thinks it is no issue, you say it is an important issue to you, so would it be logical to conclude that you wouldn't vote for a party led by Boris?

The PM took bungs from Tory donors to redecorate (£50 k plus), free holidays to Mystique, £27 k of food, tried to block Paterson from being put before parliamentary standards despite the fact that he had been lobbying for clients, illegally prorogued Parliament, lied about an oven ready Brexit deal (which apparently nobody read and they didn't need to debate), allowed (indeed fast tracked) government contract worth millions to friends:families of Ministers, introduced punitive emergency legislation and then totally ignored it, covered up breaches and lied to Parliament.

And to distract from this they'll flog any crappy short term headline grabbing policy they can (bridges, Rwanda, Channel 4, trade wars).

I don't understand why Conservative voters don't care about that.

Meanwhile women are at the sharp end of the cost of living issues - 7.5 million living in relative poverty. Almost a quarter of all women. They are disproportionately represented in the overall figures. But you know let's focus on telling them to find extra hours and a better job.

'I hope we can move this thread back now to Boris' lies'

In the absence of further fpns it's a bit tumbleweedy though isn't it.

Still waiting for Cumming's 'waaayyy better pics that those' which so far have not appeared. Perhaps in the wake of our triumphant Eurovision success the whole partygate thing is fizzling out and not many (barring a handful on here) actually care anymore?

I’m with all the others on FWR that see that Labour’s direction as problematic for women’s rights. Quite a few who articulate it very well.

Since it’s my line in the sand they won’t get my vote unless it’s changed. And even then it has to be a very clear change of direction not a fudge.

I don’t expect others to feel the same but I did have an issue with that statement I put in bold.

It’s really the statement that stood out to me, that I commented on. As I said others feel differently and may still care about women’s rights which is fine.

Not sure what the connection is between Eurovision and Partygate is.

I'm expecting FPNs to suddenly come though over the next recess - helps when they don't have to sit behind Johnson & pretend law breaking doesn't matter.

Feel free to get it back to lies

but if you quote me etc I’ll respond as is typical for a forum

Fine , leave us to it then janie.

At Rishi's birthday cabinet meeting , it's reported they were al laughing an giggling and cheering for cake. They seem not to have forgotten. It's funny to them.

Meanwhile women are at the sharp end of the cost of living issues - 7.5 million living in relative poverty. Almost a quarter of all women. They are disproportionately represented in the overall figures. But you know let's focus on telling them to find extra hours and a better job.

This sort of thing is 'my important issue'. Millions of children, as a result,also live bellow the poverty line.

I got the impression that people thought the question they were answering was whether or not the supported Nick Clegg in getting into bed with the tories. The purpose of the referendum was completely lost in the fog of Clegg's unpopularity.

@JaniieJones lets run with your supposition that not many people care about Boris' illegal parties anymore.

Has that changed since the local elections, or was that the case then as well?

And your point is?

And your point is?

I think @derxa point is that at least the Labour party have viable alternatives if for any reason Sir Keir was to stand down, whereas the Tory party can't have an election to replace a leader who lies, has broken the law and led them to a rout in the local elections because there are no vaguely suitable alternatives.

Perhaps. I tend not to share your generosity.

I wonder if I'm to blame for derailling the thread with my inclusion of "Look! A man in a dress!" as one of the things I put down as an example of dogwhistle politics. (If you want to see men in dresses go to any village pantomime or for some reason obstacle course race or similar event involving charity groups)

I do wonder though - what exactly is the policy proposal by Labour that damages women's rights? I've not seen any concrete policy direction on this from either of the parties.

As for "Woke" - it seems to mean "Whatever the writer in one of our more right wing press outlets doesn't like today". The reports are mad because when you dig into them you find that there's a load of fuss about nothing. A historian may note that Enid Blighton's first book was rejected for being racist even by contemporary standards. This is a historian doing their job, but read some papers and you'd expect men in jackboots to be coming round to burn your children's Famous Five books. So many of the articles are "Some random person on Twitter said" or such.

Back to the topic above, "Care providers can use terms relevant to their patients to refer to them" becomes "THE WORD MOTHER HAS BEEN BANNED - CANCELLED - WOKE BLAH" but in reality no such thing has happened.

Does anyone else hate the new nested quote thing? It makes it really hard to tell who has said what.

I know how keen everyone is to get back to lies so I’ll just say the FWR board is good on this - and how women’s rights is different to look a man in a dress

Do you not think you’d have seen most of us on the FWR threads if this was a priority for us @MarshaBradyo? My priority is getting rid of the most corrupt and mendacious government of my lifetime. When we’ve stopped being a banana republic I’ll worry about whether there’s a trans woman in the next cubicle.

As is your right. I thought I was quoting another poster though not commenting on how you vote. I wasn’t even suggesting you go on FWR.

The pp was about men in dresses so as not to derail I suggested FWR was a good place to go to understand more why it’s not just that.

I wasn’t even suggesting you go on FWR.

Then why even mention it? This thread’s about our current government under whose auspices women’s rights have been decimated. In the words of the birth of the women’s movement “Deeds not words”.

Did you read the post I quoted?

it’s about men in dresses - it was on that topic so instead of saying why I think it’s incorrect I said FWR is better place to find out general thoughts on that topic

You don’t have to respond to it, just scroll past if you feel it’s irrelevant to you.

www.nytimes.com/2022/05/12/world/europe/russian-money-uk-tories.html?smid=url-share

Conservatives banking illegal campaign money. It won't result in any action - it's left to the electoral commission to handle and they've been brought within Government control.
Leaving the Conservatives to repeat this in the next election.,,

(I'm aware this story was touched on in newspapers at the end of last week - but this is a more detailed account than the reports I looked at.)

Re: The Electoral Comission

After 2016 the Electoral Commission warned the government that online targeted advertising was a serious issue. The government did nothing to address this, effectively rendering the Electoral Commission powerless to act against online political advertising in any form.

The Tories spent millions on online advertising in 2019. The old world of an enforced level playing field was gone. We saw targeted advertising and astorturfing like never before.

2016 saw the challenges that targeted advertising presents, but these are techniques which Johnson owes for this power. The Leave campaign spent massively in the weeks before the referendum spreading lies. These lies were targeted based on data that had been collected in the preceding months by people foolishly granting the data collectors access to their account information.

The biggest problem though, and biggest change, is that normally if a politician puts out a political message it is in the open and the opposition have a chance to put out a counter argument. The Remain campaign were completely unaware of the existence of these targeted messages until too late to counter them.

The Tories have allowed the campaigning landscape to completely change, but the change is in their favour - in the favour of those with the most money to spend on it. So I don't expect things to be fixed now that the government control the Electoral Commission. Welcome to American style political lobbying and the power of Campaign Donations.

Again no edit on this thing - or even Delete and Repost.

Clarifications:

"people foolishly granting the data collectors access to their account information." - because "Taking part in a quiz" it's not clear that is what you are doing. You're just clicking through to play the game or take part or enter the site, and all the techie details of OAuth Scopes pass by.

"The Remain campaign were completely unaware of the existence of these targeted messages until too late to counter them." - because only those who were targeted saw the messages.

The fact of the matter is you can post as many of these woke links attacking the Prime Minister, but he has got the big decisions right. Just look at the pandemic, the vaccine role out. World leading. And now the war in Ukraine where Boris has done more than anyone else. It wasn't Boris drinking beer from a bottle in Durham was it? And above all else Boris knows what a woman is and so he will continue to have my support no matter what he does, because Jeremy Corbyn.