Mrs May - whither (or wither) the Tory Party

Sadly my concerns have been confirmed.

This platitudinous waffle landed on my doormat this morning:

DSC_1986 (3).jpg

DSC_1987 (2).jpg


Trudy Harrison is supposed to represent her constituents & with Copeland voting by a huge majority for Leave, she is plainly failing to do just that.
Talk about stupid: She was the first Conservative MP elected for Copeland since 1929 & a few months later, survived May's disastrous, snap GE & she treats the electorate with contempt.
I shall write back & point out these things & also that I will be doing all I can to ensure this term as MP for Copeland is her last.
She's a Party hack & as such, needs hoofing at the first opportunity.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Just goes to show what an influence the DUP is having on mainstream politics.
The DUP we don’t like Catholics.
Labour not keen on Jews.
Conservatives rude about Muslims.
 
Sadly my concerns have been confirmed.

This platitudinous waffle landed on my doormat this morning:

View attachment 345425
View attachment 345426

Trudy Harrison is supposed to represent her constituents & with Copeland voting by a huge majority for Leave, she is plainly failing to do just that.
Talk about stupid: She was the first Conservative MP elected for Copeland since 1929 & a few months later, survived May's disastrous, snap GE & she treats the electorate with contempt.
I shall write back & point out these things & also that I will be doing all I can to ensure this term as MP for Copeland is her last.
She's a Party hack & as such, needs hoofing at the first opportunity.
And that is almost word for word what I got back from Richard Benyon here in Berkshire. I guess they have a template provided by head orifice touting the party line
 
And that is almost word for word what I got back from Richard Benyon here in Berkshire. I guess they have a template provided by head orifice touting the party line
Ha!

Thanks for that; I'll therefore also include my dislike of being fobbed off with Central Office boilerplate bullshit in my reply.
And point out that this is the third time I've been sent the same reply as others have received from their MP on various matters.
It's just f*cking lazy & contemptuous.
 
As for BoJo maybe he should have added a topical comment about air pollution in London which is seeing more and more people in the city walking around wearing face masks to cover their mouths and noses. All you can see is their eyes. ...Asian eyes.... just their eyes... slitty eyes...Japanese in particular. ... ...or are they Chinese? I dunno... with their faces all covered up they all look the same to me. Maybe I should ask Jeremy Hunt....



The luvvies in the BBC may be baying for his blood, and the Guardian readers and sandal wearers and the 'faux shocked' may be demanding action, but from a purely personal view I have to say I don't want to see the burka in the streets of where I live in Berkshire.

It has already become a common item of dress in many areas of this country. In fact in some areas it doesn't even warrant a second glance. Birmingham, Bradford, virtually every London Borough, but last week I saw the first full black burka wearer in my little Berkshire town. So out of place and so unwelcome.

What does that say about me? I already know I'm religiously intolerant as I close the door on the Jehovah's Witnesses when they come a'knockin'. There's just something sinister about the burka that I don't want in my country. In my neighbourhood even.

Would I feel the same about a family of Amish moving in next door, with their odd dress sense and their quaint modes of transport? Maybe, but at least you can ask the Amish neighbour to help you knock together a garden shed and know they'll be round in a flash with hammers, saws and a whole bunch of willing hands.
 
Last edited:
Sadly my concerns have been confirmed.

This platitudinous waffle landed on my doormat this morning:

View attachment 345425
View attachment 345426

Trudy Harrison is supposed to represent her constituents & with Copeland voting by a huge majority for Leave, she is plainly failing to do just that.
Talk about stupid: She was the first Conservative MP elected for Copeland since 1929 & a few months later, survived May's disastrous, snap GE & she treats the electorate with contempt.
I shall write back & point out these things & also that I will be doing all I can to ensure this term as MP for Copeland is her last.
She's a Party hack & as such, needs hoofing at the first opportunity.
Point of order: what you're describing in bold is not actually what the 'representative' in 'representative democracy' means. What you're describing is actually known as a 'delegate'.

In our - largely unwritten- constitution a 'representative' is someone who is chosen by a constituency to use their own judgement in Parliament. Whereas a 'delegate' is someone who is told 'vote this way'. The old trade union 'block vote' was made via delegates.

The issue of how an MP nominated by a political party should vote has been a knotty constitutional problem since the emergence of political parties in the 18c. Does an MP vote for the best interest of his(her) supporters in their constituency, for the constituency as a whole, for the best interest of the party or for the country? In Georgian Britain these were seen to be the same thing (hence a property qualification for voting) but today that's obviously not the case. Yet it's still not resolved.

Incidentally the adoption of 'representative democracy' is one of the reasons this country has had so few referenda.
 
I see Ruth Davidson has clambered aboard.

Burkas are like wearing a crucifix and should be defended, says Ruth Davidson, as Boris row escalates

She seems to be suggesting that the wearing of a crucifix is the same as wearing a burqa and the right to do either should be defended. Oh, do sit down and have a little think, Ruth.

I don't think that the open display of a crucifix is a particularly inspired choice. For some it is an ostentatious display of a religious belief that is probably better kept to oneself. For most wearers it is merely a meaningless fashion accessory signifying very little at all. However, it could never be described as an all-covering symbol of male oppression or else a belligerent symbol signifying the wearer's withdrawal from and rejection of the rest of society.

Ruth, surely you can be more creative than that.
 
"Having spoken to my very experienced Hate Crime Advisor and not having received any complaints I do not feel that his, Mr Johnson's comments reach the bar of being a hate crime. He has not committed a criminal offence."

1200hrs. BBC Radio 4 News or perhaps not news.
 
"Having spoken to my very experienced Hate Crime Advisor and not having received any complaints I do not feel that his, Mr Johnson's comments reach the bar of being a hate crime. He has not committed a criminal offence."

1200hrs. BBC Radio 4 News or perhaps not news.
I think only an extremely small % of the population thought it was or, more accurately, pursued it for reasons other than racial equality.
 
Paul Goodman in Con Home today has an interesting article over BJ and the apology that is not forthcoming! By not saying sorry he is effectively poking two fingers at TM, the Tory grandees and the remainers and they are caught over a barrel as he is not going to go away. Rather think the peasants revolt -Tory Grassroots have found their man and will march on the No 10 barricades.

The new Code of Conduct reveals yet another dimension of the net in which Brandon Lewis and Theresa May have entangled themselves in the Johnson case. Spooked by a weird combination of Islamist campaigning, Remainer point-scoring, real and justified Muslim fearfulness, virtue signalling, ignorance of the divisions within modern Islam, by double standards, the desire to score off Labour over anti-semitism, and the apparent incapacity to distinguish between the hijab and the burka, they are now damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
 
The way I see it, If he'd said Any other item of clothing at all looked ridiculous, then he'd have been fine. Ergo there's some fouled up equality here.

Which is likely why he said it.
 
Iain Martin from the Times.
Boris Johnson has to be seen off now if Theresa May is to survive
The burka row has given Tory high command the excuse it needs to quash the ambitions of the blond pretender
 
I see Ruth Davidson has clambered aboard.

Burkas are like wearing a crucifix and should be defended, says Ruth Davidson, as Boris row escalates

She seems to be suggesting that the wearing of a crucifix is the same as wearing a burqa and the right to do either should be defended. Oh, do sit down and have a little think, Ruth.

I don't think that the open display of a crucifix is a particularly inspired choice. For some it is an ostentatious display of a religious belief that is probably better kept to oneself. For most wearers it is merely a meaningless fashion accessory signifying very little at all. However, it could never be described as an all-covering symbol of male oppression or else a belligerent symbol signifying the wearer's withdrawal from and rejection of the rest of society.

Ruth, surely you can be more creative than that.
Maybe she should think about the fact that one is a representation of the foundation of the Christian Faith (forget about all the sky pixie stuff), the other one is a symbol of mysoginistic subjugation, used by the desert tribes, centuries before Mohammed and the Koran.

Strange that, the crucifix is only offensive to people that insist on subjugating women and modelling them on Daleks ?
 

Latest Threads

Top