Does it matter that we have a lying, dishonest Prime Minister?

you'll have to wait until tomorrow to find out. Only Laura kuenssberg knows which way it will go. Or she thinks she does - but as usual, doesn't.
 
Sponsored Links
Just changing your answers = correcting yourself.
I didnt change my answers.

You claimed they were incorrect, but you're playing semantics.

I notice that rather than condemn Johnson for his dishonesty, you claim the talk of lies is driven by a Labour smear.
 
Seems bojo also gave a load of public money to a pole dancer...

Link

One wonders what he got in return in that top-floor flat...

Today he's off to New York.

With his latest floozie.


https://www.ft.com/content/bf704a2e-dd3e-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

"The prime minister will be joined on the trip by the environmental campaigner Carrie Symonds, his partner. Tory officials said Ms Symonds was travelling to New York “on work business” as an adviser to Oceana, a green pressure group"

I wonder if she's paying for her own ticket?

"work business?"
surprisingly similar to what the other one said
"Ms Acuri was quoted by the Sunday Times as saying: "Any grants received by my companies and any trade mission I joined were purely in respect of my role as a legitimate businesswoman.""
 
Sponsored Links
I didnt change my answers.


You claimed they were incorrect, but you're playing semantics.

originally said...
the case hinges on whether the courts have jurisdiction over politics, not whether he has been dishonest.

then said...
They raise two legal questions. First, whether the prorogation advice is reviewable at all by the courts – that is, whether it is justiciable. Second, if it is justiciable, whether the government can show that it was exercised for a proper and not an improper purpose. Those questions have so far received different answers. That they have done so is not surprising given the novelty of the issue. Miller (No.2) and McCord have so far lost on the first question; on appeal Cherry has succeeded on both points

= not the same

doing something for an improper purpose is... er.. dishonest?
 
= not the same

doing something for an improper purpose is... er.. dishonest

As I understand it, if the court decides the case is not justiciable, then they cant rule on the rest.
So it does hinge on it being justiciable, not whether he has been dishonest.


I hope you arent trying to frame the argument so that if the court rules it is not justiciable then he is innocent.

We all know that is not true
 
Its interesting to note Boris Johnson isnt in the country on the day of the supreme court ruling.

Didnt he do that with the heathrow vote.......
 
Its interesting to note Boris Johnson isnt in the country on the day of the supreme court ruling.

Didnt he do that with the heathrow vote.......

He's in the US offering them a bonfire of regulations and zero taxes through free ports.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...major-reforms-to-tax-and-industry-post-brexit

Financial services and biotech among sectors the PM wants to move away from EU standards

Just what the free wheeling Financial Services needed is even less regulation lol.
 
He's in the US offering them a bonfire of regulations and zero taxes through free ports.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...major-reforms-to-tax-and-industry-post-brexit

Financial services and biotech among sectors the PM wants to move away from EU standards

Just what the free wheeling Financial Services needed is even less regulation lol.

I used to think JohnD on here was was overdoing it with his posts implying that the Tories want to leave the EU before the tax avoidence directive comes in.
Now I am not sure.

It rather seems the Tory PM and cabinet are focusing on a policy entirely driven by self interest, for themselves and their mates.
 
I used to think JohnD on here was was overdoing it with his posts implying that the Tories want to leave the EU before the tax avoidence directive comes in.
Now I am not sure.

It rather seems the Tory PM and cabinet are focusing on a policy entirely driven by self interest, for themselves and their mates.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/24/eu-identifies-free-ports-as-money-laundering-threat

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...rket-book-defines-boris-johnson-s-new-cabinet

Britannia Unchained: the free-market book that defines Boris Johnson’s new cabinet
The libertarian tract’s policies and co-authors - Dominic Raab, Priti Patel, Liz Truss - are at the heart of the new government.


I have had a read it's just another wild eyed libertarian playbook from the Ayn Rand Acolytes.

I still don't understand why people who are not rich (not middleclass) still vote Tory in such numbers.
 
From the book

"The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor. Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music".

So we are going to be set up to compete with China so worker rights, worker pay, regulations etc will be torched. A third world country beckons.

THE BEST PART IS THEY WANT MORE IMMIGRATION.
 
Britannia Unchained:

There is a well publicised quote from the book:

'Once they enter the workplace, the British are among the worst idlers in the world," they write. "We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor.'

Ironically it refers to the people that voted Brexit and applaud the Torys. (n)
 
It's not even a book based on research but a collection of ideas from newspaper articles, the thrust being simple repeatable solutions.

We just need to work harder - sweat them till they drop.

Regulations hold us back. Who needs medicine that works? Or clean water.

Those poor people who voted Tory will get their wakeup call.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top