Mailwatch(ed) Forum

He just lost to Badenoch and Jenrick, so there is that. (I think the mucking about may have been by supporters of Jenrick in the second to last round, rather than Cleverly supporters taking an absurd risk).

He may be well educated but he is deeply stupid and disappointingly dishonest.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -principle

John Crace has a pop at Chris Filp and Suella Bormann. Fish and barrels, but just because it's easy doen't mean it's not fun.

He is a man who operates totally within his own reality. The rest of the world only exists as an extension of his imagination. There was nothing before he was born and there will be nothing when he’s gone. Imagine there’s no people. It’s easy if you try.

Jarvis looked genuinely concerned for the Philpster’s state of mind. He is a kindly man who naturally tends to give the benefit of the doubt, so just in case Philp had missed it the first time, he repeated his message.

It was perfectly OK for Chris to carry on misleading people on X. He could also Man Up in the Manosphere. Tell misogynist jokes. It wasn’t funny, and it wasn’t clever, but Chris wouldn’t get his collar felt by the police. He was in the clear. A halfwit, bordering on quarterwit. But not an extremist.

Braverman wasn’t there to touch base with reality. Britain was invaded by Chinese spies. And immigrants. Get rid of anyone with brown skin. That’s what the Donald would do. Even the Conservatives were secret commies. The UK was on track to become an Islamist state in 20 years. A country that would nuke the USA as soon as look at it.

The Heritage Foundation host, Nile Gardiner, sounded bewildered by the end. There was batshit and batshit.

Where can we find Swellin's speech? Particularly intrigued to know why she thinks Prince Harry should be extradited.
I still remember when the idea of indescribably dim backbencher Suella Fernandes even being made a PPP was unimaginable.

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:43 am Where can we find Swellin's speech? Particularly intrigued to know why she thinks Prince Harry should be extradited.
I still remember when the idea of indescribably dim backbencher Suella Fernandes even being made a PPP was unimaginable.

The big problem now is working out what's real and what's parody.

Here we are, Braverman calling for Trump to release Harry's visa application to see if there's any funny business. Trump will deport him if possible after taking down his pal Rupert in the courts.

https://x.com/NileGardiner/status/18843 ... m-rhw&s=19

What do Braverman's parents have to say about this? Have Kemi's folks anything to add?

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Yeah but ...

That’s an arse kicking.

That bit where she says Labour are doing Tory policies on infrastructure. The fact that none of it got built might be something of a difference,

The coalition of blockers is a broad church stretching from Reform to the Greens.

A rather hysterical in tone and Labour-hostile piece from George Monbiot (Squealer Jones' blood brother) in today's Grauniad that I'm dubious about affording too much validity to, mostly because it's well, George Monbiot. Worth a wee read, though.

Look at Labour’s acts of environmental vandalism and ask: did I vote for this?
George Monbiot

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rnment-gdp

I'm sympathetic to that POV. If planes are stacked up flying around Heathrow because they are at full capacity then a third runway could be justified. But deliberately expanding supply and demand for flying is ecologically negligent and the case unproven. If more routes to provincial Chinese cities are vital to our future prosperity (which sounds a highly questionable proposition that would appear in a corporate construction promo video) then prioritise them over more frivolous reasons to fly. These cities will be connected to Bejing by high speed rail and to ports where the vast majority of trade with Europe is moved.

Reeves mocks environmental concern in true Trumpian fashion, claiming that people object to schemes like the third runway she has just announced at Heathrow because they “might add something to carbon emissions in 20 years’ time”. There’s no “might” about it. They will. But who cares what happens in 20 years? It won’t be her problem.

Do you really want to live in a society that tells you that you can't fly because your flight is 'frivolous'?

If your flight doesn't exist and you have to catch an overnight train to get pissed in Prague, Western civilization will still stand.
I'd love to see the Canadian and Alaskan wilderness or South America before I die but I can through videos and photos. My unimportant trivial privilege to have access to long haul leisure flights is not a fundamental human right.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:43 am That bit where she says Labour are doing Tory policies on infrastructure.

If that were true, surely the Tories would be fully supportive of Labour implementing 'their' policies? So how come they're not?

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 2:21 pm Do you really want to live in a society that tells you that you can't fly because your flight is 'frivolous'?

Until flight is made environmentally sustainable, yes, I'd vote for that.

So define 'frivolous'.

Then explain it to the electorate...

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:48 am That’s an arse kicking.

As in kicking Bishop Brennan up the arse