Rishi Sunak

[JamesWales]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Surely it was Sunak who brought the subject up originally?

You do know it’s not compulsory for you to be contrary in threads like this do you?

No I don't think so. It's been the top news for a day or two and who actually cares? I don't.

Sunak has the meeting despite it not being on the agenda - he's weak.

He offers his deputy instead - he's petulant.

So he can't win.

I'm just wondering who actually cares?

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Rishi Sunak

No I don't think so. It's been the top news for a day or two and who actually cares? I don't.

Sunak has the meeting despite it not being on the agenda - he's weak.

He offers his deputy instead - he's petulant.

So he can't win.

I'm just wondering who actually cares?

See Jordi Cule's post above, see the newspaper headline above - you seriously think that our PM accusing an ally with whom he cancelled a pre arranged meeting with of "Grandstanding" is not a matter for discussion?

[JamesWales]

Re: Rishi Sunak

See Jordi Cule's post above, see the newspaper headline above - you seriously think that our PM accusing an ally with whom he cancelled a pre arranged meeting with of "Grandstanding" is not a matter for discussion?

There's things British nationalists care about too. Do you think every other nation should bend to that. The newspaper you cite is a right-wing tabloid. Thats cool of course, as long as it's the UKs prime minister they are telling to fck off. Reverse it and you would all be fuming.

On the wider topic..I think a loan back to Greece may be sensible. Thats countered by concerns over where such a policy would end as a lot of stuff in a lot of museums would be open to repatriation.

If the terms of the meeting were changed then it could be viewed as strong to cancel it. But yeah, who really cares?

Again, reverse the people involved and a lot of you would be saying..."why are the Tories talking about marbles when there are kids in food banks" etc.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Rishi Sunak

There's things British nationalists care about too. Do you think every other nation should bend to that. The newspaper you cite is a right-wing tabloid. Thats cool of course, as long as it's the UKs prime minister they are telling to fck off. Reverse it and you would all be fuming.

On the wider topic..I think a loan back to Greece may be sensible. Thats countered by concerns over where such a policy would end as a lot of stuff in a lot of museums would be open to repatriation.

If the terms of the meeting were changed then it could be viewed as strong to cancel it. But yeah, who really cares?

Again, reverse the people involved and a lot of you would be saying..."why are the Tories talking about marbles when there are kids in food banks" etc.

He's not a raving tory though folks

JamesWales is NOT a raving tory !

When he says he's voted for other parties in the past he's honestly telling the truth despite jumping on every feckin thread about anything whatsoever to do with the Tories and defending them until he's exhausted and has to go and lie down

And then doing it all again

He's about as nuanced as Norman Tebbit, the scaly old daily mail freak

[JamesWales]

Re: Rishi Sunak

He's not a raving tory though folks

JamesWales is NOT a raving tory !

When he says he's voted for other parties in the past he's honestly telling the truth despite jumping on every feckin thread about anything whatsoever to do with the Tories and defending them until he's exhausted and has to go and lie down

And then doing it all again

He's about as nuanced as Norman Tebbit, the scaly old daily mail freak

Having a different opinion to the weirdest, angriest and most one eyed poster on here ( usually you) doesn't make anyone a raving anything. It just makes them in that great mass of humanity of being more open minded than you, which is about as hard as running a bath tbh.

And now anyone who doesn't agree with a right-wing nationalist Greek tabloid is apparently a raving Tory.

Given the word origin, at least your hypocrisy fits in with the Greek theme here.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Rishi Sunak

There's things British nationalists care about too. Do you think every other nation should bend to that. The newspaper you cite is a right-wing tabloid. Thats cool of course, as long as it's the UKs prime minister they are telling to fck off. Reverse it and you would all be fuming.

On the wider topic..I think a loan back to Greece may be sensible. Thats countered by concerns over where such a policy would end as a lot of stuff in a lot of museums would be open to repatriation.

If the terms of the meeting were changed then it could be viewed as strong to cancel it. But yeah, who really cares?

Again, reverse the people involved and a lot of you would be saying..."why are the Tories talking about marbles when there are kids in food banks" etc.

You don’t get it, it was a Tory who made this about the marbles. You’re assuming or inhering that it is only rabid Greek nationalists who want the marbles back, I think you’re wrong there and you could well be out of touch with how your average Brit feels about what Sunak did as well.

[Keyser Soze]

Re: Rishi Sunak

I guess the sort of socialist you would refer to had his arsed handed to him, and then some, by the biggest charlatan to ever to hold the title of PM, Starmer is as charismatic as a bar of soap but his mild socialism is appealing to the broader public at the moment and whilst not having any intentions of voting for him, IMO he,s a better option than anyone the Tories or labour can offer up at the moment.

Although I voted for New Labour in 1997 and was happy with them in 2001 (but voted Plaid), I tend to agree to a degree. I predicted long ago that when Sunak was running, that he would never win an election as a PM. Nor would Truss.


What makes a good leader?
To make such an easy conclusion, I found that looking at leaders or potential leaders through the prism of "The Three P's" is always useful. An ex-girlfriend who studied PPE at Oxford once told me this, which I found convincing, and was able to relate to history. Three P's are...

1. Personality (can be charm, strength, competence and credibility / trust to get things done. Or a mix.)
2. Policy (Relevant to the issues of the day, popular, or effective)
3. Persuasion - a good debater, through logic, emotion, ethics, or good as selling the positives/negatives

Usually, if you compare opponents (party leaders at an election, or an internal leadership competition), the one that fairs best on most of them versus their opponent will win, most of the time. It is a relative game, not absolute.

Sunak - one of many poor leaders
For that reason, I could never understood Sunak nor Truss as selections. Neither score highly on any of the 3 P's for me. Sunak nether had good policy, personality nor persuasion skills. He is the opposite in fact. Irrelevant policy, boring and staid, and argues poorly on most things. It is for the same reason, The Three P's, that Thatcher and Blair maintained their premierships for so long, because they had all three in the bag. Cameron was strong because he had 1 and 3, and debatable on 2. Contrastingly, at the lower end of the spectrum, Corbyn , Hague, Miliband, and Duncan Smith were examples of where they had none, or only one of the three Ps. Versus their opponent they stood no chance. At a personal level, I would have preferred to watch the cheese growing on my helmet than listen to any of that last list.

I never understood why the Conservatives did not choose Penny Mordaunt. She had 1 and 3. She was also the most popular with grass roots by a country mile vs Truss or Starmer, a clear winner v Starmer in opinion polls with the public, and a clear favourite for PM across the board. I think she would have put Starmer to bed. Not a hammering perhaps, but a win.

The Truss votes were the 1922 committee of lobbying MPs to stop Mordaunt, as the offshore hedge funds were the biggest donors both Sunak and Truss's campaign, and also the biggest beneficiaries of the hit on the pound and the gilts market fall as a result of that mess. Corruption maximus. The 1922 Commitee did their dirty bidding by getting MPs to vote for Truss to edge out Mordaunt.

Starmer
Starmer started off with none of the Three P's in place. And with no track record, I think that explained is weaker polling. It is no co-incidence that he has started building the three P's, and polls have accelerated for him. What startles me more than anything is that for a QC he is poor on Persuasion. It is odd he got so far in the field od a barrister like that. But then he was a government / public sector barrister, so perhaps he doesn't have the might you would expect from a private sector barrister, who will only be paid in accordance to his wins. A government / public sector barrister gets his pay regardless of performance. Politics and arse-kissing is the weapon of choice in the civil service, rather than performance. So on Persuasion I rank him low.

But he has build his Personality in the sense of being competent and trusted. He set out to purge the Hard / Extreme Left. Achieved. He set out to kill off the anti-semites. Achieved. And seemed ruthless too, which shows a bit of steel: needed for a leader. He has now started to work on Policy too: a sensible set of plans with Reeves which the City is giving a cautious thumbs up to.

Thankfully he deserves credit for putting the anti-semitic mob, and the crazy Palestinian supporters, back to bed for their little bedtime story. Instead, he is now receiving mentoring from the heavily funded NGO organisation called the Tony Blair Institute (TBI). Blair and Mandelson are giving Starmer their 1997 playbook: don't say too much, let the opponents panic and collapse, don't risk the polls - aim for the centre. People can say what they like about Blair and Mandelson, and personally I now hate them, as they care little for the UK's interests. They are globalists, in hock to the World Economic Forum / Davos massive, and the puppets of the European Union. But I recognise that they are brilliant at what they do: strategy, planning, communications, ruthlessness, and most of all - serial election winners. Their strategy is working again. Apparently, Gordon Brown and Alistair Campbell have also been lending some close advice. So my take is that Starmer will be a centrist.

So comparing to Sunak on the Three P's, Starmer does have 2 of the 3 P's either in the bag, or building. 2-0 to Starmer v Sunak, in that sense. I think this explains the widening gap in the polls. As I have predicted since he came in, Rich-y Soon-Out will have his skinny short arse handed to him by Starmer.

[Keyser Soze]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Having a different opinion to the weirdest, angriest and most one eyed poster on here ( usually you) doesn't make anyone a raving anything. It just makes them in that great mass of humanity of being more open minded than you, which is about as hard as running a bath tbh.

And now anyone who doesn't agree with a right-wing nationalist Greek tabloid is apparently a raving Tory.

Given the word origin, at least your hypocrisy fits in with the Greek theme here.

That is all it ever is. "Raving tory", "Tory kents", "right wing". As you expect from a 13 year old debating politics, or a thin-skinned, woke, Generation Z on social media: name calling and little maturity. It has been his playbook for twenty years. He hasn't grown. Leave the angry old man to his name-calling rants. I was going to say it clearly makes him happy, but I wonder if happiness is something he will ever feel.

It's not a chip on his shoulder that he carries. It's a full sack of Maris Pipers potatoes. Although a village idiot, he doesn't appear an evil man to me. Just slightly divorced from practical reality, and perhaps typical of idealists: maybe a heart in the right place but impractical ideas which are unworkable, leaving him a frustrated soul.

I just hope the soft sausage finds some contentment in his life at some point in his life, and allows a little grace to others in the same way as it is congenially afforded to him: regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, class status or political persuasion.

[JamesWales]

Re: Rishi Sunak

You don’t get it, it was a Tory who made this about the marbles. You’re assuming or inhering that it is only rabid Greek nationalists who want the marbles back, I think you’re wrong there and you could well be out of touch with how your average Brit feels about what Sunak did as well.

I've said I am open minded on it. The idea of a loan to Greece, why not?

But when you meet with foreign leaders there are often topics not to be discussed and that's agreed. In this case, it wasnt on the agenda and quite clearly the Greek PM (also a centre right PM btw) broke that protocol, and as such the meeting was offered to the deputy?

Petulant? Maybe. Strong? Maybe. Largely irrelevent topic to most of us? Almost certainly.

As I said, the approach here is just typical. Reverse the issues, or turn it into a cause for British nationalists and quote The Sun saying FuxK off to a foreign PM, turn it into the Tories talking about marbles and you would all be absolutely fuming.

It's all just daft.

[JamesWales]

Re: Rishi Sunak

That is all it ever is. "Raving tory", "Tory kents", "right wing". As you expect from a 13 year old debating politics, or a thin-skinned, woke, Generation Z on social media: name calling and little maturity. It has been his playbook for twenty years. He hasn't grown. Leave the angry old man to his name-calling rants. I was going to say it clearly makes him happy, but I wonder if happiness is something he will ever feel.

It's not a chip on his shoulder that he carries. It's a full sack of Maris Pipers potatoes. Although a village idiot, he doesn't appear an evil man to me. Just slightly divorced from practical reality, and perhaps typical of idealists: maybe a heart in the right place but impractical ideas which are unworkable, leaving him a frustrated soul.

I just hope the soft sausage finds some contentment in his life at some point in his life, and allows a little grace to others in the same way as it is congenially afforded to him: regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, class status or political persuasion.

In inclined to agree. It's so tiresome too.

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Although I voted for New Labour in 1997 and was happy with them in 2001 (but voted Plaid), I tend to agree to a degree. I predicted long ago that when Sunak was running, that he would never win an election as a PM. Nor would Truss.


What makes a good leader?
To make such an easy conclusion, I found that looking at leaders or potential leaders through the prism of "The Three P's" is always useful. An ex-girlfriend who studied PPE at Oxford once told me this, which I found convincing, and was able to relate to history. Three P's are...

1. Personality (can be charm, strength, competence and credibility / trust to get things done. Or a mix.)
2. Policy (Relevant to the issues of the day, popular, or effective)
3. Persuasion - a good debater, through logic, emotion, ethics, or good as selling the positives/negatives

Usually, if you compare opponents (party leaders at an election, or an internal leadership competition), the one that fairs best on most of them versus their opponent will win, most of the time. It is a relative game, not absolute.

Sunak - one of many poor leaders
For that reason, I could never understood Sunak nor Truss as selections. Neither score highly on any of the 3 P's for me. Sunak nether had good policy, personality nor persuasion skills. He is the opposite in fact. Irrelevant policy, boring and staid, and argues poorly on most things. It is for the same reason, The Three P's, that Thatcher and Blair maintained their premierships for so long, because they had all three in the bag. Cameron was strong because he had 1 and 3, and debatable on 2. Contrastingly, at the lower end of the spectrum, Corbyn , Hague, Miliband, and Duncan Smith were examples of where they had none, or only one of the three Ps. Versus their opponent they stood no chance. At a personal level, I would have preferred to watch the cheese growing on my helmet than listen to any of that last list.

I never understood why the Conservatives did not choose Penny Mordaunt. She had 1 and 3. She was also the most popular with grass roots by a country mile vs Truss or Starmer, a clear winner v Starmer in opinion polls with the public, and a clear favourite for PM across the board. I think she would have put Starmer to bed. Not a hammering perhaps, but a win.

The Truss votes were the 1922 committee of lobbying MPs to stop Mordaunt, as the offshore hedge funds were the biggest donors both Sunak and Truss's campaign, and also the biggest beneficiaries of the hit on the pound and the gilts market fall as a result of that mess. Corruption maximus. The 1922 Commitee did their dirty bidding by getting MPs to vote for Truss to edge out Mordaunt.

Starmer
Starmer started off with none of the Three P's in place. And with no track record, I think that explained is weaker polling. It is no co-incidence that he has started building the three P's, and polls have accelerated for him. What startles me more than anything is that for a QC he is poor on Persuasion. It is odd he got so far in the field od a barrister like that. But then he was a government / public sector barrister, so perhaps he doesn't have the might you would expect from a private sector barrister, who will only be paid in accordance to his wins. A government / public sector barrister gets his pay regardless of performance. Politics and arse-kissing is the weapon of choice in the civil service, rather than performance. So on Persuasion I rank him low.

But he has build his Personality in the sense of being competent and trusted. He set out to purge the Hard / Extreme Left. Achieved. He set out to kill off the anti-semites. Achieved. And seemed ruthless too, which shows a bit of steel: needed for a leader. He has now started to work on Policy too: a sensible set of plans with Reeves which the City is giving a cautious thumbs up to.

Thankfully he deserves credit for putting the anti-semitic mob, and the crazy Palestinian supporters, back to bed for their little bedtime story. Instead, he is now receiving mentoring from the heavily funded NGO organisation called the Tony Blair Institute (TBI). Blair and Mandelson are giving Starmer their 1997 playbook: don't say too much, let the opponents panic and collapse, don't risk the polls - aim for the centre. People can say what they like about Blair and Mandelson, and personally I now hate them, as they care little for the UK's interests. They are globalists, in hock to the World Economic Forum / Davos massive, and the puppets of the European Union. But I recognise that they are brilliant at what they do: strategy, planning, communications, ruthlessness, and most of all - serial election winners. Their strategy is working again. Apparently, Gordon Brown and Alistair Campbell have also been lending some close advice. So my take is that Starmer will be a centrist.

So comparing to Sunak on the Three P's, Starmer does have 2 of the 3 P's either in the bag, or building. 2-0 to Starmer v Sunak, in that sense. I think this explains the widening gap in the polls. As I have predicted since he came in, Rich-y Soon-Out will have his skinny short arse handed to him by Starmer.

I don't think sounding like Frank Sidebottom does Starmer any favours also.

[jon1959]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Although I voted for New Labour in 1997 and was happy with them in 2001 (but voted Plaid), I tend to agree to a degree. I predicted long ago that when Sunak was running, that he would never win an election as a PM. Nor would Truss.


What makes a good leader?
To make such an easy conclusion, I found that looking at leaders or potential leaders through the prism of "The Three P's" is always useful. An ex-girlfriend who studied PPE at Oxford once told me this, which I found convincing, and was able to relate to history. Three P's are...

1. Personality (can be charm, strength, competence and credibility / trust to get things done. Or a mix.)
2. Policy (Relevant to the issues of the day, popular, or effective)
3. Persuasion - a good debater, through logic, emotion, ethics, or good as selling the positives/negatives

Usually, if you compare opponents (party leaders at an election, or an internal leadership competition), the one that fairs best on most of them versus their opponent will win, most of the time. It is a relative game, not absolute.

Sunak - one of many poor leaders
For that reason, I could never understood Sunak nor Truss as selections. Neither score highly on any of the 3 P's for me. Sunak nether had good policy, personality nor persuasion skills. He is the opposite in fact. Irrelevant policy, boring and staid, and argues poorly on most things. It is for the same reason, The Three P's, that Thatcher and Blair maintained their premierships for so long, because they had all three in the bag. Cameron was strong because he had 1 and 3, and debatable on 2. Contrastingly, at the lower end of the spectrum, Corbyn , Hague, Miliband, and Duncan Smith were examples of where they had none, or only one of the three Ps. Versus their opponent they stood no chance. At a personal level, I would have preferred to watch the cheese growing on my helmet than listen to any of that last list.

I never understood why the Conservatives did not choose Penny Mordaunt. She had 1 and 3. She was also the most popular with grass roots by a country mile vs Truss or Starmer, a clear winner v Starmer in opinion polls with the public, and a clear favourite for PM across the board. I think she would have put Starmer to bed. Not a hammering perhaps, but a win.

The Truss votes were the 1922 committee of lobbying MPs to stop Mordaunt, as the offshore hedge funds were the biggest donors both Sunak and Truss's campaign, and also the biggest beneficiaries of the hit on the pound and the gilts market fall as a result of that mess. Corruption maximus. The 1922 Commitee did their dirty bidding by getting MPs to vote for Truss to edge out Mordaunt.

Starmer
Starmer started off with none of the Three P's in place. And with no track record, I think that explained is weaker polling. It is no co-incidence that he has started building the three P's, and polls have accelerated for him. What startles me more than anything is that for a QC he is poor on Persuasion. It is odd he got so far in the field od a barrister like that. But then he was a government / public sector barrister, so perhaps he doesn't have the might you would expect from a private sector barrister, who will only be paid in accordance to his wins. A government / public sector barrister gets his pay regardless of performance. Politics and arse-kissing is the weapon of choice in the civil service, rather than performance. So on Persuasion I rank him low.

But he has build his Personality in the sense of being competent and trusted. He set out to purge the Hard / Extreme Left. Achieved. He set out to kill off the anti-semites. Achieved. And seemed ruthless too, which shows a bit of steel: needed for a leader. He has now started to work on Policy too: a sensible set of plans with Reeves which the City is giving a cautious thumbs up to.

Thankfully he deserves credit for putting the anti-semitic mob, and the crazy Palestinian supporters, back to bed for their little bedtime story. Instead, he is now receiving mentoring from the heavily funded NGO organisation called the Tony Blair Institute (TBI). Blair and Mandelson are giving Starmer their 1997 playbook: don't say too much, let the opponents panic and collapse, don't risk the polls - aim for the centre. People can say what they like about Blair and Mandelson, and personally I now hate them, as they care little for the UK's interests. They are globalists, in hock to the World Economic Forum / Davos massive, and the puppets of the European Union. But I recognise that they are brilliant at what they do: strategy, planning, communications, ruthlessness, and most of all - serial election winners. Their strategy is working again. Apparently, Gordon Brown and Alistair Campbell have also been lending some close advice. So my take is that Starmer will be a centrist.

So comparing to Sunak on the Three P's, Starmer does have 2 of the 3 P's either in the bag, or building. 2-0 to Starmer v Sunak, in that sense. I think this explains the widening gap in the polls. As I have predicted since he came in, Rich-y Soon-Out will have his skinny short arse handed to him by Starmer.

What a long winded way of proving Sludge right. :hehe:

[JamesWales]

Re: Rishi Sunak

What a long winded way of proving Sludge right. :hehe:

Right wing fascist Tory bitch scum far-right fascist nazi madman more like

[JamesWales]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Right wing fascist Tory bitch scum far-right fascist nazi madman more like

Apologies for this. Autocorrect kicked in when the word Sludge and right got mentioned

[Dave Blue]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Right wing fascist Tory bitch scum far-right fascist nazi madman more like

Thank goodness you’ve come round. You took your time.