Rishi Sunak

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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.

Soppy tory

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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.

I am very open minded apart from with tory ++++s
like you and the beached whale

[JamesWales]

Re: Rishi Sunak

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

I'm with you now comrade, don't worry. You won't catch me driving 21mph, scrutinizing the Welsh Govt, being civil to Tories ever again!

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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.

You really are a pub bore

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Rishi Sunak

I'm with you now comrade, don't worry. You won't catch me driving 21mph, scrutinizing the Welsh Govt, being civil to Tories ever again!

Try not to crash

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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.

As I predicted .....

As I said in the summer....

As I predicted a long time ago

Aark at him

Christ what a tory windbag

Do you have a Question Time obsession ?

Nobody listens to what tory bores like you put on here except other tory bores

You can throw in some fake nonsense about the financial markets so people think you know what you are talking about but it's all hot air

It's just lifted

Everyone knows starmer is far from the ideal choice but thank god your circus of dregs has finally been seen for what it is

You sound like a bargain basement David Cameron

[JamesWales]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Try not to crash

Thanks hun.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Rishi Sunak

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

Like a lot of vaccuos Tories he talks a good game but it's all cobblers

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Thanks hun.

I am not concerned about you , its the pedestrians

[TWGL1]

Re: Rishi Sunak

IMG_4048.jpg

Charles is the same :hehe:

[JamesWales]

Re: Rishi Sunak

I am not concerned about you , its the pedestrians

Statistically some of them will have voted differently to you mind Sludge. I'll try and hit those ones 👍

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Statistically some of them will have voted differently to you mind Sludge. I'll try and hit those ones 👍

Massacre tory pedestrians ?

If you can 50000 for me that will be great

Start again in the new year

[Jordi Culé]

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.

I agree about who cares and I'm willing to bet that the majority of the population of the UK wouldn't give a toss if the marbles are returned to Greece and most actually think they should be returned?

I'll also willing to suggest that those 'British nationalists' who are vehemently opposed to it are the same whoppers who want gun boats shooting at migrants in the Channel and voted Brexit?

As for your observation that a Greek right wing paper has had the audacity to tell Sunak to "Fuuck Off" they may counter he'd already told their PM the same thing when he cancelled the meeting.

The only people who'll be clapping Sunak will be these 'British Nationalists' you refer to.

[Jordi Culé]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Interesting figures relating to opinions towards the Elgin Marbles from the UK public.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/sunak-faces-british-public-opinion-backlash-over-athens-marbles-row/

Only waiting now for Sunak to suggest that the ‘marbles’ are in great danger from the Greeks and Yaxley Lennon and the Football Lads Alliance show up at the British Museum to protect them!

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Rishi Sunak

Interesting figures relating to opinions towards the Elgin Marbles from the UK public.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/sunak-faces-british-public-opinion-backlash-over-athens-marbles-row/

Only waiting now for Sunak to suggest that the ‘marbles’ are in great danger from the Greeks and Yaxley Lennon and the Football Lads Alliance show up at the British Museum to protect them!

Thanks for that - as you say, interesting.

Seems people do care about the marbles, in fact, forty nine per cent of them say give them back to the Greeks.