Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
Forgive my foolishness, but I was always under the impression committees were cross party.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Blimey. British government 'wants a word' with Zuckerberg
- Thread starter Wozza
- Start date
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Because Cambridge Analytica was NOT a Tory Party commissioned piece of work as claimed.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Which has no reference within the post I replied to. This is all getting a bit, dare I say it, a bit stupid...
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
And there I was thinking you were all in favour of tortuous interpretations.
Incorrect thread title, leading to predictably party political comments.
Parliament, not the Government, with a multi party committee wants to meet Zuckerberg.
- Thread starter
- #27
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Exactly.
severnside gull
Well-known member
Tory Party - information mining for elections
Brexit/Leave Campaign - ditto for referendum
Note also of course that the current Tory front bench is almost entirely comprised of staunch brexiteers.
So as I was saying........ ..........
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Hmm....
Current front bench includes the following who voted Remain: Prime Minister, Chancellor, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, Northern Ireland Secretary, Justice Secretary, Business and Energy Secretary, Culture Secretary, Housing and Communities Secretary, Scotland Secretary, Education Secretary, Welsh Secretary, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Conservative Party Chairman
That's 14 of the 22 full cabinet members including 3 of the big 4 offices of state who are clearly not staunch Brexiteers. So you're spectacularly wide of the truth.
Grandstanding. Full of their own self importance.
severnside gull
Well-known member
Sorry but what tosh!
Às a party they've nailed their flag to a soundbite "brexit means .......whatever we want it to mean"
Where they were then individually was about politics. Where they are now is about collectively hanging on to power at all costs
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Tosh? I've given facts and you've given ignorant prejudice.
If they are all hanging onto power at all costs then they're driven by power not ideology but you previously claimed that they are almost entirely all 'staunch Brexiteers'. So which is it - ideologues or Machiavellian politicians?
Your arguments are all over the place.
Once again: Eh? Anyway I'm going to leave this to Buzzer as he is dismantling your arguments with his usual eloquence.
severnside gull
Well-known member
Don't be obtuse.
In a government for whom Brexit means Brexit in the face of every piece of evidence that it will massively damage our economy; where Remainers support Brexit for a place on the front bench; where power had been bought by a shameless deal with the DUP; where we employ he tactics of fear and of Nazi Germany, to remove illegal immigrants and turn them against legal citizens based on little more than the colour of their skin; where politicians shamelessly lie to Parliament and the people, where they pay for personal data for their use and benefit then raise their hands in horror when it comes out; where we allow children quite shamelessly to starve or freeze to death at our borders. where th homeless are fined for being on the streets... I could go on. But you talk of political argue and haggle over semantics.
Well here the semantics I offer you. The one word that constantly comes up when talking about our politics today is "shameless."
Well I am ashamed to be British if this is what Britain - Tory Britain - has becone.
Rant over. I will go back to football thanks.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I'm sure Zuckerburg will be quaking.
I'm reminded of the age-old remark made by the rt honorable Dennis Healy, who said that being questioned by Geoffrey Howe was "like being savaged by a dead sheep".
(apols for being back on topic for a second there).
The Andy Naylor Fan Club
Well-known member
TWOCHOICEStom
Well-known member
You mean like this gem?
[tweet]983795482202796033[/tweet]
How you somebody POSSIBLY make money on the "interwebs" without charging your users?
The Large One
Who's Next?
You're quite correct to say the majority of Cabinet Members voted Remain (as opposed to Leave), reflecting - roughly - the same ratio across the Tory benches.
However, that has now been largely washed away with what has happened since June 2016. The referendum was a poorly-written piece of legislation in the first place making no attempt to define what would happen in the event of a 'Leave' victory.
So given a blank piece of paper, there were any number of things the government could have done immediately post-vote (and in the mid- to longer-term); none of them were enshrined in law. What they have done represents the worst of all world, as is in a rushed, unprepared manner and (in some cases) ignorant of protocol and law, is dive headlong into a series of negotiations which no-one around the world can actually believe of a serving UK government. There are hardly any (neutral) observers who believe the UK is going to benefit from the current path being taken.
So the point about them being Remainers held true for a while, but the course upon which we are heading (including parts of the negotiations being driven by Theresa May's busted flush of an ideology about immigration) makes one realise either they are stupid or merely-power hungry - maybe both. If Theresa May really was a Remainer (in the way the likes of Philip Hammond is), her behaviour clearly states otherwise.
Put it this way, May did campaign for Remain - there are many pics about of her holding 'I'm In' cards, but the reality was she was biding her time in case of a 'Remain' defeat; she was hardly at the forefront of the campaign. This was someone who was merely waiting to see which way the wind blew. If 'Remain' won, she stays at the Home Office - fine by her. A 'Leave' victory, on the other hand... All she had to do, and all she did, was merely wait for the bickering contenders for the leadership to backstab and blow themselves out, leaving her the only candidate.
One assumed her reluctance to be interviewed was because she didn't need to - and in this case, that point holds water. Her refusal to be interviewed during the General Election, however, was far more revealing, and made many commentators re-visit the leadership race. This is not a person who does 'debate' very well.
I know that's not your point you're making, but given the appalling state of the UK's position in all this, what I've added to it is - what went before seems a bit redundant now. It's a long-winded way of saying 'If they still are Remainers, it doesn't show.'
Meanwhile, back on topic it's good that Parliament (as opposed to HMG) wants to have a word with Zuckerberg - he has a lot to answer for.