Breaking news! Ritchie’s a twat

We are presented with this image:

frontbench

And this comment:

The Tory front bench this afternoon: Where were the women?

Well, Ms May was in China, Amber Rudd had done Home Office questions a couple of hours earlier (and yes, amazingly, ministers do actually work, in their offices, rather than just sit on the front bench).

The specific debate that is a picture of was “Exiting the European Union“.

And it seems reasonable to have the Sec of State for exiting there, the Foreign Secretary, Sec international trade. Who are the three I recognise.

As to female members of the cabinet, Home Sec and PM we’ve already dealt with. Justine Greening is education, not really her debate nor remit, is it? Andrea Leadstrom, environment? Priti Patel, int development? Karen Bradley, culture?

Exactly which female front benchers is it that Ritchie thought should be sitting there rather than getting on with their jobs in their offices?

Of course the real answer is that Ritchie’s just being a twat. Women should be sitting around being decorative rather than actually getting on with running something.

Sexist pillock that he is.

26 thoughts on “Breaking news! Ritchie’s a twat”

  1. Until women make up more than 1% of Tax Research UK LLP, he should shut the fuck up.

    TBH, he should shut the fuck up after that happens too.

  2. Women recently have gone from being joint owners of the Murphy family home, to not owning any share in the Murphy family home.

  3. @TTG: not only does a woman only get 1% of the profits of TRUK, that woman has been described by RM as fundamental to the blog’s production, which seems to me to be a prima facie case of gender exploitation……………..after all it most certainly isn’t the case that she’s on the books of the LLP just to make it legal, oh no, most certainly not.

  4. If you do go to Ritchie’s site, I think you’d spot a picture of an old woman to the right of the video clip.

  5. An even more insufferable and offensive provocation about the Tories than normal from Murphy.

    I wonder if he is suffering from a newly proposed mental condition, perhaps caused by the enforced move from the Old Orchard to the end terrace?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_embitterment_disorder

    “He says that people with the disorder are almost treatment resistant and that “These people usually don’t come to treatment because ‘the world has to change, not me.” “

  6. @Ironman,

    Land Registry records showed the Downham Market property was owned without mortgage by Richard James Murphy and Jacqueline Anne Murphy.

    Land registry records show that the Ely property is owned without mortgage by Richard James Murphy only.

  7. An equivalent picture of Labour would have shown Diane Abbott’s fat arse sprawling over the whole of the normal bumprint of the entire opposition Front Bench

  8. Leadsom should arguably have been there: she’s the one who’s going to have to tell those subsidy junkies, the farmers, that the UK government isn’t going to fund CAP-like payments.

  9. “she’s the one who’s going to have to tell those subsidy junkies, the farmers, that the UK government isn’t going to fund CAP-like payments.”

    Not just farmers – apparently the RSPB gets £7m from the CAP. Are they chicken farmers on the quiet?

  10. Noel

    Oh.

    I did notice his wife didn’t get a mention in his Postcard from Munich. The one in which his sons realised Dachau was all about him.

  11. “Leadsom should arguably have been there: she’s the one who’s going to have to tell those subsidy junkies, the farmers, that the UK government isn’t going to fund CAP-like payments.”

    As a farmer I’d like to point out that I’m fairly confident agricultural subsidies will continue post Brexit pretty much ad infinitum, not because farmers have any great political clout, but because without them there is no way for DEFRA to control farmers other than the criminal law. And given the rules on evidence, access, impartiality etc its virtually impossible for them to enforce laws on farmers that way. Or very difficult any way. And the penalties would be in the hands of the court, not them. So they prefer to have the carrot and stick of subsidy removal to be able to wave to get compliance, and be judge jury and executioner themselves. Take away sunsidies and no farmer will allow any DEFRA employee on his land without a warrant, or say anything to them without a solicitor present.

    Thus I suspect it will be Sir Humphrey who will convince the government to keep agricultural subsidies, for the ease of the Civil Service, rather than anything else.

  12. “Not just farmers – apparently the RSPB gets £7m from the CAP. ”

    And they’ll squeal mightily if their subsidy is threatened. I can hear the self-serving interviews on Today and see the grauniad’s headlines: ‘Tories destroy wildlife’ etc.

    Has Leadsom the gumption to face down such propaganda? On her record so far, I doubt it.

  13. apparently the RSPB gets £7m from the CAP.

    Well if they sell off the BBC (by preference in jagged bleeding chunks) we’ll be shot of the irritating tweet of the day. No licence fee and the recorded bird noise gets it.

  14. Noel

    I don’t recall the Downham Market address and don’t really want to look it up. From memory do the Land Registry records show the Downham Market property changing g hands?

    P.S. I do SO want it to be in the hands of an company held by an offshore trust!

  15. Not sure what is happening with Mrs Murphy. Her LLP service address changed at the same time as Mr Murphy’s. Not sure if he didn’t trust her with the simple task of signing the form but he did it for her. Chivolrous or patronising? Of course service address isn’t the same as residential address. And oddly the box to indicate a change of residential address in the member’s list has not been ticked. Which seems to imply the Murphys still live at their old address. Or that Murphy has filed an incorrect form at Companies House. Because whilst it is a confidential matter, you are supposed to keep Companies House informed of such things. I am sure there is an innocent explanation.

  16. @Jim, September 6, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    “As a farmer I’d like to point out that I’m fairly confident agricultural subsidies will continue post Brexit pretty much ad infinitum, not because farmers have any great political clout, but because without them there is no way for DEFRA to control farmers other than the criminal law…
    …Take away sunsidies and no farmer will allow any DEFRA employee on his land without a warrant, or say anything to them without a solicitor present.”

    No subsidies =
    1. Farmers maximise their profits by doing what they believe is best on their land.
    2. DEFRA not needed, all employees sacked and ministers demoted to back benches.

    Works for me.

  17. I get really fed up of tw*ts who think the entirety of an elected member’s job is sitting in the chamber. That’s probably less than 10% of the job, the vast majority of the job is “back office admin”.

  18. “No subsidies =
    1. Farmers maximise their profits by doing what they believe is best on their land.
    2. DEFRA not needed, all employees sacked and ministers demoted to back benches.”

    Thats the point, when was the last time any government did the latter?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *