Jump to content

Ashford: Should he stay or should he go?


Newsdesk

Ashford: Should he stay or should he go?   

136 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the forums view on this fantasists ability to hang on to a role on Comin?

    • He should resign himself
    • He should be told to go regardless
  2. 2. Does anyone think he has the personal integrity to tender a resignation himself without being pushed?

  3. 3. Should the UK also be asking questions about his MBE?


This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 06/30/2022 at 08:57 AM

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Still waiting Dave, this rebutel must be going to be a doozee 

Dave has moved on. What you get with these sort of NLP trained psychopaths is that they eventually set new goals that are even better than the old goals that they hung on to. All the bollocks he said a few weeks ago has now totally gone from his head. He’s already gone through a Dr Who style rejuvenation where nothing he has said previously matters to him anymore. He believes that he’ll now be the best back bench MHK we’ve ever seen which he believes is now better than him being Treasury Minister! These people never fail they just reprogramme themselves to ignore past failure and set new goals. 

Edited by Newsdesk
Had
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

Dave has moved on. What you get with these sort of NLP trained psychopaths is that they eventually set new goals that are even better than the old goals that they hung on to. All the bollocks he said a few weeks ago has now totally gone from his head. He’s already gone through a Dr Who style rejuvenation where nothing he has said previously matters to him anymore. He believes that he’ll now be the best back bench MHK we’ve ever seen which he believes is now better than him being Treasury Minister! These people never fail they just reprogramme themselves to ignore past failure and set new goals. 

His response saying he would provide a rebuttal to all the issues was a insecure response to the claims made. He believes his own hype hence his defensive response. Once he got home and thought about the implications it clearly didnt seem such a good idea. Maybe someone had a word too . We will never know but like the previous claim with RG  we are never going to hear them as even he knows he cant cut it. Hoping it will all just fade into the murky depths but I reckon its always going to rear its head. He has been found out big time !! .  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about Ashford is that he clearly can't bear to be out of the limelight.  He resigned on 20 May and, rather than lie low for a bit in decent silence, he immediately starts asking questions so as to keep his name prominent.  His first written questions went in on 26 May and he had several oral questions in on the first possible Keys (14 June). 

Clearly he loves the sound of his own voice and thinks himself the great statesman, but it's extremely odd to have someone going on about things not being done by a government of which they were a prominent member.  There was a classic example in that Keys when he was complaining about the lack of progress with an autism strategy (despite Hooper pointing out that it had been put out for consultation a few months ago).  He even referred to his time at DHSC, but seemed to think the way it had  "dragged on for a long number of years" had nothing to do with his nearly four years there.  He either lacks any self-awareness or completely lacks shame.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Ashford is a product of our political system. It is designed to attract mediocre egotists who can be elected without ever been selected as a candidate; can be elected on manifestos that never have to pass the tests of realism or deliverability; who can achieve ministerial positions by sucking up to the successful CM candidate; who can feign competence by constantly reading from prepared scripts written by somebody else; who don’t have to endure rigorous debate and examination from an organised opposition in parliament; who don’t have to contend with a broad, independent and investigative media and don’t have to appeal to a large and diverse electorate. The steps from parish to national politics are not that great and rarely require different skill sets. 
Add into this a lack of self-awareness, pomposity and an opportunist mentality and the ingredients are complete. The resulting dish should be scraped into the bin but will, no doubt,  be served up repeatedly to those that are happy to eat it. 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Declan said:

NLP?

Neuro-linguistic programming:

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a pseudoscientific approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, United States, in the 1970s. NLP's creators claim there is a connection between neurological processes (neuro-), language (linguistic) and behavioral patterns learned through experience (programming), and that these can be changed to achieve specific goals in life.[...] They claim as well that, often in a single session, NLP can treat problems such as phobias, depression, tic disorders, psychosomatic illnesses, near-sightedness, allergy, the common cold, and learning disorders. NLP has been adopted by some hypnotherapists and also by companies that run seminars marketed as leadership training to businesses and government agencies.

There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates, and it has been discredited as a pseudoscience Scientific reviews state that NLP is based on outdated metaphors of how the brain works that are inconsistent with current neurological theory and contain numerous factual errors. Reviews also found that all of the supportive research on NLP contained significant methodological flaws and that there were three times as many studies of a much higher quality that failed to reproduce the "extraordinary claims" made by Bandler, Grinder, and other NLP practitioners.

Ashford believing pseudoscience - who could imagine such a thing?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...