What do popularity ratings have to do with anything? The Spice Girls were very popular, that doesn't mean they'd have made a good government or even musicians.
Aside from ones own political bias, how do you judge the success or failure of any politician? Opinion polls (less) and election results (more) are really the only judge. If at the next election he is booted out with his tail between his legs he will be a failure, but so far giving the snivelling socialists a dam good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his incredible popularity ratings are sure signs of success.
Where the fuck is the evidence of Johnson's greatness at doing anything other than emitting flatuous slogans and, to use his own word, bloviating? He seems to be incapable of doing anything other than emit three-word slogans. This is not an adequate substitute for any other ability, in respect of which he is a total vacuum.
Where the fuck is the evidence of Johnson's greatness at doing anything other than emitting flatuous slogans and, to use his own word, bloviating? He seems to be incapable of doing anything other than emit three-word slogans. This is not an adequate substitute for any other ability, in respect of which he is a total vacuum.
He is.
But the slogans seem to work. Look at ‘Get Brexshit done’.
The great gullible British English public will swallow any nonsense.
Where the fuck is the evidence of Johnson's greatness at doing anything other than emitting flatuous slogans and, to use his own word, bloviating? He seems to be incapable of doing anything other than emit three-word slogans. This is not an adequate substitute for any other ability, in respect of which he is a total vacuum.
Taking solid Labour seats, seeing off magic grandpa, romping to a huge 80 seat majority, massive personal approval ratings, huge lead in the opinion polls............. indicators of success old bean.
What do popularity ratings have to do with anything? The Spice Girls were very popular, that doesn't mean they'd have made a good government or even musicians.
Aside from ones own political bias, how do you judge the success or failure of any politician? Opinion polls (less) and election results (more) are really the only judge. If at the next election he is booted out with his tail between his legs he will be a failure, but so far giving the snivelling socialists a dam good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his incredible popularity ratings are sure signs of success.
How about ability to deliver what was promised? Seems like a sound basis for judging that doesn't even depend on whether you think what he promised was a good thing.
A good Brexit deal? Well, he hasn't even started to negotiate for any sort of deal (and is refusing to allow time for any negotiations) so it looks like an awful no-deal Brexit is what he'll deliver. £350m per week for the NHS ... if the funding given to the health services over the last two months are maintained that will be a good result, especially if matched by funding for nursing homes and the rest of the care sector. It won't be of course, the first chance he can get he'll call it "job done", cut back on funding to the least he thinks he can get away with and continue the programme of selling the whole lot a bit at a time so his buddies can make a load of money at the expense of the nations health.
And, the "snivelling socialists" (not that I noticed any snivelling going on) polled one of the highest number of votes in Labour history. Hardly a "dam (sic) good thrashing".
What do popularity ratings have to do with anything? The Spice Girls were very popular, that doesn't mean they'd have made a good government or even musicians.
Aside from ones own political bias, how do you judge the success or failure of any politician? Opinion polls (less) and election results (more) are really the only judge. If at the next election he is booted out with his tail between his legs he will be a failure, but so far giving the snivelling socialists a dam good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his incredible popularity ratings are sure signs of success.
He’s adopted quite a lot of their polices and ideas now - treating broadband as a utility effectively nationalising the railways, realising peopl earning under £40,000 a year are in fact critical to the country ....
What do popularity ratings have to do with anything? The Spice Girls were very popular, that doesn't mean they'd have made a good government or even musicians.
Aside from ones own political bias, how do you judge the success or failure of any politician? Opinion polls (less) and election results (more) are really the only judge. If at the next election he is booted out with his tail between his legs he will be a failure, but so far giving the snivelling socialists a dam good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his incredible popularity ratings are sure signs of success.
You could consider the impact of their policies on poverty, median earnings, life expectancy, infant mortality, happiness, air and water quality, or any of a host of other indicators of a successful society. The mark of a good politician in any democracy must surely be the improvement of that society. But maybe it's too dark under your bridge for anything more complex than win=good. I would, however, point out that Clement Attlee won just as many elections as Johnson, or indeed Churchill.
Not trolling at all. Blair wasn't bad, but its about context. Boris gave the socialists a right good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his popularity ratings are extraordinary at the moment.
I mean, you're right about extraordinary. He's killed 55,000 people with his ineptitude, and yet people seem to love him. Imagine what heights he could rise to with another 50,000 or so underground, or up the chimney!
Where the fuck is the evidence of Johnson's greatness at doing anything other than emitting flatuous slogans and, to use his own word, bloviating? He seems to be incapable of doing anything other than emit three-word slogans. This is not an adequate substitute for any other ability, in respect of which he is a total vacuum.
He is.
But the slogans seem to work. Look at ‘Get Brexshit done’.
The great gullible British English public will swallow any nonsense.
Robert Jenrick said on TV today: "Stay alert will mean stay alert". So that's clear.
Didn't a Conservative leader, many aeons ago, clarify things by saying (frequently), "Brexit means Brexit"? Or does my memory fail me?
(To be fair. the Government's fall guy Mr Jenrick did continue by saying, "... by staying home as much as possible, but stay alert when you do go out, by maintaining social distancing, washing your hands, respecting others in the workplace and the other settings that you'll go to").
Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh. Just when you think you've heard everything, someone comes along with something so mind-bogglingly beyond the realms of remote sanity and so incredibly not-really-safe-left-on-your-own stupid... it's just beautiful.
Mathematical modelling shows that between 2/3rds and three quarters of the UK's 50,000 Covid deaths (and counting) would have been avoided with simple, timely decisions... but yeah, his success at mindless slogans is so much more important than thousands of deaths or his abject failure in every executive role he's ever held.
Besides, if you're gonna judge Prime Ministers only on election results (ignoring for a moment how fatuous that is) how can you rate him lower than Blair? Like Johnson's Brexit promises, you fail, even in your own terms.
Probably not the stupidest post ever. But definitely the stupidest I've seen since someone tried to explain vaccines to me and why they were dangerous...
In this situaiton popularity does not equal success. A low death toll, well-equipped medical staff, etc. etc. would be more reliaable measures of success.
So, a serious question (yes, I know it's Hell). What do you consider to be the job description of an MP, or government minister? What do we pay them extraordinary salaries with substantial expense allowances for? Do you think we pay them just to spend a few years so that they can get re-elected? Or, is there anything about debating the issues of the day, coming to decisions on the best way to govern the country and then put those policies into effect?
No, success will be measured at the ballot box. And so far he is looking rather good. Everything else is blah blah blah. Pointless and irrelevant.
I take it that no one you care about has died or is a frontline worker then...
Arsehole.
We've had a few people we support and staff get covid-19. I manage to rise above the blame Boris stuff. Let's see how it goes at the next general election eh? So far though aside from some emotionally inept people do the armchair criticism stuff I see another landslide Tory win. Of course time will tell though.
So, a serious question (yes, I know it's Hell). What do you consider to be the job description of an MP, or government minister? What do we pay them extraordinary salaries with substantial expense allowances for? Do you think we pay them just to spend a few years so that they can get re-elected? Or, is there anything about debating the issues of the day, coming to decisions on the best way to govern the country and then put those policies into effect?
Good question. Politicians enact policies and if they are unsuccessful they don't get re-elected. It's not rocket science. In between elections we can use opinion polls to judge the mood of the nation. I'd say that at present Boris is doing rather well, much of course to the chagrin of his critics, but at the end of the day they are mostly pointless and irrelevant,
No, success will be measured at the ballot box. And so far he is looking rather good. Everything else is blah blah blah. Pointless and irrelevant.
I take it that no one you care about has died or is a frontline worker then...
Arsehole.
We've had a few people we support and staff get covid-19. I manage to rise above the blame Boris stuff. Let's see how it goes at the next general election eh? So far though aside from some emotionally inept people do the armchair criticism stuff I see another landslide Tory win. Of course time will tell though.
Right; three things:
1) you clearly don't know how idiotic it is to suggest that electoral success (especially given the vagaries of various systems) is the only measure of a Prime Minister
2) have a scout through the Coronavirus thread.... have a look at my posts. I know what I'm talking about... for the record I am a practicing surgeon and a molecular biologist and researcher... strictly speaking I am not a virology expert, but I reserve the right to consider myself something other than an 'armchair critic.' Of course if you want I can point you to an article in The New England Journal of Medicine that is more than a little critical of your Beloved Leader
3) How did Churchill do in the 1945 election?
No, success will be measured at the ballot box. And so far he is looking rather good. Everything else is blah blah blah. Pointless and irrelevant.
I take it that no one you care about has died or is a frontline worker then...
Arsehole.
We've had a few people we support and staff get covid-19. I manage to rise above the blame Boris stuff. Let's see how it goes at the next general election eh? So far though aside from some emotionally inept people do the armchair criticism stuff I see another landslide Tory win. Of course time will tell though.
Right; three things:
1) you clearly don't know how idiotic it is to suggest that electoral success (especially given the vagaries of various systems) is the only measure of a Prime Minister
2) have a scout through the Coronavirus thread.... have a look at my posts. I know what I'm talking about... for the record I am a practicing surgeon and a molecular biologist and researcher... strictly speaking I am not a virology expert, but I reserve the right to consider myself something other than an 'armchair critic.' Of course if you want I can point you to an article in The New England Journal of Medicine that is more than a little critical of your Beloved Leader
3) How did Churchill do in the 1945 election?
OTOH, you are, at least, funny.
The electorate don't care whether you are a practicing (sic) surgeon or whatever you do. What's idiotic is that you think they actually care about people patronising them. They don't. Oh Churchill lost in 1945. Won again in 1951 though.
I'm part of the electorate. I care whether the people giving me advice are professionally qualified to do so, or are clearly listening to people who are qualified. Mr Johnson is quite clearly only qualified at presenting a facade of a jovial chap to cover up his ineptitude. The rest of the cabinet don't even have that skill, and simply put their ineptitude on show for all to see. None of them seem qualified to comment, and show no sign of listening to those who are. When a practising doctor, using her skills to treat people with Covid19, expresses her experience of working on the front line with inadequate equipment and support, of seeing patients dying and colleagues contracting the disease, she deserves to be heard and her concerns acknowledged with respect ... not being told off for her tone.
I'm part of the electorate. I care whether the people giving me advice are professionally qualified to do so, or are clearly listening to people who are qualified. Mr Johnson is quite clearly only qualified at presenting a facade of a jovial chap to cover up his ineptitude. The rest of the cabinet don't even have that skill, and simply put their ineptitude on show for all to see. None of them seem qualified to comment, and show no sign of listening to those who are. When a practising doctor, using her skills to treat people with Covid19, expresses her experience of working on the front line with inadequate equipment and support, of seeing patients dying and colleagues contracting the disease, she deserves to be heard and her concerns acknowledged with respect ... not being told off for her tone.
And as part of the electorate you get your opportunity to change things (or keep them on the same track), like the rest of us.
Yes, I do. By kicking up a stink everytime an elected official gets it wrong.
That doesn't really change much though. May make you feel a little better (in what way though is a whole different discussion), each to their own of course.
Not trolling at all. Blair wasn't bad, but its about context. Boris gave the socialists a right good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his popularity ratings are extraordinary at the moment.
So sentencing us to another five years of Tory rule. Yeah, thanks for that...
No, success will be measured at the ballot box. And so far he is looking rather good. Everything else is blah blah blah. Pointless and irrelevant.
I take it that no one you care about has died or is a frontline worker then...
Arsehole.
We've had a few people we support and staff get covid-19. I manage to rise above the blame Boris stuff. Let's see how it goes at the next general election eh? So far though aside from some emotionally inept people do the armchair criticism stuff I see another landslide Tory win. Of course time will tell though.
Right; three things:
1) you clearly don't know how idiotic it is to suggest that electoral success (especially given the vagaries of various systems) is the only measure of a Prime Minister
2) have a scout through the Coronavirus thread.... have a look at my posts. I know what I'm talking about... for the record I am a practicing surgeon and a molecular biologist and researcher... strictly speaking I am not a virology expert, but I reserve the right to consider myself something other than an 'armchair critic.' Of course if you want I can point you to an article in The New England Journal of Medicine that is more than a little critical of your Beloved Leader
3) How did Churchill do in the 1945 election?
OTOH, you are, at least, funny.
The electorate don't care whether you are a practicing (sic) surgeon or whatever you do. What's idiotic is that you think they actually care about people patronising them. They don't. Oh Churchill lost in 1945. Won again in 1951 though.
So, you're not completely ignorant then. But I'm confused.... you said that Johnson was the 3rd best PM in 100 years with Sir Winston being the best. Then you said that the only thing that counts is winning elections but as you acknowledge, Churchill lost in '45... So he's not the best?
Oh and yes, I can't type very well on my phone. OTOH, I do understand that £45 million for a bridge that was never even started might not be a marker of success in public office...
I'm starting to think that SARS-Cov2 is smarter than you though because, unlike you, it's completely unaffected by Johnson's lies, bluster and unjustified confidence.... and thousands of people are dead as a consequence. Including a neonatal consultant I used to work with.
The real problem with your argument is not that it is fatuous, though it is. The real problem is not that it is self-contradictory, though it is. The real problem is not that you have failed to justify your assertion that only electoral success matters, though you have. No, the real problem is that whilst all 3 of those things are true, you seem to be totally incapable of appreciating any of them.
And causing utter confusion and consternation in the colonies - sorry, Celtic fringe. Can't speak for Mme. Foster, but we know that La Spurgeon and Mr. Drakeford were hopping mad even before he spoke.
No, success will be measured at the ballot box. And so far he is looking rather good. Everything else is blah blah blah. Pointless and irrelevant.
I take it that no one you care about has died or is a frontline worker then...
Arsehole.
We've had a few people we support and staff get covid-19. I manage to rise above the blame Boris stuff. Let's see how it goes at the next general election eh? So far though aside from some emotionally inept people do the armchair criticism stuff I see another landslide Tory win. Of course time will tell though.
Right; three things:
1) you clearly don't know how idiotic it is to suggest that electoral success (especially given the vagaries of various systems) is the only measure of a Prime Minister
2) have a scout through the Coronavirus thread.... have a look at my posts. I know what I'm talking about... for the record I am a practicing surgeon and a molecular biologist and researcher... strictly speaking I am not a virology expert, but I reserve the right to consider myself something other than an 'armchair critic.' Of course if you want I can point you to an article in The New England Journal of Medicine that is more than a little critical of your Beloved Leader
3) How did Churchill do in the 1945 election?
OTOH, you are, at least, funny.
The electorate don't care whether you are a practicing (sic) surgeon or whatever you do. What's idiotic is that you think they actually care about people patronising them. They don't. Oh Churchill lost in 1945. Won again in 1951 though.
Won the most seats. Lost the popular vote. And it wasn't "again" - that was his first and only victory. What's your criteria for "best PM" again?
Oh and I mis-spoke before: Attlee won two elections - 1945 and 1950.
No, success will be measured at the ballot box. And so far he is looking rather good. Everything else is blah blah blah. Pointless and irrelevant.
I take it that no one you care about has died or is a frontline worker then...
Arsehole.
We've had a few people we support and staff get covid-19. I manage to rise above the blame Boris stuff. Let's see how it goes at the next general election eh? So far though aside from some emotionally inept people do the armchair criticism stuff I see another landslide Tory win. Of course time will tell though.
Right; three things:
1) you clearly don't know how idiotic it is to suggest that electoral success (especially given the vagaries of various systems) is the only measure of a Prime Minister
2) have a scout through the Coronavirus thread.... have a look at my posts. I know what I'm talking about... for the record I am a practicing surgeon and a molecular biologist and researcher... strictly speaking I am not a virology expert, but I reserve the right to consider myself something other than an 'armchair critic.' Of course if you want I can point you to an article in The New England Journal of Medicine that is more than a little critical of your Beloved Leader
3) How did Churchill do in the 1945 election?
OTOH, you are, at least, funny.
The electorate don't care whether you are a practicing (sic) surgeon or whatever you do. What's idiotic is that you think they actually care about people patronising them. They don't. Oh Churchill lost in 1945. Won again in 1951 though.
So, you're not completely ignorant then. But I'm confused.... you said that Johnson was the 3rd best PM in 100 years with Sir Winston being the best. Then you said that the only thing that counts is winning elections but as you acknowledge, Churchill lost in '45... So he's not the best?
Oh and yes, I can't type very well on my phone. OTOH, I do understand that £45 million for a bridge that was never even started might not be a marker of success in public office...
I'm starting to think that SARS-Cov2 is smarter than you though because, unlike you, it's completely unaffected by Johnson's lies, bluster and unjustified confidence.... and thousands of people are dead as a consequence. Including a neonatal consultant I used to work with.
The real problem with your argument is not that it is fatuous, though it is. The real problem is not that it is self-contradictory, though it is. The real problem is not that you have failed to justify your assertion that only electoral success matters, though you have. No, the real problem is that whilst all 3 of those things are true, you seem to be totally incapable of appreciating any of them.
It really is a popcorn night...
AFZ
It doesnt matter though, what you think, your appeals to emotion, you're "but I'm a well paid surgeon, earning stacks of money" stuff. It's all completely irrelevant, Boris bashing, that too. The electorate reject it. Surely you have a degree of intelligence to see this.
Not trolling at all. Blair wasn't bad, but its about context. Boris gave the socialists a right good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his popularity ratings are extraordinary at the moment.
So sentencing us to another five years of Tory rule. Yeah, thanks for that...
Don't thank me, thank the working class in the north east who rejected en masse corbynite socialism.
Not trolling at all. Blair wasn't bad, but its about context. Boris gave the socialists a right good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his popularity ratings are extraordinary at the moment.
So sentencing us to another five years of Tory rule. Yeah, thanks for that...
Don't thank me, thank the working class in the north east who rejected en masse corbynite socialism.
[citation needed] for "working class" and "en masse" and indeed their reasons for voting. Last I heard the new tory voters mostly cited Brexit.
Not trolling at all. Blair wasn't bad, but its about context. Boris gave the socialists a right good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his popularity ratings are extraordinary at the moment.
So sentencing us to another five years of Tory rule. Yeah, thanks for that...
Don't thank me, thank the working class in the north east who rejected en masse corbynite socialism.
[citation needed] for "working class" and "en masse" and indeed their reasons for voting. Last I heard the new tory voters mostly cited Brexit.
You want a list of the safe Labour seats that turned Tory? Really?
After this evening's feeble woffle-in by this apology for a Prime Minister, please, Mrs Sturgeon come down from Scotland and take over - and this time no chickening out at Derby like last time.
Comments
Aside from ones own political bias, how do you judge the success or failure of any politician? Opinion polls (less) and election results (more) are really the only judge. If at the next election he is booted out with his tail between his legs he will be a failure, but so far giving the snivelling socialists a dam good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his incredible popularity ratings are sure signs of success.
I think not.
See me after class...
STAY ALERT!
No-one (not even Nicola Sturgeon) knows what it means, but I'm reminded of the old joke:
Be A Lert. England needs Lerts.
He is.
But the slogans seem to work. Look at ‘Get Brexshit done’.
The great gullible British English public will swallow any nonsense.
Taking solid Labour seats, seeing off magic grandpa, romping to a huge 80 seat majority, massive personal approval ratings, huge lead in the opinion polls............. indicators of success old bean.
A good Brexit deal? Well, he hasn't even started to negotiate for any sort of deal (and is refusing to allow time for any negotiations) so it looks like an awful no-deal Brexit is what he'll deliver. £350m per week for the NHS ... if the funding given to the health services over the last two months are maintained that will be a good result, especially if matched by funding for nursing homes and the rest of the care sector. It won't be of course, the first chance he can get he'll call it "job done", cut back on funding to the least he thinks he can get away with and continue the programme of selling the whole lot a bit at a time so his buddies can make a load of money at the expense of the nations health.
And, the "snivelling socialists" (not that I noticed any snivelling going on) polled one of the highest number of votes in Labour history. Hardly a "dam (sic) good thrashing".
He’s adopted quite a lot of their polices and ideas now - treating broadband as a utility effectively nationalising the railways, realising peopl earning under £40,000 a year are in fact critical to the country ....
You could consider the impact of their policies on poverty, median earnings, life expectancy, infant mortality, happiness, air and water quality, or any of a host of other indicators of a successful society. The mark of a good politician in any democracy must surely be the improvement of that society. But maybe it's too dark under your bridge for anything more complex than win=good. I would, however, point out that Clement Attlee won just as many elections as Johnson, or indeed Churchill.
They cancelled the exams this year so I haven't got my marking eye in.
https://tinyurl.com/y7hsjhfp
I mean, you're right about extraordinary. He's killed 55,000 people with his ineptitude, and yet people seem to love him. Imagine what heights he could rise to with another 50,000 or so underground, or up the chimney!
Robert Jenrick said on TV today: "Stay alert will mean stay alert". So that's clear.
Didn't a Conservative leader, many aeons ago, clarify things by saying (frequently), "Brexit means Brexit"? Or does my memory fail me?
(To be fair. the Government's fall guy Mr Jenrick did continue by saying, "... by staying home as much as possible, but stay alert when you do go out, by maintaining social distancing, washing your hands, respecting others in the workplace and the other settings that you'll go to").
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaheeheeheeheehohohohohahahohoheehee
Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh. Just when you think you've heard everything, someone comes along with something so mind-bogglingly beyond the realms of remote sanity and so incredibly not-really-safe-left-on-your-own stupid... it's just beautiful.
Mathematical modelling shows that between 2/3rds and three quarters of the UK's 50,000 Covid deaths (and counting) would have been avoided with simple, timely decisions... but yeah, his success at mindless slogans is so much more important than thousands of deaths or his abject failure in every executive role he's ever held.
Besides, if you're gonna judge Prime Ministers only on election results (ignoring for a moment how fatuous that is) how can you rate him lower than Blair? Like Johnson's Brexit promises, you fail, even in your own terms.
Probably not the stupidest post ever. But definitely the stupidest I've seen since someone tried to explain vaccines to me and why they were dangerous...
Now sit down before you hurt yourself.
AFZ
Now where have I heard that before?
I take it that no one you care about has died or is a frontline worker then...
Arsehole.
We've had a few people we support and staff get covid-19. I manage to rise above the blame Boris stuff. Let's see how it goes at the next general election eh? So far though aside from some emotionally inept people do the armchair criticism stuff I see another landslide Tory win. Of course time will tell though.
Good question. Politicians enact policies and if they are unsuccessful they don't get re-elected. It's not rocket science. In between elections we can use opinion polls to judge the mood of the nation. I'd say that at present Boris is doing rather well, much of course to the chagrin of his critics, but at the end of the day they are mostly pointless and irrelevant,
Right; three things:
1) you clearly don't know how idiotic it is to suggest that electoral success (especially given the vagaries of various systems) is the only measure of a Prime Minister
2) have a scout through the Coronavirus thread.... have a look at my posts. I know what I'm talking about... for the record I am a practicing surgeon and a molecular biologist and researcher... strictly speaking I am not a virology expert, but I reserve the right to consider myself something other than an 'armchair critic.' Of course if you want I can point you to an article in The New England Journal of Medicine that is more than a little critical of your Beloved Leader
3) How did Churchill do in the 1945 election?
OTOH, you are, at least, funny.
The electorate don't care whether you are a practicing (sic) surgeon or whatever you do. What's idiotic is that you think they actually care about people patronising them. They don't. Oh Churchill lost in 1945. Won again in 1951 though.
And as part of the electorate you get your opportunity to change things (or keep them on the same track), like the rest of us.
That doesn't really change much though. May make you feel a little better (in what way though is a whole different discussion), each to their own of course.
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
As Corbyn found out.
So sentencing us to another five years of Tory rule. Yeah, thanks for that...
So, you're not completely ignorant then. But I'm confused.... you said that Johnson was the 3rd best PM in 100 years with Sir Winston being the best. Then you said that the only thing that counts is winning elections but as you acknowledge, Churchill lost in '45... So he's not the best?
Oh and yes, I can't type very well on my phone. OTOH, I do understand that £45 million for a bridge that was never even started might not be a marker of success in public office...
I'm starting to think that SARS-Cov2 is smarter than you though because, unlike you, it's completely unaffected by Johnson's lies, bluster and unjustified confidence.... and thousands of people are dead as a consequence. Including a neonatal consultant I used to work with.
The real problem with your argument is not that it is fatuous, though it is. The real problem is not that it is self-contradictory, though it is. The real problem is not that you have failed to justify your assertion that only electoral success matters, though you have. No, the real problem is that whilst all 3 of those things are true, you seem to be totally incapable of appreciating any of them.
It really is a popcorn night...
AFZ
Perhaps, and as others certainly will find out, when their time comes.
Or did you mean something Mr Mandid wrote? If so, I agree...
I mean the bucket of bullshit emptied over a nation with little choice but to hear it by its prime minister.
Kyrie eleison.
Won the most seats. Lost the popular vote. And it wasn't "again" - that was his first and only victory. What's your criteria for "best PM" again?
Oh and I mis-spoke before: Attlee won two elections - 1945 and 1950.
Ah, I see.
I sedulously avoided tuning in to Our Glorious Leader's address, thinking that it might indeed be a bucket of bullshit.
It doesnt matter though, what you think, your appeals to emotion, you're "but I'm a well paid surgeon, earning stacks of money" stuff. It's all completely irrelevant, Boris bashing, that too. The electorate reject it. Surely you have a degree of intelligence to see this.
Don't thank me, thank the working class in the north east who rejected en masse corbynite socialism.
[citation needed] for "working class" and "en masse" and indeed their reasons for voting. Last I heard the new tory voters mostly cited Brexit.
You want a list of the safe Labour seats that turned Tory? Really?