|
|
Post by sheepy on Feb 11, 2024 8:02:26 GMT
Boris Johnson backed for comeback by Tory minister after Rishi Sunak opens door.....
Don't you think the Tories are enough of shitshow already without inviting that lying clown back into contention? Do you have a death wish for the Tories or something? lol I don't think it would make an iota of difference; the place is no longer fit for purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 11, 2024 9:04:40 GMT
Don't you think the Tories are enough of shitshow already without inviting that lying clown back into contention? Do you have a death wish for the Tories or something? lol What, the bloke that gave them an 80 seat majority? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 11, 2024 9:09:16 GMT
Don't you think the Tories are enough of shitshow already without inviting that lying clown back into contention? Do you have a death wish for the Tories or something? lol I don't think it would make an iota of difference; the place is no longer fit for purpose. It would make a big difference. And another plus would be that it would piss off the remainers big time... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2024 9:22:36 GMT
Don't you think the Tories are enough of shitshow already without inviting that lying clown back into contention? Do you have a death wish for the Tories or something? lol What, the bloke that gave them an 80 seat majority? A statement which ignores all we have come to know of his and his party's conduct under him since then. "Party" having more than one meaning, lol |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 11, 2024 9:26:11 GMT
What, the bloke that gave them an 80 seat majority? "Party" having more than one meaning, lol The only thing Boris got wrong was to do what he promised.. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 11, 2024 9:41:04 GMT
The lib dems seemed to go into a room about 2 years ago to work out what they are going to be campaigning on and they haven't come out yet . They have been in there for that long everyone has forgotten about them , which isn't a bad thing . Polling ? Nobody I know, and I have asked in the past, has ever been asked a question by a pollster with regard to voting intention . For that reason I take them with a pinch of salt Vine showed how if EVERYONE joined brown in a coalition of the talent-less, with Sinn Fein refusing to take their seats as always, because of the need to swear allegiance to the sovereign, he could run a government with a majority of two But Alex Salmand refused to enter into any agreement beyond an understanding that he would direct SNP MP’s to vote with Brown on an issue by issue basis provided Brown bribed him sufficiently to ensure each vote. Brown was still in discussions with Salmand when Clegg phoned Tory Central Office and the following morning Brown called the Queen So it could be argued Salmand forced his hand. Not the case John. In the aftermath of the hung parliament in 2010 , it was up to the incumbent government , that is browns labour , to try and gather majority support. Gordon brown didnt stand down because the queen made him. He stood down because line one of the liberal democrats negotiating position was that brown had to go or else. Salmond didnt force browns hand......clegg did , as the third largest party leader at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 11, 2024 9:43:44 GMT
What, the bloke that gave them an 80 seat majority? A statement which ignores all we have come to know of his and his party's conduct under him since then. "Party" having more than one meaning, lol Doesn't matter Steve. Taking your personal distaste for Johnson away from the discussion , its inarguable that since Sunak took over , the tories have been in a death spiral , while during Johnston's leadership , they were within touching distance of labour. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 11, 2024 10:11:20 GMT
What, the bloke that gave them an 80 seat majority? A statement which ignores all we have come to know of his and his party's conduct under him since then. "Party" having more than one meaning, lol But that's all subjective.
80 seats is fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 11, 2024 10:20:28 GMT
Vine showed how if EVERYONE joined brown in a coalition of the talent-less, with Sinn Fein refusing to take their seats as always, because of the need to swear allegiance to the sovereign, he could run a government with a majority of two But Alex Salmand refused to enter into any agreement beyond an understanding that he would direct SNP MP’s to vote with Brown on an issue by issue basis provided Brown bribed him sufficiently to ensure each vote. Brown was still in discussions with Salmand when Clegg phoned Tory Central Office and the following morning Brown called the Queen So it could be argued Salmand forced his hand. Not the case John. In the aftermath of the hung parliament in 2010 , it was up to the incumbent government , that is browns labour , to try and gather majority support. Gordon brown didnt stand down because the queen made him. He stood down because line one of the liberal democrats negotiating position was that brown had to go or else. Salmond didnt force browns hand......clegg did , as the third largest party leader at the time. Did you even read what I said ? Clegg walked out of Brown's survival meeting because he realised how fucking stupid the thing had become. But it was not until Salmand made his price for giving labour another five years known, and Clegg saw it to be a price to high to pay. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 11, 2024 10:34:01 GMT
Not the case John. In the aftermath of the hung parliament in 2010 , it was up to the incumbent government , that is browns labour , to try and gather majority support. Gordon brown didnt stand down because the queen made him. He stood down because line one of the liberal democrats negotiating position was that brown had to go or else. Salmond didnt force browns hand......clegg did , as the third largest party leader at the time. Did you even read what I said ? Clegg walked out of Brown's survival meeting because he realised how fucking stupid the thing had become. But it was not until Salmand made his price for giving labour another five years known, and Clegg saw it to be a price too high to pay.did you read what I said , and how irrelevant your attempt to pin in the blame on Alec salmond and six snp politicians is when the third largest party would not go into coalition with labour while brown was leader and prime minister? Salmonds alleged price causing a coalition to fall is bollocks , up there with you Monmouthshire is English bollocks , and we both know it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Feb 11, 2024 11:43:52 GMT
The 2015 election showed how unfair it is on parties who's vote is spread across the nation as opposed to just having local support SNP 4.7 vote share 56 seats lib dems 7.9 / 8 seats Angry Prods 0.6 / 8 seats Angry Paddy's 0.6 / 4 seats And so on with the real travesty being UKIP 12.6 and 1 seat (and he left) . Reform are likely to meet the same fate Thats a false projection. The snp didnt get 4.7% of the vote share . The snp dont stand across the uk , only in scotland hence the snp got 49.97% of the vote share in the country they stood in. Taking 56 Scottish seats , and then falsely arguing they got that off a share of the entire uk electorate is a nonsensical argument. I believe I have said before there Is a clear argument for England to have a form of pr. We can see daily the support for the two main parties breaking down and that the old two party fptp system is creaking and about to break. Making false argument s though doesn't help your cause. If I remember correct , UKIP lost numerous deposits in scotland in that election , and barely took over 1 % of the Scottish vote. Their problem was mainly in England , where they simply didnt poll high enough on a constituency basis to start taking seats in large volumes. Eh? This really is nonsense . UKIP had the same chance at election time in scotland as the snp , and they simply couldnt manage support as in scotland they were seen as a right wing English nationalist party hence why barely anyone voted them , and they were generally regarded as nothing more than an eccentric English pressure group. Standing uk wide( the uk isnt a nation , it's a multi national state ) doesn't harm labour liberal or the tories , so im not sure why you think it harms ukip? A bit of a weird conclusion there to be honest. The point is seats in Parliament in line with votes . Representation of the people of the UK . You say UKIP had the same chance in Scotland as the SNP ,well at least as an 'English' party they had people prepared to stand . They got exactly the same result what the SNP would have got had they stood in England . ..Nothing The SNP is over represented in Westminster ,its UK vote share does not warrant 56 seats and under PR would have had 30 seats ,UKIP would have had 80 ,even the Greens would have 20 instead of 1 under fptp. Looking closely at the Scottish result the system returned an unfair result .Though there was a massive sway toward the SNP ,56 of the 59 seats those 56 seats were gained with just 50% of the Scottish vote ,labour the cons and the Liberals got just one seat each for the other 47% FPTP therefore clearly works for the SNP in UK elections . My view is about fairness and proper representation regardless of what party you support and we are not getting that with FPTP |
|
|
|
Polling
Feb 11, 2024 12:54:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 11, 2024 12:54:37 GMT
Don't you think the Tories are enough of shitshow already without inviting that lying clown back into contention? Do you have a death wish for the Tories or something? lol What, the bloke that gave them an 80 seat majority? Yep. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2024 13:58:09 GMT
A statement which ignores all we have come to know of his and his party's conduct under him since then. "Party" having more than one meaning, lol The only thing Boris got wrong was to do what he promised.. What about the parties, the rule breaking, the endless lies and broken promises, the rampant corruption with 30 or 40 billion quid having disappeared without trace? Is all that ok? |
|
|
|
Polling
Feb 11, 2024 14:03:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 11, 2024 14:03:11 GMT
The only thing Boris got wrong was to do what he promised.. What about the parties, the rule breaking, the endless lies and broken promises, the rampant corruption with 30 or 40 billion quid having disappeared without trace? Is all that ok? Yes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2024 14:05:47 GMT
A statement which ignores all we have come to know of his and his party's conduct under him since then. "Party" having more than one meaning, lol Doesn't matter Steve. Taking your personal distaste for Johnson away from the discussion , its inarguable that since Sunak took over , the tories have been in a death spiral , while during Johnston's leadership , they were within touching distance of labour. It is also undeniable that support for the Tories was finally starting to collapse under him as ever more of the gormless goons who thought he could do no wrong finally started waking up to his true character. Which is why they got rid of him. His reappearance now will not make things any better for them and if you think it will you are either kidding yourself or relying on many of the public being even bigger idiots than I at least already thought they were. There are a lot of stupid people out there but most of them do have a limit to their stupidity and Bozo has stretched that limit to breaking point. The Tories' problem is that they cannot find anyone better. And if there is no one better than Bozo, they are in serious trouble. |
|
