2019 General Election

First topic message reminder :

Now it's confirmed for December 12th (pretty much), I thought we should have a shiny new thread for the fourth and final UK GE of this tumultuous decade; a decade which has also included three referendums and four (maybe five) different Prime Ministers.

News this morning that Amber Rudd won't be defending her seat. Oh well.

Opinion polls currently have the Tories in a double digit lead, but it's anticipated to be a lot tighter than that by the time we reach the actual polling day.

Getting the best reason for why Scotland would be better off Independent is a bit like someone trying to justify their belief in religious fairy tales. Usually a complete waste of time.

Afro wrote:Spoiling the ballot paper isn't going to fix a broken political system.

The same could be said for voting for the same old faces year after year.

Don't forget a spoiled Ballot paper is still counted.

super_realist wrote:Getting the best reason for why Scotland would be better off Independent is a bit like someone trying to justify their belief in religious fairy tales. Usually a complete waste of time.

I wish we could all get a vote about Scotland, they wouldn't stand a chance of staying within the UK.

TightHEAD wrote:

Afro wrote:Spoiling the ballot paper isn't going to fix a broken political system.

The same could be said for voting for the same old faces year after year.

Don't forget a spoiled Ballot paper is still counted.

And then forgotten. Not voting at all has more impact

Afro wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Afro wrote:Spoiling the ballot paper isn't going to fix a broken political system.

The same could be said for voting for the same old faces year after year.

Don't forget a spoiled Ballot paper is still counted.

And then forgotten. Not voting at all has more impact

No it doesn't what a ridiculous statement.

I've spoiled ballot papers in the past, and I don't think it's a silly thing to do.

I just wish more people did it, rather than not voting. Not voting could mean that you disagree with the candidates, but it could also mean that you couldn't get to the polling station, that you couldn't be bothered to vote, you don't care or a multitude of things.

I'd rather spoil a ballot paper to show that I am engaged with politics and give a damn than not turn up. If more people had that mentality, so we got thousands of spoiled papers we might achieve something with it. But the reality is not enough do that, they just don't vote.

TightHEAD wrote:

Afro wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Afro wrote:Spoiling the ballot paper isn't going to fix a broken political system.

The same could be said for voting for the same old faces year after year.

Don't forget a spoiled Ballot paper is still counted.

And then forgotten. Not voting at all has more impact

No it doesn't what a ridiculous statement.

It's counted in regards to the turnout.

TightHEAD wrote:

Afro wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Afro wrote:Spoiling the ballot paper isn't going to fix a broken political system.

The same could be said for voting for the same old faces year after year.

Don't forget a spoiled Ballot paper is still counted.

And then forgotten. Not voting at all has more impact

No it doesn't what a ridiculous statement.

How about actually asking why I think that, rather than the critical retort.

If it is a choice between spoiling the ballot paper or not voting, the voter turnout numbers are scrutinised far more than the number of spoilt papers.

So neither is particularly impactful, but out of the two, not voting has a marginally greater impact IMO

Trebs wrote:I've spoiled ballot papers in the past, and I don't think it's a silly thing to do.

I just wish more people did it, rather than not voting. Not voting could mean that you disagree with the candidates, but it could also mean that you couldn't get to the polling station, that you couldn't be bothered to vote, you don't care or a multitude of things.

I'd rather spoil a ballot paper to show that I am engaged with politics and give a damn than not turn up. If more people had that mentality, so we got thousands of spoiled papers we might achieve something with it. But the reality is not enough do that, they just don't vote.

Spoiled papers can be that you haven't clearly marked a single person, not just that you have deliberately spoiled it. So that is also not achieving very much

If you sit at home not voting then you have nothing to complain about. (Although Remainers who did not vote have not stopped since the Referendum!)

Spoiling a ballot paper does count, especially to candidates who miss out by only a few votes. But please keep voting for these chocolate teapots time and time again lol.

Three Pollsters in the hung Parliament range or close to it...ICM..Comres...Panelbase...

Three Pollsters with healthy Tory majorities...Yougov...Survation...Kantar...

Two pollsters with landslides...Ipsos...Opinium.

Two weeks to go...

TightHEAD wrote:If you sit at home not voting then you have nothing to complain about.  (Although Remainers who did not vote have not stopped since the Referendum!)

Spoiling a ballot paper does count, especially to candidates who miss out by only a few votes. But please keep voting for these chocolate teapots time and time again lol.

To quote you, what a ridiculous statement.

How does spoiling a paper impact the candidate who missed out by a few more than those who didn't vote.

What your saying is you can spoil your paper as a protest, but not abstain from voting as a protest. The latter is more visible, so make more sense as a protest

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Three Pollsters in the hung Parliament range or close to it...ICM..Comres...Panelbase...

Three Pollsters with healthy Tory majorities...Yougov...Survation...Kantar...

Two pollsters with landslides...Ipsos...Opinium.

Two weeks to go...

And the bookmakers tightening the odds on a Tory majority, quoting a price of 1/3 now, with a hung parliament drifting out to 5/2.

Afro wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:If you sit at home not voting then you have nothing to complain about.  (Although Remainers who did not vote have not stopped since the Referendum!)

Spoiling a ballot paper does count, especially to candidates who miss out by only a few votes. But please keep voting for these chocolate teapots time and time again lol.

To quote you, what a ridiculous statement.

How does spoiling a paper impact the candidate who missed out by a few more than those who didn't vote.

What your saying is you can spoil your paper as a protest, but not abstain from voting as a protest. The latter is more visible, so make more sense as a protest

The latter isn't at all visible, no one will know if you voted or not. At least with a deliberately spoilt paper the vote counter will see it.

Quite an odd opinion to have if I'm honest, doing nothing is more of a protest than doing something

Soul Requiem wrote:

Afro wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:If you sit at home not voting then you have nothing to complain about.  (Although Remainers who did not vote have not stopped since the Referendum!)

Spoiling a ballot paper does count, especially to candidates who miss out by only a few votes. But please keep voting for these chocolate teapots time and time again lol.

To quote you, what a ridiculous statement.

How does spoiling a paper impact the candidate who missed out by a few more than those who didn't vote.

What your saying is you can spoil your paper as a protest, but not abstain from voting as a protest. The latter is more visible, so make more sense as a protest

The latter isn't at all visible, no one will know if you voted or not. At least with a deliberately spoilt paper the vote counter will see it.

Quite an odd opinion to have if I'm honest, doing nothing is more of a protest than doing something

What number is scrutinised more - turnout or spoilt papers?

Afro wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Afro wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:If you sit at home not voting then you have nothing to complain about.  (Although Remainers who did not vote have not stopped since the Referendum!)

Spoiling a ballot paper does count, especially to candidates who miss out by only a few votes. But please keep voting for these chocolate teapots time and time again lol.

To quote you, what a ridiculous statement.

How does spoiling a paper impact the candidate who missed out by a few more than those who didn't vote.

What your saying is you can spoil your paper as a protest, but not abstain from voting as a protest. The latter is more visible, so make more sense as a protest

The latter isn't at all visible, no one will know if you voted or not. At least with a deliberately spoilt paper the vote counter will see it.

Quite an odd opinion to have if I'm honest, doing nothing is more of a protest than doing something

What number is scrutinised more - turnout or spoilt papers?

I don't think that has any relevance to it being a protest, those who don't vote are assumed to just not want to.

“That this House notes the suggestion of a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines and autism...”

Supported by Corbyn and McDonnell in 1999 (and Vince Cable).

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/16541

Soul Requiem wrote:

Afro wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Afro wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:If you sit at home not voting then you have nothing to complain about.  (Although Remainers who did not vote have not stopped since the Referendum!)

Spoiling a ballot paper does count, especially to candidates who miss out by only a few votes. But please keep voting for these chocolate teapots time and time again lol.

To quote you, what a ridiculous statement.

How does spoiling a paper impact the candidate who missed out by a few more than those who didn't vote.

What your saying is you can spoil your paper as a protest, but not abstain from voting as a protest. The latter is more visible, so make more sense as a protest

The latter isn't at all visible, no one will know if you voted or not. At least with a deliberately spoilt paper the vote counter will see it.

Quite an odd opinion to have if I'm honest, doing nothing is more of a protest than doing something

What number is scrutinised more - turnout or spoilt papers?

I don't think that has any relevance to it being a protest, those who don't vote are assumed to just not want to.

You have missed the point from all that has been posted before.

I don't think either is a sensible thing to do and neither is a good way to protest.

Who scrutinises the spoilt papers and thinks it makes people take action? So doing neither is a good way to protest.

But if you are going to insist on doing one, at least turnout is scrutinised, so a low turnout might have some remote impact

Duty281 wrote:“That this House notes the suggestion of a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines and autism...”

Supported by Corbyn and McDonnell in 1999 (and Vince Cable).

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/16541

Not a surprise

Afro wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:If you sit at home not voting then you have nothing to complain about.  (Although Remainers who did not vote have not stopped since the Referendum!)

Spoiling a ballot paper does count, especially to candidates who miss out by only a few votes. But please keep voting for these chocolate teapots time and time again lol.

To quote you, what a ridiculous statement.

How does spoiling a paper impact the candidate who missed out by a few more than those who didn't vote.

What your saying is you can spoil your paper as a protest, but not abstain from voting as a protest. The latter is more visible, so make more sense as a protest

Because old chap no one counts the lazy people who do not vote.

Is that clear enough for you?

Afro wrote:
You have missed the point from all that has been posted before.

I don't think either is a sensible thing to do and neither is a good way to protest.

Who scrutinises the spoilt papers and thinks it makes people take action? So doing neither is a good way to protest.

But if you are going to insist on doing one, at least turnout is scrutinised, so a low turnout might have some remote impact

I haven't missed the point at all, the whole point of a protest is letting people know you're protesting and whether it is only one person who knows that is better than none.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Afro wrote:
You have missed the point from all that has been posted before.

I don't think either is a sensible thing to do and neither is a good way to protest.

Who scrutinises the spoilt papers and thinks it makes people take action? So doing neither is a good way to protest.

But if you are going to insist on doing one, at least turnout is scrutinised, so a low turnout might have some remote impact

I haven't missed the point at all, the whole point of a protest is letting people know you're protesting and whether it is only one person who knows that is better than none.

That one person who puts in a pile to be stuck in a box, never be seen again.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure that has any impact either. I think it you had a 30% turnout, more people would sit and take notice

30% turn out mean f all to elected MPs.

The gravy train rumbles on.

Duty281 wrote:“That this House notes the suggestion of a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines and autism...”

Supported by Corbyn and McDonnell in 1999 (and Vince Cable).

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/16541

Not a good look. In their (paper-thin) defence, it was only 18 months after the Wakefield MMR paper. Then again, not much of a defence. That Cable's on there as well highlights something else about our political so-called élite - barely a scientist amongst the lot of them. Lawyers, medics, ex-Union reps, business types, PR people etc, but no real scientists (no, medics rarely count).

TightHEAD wrote:30% turn out mean f all to elected MPs.

The gravy train rumbles on.

Same as spoilt papers then

Spoilt papers? Not voting? All nits on the gnat's nuts i.e. who cares?

Afro wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:30% turn out mean f all to elected MPs.

The gravy train rumbles on.

Same as spoilt papers then

No, ridiculous statement.

navyblueshorts wrote:Spoilt papers? Not voting? All nits on the gnat's nuts i.e. who cares?

Ultimately my point

Its you right to spoil a ballot paper but there really should be a none of the above option.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Doctor7 wrote:I hate to burst your bubble, but during the Scottish referendum, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond were told repeatedly, "YOU WILL NOT GET THE POUND" you leave the UK and you leave everything.

Why people who want independence fail to accept this, is well, just lunacy. Also, one of the major stumbling blocks for brexit is the Irish border, why do the we think our border with England will be any different ?

It seems that some of these Scottish people who are screaming FREEDOM want it all on their terms.

People need to face facts, without England behind us, and their tax paying population, we are all fecked.

And I say this as a very proud Scotsman.

You, like Scots in 2014, were conned by the Better Together spiel. That is exactly what they said about the pound. Months later though the former Governor of the Bank of England said this:-

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/former-bank-of-england-governor-says-indy-scotland-could-have-pound-1-4063367

If you cannot see a difference between the Irish Border (considering the long running troubles in Northern Ireland) and the one between Scotland and England then I am flabberghasted.

And no I am sorry but you are a proud Brit. You do realise don't you that Scotland has far better export levels than many successful small independent countries in this world. Can you tell me why that is? Can you tell me why Westminster is so desperate to keep hold of Scotland if it is a financial basket case?

Speechless, I'm utterly speechless, how arrogant can you get ?

I am ex armed forces, I was a field doctor, I was in the Falklands, and I was in the Gulf conflict, plus I have served around a lot of other conflicts, I was posted in eastern Europe, I served Great Britian, and I am Scottish, born and bred.

It's people like this member who are wrong with Scotland.

I cannot say anymore, sorry.

I fi

Funny how he mentions exports, then forgets that virtually no Scottish exports are actually Scottish owned and that he completely forgets about the Scottish share of the national debt. You can't escape that responsibility.

I notice he still hasn't given anyone the best reason why Scotland would be better off independent.

Also I would imagine that Norway as the largest oil producer in Europe exports far more value than Scotland does. What's left after Whisky in Scotland (most of which isn't owned by Scottish companies? Jimmy Hats, Irn Bru and Shortbread, and don't mention oil, because that's worth virtually nothing to the UK exchequer. How about all the companies that said they would leave an Independent Scotland?

Scotland also has HALF the amount of 40% tax payers as the rest of the UK, so where is the expenditure going to come from? It's also considerably less healthy than the rest of the UK, so has a greater burden on health services.

Spoiling your paper is a total cop-out of a protest. Like it's been said earlier on this thread, if you really care about the broken political system in the UK then do something about it. Join a party and try to change it by either running yourself or canvassing for a candidate of your choice who you think can really make the difference you want.

Spoiling your ballot achieves absolutely nothing other than giving the non-voter some kind of false feeling of vindication.

Doctor7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Doctor7 wrote:I hate to burst your bubble, but during the Scottish referendum, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond were told repeatedly, "YOU WILL NOT GET THE POUND" you leave the UK and you leave everything.

Why people who want independence fail to accept this, is well, just lunacy. Also, one of the major stumbling blocks for brexit is the Irish border, why do the we think our border with England will be any different ?

It seems that some of these Scottish people who are screaming FREEDOM want it all on their terms.

People need to face facts, without England behind us, and their tax paying population, we are all fecked.

And I say this as a very proud Scotsman.

You, like Scots in 2014, were conned by the Better Together spiel. That is exactly what they said about the pound. Months later though the former Governor of the Bank of England said this:-

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/former-bank-of-england-governor-says-indy-scotland-could-have-pound-1-4063367

If you cannot see a difference between the Irish Border (considering the long running troubles in Northern Ireland) and the one between Scotland and England then I am flabberghasted.

And no I am sorry but you are a proud Brit. You do realise don't you that Scotland has far better export levels than many successful small independent countries in this world. Can you tell me why that is? Can you tell me why Westminster is so desperate to keep hold of Scotland if it is a financial basket case?

Speechless, I'm utterly speechless, how arrogant can you get ?

I am ex armed forces, I was a field doctor, I was in the Falklands, and I was in the Gulf conflict, plus I have served around a lot of other conflicts, I was posted in eastern Europe, I served Great Britian, and I am Scottish, born and bred.

It's people like this member who are wrong with Scotland.

I cannot say anymore, sorry.

I fi

Your point?

There are many who can claim the same who support independence for Scotland.

So can you please tell me why this basket case Scotland - potless and hopeless (if we are to listen to 606v2) - why Westminster is so desperate to keep hold of Scotland? I have yet to hear any unionist give me an answer to that question.

Are you not going to give the best reason as to why Scotland should be independent?

The UK wants to keep hold of Scotland because larger countries have more political, economic, military clout, not to mention pulling of resources, strategic issues etc.

I've asked tons of Indy fans what the best reason they could give for Independence would be, and I haven't ever heard one good reason.

It's not financial that's for sure.

super_realist wrote:Funny how he mentions exports, then forgets that virtually no Scottish exports are actually Scottish owned and that he completely forgets about the Scottish share of the national debt. You can't escape that responsibility.

I notice he still hasn't given anyone the best reason why Scotland would be better off independent.

Also I would imagine that Norway as the largest oil producer in Europe exports far more value than Scotland does. What's left after Whisky in Scotland (most of which isn't owned by Scottish companies? Jimmy Hats, Irn Bru and Shortbread, and don't mention oil, because that's worth virtually nothing to the UK exchequer. How about all the companies that said they would leave an Independent Scotland?

Scotland also has HALF the amount of 40% tax payers as the rest of the UK, so where is the expenditure going to come from? It's also considerably less healthy than the rest of the UK, so has a greater burden on health services.

Scotland owns much more than you think such as Scottish Beef, textiles, whisky, salmon, shellfish, manufacturing and yes has part of the British deby but the UK is Trillions in debt and do not see them being rushed into paying anything back to anyone.

As for the reason for independence - self-governance away from Westminster-rule. Getting to choose our own government instead of being foisted with Tory governments when the Tories have been a minority party in Scotland for 60 years.

Hmm and what about all the companies who have said they will pull out of the UK when Brexit happens? Kind of negates that side of things are companies supposedly will be leaving in January 2020.

Scotland's taxes raised will go entirely to Scotland. Sure there will be less tax but also less people to cater for with those taxes. Less healthy yet the Scottish NHS copes better than the rest of the UK if you care to look at the stats that are released frequently.

Lets not forget that Scotland produces a massive amount of renewable energy via its wind farms.
According to a recent report, the world's wind market offers many opportunities for Scottish companies, with total global revenue over the next five years estimated at £35 billion and continued growth forecast until at least 202

CaledonianCraig wrote:

super_realist wrote:Funny how he mentions exports, then forgets that virtually no Scottish exports are actually Scottish owned and that he completely forgets about the Scottish share of the national debt. You can't escape that responsibility.

I notice he still hasn't given anyone the best reason why Scotland would be better off independent.

Also I would imagine that Norway as the largest oil producer in Europe exports far more value than Scotland does. What's left after Whisky in Scotland (most of which isn't owned by Scottish companies? Jimmy Hats, Irn Bru and Shortbread, and don't mention oil, because that's worth virtually nothing to the UK exchequer. How about all the companies that said they would leave an Independent Scotland?

Scotland also has HALF the amount of 40% tax payers as the rest of the UK, so where is the expenditure going to come from? It's also considerably less healthy than the rest of the UK, so has a greater burden on health services.

Scotland owns much more than you think such as Scottish Beef, textiles, whisky, salmon, shellfish, manufacturing and yes has part of the British deby but the UK is Trillions in debt and do not see them being rushed into paying anything back to anyone.

As for the reason for independence - self-governance away from Westminster-rule. Getting to choose our own government instead of being foisted with Tory governments when the Tories have been a minority party in Scotland for 60 years.

Hmm and what about all the companies who have said they will pull out of the UK when Brexit happens? Kind of negates that side of things are companies supposedly will be leaving in January 2020.

Scotland's taxes raised will go entirely to Scotland. Sure there will be less tax but also less people to cater for with those taxes. Less healthy yet the Scottish NHS copes better than the rest of the UK if you care to look at the stats that are released frequently.

Lets not forget that Scotland produces a massive amount of renewable energy via its wind farms.
According to a recent report, the world's wind market offers many opportunities for Scottish companies, with total global revenue over the next five years estimated at £35 billion and continued growth forecast until at least 202

The upper limit for national debt for entry into the EU is 3%, Scotland's is 7.1% How do you think they'll get that down? What currency will we use?

Scotland doesn't provide a great deal of renewable energy, in total it's sufficient for 74% of Scotland's power demand. So how is that any different to using oil/gas? How is that putting money into the exchequer? What Scottish companies are these? Oh wait it's mostly Orsted, Equinor, and Vattenfall. Danish, Norwegian and Swedish companies.

This a bit like arguing with a Brexiteer, what is it that you would like to make decisions on that you can't already do? What decisions are you wanting that you can't already do through the plastic parliament in Holyrood?

Didn't you see the interview with Lego Head and Andrew Neil the other day? She was destroyed on the NHS. What about the drug problem in Scotland? Worst in Europe. What's Sturgeon doing about that? She charges more tax than the rest of the UK, but doesn't seem to be doing anything with it.

You are wrong. Scotland is inside the top ten providers of wind power in the world and it all counts towards exports of goods etc around the globe which is what we are talking about here. Decisions like opting to remain in the EU and not taken out against our will for starters. Decisions such as how much to spend and where. Decisions such as on immigration getting away from the abhorration of Westminster - Project Windrush anyone? Decisions made by a Scottish government for Scotland whereas Westminster does not give a flying crap. Summed up by Boris Johnson who reckons a pound spent in Clapham is better than a pound spent in Clyde.

Whose making out things to be perfect about Scotland? There again how about what the union does for young knife crime in London. It is that crime capital of the world. Stats show you are more likely now to get stabbed to death in London than shot in New York. As for drugs issues there are things that can be done that cannot be done without Westminster's say so.

I am still waiting for that answer from unionists. Why does Westminster so want to hold on to Scotland?

CaledonianCraig wrote:You are wrong. Scotland is inside the top ten providers of wind power in the world and it all counts towards exports of goods etc around the globe which is what we are talking about here. Decisions like opting to remain in the EU and not taken out against our will for starters. Decisions such as how much to spend and where. Decisions such as on immigration getting away from the abhorration of Westminster - Project Windrush anyone? Decisions made by a Scottish government for Scotland whereas Westminster does not give a flying crap. Summed up by Boris Johnson who reckons a pound spent in Clapham is better than a pound spent in Clyde.

Whose making out things to be perfect about Scotland? There again how about what the union does for young knife crime in London. It is that crime capital of the world. Stats show you are more likely now to get stabbed to death in London than shot in New York. As for drugs issues there are things that can be done that cannot be done without Westminster's say so.

I am still waiting for that answer from unionists. Why does Westminster so want to hold on to Scotland?

It might well be top 10, but it's still only sufficient for 74% of our energy demand. That's ALL renewables, so that includes Hydro. Again, who's taking the profit on that? Not Scottish companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Scotland

First of all, Scotland voted to remain in the UK, so if Scotland is moaning about being taken out of the EU against it's will, then places like London and Manchester can make the same claims. I don't see them asking for a referendum.

Windrush? Ha ha ha. Whats that got to do with anything? How is that something which Scotland wouldn't have made a mistake on? Aren't you forgetting Scotlands' role and profiteering from the slave trade? Glasgow was built on it.

London is nowhere nowhere near being the crime capital of the world by the way. Not even close. New York is now one of the safest cities in the US, so comparing a small part of London with one of the safest cities in America is hilarious. Try comparing it with LA, Detroit, Milwaukee, Buffalo etc.

I already stated why Westminster would want to keep hold of Scotland, but you seem to have ignored that, just like you ignored Krankie getting a pasting on the NHS and Drug problems. Why is that so bad, and why would it be better in an independent Scotland?


You need to work on your arguments, because they are not remotely convincing. It seems all you want is freedom from Westminster, which is fair enough, but you should just admit it instead of making infantile arguments and completely unrelated claims. You seriously want independence because of Windrush? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .

Anyone who watched that Johnson interview with Marr and still thinks “Yep, thats the man who should be Prime Minister” need their heads looking at. Car crash interviews dont come much worse than that.

Samo wrote:Anyone who watched that Johnson interview with Marr and still thinks “Yep, thats the man who should be Prime Minister” need their heads looking at. Car crash interviews dont come much worse than that.

You can't really make a case for anyone being PM.

Has there ever been a more hateful mob than all the current candidates for the position?

Super

Corbyn is a wise man, you are just too dim witted to realise it.

super_realist wrote:

Samo wrote:Anyone who watched that Johnson interview with Marr and still thinks “Yep, thats the man who should be Prime Minister” need their heads looking at. Car crash interviews dont come much worse than that.

You can't really make a case for anyone being PM.

Has there ever been a more hateful mob than all the current candidates for the position?

I can think of a few politicians on all sides who are more than capable, but unfortunately either arent party leaders or geographically couldnt be PM.

That said, out of the three who actually have a chance, Corbyn is the pick of the bunch by a distance. Which says something about the other choices available.

I can't think of a worse choice for PM in my lifetime than Corbyn and that includes Michael Howard.

McLaren wrote:Super

Corbyn is a wise man, you are just too dim witted to realise it.

It seems you are the only one who thinks so Mac. This is the most unpopular opposition leader in history.

If he is so wise, please demonstrate, after all, he's the man who thinks you can source and plant 49000 trees per hour.

Samo wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Samo wrote:Anyone who watched that Johnson interview with Marr and still thinks “Yep, thats the man who should be Prime Minister” need their heads looking at. Car crash interviews dont come much worse than that.

You can't really make a case for anyone being PM.

Has there ever been a more hateful mob than all the current candidates for the position?

I can think of a few politicians on all sides who are more than capable, but unfortunately either arent party leaders or geographically couldnt be PM.

That said, out of the three who actually have a chance, Corbyn is the pick of the bunch by a distance. Which says something about the other choices available.

Like who?

How is Corbyn the pick of any bunch? The man (and his laughable Momentum cronies who support him) is a catastrophe for Labour. Virtually anyone except Rebecca Long Bailey could have taken the helm and done better than Corbyn. Even the evil McDonnell could have done better than Corbyn, and that's saying something because he's an idiot with the financial brain of Dianne Abbott.

Labour, when they inevitably lose the election will have to relieve Corbyn and move closer to the centre instead of this Marxist lean that Steptoe has taken them in. They are probably the least effective opposition in history, you've even got ex Labour MP's urging people NOT to vote for Labour. When has that ever happened before?

super

Chill, it was clearly a wind up.

McLaren wrote:super

Chill, it was clearly a wind up.

With your zany woke beliefs Mac it's very hard to tell with you.

super_realist wrote:

Samo wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Samo wrote:Anyone who watched that Johnson interview with Marr and still thinks “Yep, thats the man who should be Prime Minister” need their heads looking at. Car crash interviews dont come much worse than that.

You can't really make a case for anyone being PM.

Has there ever been a more hateful mob than all the current candidates for the position?

I can think of a few politicians on all sides who are more than capable, but unfortunately either arent party leaders or geographically couldnt be PM.

That said, out of the three who actually have a chance, Corbyn is the pick of the bunch by a distance. Which says something about the other choices available.

Like who?

How is Corbyn the pick of any bunch? The man (and his laughable Momentum cronies who support him) is a catastrophe for Labour. Virtually anyone except Rebecca Long Bailey could have taken the helm and done better than Corbyn. Even the evil McDonnell could have done better than Corbyn, and that's saying something because he's an idiot with the financial brain of Dianne Abbott.

Labour, when they inevitably lose the election will have to relieve Corbyn and move closer to the centre instead of this Marxist lean that Steptoe has taken them in.  They are probably the least effective opposition in history, you've even got ex Labour MP's urging people NOT to vote for Labour. When has that ever happened before?

Corbyn is the pick of the bunch in the same way I’d rather lose a finger than an arm or a leg. Just because I’d prefer him over Swinson or Johnson doesnt mean I like him.

On the left side of things you’ve got people like Starmer, Ian Murray, Andy Burnham, even Yvette Cooper would be a pick before Corbyn. You’ve also got the likes of Sturgeon of the SNP (even though she has as much chance at being PM as I do at winning the National).

If I had to pick a Tory/Right winger who would be a better PM than Johnson, well throw a dart basically, but a few I can think of would be the likes of Grieve, Clarke, Baroness Warsi, even Rory Stewart or Ruth Davidson would be a preferable choice.

Sturgeon Even if the SNP was a UK party, she'd never be PM because she's not an MP. She only works in the plastic parliament.

I agree Starmer would be better than Corbyn. Burnham isn't an MP either, so you can rule him out.

As for the Tories, Davidson has given up politics.

I did say they were various reasons why a few of them couldnt be, but the only criteria I had was “a better choice than Johnson”

And laugh all you want, but during this entire Brexit fiasco the only one who has remained consistent, level headed and pragmatic about the whole thing has been Sturgeon, putting all her English counterparts to shame.