ChatterBank1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gulliver1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
"TTT....why so nasty ? " - because gulliver does not have a sincere bone in his body, all he ever does is spout sound bites of nastiness from the side with no debating points then skulks off when the inevitable boot reaches his plaster. That's how I have always dealt with fools. If you want a debate gulliver then start off with a sensible point backed up by some reasoning.
"About Sir Stafford Cripps, post-war Labour chancellor."
Funny you should mention Cripps, Jackdaw. He was once the subject of a humorous "Spoonerism" made by McDonald Hobley who, on the radio, referred to hims as "Sir Stifford Crapps". But more relevant from my point of view is that I was at school with his great nephew, Gordon, who taught me to play the drums.
Funny you should mention Cripps, Jackdaw. He was once the subject of a humorous "Spoonerism" made by McDonald Hobley who, on the radio, referred to hims as "Sir Stifford Crapps". But more relevant from my point of view is that I was at school with his great nephew, Gordon, who taught me to play the drums.
No Prime Minister is perfect because they tend to come with Party dogma attached. So it is possible to find flaws in everyone of them, including Churchill and Thatcher.
The standard of Party leader on both sides has been poor for a generation. Hague, Howard, Duncan Smith, and Cameron were universally terrible. I actually think May is better than all of those, though it is too early to give a definitive verdict.
I am not exempting Labour from criticism either. Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Blair, Brown and Miliband were all bad. (The exception, John Smith is a case of the best Prime Minister we never had). Corbyn is a refreshing repositing of the Labour Party to its true meaning, unfortunately he couldn't run a tuck shop nevermind a national party.
The standard of Party leader on both sides has been poor for a generation. Hague, Howard, Duncan Smith, and Cameron were universally terrible. I actually think May is better than all of those, though it is too early to give a definitive verdict.
I am not exempting Labour from criticism either. Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Blair, Brown and Miliband were all bad. (The exception, John Smith is a case of the best Prime Minister we never had). Corbyn is a refreshing repositing of the Labour Party to its true meaning, unfortunately he couldn't run a tuck shop nevermind a national party.