ChatterBank12 mins ago
Lib Non Dems Finally Grasp Why They Got Hammered!
17 Answers
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
jim360 - // I'm confused why it's held against Jo Swinson in particular to "suggest that she was a credible candidate for Prime Minister" -- as opposed to, say, Johnson. Johnson's big advantage over her is primarily that he is in charge of the largest party, but it needn't have been that way if the public had voted in a different way. // I do not hold against Ms...
13:14 Mon 09th Mar 2020
Breathtaking arrogance from the so called Liberal Elite to assume that the public would be ok with them blatantly saying that the democratic will of the majority should simply be ignored because we know best and the public are too stupid to realise what's good for them. I respect their honesty though!
I have always loved laughing at the Labour Party's ever more ridiculous policies dreamed up by a party who knew the likelihood of ever coming close to having to implement them was about as likely as me securing a dinner date with Liz Hurley.
I think the Lib Dems got the same bug, and being even further distanced from the notion of political reality, must have been taking bets behind the scenes for who could come up with the most laughable campaign strategy.
Clearly Jo Swinson won, for the double whammy of suggesting that she was a credible candidate for Prime Minister, and that by default, her party would be the party of government, coupled with that guaranteed vote winner - the ditching of the will of the people by simply ignoring the result of a national referendum, and ditching Brexit on election.
Obviously, sustaining fantasies at that level requires the daily ingestion of industrial strength hallucinogenic drugs, and cannot be sustained indefinitely, so another lady has popped up to offer herself as a candidate in the leadership election.
Hoping to appeal to the right-on younger generation who, despite predictions, didn't take up with Grandpa Corbyn, she is describing herself as 'pansexual' which to the un-cool, like me, tends to conjure images of a woman who enjoys intimate liaisons with cooking utensils.
Still, she can't be any less of a joke than the previous incumbent, so let's wait and see who else pops up to join her in the race for the most pointless job in politics.
I think the Lib Dems got the same bug, and being even further distanced from the notion of political reality, must have been taking bets behind the scenes for who could come up with the most laughable campaign strategy.
Clearly Jo Swinson won, for the double whammy of suggesting that she was a credible candidate for Prime Minister, and that by default, her party would be the party of government, coupled with that guaranteed vote winner - the ditching of the will of the people by simply ignoring the result of a national referendum, and ditching Brexit on election.
Obviously, sustaining fantasies at that level requires the daily ingestion of industrial strength hallucinogenic drugs, and cannot be sustained indefinitely, so another lady has popped up to offer herself as a candidate in the leadership election.
Hoping to appeal to the right-on younger generation who, despite predictions, didn't take up with Grandpa Corbyn, she is describing herself as 'pansexual' which to the un-cool, like me, tends to conjure images of a woman who enjoys intimate liaisons with cooking utensils.
Still, she can't be any less of a joke than the previous incumbent, so let's wait and see who else pops up to join her in the race for the most pointless job in politics.
When you've all finished gloating, I'm sure you'd also agree that it's a poor service to the UK to have never more than two viable choices for government -- and even then, we're struggling to make it to that many. Pointless job Lib Dem leader may be but it's a sad indictment of politics, rather than something to celebrate.
Still, all that said, the gloating is completely justified. It was a stupid policy to adopt. If they'd stuck to their second referendum line things might have been a little different, but to be honest that was just one of several totally foreseeable mistakes made that gifted the position Johnson wanted all along.
I have written on here many times I believe a good Gvernment is made by a strong opposition, one that presents strong arguments when wayward policies are put forward rather than just opposes for opposing sake.
The Lib NonDems lost the plot a while back. They had a taste of power and fair play to them they stepped up to the mark when they realised that being in power realy meant. David Laws and Nick Clegg in particular got it and subsequently paid the price because their deluded voters couldnt understand why they did what they had to do.
Swinson was really worse than useless though.
The Lib NonDems lost the plot a while back. They had a taste of power and fair play to them they stepped up to the mark when they realised that being in power realy meant. David Laws and Nick Clegg in particular got it and subsequently paid the price because their deluded voters couldnt understand why they did what they had to do.
Swinson was really worse than useless though.
jim - // When you've all finished gloating, I'm sure you'd also agree that it's a poor service to the UK to have never more than two viable choices for government -- and even then, we're struggling to make it to that many. Pointless job Lib Dem leader may be but it's a sad indictment of politics, rather than something to celebrate. //
I can assure you, I am not 'gloating' in the slightest.
I do regard strong opposition as a mark of good government, but the Lib Dems are entirely architects of their own downfall, and I refuse to sympathise with deluded power-hungry chancers who play with politics as though it's an after-dinner game of charades.
I can assure you, I am not 'gloating' in the slightest.
I do regard strong opposition as a mark of good government, but the Lib Dems are entirely architects of their own downfall, and I refuse to sympathise with deluded power-hungry chancers who play with politics as though it's an after-dinner game of charades.
// I can assure you, I am not 'gloating' in the slightest. //
That's a shame, I would have been :P
I'm confused why it's held against Jo Swinson in particular to "suggest that she was a credible candidate for Prime Minister" -- as opposed to, say, Johnson. Johnson's big advantage over her is primarily that he is in charge of the largest party, but it needn't have been that way if the public had voted in a different way. Is it something about their personalities or their power plays? If so I still would be surprised to see Swinson in some sense behind: what else was Johnson up to when he resigned as Foreign Secretary, if not to make himself a credible candidate for PM by letting Theresa May take the sole blame for "her" Withdrawal Agreement?
So presumably it comes down to policies, but in that case it is presumably better for the opposition to oppose the government's line rather than to copy it. It remains Swinson's failure, and the party's, to have not appreciated just how damaging a "revoke" policy was going to be, but it seems odd indeed to criticise a party leader for having ambition.
That's a shame, I would have been :P
I'm confused why it's held against Jo Swinson in particular to "suggest that she was a credible candidate for Prime Minister" -- as opposed to, say, Johnson. Johnson's big advantage over her is primarily that he is in charge of the largest party, but it needn't have been that way if the public had voted in a different way. Is it something about their personalities or their power plays? If so I still would be surprised to see Swinson in some sense behind: what else was Johnson up to when he resigned as Foreign Secretary, if not to make himself a credible candidate for PM by letting Theresa May take the sole blame for "her" Withdrawal Agreement?
So presumably it comes down to policies, but in that case it is presumably better for the opposition to oppose the government's line rather than to copy it. It remains Swinson's failure, and the party's, to have not appreciated just how damaging a "revoke" policy was going to be, but it seems odd indeed to criticise a party leader for having ambition.
jim360 - // I'm confused why it's held against Jo Swinson in particular to "suggest that she was a credible candidate for Prime Minister" -- as opposed to, say, Johnson. Johnson's big advantage over her is primarily that he is in charge of the largest party, but it needn't have been that way if the public had voted in a different way. //
I do not hold against Ms Swinson her willingness to suggest that she is a suitable candidate for Prime Minister - to do otherwise would simply advertise an absence of belief in either her own ambitions, or that of her party.
I hold against her, the constant schoolmarmish hectoring attitude she evidenced, whenever questioned in any media, her habit of prefacing statements with "Look ..." which is simply shorthand for "You are too stupid to grasp this, so let me explain it slowly ..." - and essentially, her utter inability to suggest anything in the rough ball park area of a single policy or idea that potential voters could grasp and consider as being reasonable, practical, and doable.
I do not hold against Ms Swinson her willingness to suggest that she is a suitable candidate for Prime Minister - to do otherwise would simply advertise an absence of belief in either her own ambitions, or that of her party.
I hold against her, the constant schoolmarmish hectoring attitude she evidenced, whenever questioned in any media, her habit of prefacing statements with "Look ..." which is simply shorthand for "You are too stupid to grasp this, so let me explain it slowly ..." - and essentially, her utter inability to suggest anything in the rough ball park area of a single policy or idea that potential voters could grasp and consider as being reasonable, practical, and doable.
jim - // Johnson's big advantage over her is primarily that he is in charge of the largest party, but it needn't have been that way if the public had voted in a different way. //
Yes and also that he was aligned with the democratic decision of the majority, where as Swimsuit set her stall out, as AH portrays above, that the electorate were too stupid to get the "correct" answer. Simple people that the public are it's our job to deliver, for them, the "correct" result. Big mistake, history is littered with the remnants of politicians who underestimate the public.
Yes and also that he was aligned with the democratic decision of the majority, where as Swimsuit set her stall out, as AH portrays above, that the electorate were too stupid to get the "correct" answer. Simple people that the public are it's our job to deliver, for them, the "correct" result. Big mistake, history is littered with the remnants of politicians who underestimate the public.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.