British PM Johnson to win a majority of 86: exit poll

[Rookiescot]

11 minutes ago, vogie said:

"You guys won. Its now time to deliver all the promises you made over Brexit and what Johnson said he would do."

 

You say you guys won, I say democracy and the UK won, the other option wasn't really an option now was it.

Whether Boris delivers on all the promises who knows, but he certainly has more chance than Jeremy Corbyns fantasy 'all is free budget'.

Would it be fair to say that the SNP would have prefered a Labour government in Westminster to a Tory gov.

But as much as I dislike Nicola Sturgeon stance I prefered it to the arrogant stance of Jo Swinson, to me this was one of the highlights of the election.

 

Oddly I was a bit disappointed with Nicolas reaction. She is the First Minister of Scotland after all and should behave accordingly. 

Jo Swinson was a classic case of someone being promoted way beyond their abilities. She should never have been given the job. 

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Oddly I was a bit disappointed with Nicolas reaction. She is the First Minister of Scotland after all and should behave accordingly. 

Jo Swinson was a classic case of someone being promoted way beyond their abilities. She should never have been given the job. 

Miss McCaviar certainly showed her class there.  

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

Another limp attempt to relativize Labour's internal nastiness. The one thing pretty apparent to all those standing outside the Corbynista cult and general Hard Left nonsense is that unless the Labour Party rips out this rottenness and makes a genuine and successful attempt to move to a moderate social democratic pathway, it is condemned to more than 10 years in ineffective opposition. You guys just don't get what has happened. Its over. If you think that repeating more of the same while marking time until the collapse of capitalism brings government falling into your lap is the way to go, then hey-ho. When Corbyn and the rest of them are gone come back and talk to us. In the meantime take your patronizing somewhere else. The Party is over and out.

How quickly something refreshing becomes something tedious. Is this some sort of transactional analysis technique? 

 

For the record, I have never voted Labour in my life. Their internal strife is something that my political affiliations directly benefit from so common sense says that I should jump on the bandwagon that so many other have recently. But I am not a hypocrite or an opportunist. I am merely pointing out how many Brexiteers seem to have had very damascene conversions of late.  

 

I am more than happy to take my patronizing elsewhere; maybe you can also direct your non sequitur haikus and diatribes elsewhere too. 

 

[englishoak]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Miss McCaviar certainly showed her class there.  

 

She wont be smiling in a few weeks once the Alex Salmond trail starts and people start asking how she could be his No2 for years and see or notice nothing in either his character or ignore complaints...methinks her time is coming. 

[RuamRudy]

18 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Oddly I was a bit disappointed with Nicolas reaction. She is the First Minister of Scotland after all and should behave accordingly. 

Jo Swinson was a classic case of someone being promoted way beyond their abilities. She should never have been given the job. 

I think that the context is being overlooked by a lot of Sturgeon's detractors. Amy Callaghan is still relatively young and has overcome cancer to take a very challenging seat - I am certain that this is the cause of Sturgeon's reaction. In fact, she has shown considerable solidarity with female politicians of all parties so it would seem at odds with that for her to suddenly rejoice at the failure of a colleague.

[RickBradford]

It was very amusing to see Grace Blakeley, a fervent Corbyn supporter, declaring that Labour's far-Left policies were very popular and that Labour had "won the arguments."

 

She said this to a disbelieving and stunned panel on Good Morning Britain, and nimbly defended her position by shouting over anyone else's remarks.

 

It makes me wonder what arguments she was talking about. The conclusion can only be, that if Labour won the arguments, it had no idea what arguments the British people wanted to hear, such as those about Brexit, sovereignty of the UK parliament, and accountability of UK politicians.

 

It's a real car wreck. Even after Labour's worst result in 85 years, they still don't get it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY3kC5cc0cE

 

[nauseus]

29 minutes ago, englishoak said:

 

She wont be smiling in a few weeks once the Alex Salmond trail starts and people start asking how she could be his No2 for years and see or notice nothing in either his character or ignore complaints...methinks her time is coming. 

Yup. Not forgotten. 

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I think that the context is being overlooked by a lot of Sturgeon's detractors. Amy Callaghan is still relatively young and has overcome cancer to take a very challenging seat - I am certain that this is the cause of Sturgeon's reaction. In fact, she has shown considerable solidarity with female politicians of all parties so it would seem at odds with that for her to suddenly rejoice at the failure of a colleague.

Well, she is odd!

[Nanglon]

Now there's a good start for the rebuild - a lass that speaks her mind:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/14/working-class-voters-didnt-trust-labour-jess-phillips

[kingdong]

8 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

Completely the opposite of what happened but nevever let a good story get in the way of the truth.

So they found the elusive "weapons of mass destruction" ?

[DannyCarlton]

37 minutes ago, kingdong said:

So they found the elusive "weapons of mass destruction" ?

Not the WMD the rest of your post.

[kingdong]

11 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Not the WMD the rest of your post.

What exactly, why not go through it point by point,so Brown didn,t sell off gold reserves?,so Labour didn,t borrow a load of money?so why did Blair jump in bed with Bush about invading iraq?

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

so Labour didn,t borrow a load of money?

No, it went down under Brown until the 2008 financial crisis and has never returned to those levels since.

 

 

[kingdong]

5 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

No, it went down under Brown 

 

 

Anything to do with him flogging off the family silver,sorry gold reserves?

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

Anything to do with him flogging off the family silver,sorry gold reserves?

He sold of 50% of the gold reserves and bought foreign currency with it because we had very little diversity in our reserves. A wise move at the time. However, subsequently, for a variety of reasons, gold prices subsequently soared, making Browns sale look a bad one. Good idea, just bad timing.

[kingdong]

10 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

No, it went down under Brown until the 2008 financial crisis and has never returned to those levels since.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

No, it went down under Brown until the 2008 financial crisis 

 

 

11 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

 

 

Caused by Brown deregulation the banks.

[kingdong]

2 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

He sold of 50% of the gold reserves and bought foreign currency with it because we had very little diversity in our reserves. A wise move at the time. However, subsequently, for a variety of reasons, gold prices subsequently soared, making Browns sale look a bad one. Good idea, just bad timing.

A wise move at the time?it was that goats offloading so much gold onto the market that caused it to crash,and what currency did he buy?Zimbabwe dollars?

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

 

 

Caused by Brown deregulation the banks.

No excaberated by deregulation of the banks. Primary cause was a global crash which started in the States. Lehman Bros. Fanney Mae, Freddie Mac etc. Other countries fared even worse than the UK.

[kingdong]

10 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

No excaberated by deregulation of the banks. Primary cause was a global crash which started in the States. Lehman Bros. Fanney Mae, Freddie Mac etc. Other countries fared even worse than the UK.

Up to when Brown stuck his snout in there were regulations in place to safeguard the banking industry,still the wee canny sweatie knew best.

[Scott]

Please use correct names when posting.   One post reported and removed.  

 

[sandyf]

On 12/14/2019 at 7:36 PM, SheungWan said:

I believe that was changed for this election.

Argument for argument's sake.

Nothing changed, there is a difference between conditional policy and core policy.

Do you really believe that as a coalition or opposition party the Lib Dems would not have supported a second referendum.

My original comment still stands.

[SheungWan]

16 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Argument for argument's sake.

Nothing changed, there is a difference between conditional policy and core policy.

Do you really believe that as a coalition or opposition party the Lib Dems would not have supported a second referendum.

My original comment still stands.

Maybe this and maybe that. The point is (if anybody cares now) is that the Liberal Party went for broke and overreached themselves in the election by campaigning and arguing for direct repudiation of Article 50 without a second referendum (actually maybe it wouldn't have mattered whatever they had said). Clutch at straws all you want. The Tory overall majority overwhelms both Labour and Lib Dem and SNP and everybody else's total number of MPs combined. And please don't bore me with the total vote scores. That is not how MPs are elected.

[sandyf]

On 12/14/2019 at 4:23 PM, transam said:

Yep, short, to the point, and fact.........????

 

Some of you should really try to understand the people have spoken, if you can't see that, you're daft...????

There it is, the voice of reduced comprehension.

Of course "the people" have spoken, but there are "the people" of a particular persuasion that think they are "the people" and no other people exist.

Over the years "the people" of 63 countries have spoken and said that they would no longer be imprisoned by a dictatorial government, why should "the people" of Scotland not have the option to make it 64.

Make no mistake the battle has begun, but unlike the Irish a hundred years ago it will be a battle of words rather than violence. Johnson is between a rock and a hard place, he will fight like a cornered rat as he knows full well he would be faced with removing the Crown of Scotland and Balmoral from the Queen, success on the other hand will highlight the dictatorship of Westminster.

As a result of brexit, it is a war that the UK cannot win, "one nation conservatism" can only ever apply in England.

 

Feel free to post the usual childish comment, no doubt something warm and smelly will prevail.

[SheungWan]

11 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

He sold of 50% of the gold reserves and bought foreign currency with it because we had very little diversity in our reserves. A wise move at the time. However, subsequently, for a variety of reasons, gold prices subsequently soared, making Browns sale look a bad one. Good idea, just bad timing.

If the timing turns out to be bad then it wasn't such a good idea as market participants will tend to tell you. However, the conspiracy theory nuts' emphasis on the action taken by Brown is mostly peddled by the gold bugs who seem to pop up now and again.

[sandyf]

On 12/14/2019 at 5:56 PM, Forethat said:

So your conclusion is that voters who were upset with idea of leaving the EU decided to vote for Boris since Corbyn was a poor leader. Similarly, Liberal Democrats who's been fighting Brexit with their bare hands felt upset with the idea of a chance to stop Brexit and therefore decided to vote for the Conservatives?

 

If I didn't know any better I'd say that's Monty Python-material, right there.

Quite obviously my post went over your head.

[kingdong]

8 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

If the timing turns out to be bad then it wasn't such a good idea as market participants will tend to tell you. However, the conspiracy theory nuts' emphasis on the action taken by Brown is mostly peddled by the gold bugs who seem to pop up now and again.

And the clog dancers,they haven,t got a clue about fiscal strategy yet have the temerity to post on this forumn.

[kingdong]

18 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Maybe this and maybe that. The point is (if anybody cares now) is that the Liberal Party went for broke and overreached themselves in the election by campaigning and arguing for direct repudiation of Article 50 without a second referendum (actually maybe it wouldn't have mattered whatever they had said). Clutch at straws all you want. The Tory overall majority overwhelms both Labour and Lib Dem and SNP and everybody else's total number of MPs combined. And please don't bore me with the total vote scores. That is not how MPs are elected.

For evil to triumph it just requires good people to do nothing well in this people's vote the voters did and upheld democracy.

[sandyf]

On 12/14/2019 at 6:38 PM, Jip99 said:

 

Don’t continue to make a fool of yourself.

 

Even you know that 48 seats from 1.2m votes is not the same as 365 seats from 14m votes.

 

 

Been taking lessons from a creative accountant? The whole brexit fiasco was based on population share.

The SNP came first or second in EVERY seat in Scotland, but no doubt you think the conservatives did better than that in England.

 

 

[SheungWan]

On 12/14/2019 at 10:56 AM, Forethat said:

So your conclusion is that voters who were upset with idea of leaving the EU decided to vote for Boris since Corbyn was a poor leader. Similarly, Liberal Democrats who's been fighting Brexit with their bare hands felt upset with the idea of a chance to stop Brexit and therefore decided to vote for the Conservatives?

If I didn't know any better I'd say that's Monty Python-material, right there.

Actually to the first point, yes. First of all Brexit wasn't simply an in-out but in the period leading up to the election a battle between Hard and Soft Brexit. The Hard Brexiteers have attempted to airbrush this difference out of the narrative, but is essentially important not only as part of the story but key to why the election took place at all. Once the election was agreed, other factors came into consideration and it has been reliably reported that objections to Corbyn outscored the issue of Brexit on the doorstep. Me personally? Once Boris backed off from Hard Brexit and the election was called, Corbyn was the more toxic choice. Not getting Hard Brexit is the compromise. Hard Brexiteer supporters of Brexit Party policies also haven't got what they want. Still some uncertainty around, but we can live with that.

[sandyf]

35 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Maybe this and maybe that. The point is (if anybody cares now) is that the Liberal Party went for broke and overreached themselves in the election by campaigning and arguing for direct repudiation of Article 50 without a second referendum (actually maybe it wouldn't have mattered whatever they had said). Clutch at straws all you want. The Tory overall majority overwhelms both Labour and Lib Dem and SNP and everybody else's total number of MPs combined. And please don't bore me with the total vote scores. That is not how MPs are elected.

And how does that relate exactly, to my point regarding the 52% of the vote.

Stay on point, do not go off at a tangent.