that they should vote for him over Boris would be to call Brexit voters “Little Englanders” :clap: :clap:
that they should vote for him over Boris would be to call Brexit voters “Little Englanders” :clap: :clap:
Utterly fúcking bizarre, isn't it? I'm really struggling to discern what the fúck is going on in the heads of his team. I can think of few pitches less likely to appeal to the membership than 'I am a committed Remainer who is effectively Theresa May in trousers and I solemnly promise to kick the Brexit can down the road indefinitely until such time as I reckon we can get away with dumping the whole idea.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
If that is what he believes in then so be it :shrug:, unless you want him to lie and then change his mind when in power? Heaven fobid a politician telling the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I suppose he could just refuse to answer all questions and come across as a complete and utter idiotic ****.
This country is fúcked
He may believe whatever the fúck he likes. However, if those beliefs are completely at odds with the wishes of an electorate to which he is supposedly attempting to appeal and will ensure he isn't elected, uttering them makes him pretty much an idiotic **** himself, doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
A classic case of 'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt', I'd say.
It's hardly his fault if he believes remain is the better position than a no deal brexit. I'd rather he tells it like it is than say nothing and then show his true colours after the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Tory Mp's chose a remainer and a hard line Brexiteer as their final 2, i would suggest that is a better option as it gives members a clear distinction if they are going to choose their leader on Brexit. if they chose their leader on other policies then we are in for a **** storm of the highest order as Boris does he wants for himself and not for the general good of the UK imho
It's absolutely his fault if he believes that. It's also absolutely his fault if he believes that and then decides to try and lead a party the majority of whose members absolutely do not believe that. It would be akin to me attempting to win the leadership of the Labour Party with a policy platform of lower taxes, lower public spending, law and order and Hard Brexit - in other words, it's fúcking hopeless, pointless and stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
Frankly, I wish I had as much faith as you Remainers appear to have in Boris doing the right thing.
Let's also remember that it's very likely that MPs coordinated their votes in the last round of voting to deliberately pit Hunt (rather than Gove) against Boris in the final, knowing that it would assure Boris a walkover victory. So Hunt's presence in the final two is in no way a validation of his remainer inclinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
No, but I would argue that the presence of Stewart, Hancock and Hunt in the race is symptomatic of the vast gulf that exists between sections of the Parliamentary Tory party and the overwhelming majority of its members and voters. That's going to need sorting out sharpish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Well it would only have taken a handful of Boris-supporting MPs to give Hunt their vote to fix the final.
But yes, agree with the general point.
So he shouldn't have views that don't agree with the voting members? If they disagree with him the Boris will win easily......Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I'd rather he stuck to his beliefs and lost than lie through his teeth, win and then change his mind.
As I said, if it is on brexit Boris will win, if it is on other policies then it is anyones guess as Boris is a law to himslef and is likely to change his mind to suit his own agenda
His views are up to him, but he has no business trying to lead the party while espousing them. To do so is pointless at best and deliberately divisive and destructive to party cohesion at worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
Though the 'Battle of the Jeremys' at the next GE would have an interesting ring to it.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...df6971154e.jpg
He has every right to lead the party if they want him! It isn't only Brexit, Boris seems to have 1 policy and that is Brexit, everything else he says is waffle with no substance, good luck to him if he gets in, and good luck to the country if he is PMQuote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Wasn't Boris a lifelong EUro-phile who turned his cloak at the referendum as a career move?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
Actually that would be nicely symmetrical with the life-long euro-sceptic leading the other party who turned his cloak at the referendum as a career move.
Hardly a Europhile. Boris used to be notorious for his EU-bashing columns in his days as The Telegraph's Brussels correspondent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
No. Boris pretty much made his name at the Telegraph reporting about the iniquities of the EU from Brussels, in fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Oh, I see I've :noah: d
This is the mistake people keep making. Right now, it is only Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
Do you actually know what the term "Little Englander" actually means?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
I'd vote for you if you promised all Corbynistas would be sent to a Gulag. We could get rid of you once you'd done that, and you'd become a hero of the moderate wing. A John Smith, pbuh, if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Originally, it meant dirty Liberal anti-imperialists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
This is exactly what Boris is for: Get us out of the EU and nobody really gives a fúck what he does after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
:clap: potd, aQuote:
Originally Posted by Ash
indeed. With an unspoken Emery reference too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
I'm surprised you didn't agree with then, B. {Have you read Gentlemanly Capitalism by Cain and Hopkins?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Basically, once we'd repealed the corn laws, and introduced free trade, we had a massive advantage which meant that the dominance of the City backed up by the RN meant we effectively had an informal, free trade empire, eg Argentina, which made us loads more cash than the mercantilist formal bits like India, so they thought why bother paying to civilise the natives?
Thought that that would have been up your street. Don't tell me you're a pro-Corn Law imperialist (in 1840s terms?)
No, but where would the world be if it weren't for us being on the ground telling savages how to behave, eh? It's not just about money! There's the white man's burden to consider, for God's sake!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
I love Kipling but hate The White Man's Burden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Not because I'm stupid enough to ignore the good parts of white imperialism amongst the rape and pillage but because he was asking the Septics to join in. Fück that.
They shouldn't have been allowed the 13 shîtholes they started with, let alone anywhere else.
Can you really imagine Gunga Din being officered by Septics? Or more to the point, some Septic "doughboy" saying "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din?"
No, Johnny Septic would have turned the first holy cow he saw into a hamburger and the resulting kick-off would have made the Mutiny look like the Dalai Lama playing Glasto.
{You should read Gent Cap by C+H. I can send you a download or pdf/read to my private online library of academic texts if you want. It's the seminal work on the economics of the British empire. If a druggie, lefty crusty is telling you to read an article about how public schoolboys in the city made the modern world, you really should:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ppch9lp2yy...96293.pdf?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ib3uevyas3qdryc/2596481.pdf?dl=1
Check I've got the order right. 25 pages each half. But the most important work in half a century.