Yes. BUT BY DOING SO YOU KEEP HIM IN, FFS!Originally Posted by Peter
Put it this way: if - say - Nicky Morgan became Tory leader, they could kiss my vote goodbye. No amount of tribalism could convince me to vote for such a person. Why would you not feel the same about Corbyn?
What about thon maniac Soubry? I'd rather vote for Corbyn. (I wouldn't.)Yes. BUT BY DOING SO YOU KEEP HIM IN, FFS!
Put it this way: if - say - Nicky Morgan became Tory leader, they could kiss my vote goodbye. No amount of tribalism could convince me to vote for such a person. Why would you not feel the same about Corbyn?
We undertook to defend our empire from the sea. At no point did the prospect of marauding Japs come in for discussion.To be fair, it also tells you how monstrously incompetent the Russians were - as well as being utterly callous with regard to human life, of course. All in all, though, us getting out of six years of that shïtshow with fewer than half a million dead is pretty good going, I reckon.
Shame about India, mind. Sorry about that, lads.
Obviously, its very sad and all that but what can you do. We sent our chaps out, we did our best, despite having Gerry knocking on our door.
For me, the Russians are the only genuinely terrifying nation on earth. You just dont want to end up on the opposite side of them and you DEFINITELY dont want to invade. Never ends well.....
Principle, b. I vote for the party, not the leader.Yes. BUT BY DOING SO YOU KEEP HIM IN, FFS!
Put it this way: if - say - Nicky Morgan became Tory leader, they could kiss my vote goodbye. No amount of tribalism could convince me to vote for such a person. Why would you not feel the same about Corbyn?
Exactly. I said Morgan because that was more realistic.
I'm pretty convinced Soubry is *actually* mad. Mind you, I'm increasingly wondering if Brexit has driven a lot of our political class mad or simply revealed that they were mad all along.
Generally speaking, they're like India at cricket: almost invincible on their own wickets, but terrible away from home. Did alright in the latter stages of WWII, but that was with vast amounts of US and British mechanised and logistical support. Left to their own devices, they'd probably have fücked it up.
That's not principle, p. Indeed, if the party's principles change and you don't, it is the opposite of principle.
They were also following on the trail of a defeated army which is vastly different from invading.
The core values and the mission never change. Policy is not principle, its the means. Its the ends I vote for.
They also wasted a grotesque number of their soldiers' lives in that campaign in their unseemly haste to get as much of Germany as they could. Profligate doesn't come into it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote