[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 82634)
Message
File  []
close
BorisJohnson.jpg
826348263482634
>> No. 82634 Anonymous
8th June 2017
Thursday 10:54 pm
82634 spacer
After this election, this man is going to be the next Prime Minister and it's going to be fucking awesome.
Expand all images.
>> No. 82638 Anonymous
8th June 2017
Thursday 10:56 pm
82638 spacer
>>82634
That's not Tom Watson.
>> No. 82643 Anonymous
8th June 2017
Thursday 11:21 pm
82643 spacer

shirley_bassey4.jpg
826438264382643
>>82638
Actually now I've had time to think about it, I am completely wrong. Boris is Heseltine. The next Tory Prime Minister (who will take them into the inevitable election) is going to be John Major. Who is that?

Dame Shirley because it is all just a little bit of history repeating.
>> No. 82645 Anonymous
8th June 2017
Thursday 11:31 pm
82645 spacer

o-MICHAEL-GOVE-facebook.jpg
826458264582645
>>82643
Shit, that had better not be fucking Gove. We can't have that mutant representing us on the global stage.
>> No. 82648 Anonymous
8th June 2017
Thursday 11:36 pm
82648 spacer

amberBlowjob.jpg
826488264882648
>>82645
If I was good at Photoshop and not a bit frantic I would certainly abuse this image; I will leave that to your imagination.

Whoever it is, they have to have glasses.
>> No. 82651 Anonymous
8th June 2017
Thursday 11:38 pm
82651 spacer
Boris would do well simply because he's Wacky Boris.
More of a Celebrity than a Politician.
>> No. 82654 Anonymous
8th June 2017
Thursday 11:40 pm
82654 spacer
>>82651
The interim leader will need that.
>> No. 82718 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 5:39 am
82718 spacer

theresa horror.jpg
827188271882718
>call a snap election at the highest poll numbers in a year
>have no credible opposition
>largest opposing party is shitting itself inside out
>entire right-wing media and bizarrely even some of the left-wing media is shilling for you
>still manage to fuck up

I'll give it to Theresa, there are few people who could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so impressively
>> No. 82720 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 5:41 am
82720 spacer
>>82718
Don't worry. Corbyn will find a way to squander his (small-m) momentum soon enough.
>> No. 82727 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 7:10 am
82727 spacer
Boris COULD be the next leader, but my money's still on Ruth Davidson.
>> No. 82729 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 7:12 am
82729 spacer
>>82727
The party won't elect her for what are hopefully obvious reasons.
>> No. 82739 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 9:36 am
82739 spacer
>>82729

I would agree. However, the the Conservative Party has a habit of outright pragmatism on internal matters, and Davidson made a distinctly positive impression on the Tory campaign. She's young, energetic, and if we're being frank a gay, Scot does a lot to blast the cobwebs off a Conservative Party looking seriously out of touch.

Johnson would be a misstep of epic proportions (one I of course hope they make).
>> No. 82740 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 9:37 am
82740 spacer
>>82720
Man just led his party to the biggest swing in 70 years mate, maybe revise your expectations in light of that.
>> No. 82758 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 12:46 pm
82758 spacer
>>82740
No, he didn't. Not even fucking close.
>> No. 82763 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 1:33 pm
82763 spacer
>>82758
Yes he did. Attlee won a 11.7% swing in 1945. Corbyn just got 9.5%.
>> No. 82764 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 1:39 pm
82764 spacer
>>82763
>Corbyn just got 9.5%.
What the fuck are you on about, lad? He didn't get anywhere near that.
>> No. 82765 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 1:50 pm
82765 spacer
>>82763

Corbyn only gained 35 seats and still lost the election by a substantial margin. Blair gained 145 seats on a swing of 8.8%. Cameron gained 97 seats on a 3.7% swing. Gaining millions of votes in ultra-safe Labour seats isn't of much political value.

Corbyn did better than expected, but he still lost the election. We're now staring down the barrel of a DUP/CON coalition, which could be even more regressive than the previous Tory government. Credit where credit is due, Corbyn isn't a dismal failure, but he isn't a roaring success either. For a normal Labour leader in a normal election, this would be a very disappointing result.
>> No. 82766 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 2:12 pm
82766 spacer

Screenshot_20170609-141115.png
827668276682766
>>82764
Ok.

Suggest you correct the BBC. Twat.
>> No. 82767 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 2:16 pm
82767 spacer
>>82765
First gain in seats since 1997
Biggest swing since 1945
Only leader to crack 40% other than Blair since 1967

Normal leaders in normal elections don't win, and the trend since 1997 has been ever worsening. Corbyn has reversed that, and with a platform that would never have come from outside the left of the party.
>> No. 82768 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 2:24 pm
82768 spacer
>>82765
>Blair gained 145 seats on a swing of 8.8%. Cameron gained 97 seats on a 3.7% swing.
10.2% and 5.2% respectively. Corbyn got 2.1%.

On a uniform basis, that would yield 15 net gains from the Conservatives, but the actual result is far better with 22 net gains and the Tories left with many, many more marginals. The best they could hope for would be another election later this year with May still at the helm, when you'd think just momentum alone would be enough to flip many of those. Game over if she's replaced with someone less arrogant, though.
>> No. 82769 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 2:24 pm
82769 spacer
>>82766
No, the BBC is correct. You are the one that's wrong.
>> No. 82770 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 2:27 pm
82770 spacer
>>82766
Why would I want to correct them? That chart quite clearly and accurately shows a swing of 2%.
>> No. 82771 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 2:45 pm
82771 spacer
>>82769
You'll want to look at the numbers beside "LAB" mate.
>> No. 82772 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 2:55 pm
82772 spacer
>>82771
Go on. Take the number next to LAB and the number next to CON and calculate the swing.
>> No. 82773 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 3:02 pm
82773 spacer
>>82772
That's how you calculate swing from the Conservatives to Labour, specifically . You'll note that that's not what I'm talking about from the fact that a) that's not what I said you subliterate and b) that would be a fucking stupid thing to talk about in an election where the collapse of support for third parties was a major factor.
>> No. 82774 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 3:08 pm
82774 spacer
>>82773
>That's how you calculate swing from the Conservatives to Labour, specifically .
Erm, yes. That being what swing is. A change in relative vote share between two parties.

>that would be a fucking stupid thing to talk about in an election where the collapse of support for third parties was a major factor.
You appear to have misspelled "important" as "stupid" there.
>> No. 82775 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 3:17 pm
82775 spacer
>>82774
No, sunshine, that's what two party swing is. The clue that I wasn't talking about two party swing was that I didn't mention two parties.
>> No. 82777 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 3:25 pm
82777 spacer
>>82775
>No, sunshine, that's what two party swing is.
Well, yes, what with there being literally no other meaningful measure of swing. Otherwise you end up saying stupid things like how Corbyn isn't so bad because he gained 10 points. Then you have to accept other stupid things like how May brilliantly delivered the Tories their best total since 1992 and their best share since 1983. All of which would be monumentally stupid things to say.
>> No. 82778 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 3:31 pm
82778 spacer
>>82777
Yes, there are in fact other meaningful measures of swing, and two party swing is particularly unhelpful when, I repeat, collapsing support for third parties is a major factor influencing the outcome. Never mind, though. We all make mistakes sometimes.
>> No. 82780 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 3:40 pm
82780 spacer
>>82778
>and two party swing is particularly unhelpful when, I repeat, collapsing support for third parties is a major factor influencing the outcome
Yes, if by unhelpful you mean helpful. Otherwise, no.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password