Despite having the shortest tenure ever for a UK PM, Truss served under more different monarchs than any PM in the last 60 years. 
UK Politics
- Thread starter CriedWhenBrucieLeft
- Start date
Boroking
In the mire of an ancient swamp
Despite having the shortest tenure ever for a UK PM, Truss served under more different monarchs than any PM in the last 60 years.
That’s a great pub quiz fact
I can't think offhand, it hasn't happened for quite some time but I'm sure it did decades ago.
But really, Boris? He left under a cloud just a few weeks ago....hardly surprising the ruling party is in turmoil if the populace is changing its opinion faster than the wind changes
But really, Boris? He left under a cloud just a few weeks ago....hardly surprising the ruling party is in turmoil if the populace is changing its opinion faster than the wind changes
The last fellow to do it was Harold Wilson, but he lost power, then regained power, due to an election.
The last time a party, in a leadership election, selected a previous PM was when the Whigs (!) picked Earl Russell (!!) after the previous PM, Viscount Palmerston (!!!) died in office (!!!!)...in 1865.
Edfarts 1
Educated Fool
Thumbs down.
Edfarts 1
Educated Fool
They must be desperate to have that lying incompetent fool back in Number 10. I call him the Lying King ( as opposed to the Lion King) the poor fool couldn't even control his own hair. How could the gimp be expected to control our country.
MindRuler
Patient Mariner
Lettuce be serious now.
But Boris sort of was a Pound Shop version of Trump...
Edfarts 1
Educated Fool
Bojo is an anti British pro EU t0sser. He fkt up Brexit. Best he stays away from Number 10.
Not sure how he's anti-British of all things, when hes more likely than anyone to wear Union Jack boxers and generally be a walking stereotype. Also not sure how he fucked up Brexit when there was never any obvious way of pulling out of the EU without it having some sort of negative consequences. Nobody has ever had any clue how to do it, only that they wanted it.
Vague sentiments, wishes and gripes are exactly why we're stuck with a party that runs around paying lip service to all sorts of Daily Mail reader grumbles, and doesn't have any kind of coherent or logical plan.
Labour are insipid and have little more direction, but they're not in the same league of chaos and sleaze as the parliamentary Conservative party of recent years.
Vague sentiments, wishes and gripes are exactly why we're stuck with a party that runs around paying lip service to all sorts of Daily Mail reader grumbles, and doesn't have any kind of coherent or logical plan.
Labour are insipid and have little more direction, but they're not in the same league of chaos and sleaze as the parliamentary Conservative party of recent years.
Edfarts 1
Educated Fool
He's anti British because he's a remoaner. All remoaners are anti British. Not sure about the Daily Mail as I don't read any newspapers. There's nothing negative about Brexit, but admittedly there is unfinished business re Brexit. We must of course leave the ECOHR, can't have foreigners deciding how WE control our own borders. Right? Apart from that Brexit is just great
Boroking
In the mire of an ancient swamp
Wow. There’s a lot to unpack here
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
Is it possible to have a political discussion without tabloid name-calling?
Boris is not pro EU. He sold himself as leader on the back of 'getting Brexit done' when the then makeup of the House of Commons resulted in some aspects of the EU withdrawal causing a stalemate in the House.
He took Britain out of the EU, or presided over that process. Nobody actually ever had a working plan for EU withdrawal, and spent most of their time spouting rhetoric about taking Britain back (from who?) or getting rid of "Them".
It turns out that severing absolutely all links to the EU and refusing to come to any agreements on anything would cause all kinds of legal, political and economic mayhem that would do nobody any good, so he compromised in a few ways.
Leaving the EU has caused all sorts of chaos and negative knock on effects, anyway, but if leaving was more important to the majority than those effects, then so be it. I'm not certain how it could have been done in a more painless way for Britain. It could definitely have been done in a *more* painful way.
The European Court of Human Rights is currently protecting the rights of British Citizens. That's quite handy when a knee-jerk majority party could decide to scrap employment or disability rights on a whim to appease the latest handful of backbenchers threatening to revolt.
Neither you nor I control Britain's borders. The physical borders have authorities conducting checks. Economic borders and cultural borders barely exist today. Even the physical borders aren't impervious because there will always be people prepared to risk their lives on dinghies to get anywhere in the world safer or more prosperous than where they were born. All of Europe has this issue.
Not at all sure what anti-British is unless you can pin down what is quintessentially British. You'll probably find each Nation has major differences of opinion, let alone each region and each section of society.
Support for an unachievable and poorly defined ideal or notion is what is resulting in a ruling party failing to come up with a coherent policy and trying to tick incompatible boxes which won't work as a whole.
Boris and Farage cottoned on to the idea of waving a flag and coming up with feelgood slogans to get support. Neither had an actual plan to run a modern country.
Boris is not pro EU. He sold himself as leader on the back of 'getting Brexit done' when the then makeup of the House of Commons resulted in some aspects of the EU withdrawal causing a stalemate in the House.
He took Britain out of the EU, or presided over that process. Nobody actually ever had a working plan for EU withdrawal, and spent most of their time spouting rhetoric about taking Britain back (from who?) or getting rid of "Them".
It turns out that severing absolutely all links to the EU and refusing to come to any agreements on anything would cause all kinds of legal, political and economic mayhem that would do nobody any good, so he compromised in a few ways.
Leaving the EU has caused all sorts of chaos and negative knock on effects, anyway, but if leaving was more important to the majority than those effects, then so be it. I'm not certain how it could have been done in a more painless way for Britain. It could definitely have been done in a *more* painful way.
The European Court of Human Rights is currently protecting the rights of British Citizens. That's quite handy when a knee-jerk majority party could decide to scrap employment or disability rights on a whim to appease the latest handful of backbenchers threatening to revolt.
Neither you nor I control Britain's borders. The physical borders have authorities conducting checks. Economic borders and cultural borders barely exist today. Even the physical borders aren't impervious because there will always be people prepared to risk their lives on dinghies to get anywhere in the world safer or more prosperous than where they were born. All of Europe has this issue.
Not at all sure what anti-British is unless you can pin down what is quintessentially British. You'll probably find each Nation has major differences of opinion, let alone each region and each section of society.
Support for an unachievable and poorly defined ideal or notion is what is resulting in a ruling party failing to come up with a coherent policy and trying to tick incompatible boxes which won't work as a whole.
Boris and Farage cottoned on to the idea of waving a flag and coming up with feelgood slogans to get support. Neither had an actual plan to run a modern country.
