Britain/UK to get its 56th prime minister

[srb7677]

If you say so comrade, but then a Westminster party with no voters, can no longer govern and constantly trying to talk the rest of us into our own downfall, won't go down well. You carry on with your placards and belief you will change a thing with demanding more is better.

Teeny weeny flaw in your argument is that there will always be voters, if only because a minority are happy with the way things are. If you imagine 100 percent disengagement you are dreaming. Far more effective would be for everyone en masse to find an anti-establishmentarian candidate of their choice and vote for that person. You wouldn't need 100 percent to do so, just enough to count.

Your problem and mine is essentially the same - the millions of sheeple who keep on voting for the same old shite no matter what. It is these who need to be woken up to reality.

I just happen to think that large numbers of people voting against the establishment is likely to be more effective than large numbers of people not voting at all.

[Sheepy]

I have never said anything that's wrong today is your fault. I think you are a total irrelevence because of your disengagement, imagining that in such disengagement you will change the world when it fact you simply guarantee being ignored by the powers that be.

Changing anything - for better or worse - requires action, not inaction. So what is your plan for change?

All the disgusteds of Tunbridge wells, colonel blimps and armchair patriots out there, rise up and ensure you are not counted. You have nothing to lose but your copies of the Daily Mail. And your illusions of course.

A silent majority about to change the world by remaining silent.

If you say so comrade, but then a Westminster party with no voters, can no longer govern and constantly trying to talk the rest of us into our own downfall, won't go down well. You carry on with your placards and belief you will change a thing with demanding more is better.

[srb7677]

Oh, I see it's my fault then. While you march around saying more money will cure all ills.

I have never said anything that's wrong today is your fault. I think you are a total irrelevence because of your disengagement, imagining that in such disengagement you will change the world when it fact you simply guarantee being ignored by the powers that be.

Changing anything - for better or worse - requires action, not inaction. So what is your plan for change?

All the disgusteds of Tunbridge wells, colonel blimps and armchair patriots out there, rise up and ensure you are not counted. You have nothing to lose but your copies of the Daily Mail. And your illusions of course.

A silent majority about to change the world by remaining silent. 

[Sheepy]

You talk of delirium whilst yourself imagining some kind of mass awakening event just around the corner, revolutionary changes afoot as the people take back control by doing nothing,

Oh, I see it's my fault then. While you march around saying more money will cure all ills. 

[srb7677]

Seems to me you all love a political messiah of one type or another so you can sail along on your boat of delirium.

You talk of delirium whilst yourself imagining some kind of mass awakening event just around the corner, revolutionary changes afoot as the people take back control by doing nothing,

[Sheepy]

That is nonsense.

The right are far more into the idea of big leaders doing stuff than the left, who are more inclined to think of their leaders as first amongst equals, there to implement policies decided upon democratically by the little people and the grassroots.

The right are the ones who invariably want leaders to hand out red meat policies from on high. And to hand out good kicks up the arses - to immigrants, asylum seekers, the semi-mythical welfare scroungers, pot heads, layabouts and anyone the Daily Mail doesn't like.

Seems to me you all love a political messiah of one type or another so you can sail along on your boat of delirium.

[srb7677]

It is an oddity of the left that, despite all its talk of the rights of man (and of course, girlies), that it always wants a Beloved Leader to follow.

Most of us think well, he is a silly looking bastard, but will do until someone better turns up, and get on with our lives. The left is desperate to have someone to tell it what to do and to hand out a good kick up the arse in the process

That is nonsense.

The right are far more into the idea of big leaders doing stuff than the left, who are more inclined to think of their leaders as first amongst equals, there to implement policies decided upon democratically by the little people and the grassroots.

The right are the ones who invariably want leaders to hand out red meat policies from on high. And to hand out good kicks up the arses - to immigrants, asylum seekers, the semi-mythical welfare scroungers, pot heads, layabouts and anyone the Daily Mail doesn't like.

[Borchester]

Take every Prime Minister in my adult life in order of succession.....

Thatcher
Major
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May
Johnson
Truss?

I detect a continuous decline in competence, and/or integrity with every one worse than the last in at least one of those factors if not both.

It is an oddity of the left that, despite all its talk of the rights of man (and of course, girlies), that it always wants a Beloved Leader to follow.

Most of us think well, he is a silly looking bastard, but will do until someone better turns up, and get on with our lives. The left is desperate to have someone to tell it what to do and to hand out a good kick up the arse in the process

[srb7677]

Take every Prime Minister in my adult life in order of succession.....

Thatcher
Major
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May
Johnson
Truss?

I detect a continuous decline in competence, and/or integrity with every one worse than the last in at least one of those factors if not both.

[Borchester]

I didn't realise until a couple of minutes ago that there have only been ten more prime ministers of Britain/the UK than presidents of the USA — 55 to 45...

Actually, there have been 7 more US presidents than British prime ministers.

The US had 16 presidents before George Washington and the Americans count Grover Cleveland twice because he served two, non consecutive terms

[patman post]

I didn't realise until a couple of minutes ago that there have only been ten more prime ministers of Britain/the UK than presidents of the USA — 55 to 45...