Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
simple if you think about it.
Anyone agree/disagree? Cases for and against.
a long and complicated attack from Cameron with him asking How does the prime minister respond to that.
At which point she holds up a blown up photo e.g.
Im intrigued by the possibility of the headlines if she had prescot as deputy, the headlines are obvious - beauty and the beast....even better they should have him on a leash with her holding it.
Politics needs a turn in this direction, it would be altogether healthier and more sincere that what we have at present
For: She's a bit hot.
Against: She's a minister in the most redundant waste-of-time department ever, and before that she was no-one. What exactly qualifies her for this drastic increase in grade?
You mean relatively, yes? Please say yes.
*For: Relative to some of the other cave-dwelling krakens in parliament, she is a bit hot.
Who would you rather watch on PM's question time?
Stealthy - please compare her 'againsts' against other labour pms 'againsts' and i think that you will find that she is not 'without qualifications'
However I am perfectly happy to recieve suggestions as to who would be better to nominate, you may be right, its just that i cant think of an improvement at the moment
I don't care. PMQ is funny for the pwning and the put-downs, but I'm not always that concerned by how they go. Bigger picture, innit.
with which to respond :)
since when has the majority of voters been interested in understanding the bigger picture, when have they been able to see the bigger picture through the hyperbole and cover ups and accusation/counter accusation, through the spin and through the sophistry?
Has parliament made much attempt to help the public see the bigger picture?
TO SEE THROUGH THE DUST OF THE FURORE OF PARTY JPOSTLING FOR POLE POSITION THROUGH WHATEVER MEANS?
i THINK THAT THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING 'no'
How about I compare her to some Tory folks' 'againsts'? She's not looking so hot now...
William Hague. He's led a party once already, he's untouchable at the whole PMQ's lark, even though he lost an election people still like him in his own party, and a few good episodes presenting Have I Got News For You has engendered trust, goodwill, and at the very least - toleration from the rest of the country.
And he used to be the milkybar kid. I mean COME ON.
and then i was going to post link to his excrutiating speech as a 16? year old at the tory party conference, but i cant find it :(
But then I guess no one acted like Labour were going to win in 1997 no matter how likely it looked. But still, the country always leans Tory generally so the Tories did have that on their side. Labour have nothing.
Cos really it doesnt make a lot of difference otherwise, it doesnt really matter if you vote by putting your head in the bucket of sick, the bucket of urine or the bucket of faeces.
If the parties treat the voters with contempt and fib in their efforts to win, then how can they expect the voters to be sensible with their voting, when it is made impossible by the behaviour of (lets face it) the only three or two actually likely to get elected parties.
If they lie and spin to win votes, and then papers sieze on this and make it all an eastender type drama, then really why is it less democratic to vote for a pretty face?
In greece some leaders were sometimes appointed by their ability to win a foot race, how refreshing that would be, although it would result perhaps in SebCoe being PM.
your primeminister though?
and have Carla Bruni as first lady.
Efficient use of politicians/totty, non?