She has got an outside chance, especially if we vote to leave the EU and the tory right gets a hold of things!

 

Doomsday scenario, let's not go there or think about that! :(

Let them go to the right!

Liz Truss pls.

I used to quite like her by Tory standards, but every public appearance has made her come off a right ditz.

Let them go to the right!

That story really won't end the way you want it to.

Let them go to the right even more than they already have!

 

While their Tory media Baron Elites will still keep the vote competitive, through permeating the BBC through to Tabloids, the Corbyn Grass Roots + more dissatisfaction will hand the election to Socialism! They are ignoring the new grass roots movement at their peril, mark my words.

As Qass says though it may well not turn out like we want because a move to the right may be viable with Corbyn as leader because he can't break through, as you say though the media bias doesn't help with this but also he could help himself on occasion!

So you'd have a rampant right wing Tory government with people reluctantly accepting it!

Edited March 31, 20169 yr by Steve201

The least popular leader ever documented in polling is not going to win a general election, particularly when he is mostly unpopular as a result of verbatim statements or actions on his part. When given the choice between someone who believes in the death penalty and someone who believes Britain shouldn't have nukes but that Iran should, the UK (and essentially every developed nation) will opt for the former, media bias or not.

Basically a rerun of the mid-late 1980s. That'll be fun...

I'm pretty sure he thinks no country should have nukes and I agree!

I and every sane person would agree with him!

 

I don't want to have the ability to heat skeletons to the temperature of the sun, and have the instant retaliation against people here too, due to some argument of the Elite, who will remain unharmed by the situation in their bunkers.

I'm pretty sure he thinks no country should have nukes and I agree!

 

Unfortunately, the chances of getting every single other country to agree to that is more or less implausible, as much as the multilateralist in me would like to see that.

I don't want to have the ability to heat skeletons to the temperature of the sun, and have the instant retaliation against people here too, due to some argument of the Elite, who will remain unharmed by the situation in their bunkers.

This mischaracterisation (which has been very common on the left for the last few months) fucks me off so much. Nobody in favour of nukes ever wishes to see them used, just as nobody with a guard dog ever wishes to need it. It is a deterrent which wards off aggression that is both unlikely but very dangerous if it is ever to occur. And that we are unlikely to ever need to use it is no more an argument against it than it is an argument against buying house insurance.

Unfortunately, the chances of getting every single other country to agree to that is more or less implausible, as much as the multilateralist in me would like to see that.

Exactly.

Then why not take the money from the immoral Trident, put it into infrastructure, and hold a Telethon every year instead of Children in Need for those who want a nuclear deterrent?

 

And what aggression has it staved off, pray tell?

 

And start with the man in the mirror. We can get rid of this immoral weapon first.

I'm pretty sure he thinks no country should have nukes and I agree!

I am sure he believes there ought to be no nukes in the world. For some strange reason that point is not his first priority when it comes to nations such as Iran having them.

I used to quite like her by Tory standards, but every public appearance has made her come off a right ditz.

Oh, go on then :P

 

 

And start with the man in the mirror. We can get rid of this immoral weapon first.

 

Is that not the most dangerous way of doing it. I'm no fan of Trident and would rather there were no nukes in the world but making sure no nations that might in a moment of madness actually use a nuke have one first is surely the right way round. Basic realism.

Then why not take the money from the immoral Trident, put it into infrastructure, and hold a Telethon every year instead of Children in Need for those who want a nuclear deterrent?

That's what taxation is for, idiot. If you can't see how dangerous the principle of 'let people who believe in certain areas of government spending be the ones to pay for it' is, I despair.

 

And what aggression has it staved off, pray tell?

Uh, pretty commonly acknowledged as a key limitation of Soviet aggression in Europe throughout the Cold War, which says a lot given proving a negative is infamously quite difficult. To say nothing of the separate influence it's given us through getting a seat at the top table.

Oh, go on then :P

 

 

 

Tory Head of PR - So Liz, you're about to give a speech that could easily be used against you as tools of mockery for years to come if you don't enunciate it in the correct manner. Are you sure you don't want to meet with a vocal coach to help you not make a complete twit of yourself?

 

Liz - Ah no, I'll be fine. After all, people will be too busy being amazed by the wonderful news about cheese to even think about how I'll pronounce it

 

PR - but even the great Margaret Thatcher got a vocal...

 

Liz - I SAID I'll BE FINE.

 

 

 

If she does decide to run for PM in the future, be sure to compare her speech patterns between now and then. It'll be interesting to see if there's any major changes.

Perhaps that seat along with nukes should be given up ANYWAY, before we are forced to give it up with eventual Scottish independence, and give it to the EU.

 

Well, why not a referendum then on nuclear deterrence?