bigbadjeff
Player Valuation: £15m
If we are down the tubes as regards the Eurozone, which I don’t think we are, why are so many risking their lives to come here. Doesn’t make sense.
They are comming from a country which will ‘welcome’ them but they still risk their lives comming here. Nobody has answered that one. I wonder why not. ?If we are down the tubes as regards the Eurozone, which I don’t think we are, why are so many risking their lives to come here. Doesn’t make sense.
They are comming from a country which will ‘welcome’ them but they still risk their lives comming here. Nobody has answered that one. I wonder why not. ?
It takes some balls to make a statement like that, accusing me of revisionism when you've managed to be wrong so many times in three sentences. For a start, New Labour didn't come along until Blair became leader in 1994, and when Kinnock fought his last election (in 1992) the Tory majority was 21 (and had 65 more seats than Labour). By the 1997 election, that majority was effectively nothing - so how you can pretend Blair overturned a three figure seat deficit is not something that is can be understood.
Were you even in this country between 1994 and 1997?
You know, I will answer this one, as the lack of self-awareness is startling.
Yes, I was here mate. Let's start with the 1992 election and look at the startling parallels between then and now.
A useless Tory party, riven by infighting, against a left wing bubble convinced of their ascendancy, looking likely to be at least the largest party in a hung parliament after the election.
What happened? The UK voted and decided that, although the Tories were useless, at least they weren't Kinnock. The Tory vote held firm - indeed, they got more than ever before. Kinnock couldn't swing any voters across due to his left wing ideology.
John Smith came in - firmly centre-left with a pragmatic head that appealed to the UK at the time. He'd have won an election, and probably have performed better than Blair as he'd have taken fewer ideological risks. However, he died, Blair came in, revamped New Labour, took them firmly centre ground and demolished the Tories.
I said Blair converted the three figure seat deficit that was in place when Foot and Kinnock got leathered by Thatcher. That's true. Just like now with Corbyn, Kinnock got close due to public weariness, particularly in the north where anti-Tory sentiment hardened - Blair was the one who took the ball and run with it. Kinnock didn't take the same ball, because he was ideologically incapable of it.
The Tories right now are in a much, much worse position than the 90s. Before Blair, they were slowly recovering from the early 90s disaster with the ERM and the internal quarrelling on Europe. They simply got obliterated by Blair taking their ground. But now? They're truly hopeless - they are there for the taking.
Yet once more, you have an inept left winger incapable of capitalising on it, because the country at large thinks he's ridiculous. If there's an election tomorrow, history repeats itself - although the Tories are useless, at least they're not Corbyn.
kinnock was more centrist than corbyn, no?
They are comming from a country which will ‘welcome’ them but they still risk their lives comming here. Nobody has answered that one. I wonder why not. ?
For how long Bruce?
often because of hearsay that the uk is a country that they are less likely to be deported from and will be able to start a new life, perpetuated by our own media
More to do with English being the global 2nd language tbh.
What is the 1st global language ?......
Their native tongue is their native tongue. English is often the 2nd language in many places around the world.
You know, I will answer this one, as the lack of self-awareness is startling.
Yes, I was here mate. Let's start with the 1992 election and look at the startling parallels between then and now.
A useless Tory party, riven by infighting, against a left wing bubble convinced of their ascendancy, looking likely to be at least the largest party in a hung parliament after the election.
What happened? The UK voted and decided that, although the Tories were useless, at least they weren't Kinnock. The Tory vote held firm - indeed, they got more than ever before. Kinnock couldn't swing any voters across due to his left wing ideology.
John Smith came in - firmly centre-left with a pragmatic head that appealed to the UK at the time. He'd have won an election, and probably have performed better than Blair as he'd have taken fewer ideological risks. However, he died, Blair came in, revamped New Labour, took them firmly centre ground and demolished the Tories.
I said Blair converted the three figure seat deficit that was in place when Foot and Kinnock got leathered by Thatcher. That's true. Just like now with Corbyn, Kinnock got close due to public weariness, particularly in the north where anti-Tory sentiment hardened - Blair was the one who took the ball and run with it. Kinnock didn't take the same ball, because he was ideologically incapable of it.
The Tories right now are in a much, much worse position than the 90s. Before Blair, they were slowly recovering from the early 90s disaster with the ERM and the internal quarrelling on Europe. They simply got obliterated by Blair taking their ground. But now? They're truly hopeless - they are there for the taking.
Yet once more, you have an inept left winger incapable of capitalising on it, because the country at large thinks he's ridiculous. If there's an election tomorrow, history repeats itself - although the Tories are useless, at least they're not Corbyn.
"Lack of self-awareness" lol. You've managed to portray Blair as some sort of ideological colossus, instead of someone who just bought Murdoch off.
Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.