I didn't Google anything but I'm happy to confirm the timing point. Will you answer my question about how it would have affected Major's massive electoral defeat. Are you saying it would have improved his electoral position? And please don't ignore the question for a second time. NI. I've said Major was a cog in the wheels but Mitchell did the important work. You haven't responded to that
No I’m saying that if it’s wrong it’s wrong, no matter who does it, and that the UK is no better than the EU in the shady deal department. If you believe otherwise you are deluded, naive or both. yeah, Theresa May, but she cocked it up. We can throw corruption examples at each other endlessly. The EU is certainly corrupt in some ways as is the UK and every other government in the world. It’s an argument for getting out of both the EU and the UK. Reductive.
There may be occasional corruption in the UK, but it's nothing compared to say, Italy or Eastern Europe. We can't be mugs about this
I answered it clearly when I said: "As I said, if was an irrelevance until 2002 and ofcourse would have hurt him more at the time if discovered, in fact I think he'd have had to resign." Let me be clearer - he would have lost by a worse margin, but in fact I think he would have had to resign before an election if it was discovered. But it wasn't, until 2002, which is what makes your claims that it impacted the 97 election embarrassingly wrong. I also answered your N Ireland point by linking to a Guardian article which chronicles Major's critical role in the peace process. Happy to admit you were embarrassingly wrong yet?
You can see why the EU are acting like they are. They now know the games over. Just have a look at twitter and the amount of people who are saying they voted remain but now want out especially after todays comments. Nigel Farage has just said that preperations for no deal in this country are actually going very well. EU prepares for looming no-deal Brexit — and ensuing blame game https://www.ft.com/content/dddd1d26-295b-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7
You make me laugh. In support of your claim of the merits of Honest John, you come across a timing point - which I've conceded - that the electorate did not know about Honest John's adultery with a colleague at the time he went down to the Tory's worse ever electoral defeat. Now you're having to concede, yes, Honest John would have had to ignominiously resign as prime minister - and you're meant to be convincing me that he's been wronged by history? You've proved my point for me, and shot yourself in the foot, and the sad thing is, I don't think you realise it!
Here are my presumptions for your lack of an answer Ellers. 1. The answer is no and you didn't understand. 2. Yes you did understand which would make you a blatant liar. 3. You have put me on ignore to save yourself the embarrassment of answering. Which then enhances my opinion of you having absolutely no bollox yet being full of ****.
You leave afters in 93% of your posts Ellers, I thought I’d see what it felt like. I feel a little soiled to be honest.
Iain Dale who is normally a polite well measured presenter has just said "I think Tusk is a ...." Bleep. He is on from 7pm LBC... It will be an interesting listen.
Laura Kuenssberg, BBC, on the Tusk outburst: "It is quite something for Donald Tusk to have gone in like this, studs up, even though he sometimes reminisces about his time as a football hooligan in his youth." And he rules Europe...
Oh goodness, this is like having a conversation with a brick. At no point where we discussing the question, 'if the electorate had known about Major's affair with Currie at the time of the 97 election, would he have lost by a larger margin?' Post #27784, you invoked his affair with Currie by arguing "And have you forgotten that Major's premiership and Sleaze became one and the same, Major announcing a new moral Back to Basics approach while committing adultery with Edwina Curry? [sic]" Post #27790, I reply by stating, "In truth, I'm not bothered at all by the Edwina Currie issue, but worth noting the "affair took place from 1984 to 1988, not when he was PM, and it wasn't known at the time." Hint, in that post I explained that the affair wasn't known about at the time. Post #27795, you (despite me already letting you know that it wasn't known about at the time) argue that "You may not be bothered by Currie, but it was rank hypocrisy and even the Tory press turned on Major. I can't believe that you're saying, after all the sleaze allegations that dominated the press, that you think Major was not a predominant cause of the problem" Post #27797, I highlight that any sleaze at the time reported on came from others, and not Major. Post #27807, you plough on, regardless, clearly not having read my posts: "You dismiss his adultery, but think if Thatcher had been caught in bed with another man, or Blair had, during his time as PM, cheated on Cherie. Or Cameron, or May. Do you think the media and electorate would simply dismiss it, as you are doing in your myopic defence of Honest John." My point the whole time, was that he wasn't caught, and his sleaze (unknown) was not a factor in his demise. Post #27809, I explicitly state that it wasn't known until 2002 that his affair had taken place. Post #27830, presumably embarrassed, you change tack completely at this point, and argue that if known about at the time, his defeat would have been worse. I give a clear answer agreeing with this point in my next post, which you ignore (a habit!) completely, demanding that I answer the question again... #27849 - you finally admit that you were wrong on a "timing point". The problem is, it wasn't just a timing point, we were discussing why he lost in 97, and you claimed it was down to his sleaze. It wasn't, as that wasn't known about. The fact that you can't put your hands up and admit that you were entirely wrong about the argument you were making about why he lost in 97 is simply amazing, despite me pointing out multiple times that the affair wasn't known about. Further, you simply won't engage on the Northern Irish point, as you know you would look foolish if we got into a debate about whether he had a significant role. To claim that the economic recovery was all down to Clarke's work as Chancellor, and that the Prime Minister of the day had nothing to do with it and can have no credit, shows a woeful naivety as to how government in the UK works. (Post #27795 if you're going to try and deny that one too). Yes, he led the Tories to their worst ever defeat in 97. That was multi-factorial, with reasons including the electoral system, the length of time the Tories had already been in power, the splits within the Tory party that no one could have controlled in his shoes, and the political skill of his opponent. That defeat does not mean that his record in power was poor, and that history will judge him to be a bad PM, just as his surprising and very impressive victory in 1992 does not mean he will go down as an all time great PM. Anyone reading this thread (poor souls) will easily see that you were embarrassingly incorrect throughout, and yet don't have the ability to simply admit you were wrong, which would be far more respectful and less embarrassing than doubling down.
I hope some people are hanging around to play on here for a bit. I have just started a 3 hour conference call with people from 3 companies, I have my lap top on my lap, a bottle of wine at my left hand and my iPad on my right as I will need distraction to get through this.
