You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
School history does not go into that level of detail anyway. Also if you teach it in History people will only apply it to historical situations.
History is also taught. And we still have a problem.
I suppose it depends how history is taught, if it's just remembering names of monarchy and dates of wars etc.
I remember my history lessons involving a lot of critical thinking, comparing different accounts of events etc. Rather than just learning that the battle of Hastings was in 1066.
Wasn’t in Hastings either...
I remember my history lessons involving a lot of critical thinking, comparing different accounts of events etc.
This was what my GCSE history was like too, along with looking at bias and the reliability of the source.
Also if you teach it in History people will only apply it to historical situations.
Really? One of the key things driven into us by our teachers was that "now" will be history in 20 years time, so the skills of assessing sources are as relevant for reading a newspaper over breakfast as they are in the History lesson.
No, because that’s too narrow, not the same thing at all. People who have irrational beliefs cite ‘evidence’ all the time, they just need to be able to asses the source of that evidence and the motives of the person delivering it. Plus they cherry pick.
That’s not evidenced based thinking and you and sobriety are completely ignorant of it. And scientists are perfectly suited to examining a sources credibility as well. Evidence based thinking is about the balance of evidence given qualitative and quantitative review.
The actions of those with a strong humanities education speaks volumes, as I said - it is ex humanities students that manipulate the truth - rarely people with an actual strong science based education.
What evidence based thinking doesn’t give you is the ability to determine the value of sources and assess nuance, which is what you need with all the bullshit we have to wade through
It’s humanities students who take the nuance out of a science paper and declare that cancer has been cured in national newspapers.
It’s the sciences that teach you how little we truly know about the world around us. It’s the sciences that taught us about the psychological underpinnings of cognitive biases.
So the polls continue to narrow as predicted.. I just hope Trump explodes the Tory campaign with his usual stupidity when he comes over on his visit and my guess is the emphasis on the NHS has hurt Johnson as has his reluctance to be interviewed
Come on you reds! ;-0
Evidence based thinking is about the balance of evidence given qualitative and quantitative review.
So source assessment, bias and balance then? Congratulations, you've just described critical thinking. Unfortunately GCSE/A-Level science doesn't involve peer reviewing journals as part of the curriculum.
So source assessment, bias and balance then? Congratulations, you’ve just described critical thinking. Unfortunately GCSE/A-Level science doesn’t involve peer reviewing journals as part of the curriculum.
Then maybe we need more sciencing then.
Because all the cockwomble humanities, PPE and lawyer scumbags in the Commons and national newspapers are the ones that partly helped us get into this mess.
The last thing we need is more of them.
Polls? There will be another one along shortly which draws a different conclusion.
Or maybe we need more courses where critical thinking is taught. I was as a part of a nursing degree. Nothing sciency about that but we were taught how to analyse research, judge and weight stuff according to quality etc etc.
Critical thinking is not a part of science. Its part of humanities and its applications are far wider as are the sources.
Rayban - you claim to be a scientist. How come your critical thinking is so poor?
Critical thinking is not a part of science. Its part of humanities and its applications are far wider as are the sources
Yes it is, evidence based thinking - peer review, reviews and meta-analyses are all based on combining critical thinking with the best available quantitative evidence.
You are right that we probably just need more courses in critical thinking, but critical thinking alone - without an appreciation for quantitative research doesn’t seem to insulate people from biases. Although having a sound quantitative attitude doesn’t totally either, however I stand by my assertion that it’s humanities students who are mostly the peddlers of post truth bullshit.
And that proves my point. You can never be wrong even when you are. You make baseless assertions based on your own biases.
The skills you need are not science. they are used in hard science yes but also in many other areas and would appropriately be taught as part of humanities or soft science given that they are in that area.
Surely critical thinking is the basis of all science
As someone who spends a lot of time trying to make sense of results, it's absolutely essential
Back to GE I see Johnson has wormed his way out of a Neil inyerview
Anyway - back the the elction and the converging polls. Squeaky bum time for the right.
I bet next week brings out another attack line on Corbyn. My guess is " soft on Terrorists"
And that proves my point. You can never be wrong even when you are.
The skills you need are not science.
LOL.
Here's a nice introductory text for you TJ.
Critical thinking, that is the mind’s ability to analyze claims about the world, is the intellectual basis of the scientific method. The scientific method can be viewed as an extensive, structured mode of critical thinking that involves hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion.
https://www.theclassroom.com/relationship-between-scientific-method-critical-thinking-19049.html
however I stand by my assertion that it’s humanities students who are mostly the peddlers of post truth bullshit.
The 'scientific' articles on sugar, tobacco, cholesterol, salt, thalidomide etc. I could go on forever, points to a need for a few more humanities graduates in scientific areas, to teach them the meaning of ethics, proper methodology and critical examination of whether the disclosure of where the money came from might change the result.
Still digging Rayban? So according to you critical thinking and analysis is only applicable in science? It may be the basis of scientific method but equally its a basis of philosophy, of social sciences, even of English literature!
Of course its a major part of scientific method but it is not in its self science, it does not have to be only taught as in science classes
as above - I was taught it as part of a nursing degree as a stand alone module. It also could be part of philosophy, social sciences.
Because something is a foundation of one discipline it does not mean it can only be used in that discipline and only taught as a part of that discipline especially when its equally important in others.
Critical thinking would be best taught as a part of a wider education then it would be taught to those you despise.
Narrow rigid thinking like you clearly have is the opposite of crital thinking
But of course - you could never admit you are wrong
Thick politicians, thick voters, it’s a destructive cycle.
Hi Daz.
Any comment on that nugget you posted on page 96?
Specifically with regards to how much you jumped up and down and frothed any time someone questioned the IQ and/or common sense of people who voted Leave, if you please.
Also, I don’t think you ever attempted to justify your ‘The EU is basically a dictatorship’ comment from the ‘other thread’. Can you please deal with that too? Specifically with your stance as ‘reluctant Brexiteer’ in mind.
Scrutiny is a bitch, is it not.....
tjagain
But of course – you could never admit you are wrong
Irony meter has exploded.
Because all the cockwomble humanities, PPE and lawyer scumbags in the Commons and national newspapers are the ones that partly helped us get into this mess.
The last thing we need is more of them.
Teaching council estates about PPE isn't going to turn them into entitled Eton old boys is it? FFS. The fact that only rich Tory tossbags study it now is all the more reason to teach it to everyone.
1) You need to teach politics because you need to understand how the system works. Plenty of people don't even know the difference between left and right wing.
2) You need to teach economics, because the average person on the street has no idea what a trade deficit is, or why a strong pound might not always be good etc etc - or even why a country needs trade deals and tariffs.
3) You need philosophy because it's not always obvious what a government should be doing or how it should be trying to do it. E.g. why was communism a nice idea but turned out not to be a good thing when it was tried, and so on.
Just because private schools teach it, doesn't mean these aren't topics members of a functioning democracy need to understand.
Still digging Rayban? So according to you critical thinking and analysis is only applicable in science? It may be the basis of scientific method but equally its a basis of philosophy, of social sciences, even of English literature!
Of course its a major part of scientific method but it is not in its self science, it does not have to be only taught as in science classes
I'm not saying it is - I'm just saying that science students come out with a lot stronger appreciation for evidence than humanities students do, it's humanities students who kicked off the "science wars" and are thus partly responsible for the mess we are in now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars
"They implicate a broad range of fields in this trend, including cultural studies, cultural anthropology, feminist studies, comparative literature, media studies, and science and technology studies."
But of course – you could never admit you are wrong
Says the guy who just straight up, stated that critical thinking was not part of the scientific method.
Of course its a major part of scientific method but it is not in its self science
Yes, it really is TJ - it's critical thinking taken to it's logical extreme. Critical thinking is a major element and the historical underpinning of the scientific method, and science without the scientific method is not science.
You need to teach economics, because the average person on the street has no idea what a trade deficit is, or why a strong pound might not always be good etc etc – or even why a country needs trade deals and tariffs.
I'm not one of those people who treats economics as a humanities topic, it should be treated like the hard sciences.
why was communism a nice idea but turned out not to be a good thing when it was tried, and so on.
Psychology and quantitative economic methods can answer that better than philosophy.
Critical thinking is not a part of science. Its part of humanities and its applications are far wider as are the sources.
Rayban – you claim to be a scientist. How come your critical thinking is so poor?
Obvious contradiction is obvious
sobriety
Member
So source assessment, bias and balance then? Congratulations, you’ve just described critical thinking. Unfortunately GCSE/A-Level science doesn’t involve peer reviewing journals as part of the curriculum.
Peer reviewing isn't the only way to think critically about a source.
Ironically given the conversation of the last page, one place where you definitely are encouraged to consider the source is history- because literally everything is open to question, so you learn about this almost immediately.
In sciences at the lower levels everything you're getting taught is uncontroversial, you don't really need to apply critical thinking to ohm's law or how to calculate molarity changes or whatever (though you can confirm it with observation, and that's usually part of how you learn the subject- but you're not doing that to challenge the idea, you're doing it to demonstrate it)
It's not the job of sciences to teach critical thinking, at this level. Even if it were, it's not something that could or should only be taught within the sciences, because everyone needs the skills not just people who're interested in science.
And that's all fine tbh. The trouble is where things that aren't so clearcut, get taught as if they were. Lookin at you here, Economics, the art that pretends it's a science. And politics, which these days is basically the art of pretending that something that's controversial or open to debate or absolutely known to be true, isn't. (politicians need to understand critical thinking in order to deal with it as a problem)
(you could say journalism there too... Except that at the point where journalism stops being about reporting fact or doubt and starts being about making the message, it's politics too)
I’m just saying that science students come out with a lot stronger appreciation for evidence than humanities students do
With science, evidence is quantitative and specific to a particular experiment. So if your ammeter tells you the current is three amps, you don't have to question it. If you do question it, there are experiments you can do to verify its accuracy. If a newspaper tell you something, it might not actually be true but more importantly, it might be true ish. It's not what they are saying, it's the way they are saying it; the extra messages they are adding by rhetoric and choice of language. It's also about their motives for doing so, which derive from the people who write the articles and who own the paper, and what their interests are. I can verify that a scientific education (which I have) does not teach you any of these skills!
It is, to quote one of my favourite sayings courtesy of @SaxonRider, a different epistemic category.
It’s also about their motives for doing so, which derive from the people who write the articles and who own the paper, and what their interests are. I can verify that a scientific education (which I have) does not teach you any of these skills!
Mine did, we had a couple of semesters worth of lessons dedicated to source appraisal, cognitive biases and statistical rigour in reviews.
Lookin at you here, Economics, the art that pretends it’s a science
The answer to a lack of scientific rigour in economics is not to give up and label it a humanities subject for the rest of eternity.
y. If a newspaper tell you something, it might not actually be true but more importantly, it might be true ish. It’s not what they are saying, it’s the way they are saying it; the extra messages they are adding by rhetoric and choice of language.
It wasn’t English or History that turned me off journalistic rhetoric - it was reading scientific journals and getting used to that language. Now if I find a claim, I go to a reputable journal and search until I find a review that covers that specific topic - whether it’s health, immigration, economics or war. I go looking for quantitative research to evidence the claims being made.
Understanding the language of rhetoric but not the scientific method and hierarchy of evidence just allows people to deceive both themselves and others.
Critical thinking is not a part of science.
apologies
this should have read " not just a part of"
So Rayban - is nursing a science? 'cos i was taught critical thinking as a part of my degree.
Or is critical thinking the one of the building blocks of any learning?
Polls narrowing or just noise?
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1200878683487195136?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200852961284513792?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200869070410846209?s=20
Still, squeaky bum time for Raab
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200855757362782209?s=20
So Rayban – is nursing a science? ‘cos i was taught critical thinking as a part of my degree.
Or is critical thinking the one of the building blocks of any learning?
Non sequitur.
Just because critical thinking is one of the major components of the scientific method, doesn't make nursing a science. As I stated, the scientific method involves the marriage of critical thinking with quantitative evidence.
Or is critical thinking the one of the building blocks of any learning?
It is - but the implicit objection to evidence based thinking or the scientific method on the part of Sobriety, was that it didn't involved critical thinking. This is something that you were keen to defend.
raybanwomble
Member
The answer to a lack of scientific rigour in economics is not to give up and label it a humanities subject for the rest of eternity.
Positive economics is a science of sorts, albeit as you say one with a lack of scientific rigour, and also filled with subjective value decisions, and maybe most seriously hampered with a lack of truly knowable facts. (since it's very hard to test anything complex, novel or powerful in economics, because modelling the real world is staggeringly difficult while comparative experimentation in the real world on any meaningful scale is basically impossible...). It's not truly a science imo for these reasons, not as we understand science today- but at least it aspires to be, and that's important.It's got a lot in common with pre-enlightenment science tbh.
But normative economics is absolutely art that pretends it's a science. It doesn't lack rigour; it actively avoids it. At some point, for too many people it stopped being "how to get the world to become how you want" and became "how to tell people the world is how you want it to be". It stopped being "should be" and became "is".
And sadly the face of economics that gets the attention, the book deals and the unquestioning love of politicians, is the latter. And no wonder, facts are <boring>, and provable facts in economics tend to be small and mundane seeming. Big mad ideas are exciting, and the less boringly rooted in reality they are the more exciting they get, and the harder they are to prove or disprove the longer they'll stay exciting.
'twas ever thus, but IMO it's worse now than ever. And these 2 problems together mean that economics as a whole is not a science, nor even for the most part art that behaves scientifically- it's just wearing a scienceskin coat. The fact that economic idealism is even a thing is incredibly telling- you shouldn't need a name for "how to use positive economics to get you to the places described by normative economics", that's just how applied normative economics works. If you're not referring to "how it is" and "why it is this way" when thinking about "how it should be" then you're never going to get there.
But now if you're a normative economist that isn't basically making it up, you need a special name.
Understanding the language of rhetoric but not the scientific method and hierarchy of evidence just allows people to deceive both themselves and others.
The scientific method applies to science. Politics is not science. And as said, we already have science on the curriculum.
. (since it’s very hard to test anything complex, novel or powerful in economics, because modelling the real world is staggeringly difficult while comparative experimentation in the real world on any meaningful scale is basically impossible…).
Complexity science is improving all the time, we should be trying to approach economics with the same degree of rigor as other complex systems such as meteorology.
The scientific method applies to science. Politics is not science.
Policy can and should be rooted in science and evidence where it is available.
raybanwomble
Member
Complexity science is improving all the time, we should be trying to approach economics with the same degree of rigor as other complex systems such as meteorology.
The thing about meteorology, is that tomorrow's weather doesn't depend on human decision making. And it doesn't have a whole wing dedicated to telling you that the weather ought to be sunny next sunday because you're going on a bike ride.
The scientific method applies to science. Politics is not science. And as said, we already have science on the curriculum.
We already have History and Philosophy on the curriculum as well.
I'm going to go even further now and state that whilst Britain has a strong scientific and engineering streak, it does not have a strong cultural attachment to it. Whilst the United States, Germany and Japan built their economies on the back of the scientific and engineering feats, science and engineering, despite weirdly being the home of the industrial revolution has always played second fiddle and been looked down on by Oxbridge financiers, lawyers etc. The epitomy of that for me was when I was travelling back to Oxford from London on the coach and overheard two fusty Oxford professors agreeing that Neville Chamberlain was a useless PM because he was an "engineer", despite the fact that he actually flunked out of metallurgy school.
That attitude also shows itself by the fact that whenever we discover or push a scientific or engineering breakthrough, we manage to piss it up the wall.
Right - so moving the goalposts now then Rayban.
Or evidence based thinking, eg the sciences.
You see this is where your narrow based thinking and education let you down
Evidence based thinking is a key part of all the healthcare professions, of sociology, of philosophy indeed of almost all learning.
Thus teaching it helps all learning.
Its one of the building blocks of all learning and if you actually had an open mind not one that is rigid and narrowly based and without your obvious biases you would understand that. If you could admit just once that your understanding is limited it would help you make coherent arguments
Yo want everyone to be able to understand politics better but according to you only those trained rigidly in science have the ability to think critically.
With that - once again I am going out of this for a bit. Fun tho it is to watch you tie yourself in rhetorical knots in your desire to score debating points but its also some that frustrating that your first instinct is to prove you re right rather than consider another point of view. If you do not understand it then it must be wrong.
Policy can and should be rooted in science and evidence where it is available.
Evidence is available in all sorts of things that are not science. Like nursing for example. Evidence based practice is a key aspect
bye
Wrong again.
An evidence-based practice (EBP) is any practice that relies on scientific evidence for guidance and decision-making.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_practice
We already have History and Philosophy on the curriculum as well.
They aren't compulsory - optional GCSEs AFAIK. And Philosophy wasn't offered at our school.
I'm saying these things should be part of the core personal education that they do (whatever it's called these days) that covers stuff like relationships and sex etc.
I agree that History should certainly be compulsory.
IIRC a humanity is compulsory. I think for most people it's Geography which is pretty bloody useless.
Geography is awesome, again a subject that could be treated with more rigor.
Currently about halfway through Kaplans "The Revenge of Geography".
The problem was, as I remember when I was at school, is that the GCSE version of geography is boringly dry and little attempt was made to connect it to other subjects.
Let's not pretend both parties won't be trying to use the London bridge attacks as the polls tighten
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1200894260247179265?s=20
Geography is awesome, again a subject that could be treated with more rigor.
What does it teach you that is as important as how to decide how your country should be run? I honestly don't know, and I have an A in GCSE Geography.
What does it teach you that is as important as how to decide how your country should be run? I honestly don’t know, and I have an A in GCSE Geography.
How it should be run in relation to the rest of the world we live with, geography defines nations.
The lack of attention given to that is again, a very British disease - probably because we are islanders. A shame, because we used to have a strong culture of geographical mindset during the enlightenment.
I'd certainly say it's more important than media studies or philosophy at GCSE level, maybe History and Geography could be rolled into one subject as they complement each other so well.
I saw something earlier about it looking like Rabb might lose his seat. That implies that the polls can be viewed by constituency. If that's the case, where can that info be found? My google-fu is weak tonight.
That was delatpolls constituency level polling onzadog
Rabb is the one I most want to see lose his seat, more than Boris.
I think some of the Tories are getting nervous
Matt Hancock has had a bruising time trying to keep winning that 50,000 nurses lie
https://twitter.com/MrBenSellers/status/1200825647653933058?s=20
Onza - this was posted by mattyfez a couple of days ago; betting odds from paddy power by party by constituency.
https://www.paddypower.com/politics/england-constituencies-a-d
What does it teach you that is as important as how to decide how your country should be run? I honestly don’t know, and I have an A in GCSE Geography.
How it should be run in relation to the rest of the world we live with, geography defines nations.
The lack of attention given to that is again, a very British disease – probably because we are islanders. A shame, because we used to have a strong culture of geographical mindset during the enlightenment.
I’d certainly say it’s more important than media studies or philosophy at GCSE level, maybe History and Geography could be rolled into one subject as they complement each other so well.
Philosophy is the source of critical thinking; lumping it in with media studies does it a gross disservice.
JP
raybanwomble
Member
Wrong again.
Well congratulations- you just tried to correct a nurse, who was explaining to you about how evidence based practice works in nursing, with a wikipedia article. Had enough of experts...
Well congratulations- you just tried to correct a nurse, who was explaining to you about how evidence based practice works in nursing, with a wikipedia article. Had enough of experts…
The vast - and I mean the huge majority of evidence used in nursing is based on the scientific method. Evidence based practice in nursing exploits scientific research.
He also actually kind of agreed with my original premise, that you all took issue with - when he stated that
Thus teaching it (evidence based thinking) helps all learning.
Talk about tying yourself in knots.
Philosophy is the source of critical thinking; lumping it in with media studies does it a gross disservice.
Historically, yes you are right. I'm not sure what the relevance is of that at a GCSE level.
It's also responsible for some outright stupidity.
https://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/why-are-scientists-philosophers-fighting-again
Really? Really
you are trying to tell me how my profession works?
first you say only science teaches critical thinking, then you say only scientists use evidence based practice, you tell me ( correctly) nursing is not a science then you tell me evidence based practice in nursing is based on scientific method.
That really is your best yet!
first you say only science teaches critical thinking, then you say only scientists use evidence based practice, you tell me ( correctly) nursing is not a science then you tell me evidence based practice in nursing is based on scientific method.
I stated science teaches critical thinking, it was the implicit assertion on Sobriety that it did not - and you defended it.
n you say only scientists use evidence based practice, you tell me
I have not stated that, I have stated that evidence based practice is based on the scientific method and investigation. You have been squarking that evidence based practice is not just used by science, despite the fact that it is almost entirely based on science in a clinical setting and despite the fact that I have asserted that evidence based thinking is important anyway.
I have never stated that science is the only evidence based discipline
When I stated that
evidence based thinking, eg the sciences
Did I use "ergo the sciences" or "eg the sciences" - TJ?
However, at a GCSE level - evidence base thinking is probably best highlighted by the sciences especially as that is what the majority of evidence based thinking is predicated upon.
It's intentional - there is a strategy set out by the campaign to slur the opposition at every opportunity. The flyer sent by my local (and moderate) Conservative had a third of a page devoted to Labour and Corbyn.
They do this because they have a void of policies that are meaningful to every day people. They have to play by "LOOK! LOOK! LOOK AT LABOUR! LOOK!" every five seconds as a distraction. We see the same in America - those who are under investigation for whatever simply hurl those same charges at their opposition, no matter how wildly outlandish.
Honestly, for those who haven't seen Priti Patel's tweet about Usman Khan being in the streets, I'll save you the bother - she's blaming Yvette Cooper and Sadiq Khan for not sending the stabby terrorist **** down with a harsher sentence. No acknowledgement of who has been in power since with a Home Secretary ultimately responsible for reviewing Usman Khan's release and rehabilitation given that the intelligence services most certainly will have kept tabs on him. I'll be that she didn't even open Usman Khan's case file until yesterday.
As for Hancock, it's theatre - it's the same playbook we saw in 2016 in America.
Right now in politics, shit floats. It floats there because the worst possible candidates seem to attract the most attention and inevitably funding. Maybe the wrong sort of people want to fund this shitshow to make a massive profit while we're all spluttering over our tea whenever Mark Francois opens his capacious, but vapid army issue gob. Something else is quietly not making the news. Always read the small print.
How it should be run in relation to the rest of the world we live with, geography defines nations.
Not being arsey but really - how? Nothing I learned at GCSE was anything to do with geopolitics. And I'd say history defines nations far more than geography..!
Geography has nothing to do with wether or not you want a small or big state. That is directly relevant to how you vote, and it's a philosophy question.
And I’d say history defines nations far more than geography..!
This is what Kaplans book is all about, it goes into detail on how geography defines cultrue, people, it's intersection with ethnography and thus how it drives history in a more deterministic fashion than we care to think.
Has anyone else seen the story that Raaaaaabs seat is now at risk? 50/50 he is going to lose it
Now that would make me smile
I posted a link to the Raab poll last page
But everyone was arguing about geography lessons
And I’d say history defines nations far more than geography..!
I'd argue that in this context, history is largely a function of geography.
Mods - can you move all the philosophical and critical thinking comments somewhere over there >>> and let posters get back to the thread title which is '2019 General Election'.
I have no doubt that the hijacking of this thread has stifled meaningful discussion.
Those posters who are responsible for this de-railing have done themselves no favours in how other see them.
Owen Jones on 5Live now - what a gobshite.
Apologies for my part in it Frank
I have no doubt that the hijacking of this thread has stifled meaningful discussion.
what a gobshite.
woops
Owen Jones on 5Live now – what a gobshite.
It's called being a decent human being.
Has anyone else seen the story that Raaaaaabs seat is now at risk? 50/50 he is going to lose it
Esher & Walton:
CON: 46% (-13)
LDEM: 41% (+24)
LAB: 9% (-11)
This is where the power of tactical voting really shows, just a few more Labour votes switch and his 23,000 majority is gone.
23,000.
Think how many seats have substantially smaller majoritys than that.
Average Tory lead is around 10%
There is 3.1 m newly registered voters
Of which 2/3 are under 35, and over a million under 25.
If this (out of date) poll is to be believed
With some decent tactical voting that 10% doesn't look so safe.
I saw that kiksy
Tories won popular vote by 750k last time , if new voters vote like that it's about net 1m extra voters for labour, but at constituency level & taking into account lib Dems it might not change anything
Missed out the BMG poll yesterday
2nd one to out us back in possible hung parliament territory
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1200822322921398273?s=19
Pretty sure Boris was hoping for an easier ride on marr
He just chunters with a smirk on his face.
I like to think I’m quite empathetic but I genuinely cannot see why people think he’s a decent person and a suitable candidate for PM.
The man is an arse of the highest order.
He had his plan- to blame labour for early release of terrorists
It's a lie but people will believe it
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1201076262854365184?s=19
You can see why he was so desperate to avoid Neil
Shock Corbyn announcement
No matter what happens in the election he will not repeat not be the next manager of Arsenal.
Ransos^^^ yes, unfortunate juxtaposition by me but Jones on a 45 minute diatribe was too much.
Some good stuff from Corbyn today about the nature of patriotism and the reasons terrorists attack the UK. It's easy to call people "evil" or "radicalised", but maybe these people are rational and feel this is their only option.
I don't know if that's true or not, but worth asking
Careful there yourguitarhero the last thing the tories want is people listening to reasoned argument and thinking things through for themselves.