While discussing elections parties should have lost for their own long term good (Conservatives in '92 and probably Labour in '05) the phrase 'A good election to lose' kept cropping up.
Logically therefore if it would have good to lose it would be bad to win. Looking at the two losing candidates it's a hard argument to refute. The question is which would have been worse (for country and party) - PM Kinnock or PM Howard?
Logically therefore if it would have good to lose it would be bad to win. Looking at the two losing candidates it's a hard argument to refute. The question is which would have been worse (for country and party) - PM Kinnock or PM Howard?