This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I know it's a long time away, and a week in politics is classed as a long time, but who do you think is going to win? I think it's going to be a labour and lib dem coalition. I'd personally like a Tory party with a majority, however, this is very unlikely.
In reply to Oliiver: The Sun.
In reply to Oliiver:
http://politicalbetting.com/
I think that as the economy improves the Tories will improve their position if they don't lose support to UKIP.
http://politicalbetting.com/
I think that as the economy improves the Tories will improve their position if they don't lose support to UKIP.
In reply to Oliiver: I think UKIP might gain 2-3 seats. But they'll scrape votes away from Labour and Torys. I think the Lib dems will do OK.
In reply to Oliiver: At this distance from the hustings, no one looks like getting an overall majority. All three leaders of the main parties appear damaged or inadequate and the UKIP party seems to be saying increasingly daft things in order to keep itself in the media.
Time for lots to change but right now, they're all as bad as each other and a hung parliament seems by far the likeliest outcome.
T.
Time for lots to change but right now, they're all as bad as each other and a hung parliament seems by far the likeliest outcome.
T.
In reply to Oliiver:
I am betting that the conservatives will win and that the libs will drop out of sight as their credibility vanishes. I don't think that Millband is leadership material. But also it depends on the economy as when times are tough people are more likely to vote tory than when times are good.
I am betting that the conservatives will win and that the libs will drop out of sight as their credibility vanishes. I don't think that Millband is leadership material. But also it depends on the economy as when times are tough people are more likely to vote tory than when times are good.
In reply to Oliiver: I do not think that slaughtering the badger population will win them many votes! and i certainly hope not!
In reply to Oliiver:
I absolutely hate to say this but I think It'll be a Tory majority. I think enough people will convince themselves that the Tory party have done brilliantly on the economy (as opposed to economic mismanagement delaying the recovery until 2014 and screwing millions of poor earners/the disables/etc in the process) to vote for them.
It's a horrible thought, and I really don't want to see it. My personal favourite would probably be Lab/Lib coalition, though I fully admit that would be the "least awful" possibility rather than actually someone I'd like.
Unfortunately the party I would actually like - middle of the spectrum (say where Liberals should be) but honest, competent, and staffed by people of integrity, with no inclination to go to war and a high incentive to stop wrecking the planet - doesn't exist.
I absolutely hate to say this but I think It'll be a Tory majority. I think enough people will convince themselves that the Tory party have done brilliantly on the economy (as opposed to economic mismanagement delaying the recovery until 2014 and screwing millions of poor earners/the disables/etc in the process) to vote for them.
It's a horrible thought, and I really don't want to see it. My personal favourite would probably be Lab/Lib coalition, though I fully admit that would be the "least awful" possibility rather than actually someone I'd like.
Unfortunately the party I would actually like - middle of the spectrum (say where Liberals should be) but honest, competent, and staffed by people of integrity, with no inclination to go to war and a high incentive to stop wrecking the planet - doesn't exist.
In reply to John_Hat:
Out of interest, what would you have done differently? The UK recovery is ahead of most developed nations so almost every government in the world must have engaged in 'economic mismanagement'.
I don't think there were many other viable options.
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> as opposed to economic mismanagement delaying the recovery until 2014
>
> as opposed to economic mismanagement delaying the recovery until 2014
Out of interest, what would you have done differently? The UK recovery is ahead of most developed nations so almost every government in the world must have engaged in 'economic mismanagement'.
I don't think there were many other viable options.
In reply to Edradour:
> (In reply to John_Hat)
> [...]
>
> The UK recovery is ahead of most developed nations so almost every government in the world must have engaged in 'economic mismanagement'.
>
Really, can you substantiate this? > [...]
>
> The UK recovery is ahead of most developed nations so almost every government in the world must have engaged in 'economic mismanagement'.
>
In reply to Oliiver: If Scotland left the Uk in 2014, how quickly do you imagine it will happen after the referendum? If so, labour will have to rethink its politics asap
In reply to Edradour:
> (In reply to John_Hat)
> [...]
>
> The UK recovery is ahead of most developed nations so almost every government in the world must have engaged in 'economic mismanagement'.
>
A little fact checking suggests that this is, to use the technical term, bolloxs. > [...]
>
> The UK recovery is ahead of most developed nations so almost every government in the world must have engaged in 'economic mismanagement'.
>
In reply to Oliiver:
Boris Johnson.
I think the Tories are not going to do well enough for an overall majority, and then we will see Boris shoehorned into a safe seat at a by-election, to enable a Leadership Challenge with Murdoch leading the way in slagging of Cameron as a failure while enthusiastically embracing the pro-fracking Boris...
Boris Johnson.
I think the Tories are not going to do well enough for an overall majority, and then we will see Boris shoehorned into a safe seat at a by-election, to enable a Leadership Challenge with Murdoch leading the way in slagging of Cameron as a failure while enthusiastically embracing the pro-fracking Boris...
In reply to Oliiver:
Unfortunately, I agree with John H & Dominion. .
The government have been stepping up by stepping on the necks of the poor and bribes to the better -off (housing bubble anyone?). as usual. the birds come home to roost when the better-off realise they're getting stiffed in the second term.
I's like to see a genuine liberal vibe, but they're tainted for generation, now
Unfortunately, I agree with John H & Dominion. .
The government have been stepping up by stepping on the necks of the poor and bribes to the better -off (housing bubble anyone?). as usual. the birds come home to roost when the better-off realise they're getting stiffed in the second term.
I's like to see a genuine liberal vibe, but they're tainted for generation, now
In reply to Oliiver: Honestly? No one, we're all going to be losers. Voter turn out will go down, no party will gain a strong majority and we'll have another coalition fettered with infighting and ideological clashes. This will go on for decades. If only we'd had a once in a lifetime chance to change our voting system to a mildly better one....ah Nick, if only you hadn't got behind AV and ripped any chance it had to pieces.
In reply to Oliiver:
No-one knows, of course, but my bet is on a Labour majority that will be quite a lot bigger than conventional wisdom allows. Labour will campaign on the question - "are you better off now than you were 5 years ago", to which the answer will be no, despite the resumption of growth. Real GDP per person is still more than 5% below where it was six years ago, after the worst economic recovery this century. Growth now is welcome but there's a huge amount of ground to be made up, and given the population is growing at about 0.6% a year you need that much growth just to keep per capita GDP constant.
The big difference this time round is the fixed term parliament. 5 years is a long time to have a government; the Coalition is already looking like it's run out of steam, with growing squabbling between the partners and more and more difficult decisions being put off till after the next election. By 2015 the government will look tired and fractious. The other consequence of a long government is that the consequences of all the mistakes the government made at the beginning will be coming home to roost - the botched NHS reorganisation, the unfolding universal credit fiasco, the slow-motion disaster that is its energy policy. In past times a government like this would have stoked a short-lived economic boom and gone for an early election, but they haven't left themselves that option.
No-one knows, of course, but my bet is on a Labour majority that will be quite a lot bigger than conventional wisdom allows. Labour will campaign on the question - "are you better off now than you were 5 years ago", to which the answer will be no, despite the resumption of growth. Real GDP per person is still more than 5% below where it was six years ago, after the worst economic recovery this century. Growth now is welcome but there's a huge amount of ground to be made up, and given the population is growing at about 0.6% a year you need that much growth just to keep per capita GDP constant.
The big difference this time round is the fixed term parliament. 5 years is a long time to have a government; the Coalition is already looking like it's run out of steam, with growing squabbling between the partners and more and more difficult decisions being put off till after the next election. By 2015 the government will look tired and fractious. The other consequence of a long government is that the consequences of all the mistakes the government made at the beginning will be coming home to roost - the botched NHS reorganisation, the unfolding universal credit fiasco, the slow-motion disaster that is its energy policy. In past times a government like this would have stoked a short-lived economic boom and gone for an early election, but they haven't left themselves that option.
In reply to Oliiver: I think labours future relies on Scotland remaining in the UK, if not, interesting times for British politics. I doubt they'll be a party with a majority and even if there is, it'll be a narrow one by 1-5 seats. It's certainly going to be a nail biter for political analysts and betters.
In reply to Richard J:
Interesting analysis. Something else springs to mind. If unemployment drops below 7% the BoE will consider putting up interest rates. It's possible that unemployment could dip below 7% in the next few months. If this does happen and interest rates start to go up there will be a considerable "feel bad factor" amongst mortgage holders which will hit the tories harder than any other party.
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> No-one knows, of course, but my bet is on a Labour majority that will be quite a lot bigger than conventional wisdom allows. Labour will campaign on the question - "are you better off now than you were 5 years ago", to which the answer will be no, despite the resumption of growth. Real GDP per person is still more than 5% below where it was six years ago, after the worst economic recovery this century. Growth now is welcome but there's a huge amount of ground to be made up, and given the population is growing at about 0.6% a year you need that much growth just to keep per capita GDP constant.
>
> No-one knows, of course, but my bet is on a Labour majority that will be quite a lot bigger than conventional wisdom allows. Labour will campaign on the question - "are you better off now than you were 5 years ago", to which the answer will be no, despite the resumption of growth. Real GDP per person is still more than 5% below where it was six years ago, after the worst economic recovery this century. Growth now is welcome but there's a huge amount of ground to be made up, and given the population is growing at about 0.6% a year you need that much growth just to keep per capita GDP constant.
>
> The big difference this time round is the fixed term parliament. 5 years is a long time to have a government; the Coalition is already looking like it's run out of steam, with growing squabbling between the partners and more and more difficult decisions being put off till after the next election. By 2015 the government will look tired and fractious. The other consequence of a long government is that the consequences of all the mistakes the government made at the beginning will be coming home to roost - the botched NHS reorganisation, the unfolding universal credit fiasco, the slow-motion disaster that is its energy policy. In past times a government like this would have stoked a short-lived economic boom and gone for an early election, but they haven't left themselves that option.
Interesting analysis. Something else springs to mind. If unemployment drops below 7% the BoE will consider putting up interest rates. It's possible that unemployment could dip below 7% in the next few months. If this does happen and interest rates start to go up there will be a considerable "feel bad factor" amongst mortgage holders which will hit the tories harder than any other party.
In reply to Oliiver: The capitalists, sorry Chambers.
In reply to Oliiver: Boris to take over the leadership of the Tories, a massive victory for them, and a decade plus of PM BoJo.
In reply to Oliiver: Boris would be the best Tory leader atm. But i think they need another female leader.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Why are you sorry? Whatever happens capitalism will be left intact. We might have a new set of puppets or we might have the same puppets. Puppets is puppets.
> (In reply to Oliiver) The capitalists, sorry Chambers.
Why are you sorry? Whatever happens capitalism will be left intact. We might have a new set of puppets or we might have the same puppets. Puppets is puppets.
In reply to Oliiver: capitalists aren't fools, communists are though chambers.
In reply to Sharp:
For all I support AV, and indeed full PR, such systems lead to more, not fewer, coalitions.
Neil
For all I support AV, and indeed full PR, such systems lead to more, not fewer, coalitions.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
Like Scotland, with our PR and majority government
I don't disagree that more coalitions would be formed with AV, but it's not AV that leads to them. Lack of strong support for one party causes coalitions to be formed, AV allows voters to choose coalitions more easily if that's the way they vote.
Provided no party does anything completely disastrous there wont be a strong enough party in the UK to get a good enough majority to have any sort of functional government without a coalition in a long time. Peoples voting is too fractious, AV would have addressed that, not caused it.
> (In reply to Ben Sharp)
>
> For all I support AV, and indeed full PR, such systems lead to more, not fewer, coalitions.
>
> For all I support AV, and indeed full PR, such systems lead to more, not fewer, coalitions.
Like Scotland, with our PR and majority government
I don't disagree that more coalitions would be formed with AV, but it's not AV that leads to them. Lack of strong support for one party causes coalitions to be formed, AV allows voters to choose coalitions more easily if that's the way they vote.
Provided no party does anything completely disastrous there wont be a strong enough party in the UK to get a good enough majority to have any sort of functional government without a coalition in a long time. Peoples voting is too fractious, AV would have addressed that, not caused it.
In reply to Oliiver:
I vote liberal and, in the absence of any realistic prospect of them coming into sole power, a liberal conservative coalition as now is my preference. The liberals have got more liberal policy enacted in the last 3.5 years than in the previous 35.
However, I think people will feel that the tories have done ok with the recovery and paring down government excess. Tey will feel that another few years is needed to sort the problems out. So I expect (as opposed to would like) a tory majority.
Milliband is the wrong one. Labour need to find a sparky, (probably female?) leader.
However, where I live, it matters not a jot who I vote for... which is another reason to vote liberal.
J
I vote liberal and, in the absence of any realistic prospect of them coming into sole power, a liberal conservative coalition as now is my preference. The liberals have got more liberal policy enacted in the last 3.5 years than in the previous 35.
However, I think people will feel that the tories have done ok with the recovery and paring down government excess. Tey will feel that another few years is needed to sort the problems out. So I expect (as opposed to would like) a tory majority.
Milliband is the wrong one. Labour need to find a sparky, (probably female?) leader.
However, where I live, it matters not a jot who I vote for... which is another reason to vote liberal.
J
In reply to JJL: Agree, they gone on about all this equality rubbish and the only female Pm has been from the Conservative party in 1979!
In reply to Oliiver:
Yes, because a media friendly clown - or at least friends with the media and their bosses - is easier to manipulate, and will do whatever his bosses tell him, plus is good at selling lies to voters, when the little lapdog that he is plays the game to full effect.
Boris is a f*cking joke as a potential PM, but a firm favourite for exactly that reason, He is owned.
Do you really, really want a PM who is so blatantly gagging to be PM?
> Boris would be the best Tory leader atm.
Yes, because a media friendly clown - or at least friends with the media and their bosses - is easier to manipulate, and will do whatever his bosses tell him, plus is good at selling lies to voters, when the little lapdog that he is plays the game to full effect.
Boris is a f*cking joke as a potential PM, but a firm favourite for exactly that reason, He is owned.
Do you really, really want a PM who is so blatantly gagging to be PM?
In reply to Dominion: no i think his persona would change drastically, but it could make him win a general election.
In reply to Oliiver:
From lovable classroom clown to authoritarian tub thumping swivel eyed loon in a micro-second. He's a reptile. With a reptiles understanding of the publics naive yet cthonic insecurities.
D
From lovable classroom clown to authoritarian tub thumping swivel eyed loon in a micro-second. He's a reptile. With a reptiles understanding of the publics naive yet cthonic insecurities.
D
In reply to Oliiver:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_200...
"Cameron is playing the blame game to depress confidence and growth to justify austerity. Secondly, to use austerity as justification for a smaller state to gain lower taxes. Thirdly, to paint Labour as a party that can not be trusted with the country's finances again. Therefore, we Conservatives will win a second term because, people vote out of fear. The latter strategy worked the last time in office (18 years) and will work again because, in the end, elections are won and lost on economic credibility. Hence, as people believe Labour created the mess they won't be trusted again."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_200...
"Cameron is playing the blame game to depress confidence and growth to justify austerity. Secondly, to use austerity as justification for a smaller state to gain lower taxes. Thirdly, to paint Labour as a party that can not be trusted with the country's finances again. Therefore, we Conservatives will win a second term because, people vote out of fear. The latter strategy worked the last time in office (18 years) and will work again because, in the end, elections are won and lost on economic credibility. Hence, as people believe Labour created the mess they won't be trusted again."
In reply to Dominion:
You've been suckered in my friend.
Born in New York City, Johnson was educated at the European School of Brussels, Ashdown House School, Eton College, and Balliol College, Oxford, where he read Classics. Beginning his career in journalism with The Times and then The Daily Telegraph, he became Assistant Editor from 1994 to 1999 before taking editorship of The Spectator, a position he held until 2005. Joining the Conservatives, he was elected MP for Henley in 2001. During his period in the House of Commons, Johnson became one of the most conspicuous politicians in the country, authoring books and making regular television appearances.
Now show me where anything he has done since being mayor of London which would substantiate your slur; "easier to manipulate, and will do whatever his bosses tell him, plus is good at selling lies to voters? Please?
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> [...]
>
>
> Yes, because a media friendly clown - or at least friends with the media and their bosses - is easier to manipulate, and will do whatever his bosses tell him, plus is good at selling lies to voters, when the little lapdog that he is plays the game to full effect.
>
> Boris is a f*cking joke as a potential PM, but a firm favourite for exactly that reason, He is owned.
>
> Do you really, really want a PM who is so blatantly gagging to be PM?
>
> [...]
>
>
> Yes, because a media friendly clown - or at least friends with the media and their bosses - is easier to manipulate, and will do whatever his bosses tell him, plus is good at selling lies to voters, when the little lapdog that he is plays the game to full effect.
>
> Boris is a f*cking joke as a potential PM, but a firm favourite for exactly that reason, He is owned.
>
> Do you really, really want a PM who is so blatantly gagging to be PM?
You've been suckered in my friend.
Born in New York City, Johnson was educated at the European School of Brussels, Ashdown House School, Eton College, and Balliol College, Oxford, where he read Classics. Beginning his career in journalism with The Times and then The Daily Telegraph, he became Assistant Editor from 1994 to 1999 before taking editorship of The Spectator, a position he held until 2005. Joining the Conservatives, he was elected MP for Henley in 2001. During his period in the House of Commons, Johnson became one of the most conspicuous politicians in the country, authoring books and making regular television appearances.
Now show me where anything he has done since being mayor of London which would substantiate your slur; "easier to manipulate, and will do whatever his bosses tell him, plus is good at selling lies to voters? Please?
In reply to Oliiver:
So you want to shoehorn a woman into a job in the name of equality rather than have the right person for the job?
> (In reply to JJL) Agree, they gone on about all this equality rubbish and the only female Pm has been from the Conservative party in 1979!
So you want to shoehorn a woman into a job in the name of equality rather than have the right person for the job?
In reply to Oliiver: I'd like to see more representation of some of the smaller parties, in my preference the green party but also I suppose there is argument for UKIP. One of the things I find so unpleasant about modern British politics is the homogenisation of the parties. I don't think there is much difference between Labour and Conservatives and I don't feel that the views and desires and needs of the majority are represented in Parliament.
I would like to see a Liberal Goverment just to see what they would be like without the attachment to the torries but I'm not sure that will happen.
I think the Torries will get in but there will continue to be a feeling amongst all the people I know that they don't know how because none of them would vote for them.
I would like to see a Liberal Goverment just to see what they would be like without the attachment to the torries but I'm not sure that will happen.
I think the Torries will get in but there will continue to be a feeling amongst all the people I know that they don't know how because none of them would vote for them.
In reply to Oliiver: Tories will get more votes, Labour will get more seats.
In reply to Oliiver:
Well, that's put me on the right track, Oliver. Thanks so much. I'll just disregard everything I've learned over the last five decades and bow to the superior wisdom of a child, shall I?
> (In reply to Oliiver) capitalists aren't fools, communists are though chambers.
Well, that's put me on the right track, Oliver. Thanks so much. I'll just disregard everything I've learned over the last five decades and bow to the superior wisdom of a child, shall I?
In reply to Oliiver:
Hard to know at the moment. If the bubble keeps blowing up and the worst of the deferred public service cuts are glossed over then Conservatives probably have a reasonable shout of staying in the race.
No idea how badly UKIP will split their vote but there may be surprises even in relatively safe tory seats.
No idea how hard the LibDems will be punished for their time in coalition, I suspect it'll be terrible.
Who knows what'll happen with Labour which way they'll go and whether it'll work.
In summary: It could go either way but the LibDems will struggle.
jk
Hard to know at the moment. If the bubble keeps blowing up and the worst of the deferred public service cuts are glossed over then Conservatives probably have a reasonable shout of staying in the race.
No idea how badly UKIP will split their vote but there may be surprises even in relatively safe tory seats.
No idea how hard the LibDems will be punished for their time in coalition, I suspect it'll be terrible.
Who knows what'll happen with Labour which way they'll go and whether it'll work.
In summary: It could go either way but the LibDems will struggle.
jk
In reply to Chambers: I'm seriously fascinated by you being a Marxist. I know there's no such thing as a wasted vote, but who exactly do you vote for ?
In reply to Papillon:
I know that's possible, has it happened before (or vice versa)? It's a real problem at the core of our democracy that this is possible
> (In reply to Oliiver) Tories will get more votes, Labour will get more seats.
I know that's possible, has it happened before (or vice versa)? It's a real problem at the core of our democracy that this is possible
In reply to thin bob: i don't think we can trust the Huffington post, it's vastly on the left.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Yeah 1951
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951
I think it's the first time Labour could benefit as things suit them now.
TBH I think the Tories will narrow the Labour polls lead and maybe get more votes but never enough to get them a majority (thankfully IMO).
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> I know that's possible, has it happened before (or vice versa)? It's a real problem at the core of our democracy that this is possible
> [...]
>
> I know that's possible, has it happened before (or vice versa)? It's a real problem at the core of our democracy that this is possible
Yeah 1951
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951
I think it's the first time Labour could benefit as things suit them now.
TBH I think the Tories will narrow the Labour polls lead and maybe get more votes but never enough to get them a majority (thankfully IMO).
In reply to JJL:
I think that.. I think they need to come back more central. But the party will be against that due to links with Blair.
I think it will be close.. too close to call, can see either 4 options of tories, labour, or each forming a coalition.
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> Milliband is the wrong one. Labour need to find a sparky, (probably female?) leader.
>
>
> Milliband is the wrong one. Labour need to find a sparky, (probably female?) leader.
>
I think that.. I think they need to come back more central. But the party will be against that due to links with Blair.
I think it will be close.. too close to call, can see either 4 options of tories, labour, or each forming a coalition.
In reply to Oliiver: I'm generally pro Tory. But I would like to see another coalition government with the Libs. I think it is a nice balance or right and left.
But I would recon the last thing the Libs want is to get in to bed with the Cons again.
But I would recon the last thing the Libs want is to get in to bed with the Cons again.
In reply to The Lemming:
From Oliiver? Nah. He's hardly known for promoting equality for women, so I doubt it. Maybe in the name of a pretty face winning more votes?
> So you want to shoehorn a woman into a job in the name of equality rather than have the right person for the job?
From Oliiver? Nah. He's hardly known for promoting equality for women, so I doubt it. Maybe in the name of a pretty face winning more votes?
In reply to Oliiver: Or maybe Margaret Thatcher was one of the best Pm's this country has ever seen?
In reply to Oliiver:
Not a patch on Blair..
> (In reply to Oliiver) Or maybe Margaret Thatcher was one of the best Pm's this country has ever seen?
Not a patch on Blair..
In reply to IainRUK: uhm, who's "Blair" Ian?
In reply to Oliiver:
Maybe. But even if she were, does that mean another woman is a safe bet for another good PM? Got anyone in mind?
> Or maybe Margaret Thatcher was one of the best Pm's this country has ever seen?
Maybe. But even if she were, does that mean another woman is a safe bet for another good PM? Got anyone in mind?
In reply to Carolyn:
Caroline Lucas. I reckon Oliiver would spontaneously combust. If she did nothing else she'd be worth it just for that.
jk
Caroline Lucas. I reckon Oliiver would spontaneously combust. If she did nothing else she'd be worth it just for that.
jk
In reply to Oliiver: Therasa may?
In reply to Oliiver:
not a shocking revelation.. you demonstrated yesterday your knowledge of history is shockingly poor..
> (In reply to IainRUK) uhm, who's "Blair" Ian?
not a shocking revelation.. you demonstrated yesterday your knowledge of history is shockingly poor..
In reply to jkarran:
Yeah I agree. I'd actually like to see another coalition, either tory/lib or lab/lib. But that will need the libdems to keep a few seats. Not sure how well they'll do at all.
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
>
> No idea how hard the LibDems will be punished for their time in coalition, I suspect it'll be terrible.
>
>
> No idea how hard the LibDems will be punished for their time in coalition, I suspect it'll be terrible.
Yeah I agree. I'd actually like to see another coalition, either tory/lib or lab/lib. But that will need the libdems to keep a few seats. Not sure how well they'll do at all.
In reply to IainRUK:
Ah give him a break, he was only eight years old when Blair resigned.
Ah give him a break, he was only eight years old when Blair resigned.
In reply to Carolyn:
Preferable to Harman or Abbott imo, but that's not saying much.
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> Theresa.
>
> A fairly plausible offering from what we've got, I'll give you that.
>
> Theresa.
>
> A fairly plausible offering from what we've got, I'll give you that.
Preferable to Harman or Abbott imo, but that's not saying much.
In reply to knthrak1982:
TBF, maybe also preferable to some of the Tory blokes. But I agree, it's not setting the bar high....
TBF, maybe also preferable to some of the Tory blokes. But I agree, it's not setting the bar high....
In reply to jkarran:
thats my vote sorted.
> Caroline Lucas. I reckon Oliiver would spontaneously combust. If she did nothing else she'd be worth it just for that.
thats my vote sorted.
In reply to Chambers:
Oh please do! It would save us from your incessant whining. Come back as a new character....
You could be Oliiver's twin.
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
> Well, that's put me on the right track, Oliver. Thanks so much. I'll just disregard everything I've learned over the last five decades and bow to the superior wisdom of a child, shall I?
> [...]
>
> Well, that's put me on the right track, Oliver. Thanks so much. I'll just disregard everything I've learned over the last five decades and bow to the superior wisdom of a child, shall I?
Oh please do! It would save us from your incessant whining. Come back as a new character....
You could be Oliiver's twin.
In reply to stroppygob: You could be Oliiver
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...