UKC

The Tories are suffering from hubris and incompetence, lurching from one screw up to another. The EU referendum could split the part beyond repair.
Corbyn's support within the Labour party makes him virtually untouchable. He is consolidating his authority over the cabinet and reselection will allow him to massively increase his support in the PLP.

Throw in the likelihood of another recession between now and 2020 and it's not hard to to see the Tories small majority being overthrown however ghastly the alternative.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Has The Lemming hacked your account, PMP..?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No.

In reply to Postmanpat:

If there was a serious threat of Corbyn and his pacifist entourage getting into power the Establishment wouldn't allow it in the national interest. The Generals would take over and impose an interim Governent of Necessity like they were planning to do in the 1970s.

In reply to Trangia:

I our military hierarchy* quite as fascist as they were in the 70s?

* It was more middle management if I remember my history correctly.

In reply to Trangia:


Or more simply.

No.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Corbyn's support comes from the Labour party membership, not from the electorate.

In reply to Postmanpat:

no

In reply to Postmanpat:

Dunno, it's four and a half years away and that's quite a long time in politics. But if you have a spare tenner you'll probably get good odds at the moment.

In reply to John2:


Who are of course part of the electorate and more likely than most to vote, I would add that a lot of non Labour Party members took the opportunity to vote for him and I don't just mean Tories trying to fix the election.

I'm not saying he is going to win a general election, but it is clear that he does have support outside of the party membership.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No. Corbyn, McDonnell, Livingstone & Milne want to beat New Labour, not the Conservatives. How many open goals have they missed by waving Mao's Little Red Book or blaming Blair for 7/7 or having a 3-day reshuffle when there was a flooding crisis and Europe disarray among Tories.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, I think it would make a lovely change.

Leicester topped the table at Christmas, when everyone was tipping them for relegation.

In reply to Postmanpat:

If he did become PM, would President Trump get the CIA to assassinate him?

In reply to John2:


How do you know this? As this is yet to be tested I think you're assuming an awful lot, a bit like the people who said they'd never elect JC as leader, and we all know what happened there.

In reply to The New NickB:

More like Putin and JC would gang up to whip off his revisionist toupee.

In reply to felt:

I want it to happen just so I can see how strongly he can condemn North Korea with just words of sanctimonious self assuring hubris and how effective it will be. Because I have an idea how it will go and I want to see if I was right.

In reply to Trangia:
"government of necessity" is a marvellous euphemism. You would only have to necessarily disappear a few hundred thousand people before the country is ready for elections again.

According to Luttwak you couldn't pull a military coup off in the UK anyway - they are fragile in the early days so you need an extremely low level of political engagement in order to ensure there is essentially no push back.

In reply to krikoman:


Well in national polls he is doing a little worse than Milliband did, so the level of his current support is pretty clear. The OP was wondering if that would change if there are disasters with the EU vote, the economy, and the Tory party.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Virtually no chance. It would take extreme incompetence on the Tories' part, or a disastrous Brexit.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

unfortunately the latter cannot be ruled out.

In reply to veteye:

Yes, that's my biggest fear at the moment.

In reply to veteye:


Or the former, but they seem so Teflon coated, it would have to be really extreme.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

If you combine this with Jon Stewart's approach to life on my thread about being "healthist", there's probably nothing you can do about it as life is pre-ordained and no-one has any free-will. So all those people that you would like to start being rational will not and the UK will be out of the union in the blink of an eye: So sit back and think of something altogether brighter and ignore the referendum.

In reply to veteye:

If the EU doesn't reform in general, not just a special case for the UK then the EU is dead in the water and brexit will matter much less. Currently the euro is floundering, the Schengen has proved worthless without external border controls and the EU leadership is denial. China is floundering, even another modest recession would finish off the EU. In 4 years it could all be over.

In reply to veteye:

I don't agree with any of that I will willingly take part in the referendum to vote to stay in. I can't see how, a/c to your argument, I have any choice of ignoring the referendum.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The Conservatives still have to elect a leader to stand for their 'third' term. I'm a firm believer that we're now in a system where the parties will get a minimum 15 years stab at running the country.

Elections are lost in this country not won. Eg we vote parties out of office not in.

I think Labour will just move further to the left in the next two years and in 2018-19 we will see a new party emerge. A kind of new new labour who'll fill the ever so slightly right of centre slot. The conservatives are desperately trying to be that but appear to too many as being much further right. Maybe a new leader would pull them back into line a bit?


Didn't we used to have Lib/Dem party somewhere. What happened to them? They were doing so well.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Yes, good point re elections being lost not won. My biggest hope now is that a new centre/left of centre party will emerge, as you suggest.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


A perfect chance for the libdems to get it on, only they seem to be missing and their leader has lost his voice. A labour split is more likely, which would then in time merge with the libdems, history going full circle.

In reply to MG:

here are a few simple numbers
400,000 people voted in the labour leadership
Corbyn gets over 50% of vote
around 200,000
the country has a population of 64 million
anyone with the exact figure here can correct me but say 50 million are over 18 (not all will be registered I know)
1% of those people =500,000
less than half of 1 percent of the UK population voted for new labour leader
Labour polled 30.4% of the vote in 2015
As a life long Labour voter I think this man can not win the next general election the numbers just simply do not stack up.
When you look at a colour map of the UK the bulk of the country is Blue except London and the post industrial cities.
Middle England are rarely affected by the issues a big city faces.
People in the heart of the country will have never seen a Somalian refugee, or know what it is like to live on the dole, or be on such low pay that they need tax credit and support.
They will get what they vote for and it will be the one that keeps their rosy tinted view of the world the same.

The best to hope for is that George Osboune is the next leader at the poll and as he is so loathed the Tories only win by a small majority again.

In reply to summo:


Yes, I think the latter is very likely now.

In reply to The New NickB:



Unless they live in marginal constituencies their votes (like most people's) will have no effect on the results of the election.

In reply to sheffieldchris:

Realistically, the election is decided by less than a million people, ie undecided or rather unaligned voters in marginal constituencies.

Pretty much by definition these are not Corbyn supporters, although it could be argued that some of the Corbyn supporter may be those that felt that they were previously marginalised or not represented and didn't vote in the past. Probably only have minimal impact though.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Yes, see above.

In reply to John2:

But that was an electorate that swelled massively during the leadership campaign.

If there is one thing that people like Corbyn and Farage defy it is that you can make no calls on what may or may happen. Everyone said he couldn't be leader. There are strange forces going on here that I don't think anyone quite understands. And those most unsettled by it are the press and establishment. It is almost like their control over politics is being ebbed away.

In reply to sheffieldchris:

You seem to be mixing up your numbers, obviously to vote for JC as leader you had to be a Labour Party Member, so you had to pay your hard earned cash to have a say.

Considering 34% of the people eligible to vote in the general (I.E. free election) couldn't be arsed, then this speaks volumes for the people who put their hands in their pockets so they could have a say who's to be the Labour leader.

You're comparing apples and oranges really, comparing the leadership election to a general election.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm a life long labour voter and still say No. Swing voters decide the election and history has shown that no matter how unpopular the incumbent government, if swing voters do not believe the leader of the opposition would be a credible leader of the country then they will not vote for them (e.g Kinnock, Milliband in Labour's case). Swing voters vote for personality over policy unfortunately. Corbyn is perceived as weak and is unelectable.

In reply to ByEek:


The other obvious precedent here is the Scottish referendum, where the Westminster establishment went from "let them have their fun since they're never going to win" to "oh bloody hell" in a remarkably short space of time...

In reply to Ramblin dave:
But voters saying they don't mind the two fishes running a country roughly the size of Yorkshire is ok, when they are already in office with some track record, even if it is a little patchy. Isn't the same thing.

Voting for a back bencher to be prime minister of the UK, who has done nothing worth mentioning despite being an MP for 40 years isn't ever going to happen.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Only if Cameron/Osborne/Boris are caught by a TV crew having relations with a pig's head the day before the election.

However, stranger things have happened.

In reply to krikoman:

That makes it even less relevant, those people who paid to have a vote on the Labour leadership were always going to vote Labour in a GE. It tells you nothing about swing voters in marginal constituencies.

In other news, here's a prediction http://ukgeneralelection2020.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/latest-uk-general-elect...

In reply to krikoman:

Technically you are correct, but there are very strong clues. History first, I think we can compare Corbyn to Lansbury and Foot. They didn't do well in elections, Labour has always won when it's been closer to the centre. Some may say 1945 was different, but remember both parties had reforming plans then.

Then we get to the seats Labour need to win, Tory/Labour marginals. The non-voters won't help there, it's the Tory/Labour floaters. I don't think they'll be tempted by Corbyn.

Thirdly, Scotland. The actual seats aren't vital in terms of number, but the threat of SNP as kingmakers is Gold to the Tories, it's how the won the last election. Corbyn shows no sign of winning Scotland back.

So yeah, we could disregard all that and take a punt on Corbyn, but if you really want the Tories out it is a high risk strategy.

As a LibDem voter, it's got to the point were I would now join the Labour party to vote for a better candidate (possibly Keir Starmer?). I wouldn't have voted for any of the last candidates and in that sense Corbyn could be useful. We are stuck with First past the post, a united centre left is the only realistic opposition. The last few days have demonstrated that isn't going to happen under Corbyn.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



Not sure it is less relevant, people prepared to pay to chose a leader, obviusly they are more likely to vote Labour, but to get people enthused enough to not only vote but to pay to vote!

My point being that voter apathy might be more relevant.

as for polls and what they suggest, weren't the polls suggesting a Conservative loss before the last election?

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I'm still not convinced Alan Johnson won't end up as leader, a lot of people wanted him to be, he said he didn't want the job, but it wouldn't surprise me if in 2019 he ends up being there for the election.

In reply to krikoman:



Do you think the people who paid to vote for a labour leader were people who wouldn't normally vote in a GE?


Most predicted a hung parliament, I think. I linked to the current polling, if you have any additional info post away.

In reply to krikoman:


I don't think he'd want it, and IMO Labour need to look forward not back.

On polling you have a point, but the explanation I've heard does make good sense ie Older voters were under represented as they don't use modern comms devices as much as younger people.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I'm not really sure, I know of some people who saw JC as a way to change the system we have at present, where spin is everything and lies are "just part of politics", and yes some I know hadn't voted in years. They we're looking for change and to someone they could support.

There's nothing worse than going to vote, when you either don't like the person / party you're voting for, but they're better than the alternative or when you're in a safe seat of a party you don't want to win.

I still think there's something to be said for enthusing 100,000+ people to get their money out and vote, especially when all the polls and pundits were telling everyone that would listen he was a no hoper.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Haha, after ten years I fear he might have taken over my brain

In reply to krikoman:

Its a " sham" this concept of new politics. I am not sure who is preaching this " idolised" version, whether its JC and his team or just the wishes of some of parts of the electrorate.

Politics is by its nature a tough brusing business.JC and his team have amply demonstrated over the past few months that there is nothing new over the political process and spin. They are becoming masters of it themselves.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


If a Brexit led to Scotland leaving, then Corbyn's chances of becoming PM evaporate to absolutely no chance.

He's already been totally confused on the issue, Chuka Umunna mentioned it when he resigned;

“I cannot envisage any circumstances where I would be campaigning alongside those who would argue for us to leave. Jeremy has made it clear to me that he does not wholeheartedly share this view.”

So the broader question here is whether Corbyn will an asset to the In campaign?

Given his lack of leadership on the issue and his thus far lack of attraction to the Scots, it would appear not.

In reply to davidbeynon:




Rubbish. U.K. has an extremely low level of political engagement.

D

In reply to krikoman:


They predicted no overall majority, since then the pollsters have admitted that the type of sampling they did underestimated support for Conservatives - eg Internet sampling ignored elderly voters.

In reply to John2:


My point is not that there will be sudden upsurge in support for far left socialism, but that the Tories will be broken and discredited and Labour, far left or not, will be the only alternative. Having said that, I think the argument that swing voters in marginals, who are they key to elections, will not stomach Corbyn is quite compelling.

In reply to krikoman:
"I still think there's something to be said for enthusing 100,000+ people to get their money out and vote, especially when all the polls and pundits were telling everyone that would listen he was a no hoper."

There is something to be said for it, it's a cracking endorsement that those people want him to lead the Labour party and that's all (you can read more into it). But it tells us nothing about the vastly greater number of people who didn't pay their £3 to vote for their xfactor favourite, it still has to be translated into electoral success.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I think there is a bit of evidence, anecdotally at least, that Corbyn has attracted people who have not previously voted. Not enough to make a difference, but quite possibly 10,000 or more in the leader election.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Hard to tell so far ahead, but do you think many Scottish voters will switch to Labour in 2020 on the basis that voting SNP still means a conservative government for them, despite devolution?

In reply to The New NickB:


And if they vote in the next GE that's great. But, nationally, a possible 10,000 people who "anecdotally" hadn't voted before are unlikely, as you say, to make a difference (especially as they'd find out they couldn't do it on their phone and had to get off their backsides and visit a polling station).

In reply to Postmanpat:
As another lifelong Labour voter I would also have to say no. Truly depressing.

The only prospect the nation has for jollity is of the Tory party imploding over Europe, and in the absence of an effective Opposition to keep them in shape. But that's poor consolation.

In reply to winhill:


Agreed.





Agreed.
PS. I'm secretly hoping that Chuka will form a new party ...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
"PS. I'm secretly hoping that Chuka will form a new party ..."

Which will split the Labour party into 2 unequal groups, neither of them remotely big enough to challenge the Tories. Seems like a strange hope...

In reply to Sir Chasm:



No, I was thinking of an alliance of the Labour right and the Lib Dems, which I believe would be far more attractive to a huge swathe of the electorate than Corbyn's Labour. I would also suggest changing the name Labour for this new party.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
'The centre party' or 'moderates' ?
Or 'alliance'

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

He could have not bottled out of running for the Labour leadership, then steered the party in a different direction.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


How about "Whigs"?

But seriously, such an alliance has got be the way forward. Presumably they are fearful of the same outcome as last time around. But this time I think it would be different. Labour was created as the party of the organised working class and as such always had a huge dependable core vote. That organised working class has now shrunk so much that it is logical that Labour shrinks with it to be replaced by a re-emerging Liberal party as the main representative of "the left".

In reply to Postmanpat:

The EU referendum may well take place this summer. If the result is Brexit and Cameron does fall on his sword, there remain four years before the next election to rebuild a convincing government.

I believe that it would take Cameron to fall on his sword for him to disappear - his PMship has been so staggeringly dull that people just seem to forget broken electoral promises such as a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and deciding on London's new airport before the end of 2015. Compare that with the chaos and amusement caused by Corbyn's reshuffle.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Yes, my position exactly. But I'd just call them something like the 'Democratic Alliance', I think.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Or you could call them "T'aint" as in, "T'aint one nor t'other". It's other meaning offers a suitable metaphor on both sides.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Why go to the trouble. Labours leadership elections are now wide open to anyone. If LibDems and the labour centre-left all joined up and voted you'd get that part, which is still the 2nd biggest party in the country (in terms of 2015 votes).

In reply to John2:


Lisbon what? People are only interested in things that affect them. Whatever the Lisbon treaty is / was and a decision on London airport doesn't really affect anyone en mass. Life goes on regardless. But Scottish Nationalism caught Labour by surprise, immigration caught the Tories by surprise and the Lib Dems broken promise on tuition fees and ass kissing the Tories caught them by surprise.

In reply to ByEek:


The Lisbon Treaty affects us, since it concerns how the EU works. But you make John2's point: people forget.

In reply to Dauphin:

Not really true. I'll agree that it is lower than it should be, but here we are talking about politics. People join unions, they pretty much elections to happen and the government to step down gracefully when they lose. A large segment of the population would be pissed off if there was a military coup, and would refuse to cooperate.

The kind of societies where coups really work are the ones where the "government" is an abstract thing that has no effect on life.

If the only government interaction you ever have is bribing or avoiding the local police and you have already had 3 coups this decade then what's the point in getting upset when another one happens?

That's the difference.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Maybe the SNP will invade the north? Its hard to think of a time in my life when all the main English parties have appeared so unpalatable and inward focussed to the swing voters who determine elections.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


But I think this is the problem with stuff like this. It really doesn't change my life one jot. Regardless of its outcome, I still get up in the morning, get grumpy kids packed off to school, go to work, come home, blah blah blah and then go to bed. And repeat. It really doesn't affect me at all and as a result, I don't really care much for it.

Now the fact my five year old son seems to have baked beans every day (including with pasta!!?) for his dinner at school - that is a big deal to me.

In reply to Postmanpat:
The problem I see with your reply is that within it you apply logic, pretty much what polls do.

In reply to ByEek:



But it will in some way eg if you've had tradesmen in recentley it would have been cheaper than 13 year ago (probably). If you are british tradesman you probably aren't earning so much. Just on example, loads of others.

PS Get the school to use low salt, low sugar beans.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I quite like Corbyn, but when he comes pre-packed with McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry and (f*cking) Ken Livingstone, I (and a very unscientific poll of my left-leaning mates) will say thanks, but no thanks.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I agree and add a Seamus Milne.

In reply to Mike Stretford:
Likewise agree.

This is the problem. to those immersed in left wing politics it's a wet dream, to the Labour (or potential) voter in the Clapham Wetherspoons, it's like the 1970's called and want's it's politics back.

A bunch of hard left journeymen, Union wonks and academics. They're as out of touch with the average punter as Cameron and Osbourne.

In reply to ByEek:
.


By using your eu migrant worker rights you could move to Scandinavia, your kid would never see a baked bean in school again, he would enjoy free healthy food everyday.

Sometimes the benefits of some parts of the EU are under sold.

In reply to summo:

Well its debateable its free, after all their tax rates are quite high in comparsion, so you pay for it in that sense!

In reply to davidbeynon:

I think that if we live in a country where a serving high ranking member of the military can say this publicly without being carpeted by the MOD, the government and the torn apart by the press then the coup happens every five years.

D

In reply to davidbeynon:

I agree with Dauphin. Political engagement in the UK is very low and apathetic compared to most European countries. Less and less people join unions, a substantial proportion of the population can't be bothered to vote (with the exception of the indyref) and in the case of a military coup, I think that a great many would tug their forelocks to whoever wielded the power. Hopefully we'll never know.


Yep, the uk. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I do think that most people in the UK get more exercised about rude fat men on Come Dine With Me than they do about every single thing Jeremy Cu, sorry, HUNT has ever said and done. For all its faults, the UK is a pretty easy place for most of us to live, even easier for those who don't care about what happens at the bottom rung of society, (beyond buying the odd big issue and posting the odd petition on FB), which I suspect is most of us.


No idea what you mean by that but it doesn't matter, like I said, hopefully we will never find out.

In reply to neilh:


True, but sometimes you have to pay for decent services, the UK would like many different good services, but hasn't quite grasped the funding aspect yet.

In reply to summo:

Scandinavian countries also have a much smaller ratio of highest to lowest pay than the UK does - so intrinsically the wealth is more evenly distributed. We could learn from that.


It is amusing that, whilst seven months ago there was a race to the bottom to see who would promise the most cuts, people are now asking why public money wasn't spent on better flood defences.

In reply to Removed User:


This ^^

It takes a hell of a lot of desperation or fanaticism to start a civil war or overthrow a government.

As far as the majority of people go, if we woke up tomorrow to find a few tanks parked outside No 10, what would be the reaction?

Initially fear and trepidation. However, as long as you still have a job, a roof over your head, there's food in the shops, the NHS keeps going and anyone going on a rioting, raping or looting spree gets shot in the head, then most people will sit tight.

Provided the new dictatorship doesn't start a reign of terror, starve you to death or dissapear your family and friends then what exactly are you going to fight for? The country ticks along pretty much as normal regardless of if Cameron, Corbyn, Peppa Pig or General Bufton-Tufon is at the helm.

In reply to sheffieldchris:


Or IDS. Is there any hope he might stand for leader again?

In reply to Trangia:

Bang on.

Sometime in the near or distant future our PM will have no choice but to preside over committing our Forces to military intervention,or worse ,going to war.

God forbid it happens ,and God Forbid Corbyn is sitting in No.10.

On the subject of Corbyn; was reading about Hilary Benn and his December speech ,watched his fathers famous speech ,and then ,somehow,found myself watching Robin Cook's impressive Iraq 2003 resignation speech .

Guess who was sitting, resplendent in Lincoln Green ,behind Robin during his speech? Yes ,Comrade Corbyn.
Just as he had in the other aforementioned speeches.

I'm going to look for a clip of Bevan announcing the advent of the NHS. Jezzza is bound to be sitting behind him ,glumly sucking his thumb.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


That is because new starts and unskilled labour wages are quite high compared to the UK. But when those workers gain experience and move up into management, the pay leap isn't so great as it would be in the UK.


People want their cake and eat it, plus consistently fail to learn it won't work. It is no mystery that the UK tax thresholds keep rising, but public sector spending goes down.

In reply to andymac:



I agree Corbyn wouldn't be the right guy in number 10 in a military emergency.

But isn't this future intervention/war only made more likely by our recent decision to get more deeply involved in bombing Syria (which seems to have had very little positive effect so far)?

In reply to neilh:

The benefits of the high(er) taxes are present too. In this country 'the state of things' seems to be a background grumble to life, be it roads or healthcare or public transport.

Some of the money made by our train system goes overseas to countries like Holland which have an ownership stake, rather than being reinvested into the infrastructure itself.

I can't help wondering if this state of affairs came about partly because it was decided it'd be too unpopular to raise taxes to help pay for the railways, but the result is that ticket price rises help to make money for people overseas.

To me this doesn't make sense, I think we should be willing to pay higher taxes to enable ownership of our own infrastructure instead, in that if we don't pay through taxes we quite likely pay somewhere else, but for longer potentially if an outside party is making money on their investment (since they'd be daft to end a profitable deal).

Edit: I think we can't escape the economic truth that things have to be paid for, and if it isn't us who pay for them initially through our taxes, then it's somebody else who'll want a return for their investment.

In reply to Trevers:

What about the British citizens of Gibraltar or the Falklands islands... I could him giving those places away in return for a nice ill fitting tweed blazer.

In reply to Trevers:

Yes

When the historians get to work on the subject ,and with a more definitive hindsight ; it will be even clearer than ever that The Invasion of Iraq in 2003 was one of the biggest mistakes in our already dubious history.

A shameful episode.of the highest magnitude.Although at the time I did not give it much thought.

Tony Blair has an awful lot to answer for ,and although not the chief belligerent ,he is up to his grinning little snout in the whole sorry event.

A ##### of a man ,who sent our sons ,daughters, and loved ones to their deaths. Over a lie ,and the desire to be a lapdog.

We will continue to reap the harvest we sowed in 2003.

Our actions,atempts at rehabilitating the country ,exit strategy,and swift departure, left the country in a state of lawless chaos .And has left the whole Region ,similarly , tearing itself apart.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't know what's worse, him not becoming PM and us having 10 more Labour free years.

Or him becoming PM and having to wait 5 years for us to have 20 Labour free years.

Swings and roundabouts.

In reply to Big Ger:

What's so great about the Conservatives though?

In reply to Trevers:

Compared to Corbyn?

Let's start with the ability not to bankrupt the country...

In reply to Big Ger:



Oh, when did he do that? Well that was horrible of him!

In reply to Postmanpat:

Maybe we shouldn't try and deflect the limelight from your lords and masters who are obviously doing their best to screw the country. And they are doing a pretty good job. Corbyn has no power at the moment, Cameron and Osbourne do and they are f*cking us over. Discuss without referring to either Corbyn or a Labour Govt that have been out of power for nearly 6 years.

(Maybe you see why I asked you stuff on someone else's thread as you are the CCHQ stooge here).

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

No, i just think youve either gone a bit potty or been drinking.
I have no idea why tou think i should have an interest in or knowledge of grouse shooting.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I assumed that you would have some knowledge on this area of Tory party thinking. You are normally VERY well informed on what CCHQ are saying.

So do you have an opinion of the 2 points I raised ie continued freezing of gun licenses and extension of subsidy of grouse moors.

(BTW nice slur about being potty or been drinking. Standard CCHQ tactics I assume).

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


If you say so. I'll assume this is your little joke rather than that actually believe it


No

In reply to Trevers:

It's possible for someone to have a "potential" you know.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


How do you think they are "screwing the country"? Give us something to work with.

In reply to Big Ger:

Err, so just a few things:

Lying about the debt and the deficit

Lying about tax increases

All in it together (couple of things, subsidised shotgun licenses, and increased subsidy for grouse moors)

Lying about constitutional crisis whilst it was all about trying to get Tax Credit cuts through the back door.

Refute those then I will give you more.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Wow, you don't have an opinion on these 2 things but you are very well known for having an opinion on anything else that is critical of the Tory Govt.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Hang about, it's impossible to prove a negative, how about you prove that they have been;

Lying about the debt and the deficit

Lying about tax increases

All in it together (couple of things, subsidised shotgun licenses, and increased subsidy for grouse moors)

Lying about constitutional crisis whilst it was all about trying to get Tax Credit cuts through the back door.

In reply to Big Ger:

Yeah, whatever Big Ger. Me not being arsed to post links about how the shotgun licence hasn't gone up since 2001 doesn't mean it hasn't happened. But bury your head in the sand if you want.

In reply to Big Ger:


Yep, and George Osborne has that "potential" too. Until either Corbyn or Osborne bankrupts the country, all you or I can offer is an uneducated guess.

In reply to Trevers:

Fair point, I concede that.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Well from 1997 to 2010 we had labour governments, how much did they put it up?

But seriously, if you want to make a claim, such as that someone has lied about something, it's a good idea to have evidence to back up your claim at hand.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

>people forget.

People didn't know to start with. And don't care once you've told them.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Am I? That must be why my OP described them as "incompetent and hubristic". I think what you mistake for devotion to the party is that I believe in a market led economy and a smallish State within a liberal democracy, and the Conservatives tend to be party that most nearly matches that philosophy.

Maybe I don't have an opinion on these things because in the context of the greater picture they are quite minor issues and small amounts of money involved. I assume the argument is something along the lines that small subsidies to promote a £2b industry and 40,000 jobs and encourage better land management are a good investment. But I've no idea whether that's correct or not.

In reply to Big Ger:

But seriously yourself, yeah whatever, if you don't understand that the Tories lied through their teeth to get elected then you have got what you deserved.

Ps check out a little thing called inflation.

In reply to Offwidth:


Why would the SNP invade the Arctic?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Better land management. Spare me. Tell that to those in the flood plains of the grouse moors. Moronic response I am afraid.

Your devotion to your philosophy always seems similar to your devotion to party on here.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Unproven.


Ok, it was at 3.3% when Cameron came to power in 2010, it's now at 0.1%, your point?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


If you weren't so excited you'd have noticed that I simply attributed that as the explanation, with a caveat (that it might either not be the explanation, or may be a false claim). Kind of strange to be abusive on the basis that you believe one or both of those caveats to be valid ie.it's a false claim.


I think the superficial rhetoric of of the left shouldn't go unchallenged.

In reply to aln:


oil. Or a cunning sneak attack all the way round to catch Australia by surprise.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Firearm licence fees went up in April 2015, if you could be arsed to look it up.
I have no idea what that has to do with JC becoming prime minister?

In reply to KevinD:

>a cunning sneak attack all the way round to catch Australia by surprise.

Shhh.... a few cousins of mine have been in deep cover for over 10 years.

In reply to Big Ger:


Protecting child tax credit

Vowing not to dither on Heathrow

Opening up government

there's more but I can't be arsed.

In reply to Trangia:


Is there some proper historical research about this? I've not heard about it and take an interest in these sort of things.

In reply to summo:


I'm not totally sure on the situation in Sweden at the mo' not being Euro and all that, but Finland is effing disaster economically currently. Unemployment is far too high, and all the government can do is cut, cut, cut. The levels of social security started high, so the cuts don't mean starving on the streets, but its a pretty miserable situation. People say its a very hard place to run a business in comparison to the UK so the government can't rely on growth to help out end the downward cycle. Public services in the UK aren't nearly as bad in comparison to other EU countries as many Brits presume.

In reply to TobyA:

It's hard to compare to Finland, as unless you actually live within country you always get a skewed touristy perspective.

Sweden, business is ok in generally, but each scandi nation has limited control of what its krona will be worth elsewhere. The three kronas tend to shadow each other, so inter nation trading is fine, but a weak euro and relatively strong pound creates challenges.

Admin wise,dealing with tax as business owner is dream here compared to hmrc. Even banking has proved pretty painless, at least for me.

Yeah, the grass can appeared greener as far as public services go, I would say overall where we are rurally it is much better than the UK, but of course we pay for it. Which is fine with me. Having clean streets, good education and healthcare etc.. is more important to me overall than a few quid more in my pocket every month.

In reply to TobyA:


Its shite. One or two weird mavericks making plans for if the far left took over.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Not if the BBC has anything to do with it!!

Or indeed much of the rest of the press.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389675/BBC-fire-orchestrating-resi...

In reply to Postmanpat:

If the Tories mess up that badly and Cameron goes, they'll just appoint Boris as leader and give the party a more "centerist" makeover.
As for Corbyn, as said above, the swing voters that decide elections are more likely to be seduced by the policies of centerist parties, not Marxist ones.
I've been really disappointed at the inward looking squabbling of the Labour party since the general election, when they should have been holding Cameron's shower to account.