Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tory membership reported to have dropped by 40k since GE17 and

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited September 29 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tory membership reported to have dropped by 40k since GE17 and might now be below the LDs

A report tonight by the former political journalist of the year, David Henke, says there’s been a huge reduction in Tory members since GE2017 and that the total is down to 100k. In an interview John Strafford, chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy is quoted as saying “the real membership of the party has plummeted to around 100,000” a figure that is well below the 149,500 used by the party in 2013.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420
    Hello l may be first. Sadly unlike gay donkey man or asteroid miner.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    Second possibly
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 6,971
    Friday afternoon comment, like BL
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087
    The Tory party membership will recover once Jezza takes control.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 6,971
    edited September 29
    Tim_B said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Its interesting that over 20% of people want to nationalise the car factories.

    Considering how successful the UK's car factories have been for the last decade and what the memory of British Leyland is that does suggest that 20% of people would like to nationalise EVERYTHING.

    And I wonder where these 20% are socioeconomically - public sector workers ? the highly deprived ? the under-intelligent ?

    My first car was a BL mini clubman, but that is because I am incredibly old. "The memory of British Leyland" suggests you are too. People are no more going to be motivated by that argument than by trying to tie Corbyn in with the IRA.
    I'm not THAT old :wink: there were still news reports being led by Leyland strikes over their tea break washing up time in the 1980s.

    And do you ever hear people moaning about cars the way they used to ?
    It was 6 years old when I got it! In the 60s and 70s it was just assumed that you'd spend the first year with a new car getting the doors bonnet and boot hung correctly and all the windows and door leaks fixed. When I bought my brand new Capri GT in the late 70s I took care to order a German made model as the british made ones were awful for quality.

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 6,971
    edited September 29
    deleted
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    FPT:
    rcs1000 said:

    The ridiculous artificial privatised electricity 'market' we have now penalises those without the wherewithal to be switching supplier every year, diminishes our national productivity because of the effort wasted enouraging and administering switching, and in the main syphons off any profits abroad. A complete farce in pursuit of neoliberal dogma!

    Evidence?
    1. Some examples: my mother and my father-in-law are both in their 80s, neither have internet access and are consequently shut out of the route to the best deals. Both unsurprisingly are on standard rates subsidising the many of us who can and do switch. They are not untypical; very few of the more vulnerable in society will be working this particular system to good effect. If everybody was of course there would be no upside for those of who can and do switch regularly.

    2. The administration of switching - the call-centres, web sites, advertising (oh and don't forget Ofgem!) - add nothing to the efficient production and delivery of electricity and indeed are an unnecessary overhead. As a result, operating costs are continuing to increase as a proportion of bills (see below).
    https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/retail-market-indicators#thumbchart-c7770745751913637-n84514

    3. Of the UK 'big six' energy companies, four are non-uk owned: EDF Energy (owned by French firm EDF), npower (owned by German firm innogy), E.ON UK (German-owned), Scottish Power (Spanish-owned); only British Gas and Scottish & Southern are UK owned. The following article highlights how the profits leave the UK.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/revealed-how-the-world-gets-rich-from-privatising-british-public-services-9874048.html

    So my question is, how has electricity privatisation and the creation of a 'market' helped the general UK population at large?
    But what does the shareholder list of E.On look like?

    It's a bit simplistic to think that it's foreign and that British Gas is not. It's entirely possible the British pensioner is more exposed to the German firm.
    I doubt it, given the relative size of tour two economies, and the fact that E.ON is listed in Euros on the DAX. According to their E.ON theier shareholdings are 37% German owned, 16% UK owned. If we look at EdF we find it is... oh, owned by the French state - that can't work surely??

    Privatisation of utilities like electricity and the creation of an artificial 'market' has not been for the benefit of thr majority in this country.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Its interesting that over 20% of people want to nationalise the car factories.

    Considering how successful the UK's car factories have been for the last decade and what the memory of British Leyland is that does suggest that 20% of people would like to nationalise EVERYTHING.

    And I wonder where these 20% are socioeconomically - public sector workers ? the highly deprived ? the under-intelligent ?

    My first car was a BL mini clubman, but that is because I am incredibly old. "The memory of British Leyland" suggests you are too. People are no more going to be motivated by that argument than by trying to tie Corbyn in with the IRA.
    I'm not THAT old :wink: there were still news reports being led by Leyland strikes over their tea break washing up time in the 1980s.

    And do you ever hear people moaning about cars the way they used to ?
    It was 6 years old when I got it! In the 60s and 70s it was just assumed that you'd spend the first year with a new car getting the doors bonnet and boot hung correctly and all the windows and door leaks fixed. When I bought my brand new Capri GT in the late 70s I took care to order a German made model as the british made ones were awful for quality.

    Nationalisation of the failing British car industry in the 70s was an unsuccessful attempt to rescue an industry that private enterprise had brought to it's knees. It was under private ownership that the UK car industry went to pot.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,456
    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,515

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Its interesting that over 20% of people want to nationalise the car factories.

    Considering how successful the UK's car factories have been for the last decade and what the memory of British Leyland is that does suggest that 20% of people would like to nationalise EVERYTHING.

    And I wonder where these 20% are socioeconomically - public sector workers ? the highly deprived ? the under-intelligent ?

    My first car was a BL mini clubman, but that is because I am incredibly old. "The memory of British Leyland" suggests you are too. People are no more going to be motivated by that argument than by trying to tie Corbyn in with the IRA.
    I'm not THAT old :wink: there were still news reports being led by Leyland strikes over their tea break washing up time in the 1980s.

    And do you ever hear people moaning about cars the way they used to ?
    It was 6 years old when I got it! In the 60s and 70s it was just assumed that you'd spend the first year with a new car getting the doors bonnet and boot hung correctly and all the windows and door leaks fixed. When I bought my brand new Capri GT in the late 70s I took care to order a German made model as the british made ones were awful for quality.

    Nationalisation of the failing British car industry in the 70s was an unsuccessful attempt to rescue an industry that private enterprise had brought to it's knees. It was under private ownership that the UK car industry went to pot.
    With an enormous amount of help from the unions.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    edited September 29
    On topic, that fringe meeting will be interesting.

    Suggesting that the Tories won't have enough members to fight the next election sounds like hyperbole to me.

    However, one aspect which is not mentioned in the header is the membership demographics - what is the age spread of the membership and (sorry to mention it) how fast are they dying off?
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 6,971
    edited September 29

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Its interesting that over 20% of people want to nationalise the car factories.

    Considering how successful the UK's car factories have been for the last decade and what the memory of British Leyland is that does suggest that 20% of people would like to nationalise EVERYTHING.

    And I wonder where these 20% are socioeconomically - public sector workers ? the highly deprived ? the under-intelligent ?

    My first car was a BL mini clubman, but that is because I am incredibly old. "The memory of British Leyland" suggests you are too. People are no more going to be motivated by that argument than by trying to tie Corbyn in with the IRA.

    I'm not THAT old :wink: there were still news reports being led by Leyland strikes over their tea break washing up time in the 1980s.

    And do you ever hear people moaning about cars the way they used to ?
    It was 6 years old when I got it! In the 60s and 70s it was just assumed that you'd spend the first year with a new car getting the doors bonnet and boot hung correctly and all the windows and door leaks fixed. When I bought my brand new Capri GT in the late 70s I took care to order a German made model as the british made ones were awful for quality.

    Nationalisation of the failing British car industry in the 70s was an unsuccessful attempt to rescue an industry that private enterprise had brought to it's knees. It was under private ownership that the UK car industry went to pot.
    Not exactly - it goes back to the 1968 and Tony Benn...but yes, the companies hadn't exactly covered themselves in glory.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 19,987
    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,797
    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    You need to watch Wall Street with her.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Its interesting that over 20% of people want to nationalise the car factories.

    Considering how successful the UK's car factories have been for the last decade and what the memory of British Leyland is that does suggest that 20% of people would like to nationalise EVERYTHING.

    And I wonder where these 20% are socioeconomically - public sector workers ? the highly deprived ? the under-intelligent ?

    My first car was a BL mini clubman, but that is because I am incredibly old. "The memory of British Leyland" suggests you are too. People are no more going to be motivated by that argument than by trying to tie Corbyn in with the IRA.

    I'm not THAT old :wink: there were still news reports being led by Leyland strikes over their tea break washing up time in the 1980s.

    And do you ever hear people moaning about cars the way they used to ?
    It was 6 years old when I got it! In the 60s and 70s it was just assumed that you'd spend the first year with a new car getting the doors bonnet and boot hung correctly and all the windows and door leaks fixed. When I bought my brand new Capri GT in the late 70s I took care to order a German made model as the british made ones were awful for quality.

    Nationalisation of the failing British car industry in the 70s was an unsuccessful attempt to rescue an industry that private enterprise had brought to it's knees. It was under private ownership that the UK car industry went to pot.
    Not exactly - it goes back to the 1968 and Tony Benn...but yes, the companies hadn't exactly covered themselves in glory.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland
    That's putting it mildly!

    PS apols for cocking up the blockquote earlier!
  • stevefstevef Posts: 256
    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Hoho - that will appeal to the under 40s! :lol:
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 19,987
    rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    You need to watch Wall Street with her.
    To be fair to her, the chances of a 22 year old in London ever needing to grasp the concept of a "mortgage" are vanishingly small. So why bother learning?

    And this, of course, is part of the problem. A lot of millenials have no capital, and never will, so they do not understand "capital", or appreciate the benefits of "capitalism"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29
    Party membership is overrated, Labour in 2005 for example had a lower membership when it won than in 2015 when it lost. The Tories also had a higher membership in 2001 than they had done for years and were trounced and yes Corbyn Labour has a huge membership but it still lost in June

    Unless you want to be a councillor or MP most people join political parties because they are ideological and want a vehicle for it, whether socialist pacifism or anti EU social conservatism that does not mean the views of those members represent those of swing voters and often they are opposed. That does not mean membership is irrelevant, it helps to win council seats for example and to raise funds and can help in key marginals at general elections (Though even there activists can be sent from safe seats to marginals and phonebank used too).

    Ultimately at general elections most voters vote on the policies of the parties, the state of the economy and who they judge to have the best leader to be PM, party members just help ensure those who have decided to back your side turn out to vote, they rarely change minds
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    You need to watch Wall Street with her.
    Or explain that, to repeat an example from a previous thread about payday loan interest rates:

    If you borrowed £20 from a friend in the pub tonight, and agreed to pay him back the £20 and buy him a £3 pint (obviously not in central London!) next Friday - if you ignored him for a year (52 weeks, times the 15% weekly interest rate) you’d owe him £28,662 at an APR of around 140,000% thanks to compound interest. :o
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853
    SeanT said:



    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I certainly think you have hit the nail on the head with regards to nationalisation. Some people seem to think nationalisation simply means that the nation will get the profit, or cut costs for the consumer, and that the business will be run much as before but benefiting that nation (Yay!) not shareholders (Boo!).

    If it really worked like that, then surely we would nationalise everything. Why not simply nationalise every business in Britain?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 19,987

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.
    Fair enough.

    But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063
    edited September 29
    rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    You need to watch Wall Street with her.
    I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Jezza, for lack of a better word, is good. Jezza is right, Jezza works. Jezza clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the (R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK! Thank you very much.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646

    On topic, that fringe meeting will be interesting.

    Suggesting that the Tories won't have enough members to fight the next election sounds like hyperbole to me.

    However, one aspect which is not mentioned in the header is the membership demographics - what is the age spread of the membership and (sorry to mention it) how fast are they dying off?

    Apart from the YCs in the 1950s being the best middle aged dating agency around when has the Tory membership ever been anything other than mainly full of pensioners?
  • Universal Credit is means tested, so I haven't bothered signing on since my last contract ended in June.

    But, but - I should be re-starting at my old place of work in January, touch wood.
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 474
    So there is a chance that the Tories are 4th in party members behind Labour, the Liberal Democrats and also the SNP.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    SeanT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    You need to watch Wall Street with her.
    To be fair to her, the chances of a 22 year old in London ever needing to grasp the concept of a "mortgage" are vanishingly small. So why bother learning?

    And this, of course, is part of the problem. A lot of millenials have no capital, and never will, so they do not understand "capital", or appreciate the benefits of "capitalism"
    Their parents do of course and they will want to inherit some of those assets.

    Meanwhile house prices in London have fallen today which while bad news for home owners is good news for first time buyers
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.
    Fair enough.

    But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
    A state owned travel agent: That’s a shop that’s open 9:30-4pm, Monday to Friday, doesn’t take bookings over the phone, doesn’t take credit cards and doesn’t have a website.

    They think it means: just like Expedia, but with no evil profits being made.

    The kids of today need seriously educating about what state-run enterprises were actually like when they existed before.
  • Saltire said:

    So there is a chance that the Tories are 4th in party members behind Labour, the Liberal Democrats and also the SNP.

    And yet - and yet! - the Tories are 1st in terms of MPs and share of the vote, ahead of Labour, the LibDems and also the SNP :)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.
    Fair enough.

    But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
    Even at its worst polling in the early may honeymoon Corbyn Labour was polling about 25%, a quarter to a third of the British people are socialists and socialism requires nationalising most of the economy
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    edited September 29
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.
    Fair enough.

    But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
    Yes I agree with that; the pendulum is swinging back, maybe it will swing too far towards statism but swing back it will.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,456
    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646

    Universal Credit is means tested, so I haven't bothered signing on since my last contract ended in June.

    But, but - I should be re-starting at my old place of work in January, touch wood.

    I think contributory JSA which you can currently get for 6 months regardless of savings may be dealt with separately
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,267
    Re large numbers of people supporting widespread nationalisation (ie not just of utilities etc):

    Is this just a UK phenomenon?

    Or do similar numbers also think the same in other, say, West European countries?

    If it's just the UK, the question then is why?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    HYUFD said:

    Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron

    Interesting article. Includes this, er, useful piece of insight: "The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has previously attributed the decline to Cameron's prominent support for gay marriage, reporting that thousands "ripped up their membership cards and refused to renew their subscriptions."

    With views like that, I am sure they will soon put all their troubles to right :lol:
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,277
    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    MikeL said:

    Re large numbers of people supporting widespread nationalisation (ie not just of utilities etc):

    Is this just a UK phenomenon?

    Or do similar numbers also think the same in other, say, West European countries?

    If it's just the UK, the question then is why?

    Not quite true, 6/12 of the industries in the public in the poll concerned wanted to keep in private hands more than the 5/12 they wanted in public hands.

    Yougov has also recently showed more support for socialism in Germany than the UK albeit less support for capitalism in the UK than the USA

    People want moderated capitalism not to end it completely
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,456
    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29
    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646

    HYUFD said:

    Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron

    Interesting article. Includes this, er, useful piece of insight: "The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has previously attributed the decline to Cameron's prominent support for gay marriage, reporting that thousands "ripped up their membership cards and refused to renew their subscriptions."

    With views like that, I am sure they will soon put all their troubles to right :lol:
    The Tories could promise to reverse gay marriage and end all immigration tomorrow and bring back hanging and they would probably see a surge in membership however that does not mean they would be more likely to win the next general election in fact probably the reverse
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
    Most business owners provide jobs and a wage for those they employ, dealing with tax dodgers does not avoid the point that without wealth creators all sentiment for the poor is useless
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron

    Interesting article. Includes this, er, useful piece of insight: "The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has previously attributed the decline to Cameron's prominent support for gay marriage, reporting that thousands "ripped up their membership cards and refused to renew their subscriptions."

    With views like that, I am sure they will soon put all their troubles to right :lol:
    The Tories could promise to reverse gay marriage and end all immigration tomorrow and bring back hanging and they would probably see a surge in membership however that does not mean they would be more likely to win the next general election in fact probably the reverse
    I doubt if they'd even see an increase in membership tbh. I suspect the future will judge them as having run aground on the rock of Austerity, delivered with the best of intent but it's sapped too much hope and belief from the under 40s.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,168
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The beggar? There is no beggar in the story of the Good Samaritan. The object of his charity was the victim of a robbery.

    Are you confusing it with Saint Martin and the cloak?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,168

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
    Yes. There's a large number of them out there, who want to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

    John Macdonnell, for a start.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron

    Interesting article. Includes this, er, useful piece of insight: "The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has previously attributed the decline to Cameron's prominent support for gay marriage, reporting that thousands "ripped up their membership cards and refused to renew their subscriptions."

    With views like that, I am sure they will soon put all their troubles to right :lol:
    The Tories could promise to reverse gay marriage and end all immigration tomorrow and bring back hanging and they would probably see a surge in membership however that does not mean they would be more likely to win the next general election in fact probably the reverse
    I doubt if they'd even see an increase in membership tbh. I suspect the future will judge them as having run aground on the rock of Austerity, delivered with the best of intent but it's sapped too much hope and belief from the under 40s.
    The most popular conservative messages in the polls are reducing immigration, especially low skilled immigration, a tough line on law and order and national security, reducing welfare and cutting taxes for average and low income earners and cutting inheritance tax like it or not.

    Austerity is less popular admittedly but that does not mean it was not necessary
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
    Yes. There's a large number of them out there, who want to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

    John Macdonnell, for a start.
    If that were true, he'd be a candidate for the Tory party leadership :wink:
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,691
    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    So where do pensioners fit in to that generalisation?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The beggar? There is no beggar in the story of the Good Samaritan. The object of his charity was the victim of a robbery.

    Are you confusing it with Saint Martin and the cloak?
    Apologies a long time since Sunday school but the Good Samaritan certainly used oil and wine to tend to the wounds of the victim and put him on his horse and paid for his lodgings at an inn which he could only do as he had the assets to do so
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    So where do pensioners fit in to that generalisation?
    Pensioners are overwhelmingly Tory and most of them had jobs before they retired and paid into their pension pot when working
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,168

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
    Yes. There's a large number of them out there, who want to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

    John Macdonnell, for a start.
    If that were true, he'd be a candidate for the Tory party leadership :wink:
    Well, he's doing far more to drive waverers back to them than Boris Johnson ever would.

    Corbyn's speech may have won guarded praise, but let's face it that conference was a shambles and Macdonnell's cock-ups over PFI and economic collapse were the worst offenders.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,277
    edited September 29
    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    The unemployed over 65's who are dependent on benefits vote overwhelmingly conservative.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
    Most business owners provide jobs and a wage for those they employ, dealing with tax dodgers does not avoid the point that without wealth creators all sentiment for the poor is useless
    I have nothing against true wealth creators - they are the lifeblood of the economy. However, too many people who consider themselves wealth creators are actually wealth accumulators. And we shouldn't underestimate the wealth creation provided by those who work in, rather than own and run, business - they wouldn't have a job without the business owner, but equally, there would be no business without their labour. We just need to maintain a balance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    The unemployed over 65's who are dependent on benefits vote pretty strongly conservative.
    They are not dependant on benefits but pensions they either contributed through through National Insurance or workplace or private pension schemes
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
    Most business owners provide jobs and a wage for those they employ, dealing with tax dodgers does not avoid the point that without wealth creators all sentiment for the poor is useless
    I have nothing against true wealth creators - they are the lifeblood of the economy. However, too many people who consider themselves wealth creators are actually wealth accumulators. And we shouldn't underestimate the wealth creation provided by those who work in, rather than own and run, business - they wouldn't have a job without the business owner, but equally, there would be no business without their labour. We just need to maintain a balance.
    Yes and they want to benefit from the fruits of those lsbours without being overtaxed on it
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Well you've stated it but is there any evidence?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 57,213
    edited September 29
    John Strafford always moans like a whore about the Tory member numbers.

    In 2013 he predicted a disaster for the Tories at the 2015 general election because of the Tory membership figures.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Well you've stated it but is there any evidence?
    Corbyn won the unemployed vote in June with 54% to the Tories 28%
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

    Overall the Tories won 42% to 40% for Labour
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29

    John Strafford always moans like a whore about the Tory member numbers.

    In 2013 he predicted a disaster for the Tories at the 2015 general election because of the Tory membership figures.

    I think Ed Miliband had more members than David Cameron even then? Cameron of course still beat Miliband
  • HYUFD said:


    Corbyn won the unemployed vote in June with 54% to the Tories 28%
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

    Overall the Tories won 42% to 40% for Labour

    Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

    Universal Credit also covers those who are in employment.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,168
    HYUFD said:

    John Strafford always moans like a whore about the Tory member numbers.

    In 2013 he predicted a disaster for the Tories at the 2015 general election because of the Tory membership figures.

    I think Ed Miliband had more members than David Cameron even then? Cameron of course still beat Miliband
    Most men only have one member.

    However Miliband did in addition to proving an electoral cock up have two Balls.

    It's Friday, so I'm not getting my coat but my (iPad) battery's flat so I'm off to bed. Have a good weekend.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Well you've stated it but is there any evidence?
    Corbyn won the unemployed vote in June with 54% to the Tories 28%
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

    Overall the Tories won 42% to 40% for Labour
    Ah yes, very interesting... but I see Labour won the wager earners! As has been pointed out elsehwere it is only amongst the retired (most of whom are dependent on benefits) that the Tories won.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999
    We might be past peak Tory. They've had a good 23 year run since their 1994 low, but what goes up must come down
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Well you've stated it but is there any evidence?
    Corbyn won the unemployed vote in June with 54% to the Tories 28%
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

    Overall the Tories won 42% to 40% for Labour
    Ah yes, very interesting... but I see Labour won the wager earners! As has been pointed out elsehwere it is only amongst the retired (most of whom are dependent on benefits) that the Tories won.
    True (albeit pensioners are dependant on contributory pensions rather than benefits as such).

    However Labour only won full time workers 45% to 39% and part time workers 44% to 40% so still significantly less than the 54% to 28% they won unemployed people by thus the point still holds
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    edited September 29

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
    A little PB Bible Study!

    The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.

    The problem is not of the Bad Samaritan (Samaritans were despised by the Jews as not recognizing the scriptures beyond the first 5 books) but rather of the Priest and Levite (temple assistant) who passed by on the other side. They professed Jewish religiosity, but had no inward understanding. The Samaritan however had rejected Jewish religiosity, but yet acted generously and at some personal loss.

    The point is not that you have to have money to help (binding the wounds and carrying to a place of safety was a social rather than financial cost) but rather that real knowledge of the Spirit was not an outward profession but an inner one.



  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
    A little PB Bible Study!

    The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.

    The problem is not of the Bad Samaritan (Samaritans were despised by the Jews as not recognizing the scriptures beyond the first 5 books) but rather of the Priest and Levite (temple assistant) who passed by on the other side. They professed Jewish religiosity, but had no inward knowledge. The Samaritan however had rejected Jewish religiosity, but yet acted generously and at some personal loss.

    The point is not that you have to have money to help (binding the wounds and carrying to a place of safety was a social rather than financial cost) but rather that real knowledge of the Spirit was not an outward profession but rather an inner one.



    He still needed wine and oil to bind the wounds and he needed money to pay the innkeeper to provide lodgings for the victim
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29

    HYUFD said:


    Corbyn won the unemployed vote in June with 54% to the Tories 28%
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

    Overall the Tories won 42% to 40% for Labour

    Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

    Universal Credit also covers those who are in employment.
    It does indeed because it converts all benefits into one, the whole point of it being that you do not lose all your benefits if you do some part time employment of a few hours a week
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    John Strafford always moans like a whore about the Tory member numbers.

    In 2013 he predicted a disaster for the Tories at the 2015 general election because of the Tory membership figures.

    I think Ed Miliband had more members than David Cameron even then? Cameron of course still beat Miliband
    Most men only have one member.

    However Miliband did in addition to proving an electoral cock up have two Balls.

    It's Friday, so I'm not getting my coat but my (iPad) battery's flat so I'm off to bed. Have a good weekend.
    Very good
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 8,726
    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.

    Lab beats Tories from those in work
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.
    Fair enough.

    But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
    Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.

    You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.

    Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.
  • What isn’t Telegram saying about its connections to the Kremlin?

    https://theoutline.com/post/2348/what-isn-t-telegram-saying-about-its-connections-to-the-kremlin
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    Cyclefree said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.
    Fair enough.

    But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
    Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.

    You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.

    Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.
    Boris only beat Livingstone because he was a charismatic fighter able to connect with people
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.

    Lab beats Tories from those in work
    No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.

    Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    edited September 29
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggar

    It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
    A little PB Bible Study!

    The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.

    The problem is not of



    He still needed wine and oil to bind the wounds and he needed money to pay the innkeeper to provide lodgings for the victim
    He gave of the little he had, he was not a rich man.

    Jesus was pretty clear about how earthly riches are a spiritual trap. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

    When approached by a rich young man who was seeking salvation, Jesus advised him to give away all his possessions to the poor.

    Similarly, when he sent his followers out into the world he told them not to take any money or spare clothes:

    Matthew 10 v9-13
    Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
    Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
    And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,370
    edited September 29
    The king is dead. Long live the king.
    Tory-ism is alive and, well, well.
    After all, May tells us it's the only way to go.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.
    Fair enough.

    But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
    Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.

    You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.

    Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.
    Boris only beat Livingstone because he was a charismatic fighter able to connect with people
    By the time of the next election Boris will be yesterday's man . Il n'est pas un homme serieux.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.
    Fair enough.

    But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
    Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.

    You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.

    Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.
    Boris only beat Livingstone because he was a charismatic fighter able to connect with people
    By the time of the next election Boris will be yesterday's man . Il n'est pas un homme serieux.
    We will see but at the moment he is the best the Tories have
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 8,726
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.

    Lab beats Tories from those in work
    No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.

    Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits
    The Govt classes the state pension as a benefit.

    The state pension is paid for by national insurance contributions, which come from the wages of people working today. Effectively, each working generation pays for the older generation above them. However, NI is also used to pay other benefits, such as to the unemployed.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,456
    Cyclefree said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...

    The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".

    She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.

    We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.

    I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.
    Fair enough.

    But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
    Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.

    You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.

    Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.
    The travel agent thing is bizarre, I didn't think they existed any more anyway. Are we sure it isn't one of those calibration questions like the USA survey which asked "have you ever been decapitated?" and 4% said yes?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.

    Lab beats Tories from those in work
    No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.

    Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits
    I think that you forget how many are on in work benefits, or who have been on benefits in the past or who have friends and family on benefits, or even a simple social conscience.

    Writing off the difficulties of those being caught in the wheels of bureaucracy as not mattering because they mostly vote Labour would be a fatal error for the Tories, and rightly so.

    If UB works as intended it has a lot of plusses, if the rollout is bodged and incompetent then there will be a lot of righteous anger, and particularly amongst those new found Tory CDE voters. They cannot eat Brexit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.

    one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.
    As Thatcher often pointed out Labour
    The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.
    A little PB Bible Study!

    The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.

    The problem is not of



    He still needed wine and oil to bind the wounds and he needed money to pay the innkeeper to provide lodgings for the victim
    salvation, Jesus advised him to give away all his possessions to the poor.

    Similarly, when he sent his followers out into the world he told them not to take any money or spare clothes:

    Matthew 10 v9-13
    Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise
    How do you know he was not a rich man? What he was was someone who had managed to acquire money and some wealth through his labours which he could use to help others.

    The New Testament was certainly a bit more leftwing than the Old Testament but even he was clear in the parable of the talents that those who fail to make the most of their abilities and are slothful were not approved of either

    'But his master answered him

    You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30'
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:14-30&version=ESV

    The New Testament also makes clear that it is love of money rather than money itself which is the problem
    'For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.'
    http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/6-10.htm
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 8,726

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.

    Lab beats Tories from those in work
    No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.

    Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits


    HYUFD - see me

    47% of UK benefit spending goes on state pensions of £74.22bn a year

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2787888/how-state-pension-funded-cash-runs.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited September 29

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.

    Lab beats Tories from those in work
    No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National
    The Govt classes the state pension as a benefit.

    The state pension is paid for by national insurance contributions, which come from the wages of people working today. Effectively, each working generation pays for the older generation above them. However, NI is also used to pay other benefits, such as to the unemployed.
    Your National Insurance Payments help ensure your eligibility for the full state pension, other than contributory JSA unemployment benefits are not contributory

    Of course most pensioners nowadays have workplace pension schemes too not just the state pension
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 2,514



    A little PB Bible Study!

    The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.

    The problem is not of the Bad Samaritan (Samaritans were despised by the Jews as not recognizing the scriptures beyond the first 5 books) but rather of the Priest and Levite (temple assistant) who passed by on the other side. They professed Jewish religiosity, but had no inward understanding. The Samaritan however had rejected Jewish religiosity, but yet acted generously and at some personal loss.

    The point is not that you have to have money to help (binding the wounds and carrying to a place of safety was a social rather than financial cost) but rather that real knowledge of the Spirit was not an outward profession but an inner one.



    Are you aware of the interpretation of Christ as the Good Samaritan, being robbed and beaten representing sin, the hotel as the Church, etc?
  • The idea that the Conservatives don't have enough manpower to actually run the next election campaign seems very hyperbolic to me. But nonetheless it is no doubt that most young people getting involved in politics at the moment Have signed up to Labour. I think there is a pretty good bet that there is a future prime minister who has just got back from Brighton. The question is whether he or she will be a Labour Prime Minister.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    ?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is .uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the less so
    Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.

    Lab beats Tories from those in work
    No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in
    I think that you forget how many are on in work benefits, or who have been on benefits in the past or who have friends and family on benefits, or even a simple social conscience.

    Writing off the difficulties of those being caught in the wheels of bureaucracy as not mattering because they mostly vote Labour would be a fatal error for the Tories, and rightly so.

    If UB works as intended it has a lot of plusses, if the rollout is bodged and incompetent then there will be a lot of righteous anger, and particularly amongst those new found Tory CDE voters. They cannot eat Brexit.
    Did I say I would scrap benefits? No

    I just pointed out the simple fact that those in work, including part time work, are far more likely to vote Tory than those on unemployment benefits and universal credit is vital for helping more people get off benefits and into work which while being good for them also makes them more likely to vote Tory.

    As I have pointed out Corbyn won the unemployed heavily and DEs heavily so there while there may be teething problems to be sorted out regarding benefits payments that will not make much difference to the Tory vote, what will is getting some of those unemployed into work, even if only part time
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    Freggles said:



    A little PB Bible Study!

    The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.

    The problem is not of the Bad Samaritan (Samaritans were despised by the Jews as not recognizing the scriptures beyond the first 5 books) but rather of the Priest and Levite (temple assistant) who passed by on the other side. They professed Jewish religiosity, but had no inward understanding. The Samaritan however had rejected Jewish religiosity, but yet acted generously and at some personal loss.

    The point is not that you have to have money to help (binding the wounds and carrying to a place of safety was a social rather than financial cost) but rather that real knowledge of the Spirit was not an outward profession but an inner one.



    Are you aware of the interpretation of Christ as the Good Samaritan, being robbed and beaten representing sin, the hotel as the Church, etc?
    Yes, and there are many other interesting layers to the tale. The significance of it being road from the holy city of Jerusalem to the mercantile town of Jericho for example.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,370
    Talking of that lefty rabble rousing Jesus,
    I'm sitting here trying to visualise how to thread Trump through the eye of a needle.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 663
    It suggests that the tories are ripe for entryism. Aaron Banks is trying to deselect Amber Rudd, he has written to everyone in Hastings trying to get people to join the conservative party for that purpose.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.

    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.

    Lab beats Tories from those in work
    No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.

    Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits


    HYUFD - see me

    47% of UK benefit spending goes on state pensions of £74.22bn a year

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2787888/how-state-pension-funded-cash-runs.html
    State pensions paid for by National Insurance which those pensioners will have paid when they were working
  • Hang on - are we talking about the same political party? The one which five months ago everyone (including its opponents) thought was on track to win a majority so huge that it was a threat to democracy?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,340

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:



    Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?

    No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrong
    The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.
    There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.

    That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
    You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.
    It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less so
    Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.

    Lab beats Tories from those in work
    No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.

    Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits
    The Govt classes the state pension as a benefit.

    The state pension is paid for by national insurance contributions, which come from the wages of people working today. Effectively, each working generation pays for the older generation above them. However, NI is also used to pay other benefits, such as to the unemployed.
    NI goes into a big pot along with the rest of the taxes. It's relevant as far as individuals' payments are concerned but there's no hypothecation from tax to benefit. And that part of the state pension you get whether you've paid any NI or not is a benefit.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420


    @Cyclefree said:
    Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.

    You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.

    Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.

    @Dixiedean said:

    There is a problem here though. The argument for the status quo needs to explain why there have been falling real wages for 10 years. Is that because of too much or too little liberal capitalism? And did the GFC happen because of too much regulation or not enough?

    The Conservatives have not really begun to even ask these questions, let alone answer them. They have not had a full leadership election for 12 years where such problems could be hammered out.

    The last one indeed was won by, we are going to be quiet about Europe and be nice to gays, ethnic minorities and single mothers, and if you don't agree please shut up, 'cos we are sick of losing. (Simplified, but you get my drift. It was a very different time).

    That is why, if May goes, a coronation or stitch-up won't be good enough.

    You can't win a battle of ideas if you do't know or aren't sure what your ideas are.


This discussion has been closed.