Danny
Member
Posts: 9,806
|
Post by Danny on Jan 4, 2024 12:13:02 GMT
Actually I've been thinking that KS could be leading a two term administration. Or more if he can sustain even half his current VI lead through a first term policy rollout. If he can cement himself at the centre whilst ACTUALLY "improving the lot of people". I wonder whether never in history has a british government left such difficult conditions to its successor. Thames water is effectively bankrupt having been asset stripped by succesive private owners. Con have spent the last 14 years doing the same to the state. Every aspect of state operations is underfunded and at the point of collapse. Borrowing is at a record high and continuing to grow, even given the continuing rundown of state services each year. Con has engineered that the B of E will end QE, just as it leaves office. Which has to raise the question how lab (or anyone) can sort this in one parliament. Its best bet might be to make a very clear statement just how bad the situation is as soon as it takes office. Or at least have a huge review so the maladministration by con gets revealed a bit later and sticks in the mind more closer to the next election. But can a government admit how bad things are given money market sentiments? Well obviously, if most voters do not support your party, thats maybe money going to 2/3 of the population who will never vote for you. Government does not seem to be about the greater good at all.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 4, 2024 12:17:53 GMT
As a general point to other posters. You have my commiserations if you live in a FPTP constituency where there is no progressive alternative to the Tories. The Lib Dems surrendered any claim to be progressive in 2010, and in fact were absolute shysters from 2010-15. We now suffer the consequences of their misguided ideology espoused in the Orange Book. Ed Davey was a co-author of the Orange Book. He is unreformed, shown to be incompetent as a Minister and has served in a regressive regime. You're working for the tories, it's so obvious.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,806
|
Post by Danny on Jan 4, 2024 12:19:07 GMT
Having caught up, I'll mention a news item from this morning.
Its about the shortage of decent career jobs in China. They seem to be on the verge of a labour surplus.
That might be disconcerting for those worried by a wave of chineses migrants to the UK. But perhaps what it really shows is the the world really is experiencing the effects of technology displacing labour and leaving people with nothing to do. Its just these effects have not evened out yet. We arent going to need these immigrants. What we likely need is more care workers and fewer graduates, because its the human contact jobs which will still be needed.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 4, 2024 12:20:28 GMT
That's how populists think, and it's how they mistakenly think others think. No principle, no moral centre.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 4, 2024 12:22:16 GMT
In an interesting look at the opinion on war criminal Putin's invasion of Ukraine from within Russia a stark disparity of opinion between those of an age who do the fighting and dying and those who won't. youtu.be/ojTSCHWSBMY?si=97tpu9UL6iwcso61Sounds familiar doesn't it?
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,011
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 4, 2024 12:37:57 GMT
As most informed people thought Sunak suggests election will be in the second half of the year
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jan 4, 2024 12:39:04 GMT
The other point that Kellner seems unwilling to acknowledge is the factor of Govrnment recovery. Current MRPs reflect polling which puts Labour around 16-17% ahead. However, the normal fall in the polling lead for an opposition from this point is around 4-7 points. How are you defining 'normal'? Perhaps as an average? ? Yes, it's the average of the last 4 Parliaments which have run to the full 5 year. I am comparing the average of Opinion polls in the exact month 4 years on from the previous election (as we are now) with the final opinion polling average (not the actual result, because polling error is a different thing) So... 1982-92: June 1991 polls Lab 6% ahead, final polls Lab 1% ahead. 5-point swing back 1992-97: April 1995 polls Lab 25% ahead, final polls Lab 18% ahead. 7-point swing back. 2005-10: May 2009 polls Con 16% ahead, final polls Con 8% ahead. 8-point swing back. 2010-15: May 2014 polls Lab 3% ahead, final polls Con 1% ahead. 4-point swing back. A significant part of this is of course the recovery of the 'Don't Knows', which is factored in to some current polling. The adjusted polls, such as Opinium, point towards a similar narrowing of about 6 points for those polls which treat 'Don't know' as 'would not vote'. But there's wider point here: Kellner seems to be saying that MRPs showing Labour on 400-430 seats with a 17% lead are going to be proved wrong if Labour were now to get (say) 375 seats, and a 100-majority on a lead of 11%. I'd disagree, because a movement of 6 points in the polls would in inevitably shift a very significant number of seats. I've seen a similar fatuous argument that an MRP taken in May 2017, when the Conservatives were 18 points ahead in the polls, was proved totally wrong by the actual result a month later, ignoring the huge shift in the polls during the month which followed.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2024 12:45:08 GMT
I can't say I've ever red thev" orange book" however I do know what Davey's contribution to it was it was the section related to " liberalism and localism" Davey undertook this section at the behest of Charles Kennedy in 2005 Kennedy was in no one's book an orange Tory and Kennedy's/ Davey's contribution related to the need for revival in local politics with power and control passed from central government to local elected authorities.Something also espoused by Labour , the Greens and the SNP amongst others.
Only in jibworld can this be portrayed as evidence of a far right ideology
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Jan 4, 2024 12:52:57 GMT
I am not closely engaged with Horizon, but a close colleague of mine was sacked and very soon re-emerged at Fujitsu (or ICL as we tended to call it)working on Horizon and including I think attending a HoC select committee enquiry. Having been in the industry I had little doubt that the system would have had bugs but what I always found deeply improbable was that dozens or hundreds of postmasters were on the take. One or two, yes, but dozens? If you're dedicated to fraud would you become a postmaster where you'd expect there to be rules and consequences rather than just have a straight shop where you can be selective what you put through the till and the opportunity to flog cigarettes and booze to children and perhaps stuff you got to avoid tax on a booze cruise, very popular at the time as was said in those days. So that senior management in the PO, the government, the judiciary didn't smell a rat I find astonishing
|
|
jib
Member
Posts: 2,839
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Jan 4, 2024 13:06:57 GMT
As a general point to other posters. You have my commiserations if you live in a FPTP constituency where there is no progressive alternative to the Tories. The Lib Dems surrendered any claim to be progressive in 2010, and in fact were absolute shysters from 2010-15. We now suffer the consequences of their misguided ideology espoused in the Orange Book. Ed Davey was a co-author of the Orange Book. He is unreformed, shown to be incompetent as a Minister and has served in a regressive regime. You're working for the tories, it's so obvious. Punching low. Come on out of that closet and show your true colours - you're another one aren't you!?
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,011
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 4, 2024 13:10:27 GMT
We think poll
@electionmapsuk Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 43% (+2) CON: 26% (-1) LDM: 11% (-1) RFM: 11% (+2) GRN: 6% (=) SNP: 3% (=)
Via @wethinkpolling , 28-30 Dec. Changes w/ 21-22 Dec. 12:46 PM · Jan 4, 2024
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,011
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 4, 2024 13:17:38 GMT
Polling on UK'S relationship with the EU
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2024 13:29:03 GMT
As a general point to other posters. You have my commiserations if you live in a FPTP constituency where there is no progressive alternative to the Tories. The Lib Dems surrendered any claim to be progressive in 2010, and in fact were absolute shysters from 2010-15. We now suffer the consequences of their misguided ideology espoused in the Orange Book. Ed Davey was a co-author of the Orange Book. He is unreformed, shown to be incompetent as a Minister and has served in a regressive regime. You're working for the tories, it's so obvious. With the Jibster/“sonny lad” on their side the Tories are dooooooomed.
|
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,693
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Jan 4, 2024 13:34:12 GMT
How are you defining 'normal'? Perhaps as an average? ? Yes, it's the average of the last 4 Parliaments which have run to the full 5 year. I am comparing the average of Opinion polls in the exact month 4 years on from the previous election (as we are now) with the final opinion polling average (not the actual result, because polling error is a different thing) So... 1982-92: June 1991 polls Lab 6% ahead, final polls Lab 1% ahead. 5-point swing back 1992-97: April 1995 polls Lab 25% ahead, final polls Lab 18% ahead. 7-point swing back. 2005-10: May 2009 polls Con 16% ahead, final polls Con 8% ahead. 8-point swing back. 2010-15: May 2014 polls Lab 3% ahead, final polls Con 1% ahead. 4-point swing back. A significant part of this is of course the recovery of the 'Don't Knows', which is factored in to some current polling. The adjusted polls, such as Opinium, point towards a similar narrowing of about 6 points for those polls which treat 'Don't know' as 'would not vote'. But there's wider point here: Kellner seems to be saying that MRPs showing Labour on 400-430 seats with a 17% lead are going to be proved wrong if Labour were now to get (say) 375 seats, and a 100-majority on a lead of 11%. I'd disagree, because a movement of 6 points in the polls would in inevitably shift a very significant number of seats. I've seen a similar fatuous argument that an MRP taken in May 2017, when the Conservatives were 18 points ahead in the polls, was proved totally wrong by the actual result a month later, ignoring the huge shift in the polls during the month which followed. On the other hand..
1974 - 79. May 1978 polls - Lab 2% ahead. Final polls Con 7% ahead. 9 point swing away 1979 - 83 June 1982 polls - Con 22% ahead. Final polls - Con 20% ahead. 2 point swing away.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 4, 2024 13:54:17 GMT
Danny - re bovine TB, as ever, your take on anything pandemic is pretty woeful. You've got the causation entirely the wrong way round. Cattle are the primary transmission vector, and it's through cattle that badgers get infected. Stop the movement of farm animals, use the imperfect tests far more frequently (as they have done with significant benefit in Wales) and then go from there. My own county had it's first bTB case for a long time a couple of years ago. It was directly linked to the purchase of cattle from a known infected area. There are analogies with covid, but you really don't want to go there, because all of them come back to the fact that testing, tracing and NPIs work.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2024 14:09:55 GMT
neilj"Polling on UK'S relationship with the EU Careful Neil Mr Jones will be accusing you of being another closet lib dem!
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jan 4, 2024 14:15:56 GMT
I think you're one-dimensionally axe-grinding again here in your never ending pursuit of a personal antagonism with a fellow poster. The Post Office scandal extends over an almost twenty year period and while a failure of government oversight was part of it, and that involves Ministers of all stripes and hues over those twenty years, the scandal is primarily about corporate dysfunction and senior management bullying, lying and incompetence on a soulless and inhuman scale that may result in the perpetrators being eventually brought to justice for what they did to hundreds of innocent sub postmasters. Its clear this story is currently being pushed to try to discredit the libs in an election year. Once again, for following the government line while in alliance with tories. The letter posted above from Ed Davey is dated 2010, about something which happened in the 1990s. In 1995, Peter Lilley conservative minister announced a plan to computerise post office transactions so as to prevent £150 million a year in benefits fraud. The project ran into difficulties, so that labour then considered cancelling it but continued with the project and the system was introduced in 2000-2001. Presumably it immediately started losing money from accounts and enforcement action must have taken place soon after. I did wonder when I heard first this, just how come the post office could not see there was a problem, in that suddenly hundreds of post master had turned into fraudsters coinciding with the introductin of the new system?............
Davey then most likely had advice from civil servants on the official line that this was a private matter for a private company. Obviously it wasnt, since the causal events took place entirely under state control. Moreover, ..........
No Danny, it's not about "something which happened in the 1990's" - not the real scandal at the heart of this, which is (surprise, surprise) the cover up rather than the preceding events. The basic idea of computerisation can hardly be argued against, it was happening all over in the 1990's. That the Horizon system was flawed is - from an IT viewpoint - unfortunate. But again, these things happen. The REAL scandal was how case after case after case came up, and the Post Office failed to acknowledge the problem could be anything other than a high percentage of their sub-postmasters had suddenly started committing large scale fraud. (!!) But throughout most of the mid 2000's, (as the drama/documentary makes clear) even most of the people concerned thought they were isolated cases. But by 2010 - and largely thanks to Alan Bates - the word had started to get out. There was increasing realisation about the scale of the numbers. The people at the heart of it were realising they were far from isolated cases. And even if Ed Davey may have been otherwise advised by ministers, then was he so unaware of current affairs (even regarding his own department!?) that he didn't smell a rat!? It may well have been a case of the "Post Office were telling him differently", but was he so naive that he just took their word for it!? Ultimately, the buck stops with him. This shouldn't really be anything to do with the Lib Dems per se, and whilst I do think people should go to prison over the scandal, then the worst happened before his involvement. But Ed Davey's seeming to want to stick his head in the sand at the time, and refuse to even meet with the sub-Postmasters, reflects appallingly on his judgement. And it is his problem - not the Lib Dems as such. If the Lib Dems do have a problem, it's that he is their current leader, and with an election within the next year then maybe they need to decide if he has the competence to be seen as such in the run up to that election.
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jan 4, 2024 14:17:48 GMT
Happy New Year to all. A refreshing Christmas break and here I am ready to take the sword to the destructive Tories and their duplicitous allies. Jib - you've made a very strong start regarding the Liberals (albeit you make it sound like they are still the Tories "duplicitous allies", despite the fact that they haven't been that for nigh on a decade now) but just out of interest, when are you going to make a start on taking your "sword to the destructive Tories"?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2024 14:23:01 GMT
In utter self delusion news. "Asked if he could rule out a May election, Sunak repeated it was his “working assumption” that the vote will be held later in the year. He said: I want to keep going, managing the economy well and cutting people’s taxes. But I also want to keep tackling illegal migration. So, I’ve got lots to get on with and I’m determined to keep delivering for the British people." Here's Sunakered performing his famous spin yourself into the floor manoeuvre to his many admirers at the day release centre.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 4, 2024 14:25:46 GMT
"Davey then most likely had advice from civil servants on the official line that this was a private matter for a private company. Obviously it wasnt, since the causal events took place entirely under state control. Moreover, this became a matter of how the whole legal system functions, in that the post office brought private prosecutions where it also controlled all the evidence necessary to prove or disprove a case, and only submitted to court any beneficial to its own case. Operational control and funding of the post office is still essentially under government control because it is a loss making essential service where the profitable parts of the business have been asset stripped from the loss making essential services. So never mind 2010, this is still a matter for government and was clearly so then. However, it was probably at the forefront of government thinking that this scandal would severely hamper any further privatisations, so its existence went unacknowledged officially. By lab, con and libs." Well stated. I would like to see if there are grounds for a criminal case against the Post Office managers for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. In criminal cases, if the police or CPS withhold information from the defence, that can be sufficient grounds on its own to overturn a conviction.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,806
|
Post by Danny on Jan 4, 2024 14:26:43 GMT
As a general point to other posters. You have my commiserations if you live in a FPTP constituency where there is no progressive alternative to the Tories. The Lib Dems surrendered any claim to be progressive in 2010, and in fact were absolute shysters from 2010-15. We now suffer the consequences of their misguided ideology espoused in the Orange Book. Ed Davey was a co-author of the Orange Book. He is unreformed, shown to be incompetent as a Minister and has served in a regressive regime. You're working for the tories, it's so obvious. That did seem to be the conclusion of his claim to be pro labour but staunch believer in brexit even though he doesnt like the outcome?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2024 14:27:18 GMT
This lunch time was " hump day" when the average CEO earned as much as the average employee does in a year.
Needless to say the Tories will be basing their election campaign on demonizing some of the poorest people in the world and calling for inheritance tax cuts for millionaires.
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jan 4, 2024 14:28:23 GMT
Maybe strong disapproval bordering on intense dislike is justified if you have been deeply affected, both emotionally and materially, by the actions of a particular politician. I can see how that can transpire. I re-read my post. It doesn't totally reflect what I had tried to get across. I won't amend it as that's what i wrote at the time, but I put too much emphasis on the effect that Osborne and co had on me personally. Whether I'd been a civil servant at the time or not I'd have still hated (and I use that word carefully and infrequently) Osborne. It's because I really don't like bullies and I don't like people who punch down. And that's what I saw Osborne doing and before him, Thatcher. Even if I'd never been personally affected by Osborne I would have still hated him for what he snidely, calculatedly and deliberately did to untold millions of the already disadvantaged and struggling. Although he personally affected me I was wrong to make it look like that was the reason I can't stand the man, and I didn't get that across in that post. I hope I have now.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 4, 2024 14:29:12 GMT
As most informed people thought Sunak suggests election will be in the second half of the year It will make it easier for us if we don't have to fight the London Mayor and Assembly elections at the same time as the General Election. I would still like to see Sunak out sooner rather than later, though.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 4, 2024 14:38:07 GMT
We think poll @electionmapsuk Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 43% (+2) CON: 26% (-1) LDM: 11% (-1) RFM: 11% (+2) GRN: 6% (=) SNP: 3% (=) Via @wethinkpolling , 28-30 Dec. Changes w/ 21-22 Dec. 12:46 PM · Jan 4, 2024 MOE stuff really, but I get the impression from the last few polls that LAB VI has inched up a tad and CON are down a smidgen. RFM at 11% must also be causing unease at CON Campaign Headquarters.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,806
|
Post by Danny on Jan 4, 2024 14:47:20 GMT
So that senior management in the PO, the government, the judiciary didn't smell a rat I find astonishing Hmm. I agree, first thing I would do is wonder just how there could be so many prosecutions now. But the alternative is that if it isnt the people, then it is the software. And fujitsu seem to have been totally adamant there was nothing wrong with the software. Under the terms of their contract, they could not admit to any flaw because then it would have been unfit for purpose and someone is out of a pocket a billion pounds. I think many people must have realised this was absurd, but also realised there was no way they could take the line this was absurd and keep their jobs. You do wonder if the software was reporting deficits in certain accounts, the actual cash deposits must all have been real, so where did the real money end up? In the swiss account of a former programmer? But if not, it must have been appearing somewhere as actual surplus money? I remember there was once a mini scandal about the rounding errors in bank credits especially where we used to half pennies. All the odd amounts ended up credited to a slush fund account.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,806
|
Post by Danny on Jan 4, 2024 15:02:58 GMT
Its clear this story is currently being pushed to try to discredit the libs in an election year. Once again, for following the government line while in alliance with tories. The letter posted above from Ed Davey is dated 2010, about something which happened in the 1990s. In 1995, Peter Lilley conservative minister announced a plan to computerise post office transactions so as to prevent £150 million a year in benefits fraud. The project ran into difficulties, so that labour then considered cancelling it but continued with the project and the system was introduced in 2000-2001. Presumably it immediately started losing money from accounts and enforcement action must have taken place soon after. I did wonder when I heard first this, just how come the post office could not see there was a problem, in that suddenly hundreds of post master had turned into fraudsters coinciding with the introductin of the new system?............ Davey then most likely had advice from civil servants on the official line that this was a private matter for a private company. Obviously it wasnt, since the causal events took place entirely under state control. Moreover, ..........
No Danny, it's not about "something which happened in the 1990's" - not the real scandal at the heart of this, which is (surprise, surprise) the cover up rather than the preceding events. The basic idea of computerisation can hardly be argued against, it was happening all over in the 1990's. That the Horizon system was flawed is - from an IT viewpoint - unfortunate. But again, these things happen. The REAL scandal was how case after case after case came up, and the Post Office failed to acknowledge the problem could be anything other than a high percentage of their sub-postmasters had suddenly started committing large scale fraud. (!!) But throughout most of the mid 2000's, (as the drama/documentary makes clear) even most of the people concerned thought they were isolated cases. But by 2010 - and largely thanks to Alan Bates - the word had started to get out. My point was that anyone with an interest in this would have seen there had to be something wrong with the system well before 2010. Even a dozen cases of postmasters accused of fraud should have rung alarm bells, never mind 1000. The scandal is NOT the coverup. The scandal is that the system in place to monitor fraud did not realise what was happening was impossible way back at more like 2002. The scandal is how this ever happened, not how there was an attempt to cover it up. If anything, this implicates labour ministers in a scandal. Sure, the postmasters didnt realise this at first, but the post office absolutely had to know.
Actually the buck stopped with Clegg who had organised the alliance. Had Davey and Cable and probably others all walked out, then the deal would have ended there and then. We come back to this issue of collective responsibility where government policy was to make the post office saleable, and deny a billion pound liability.
Not convinced. Had he met, then he might have admitted he thought they were right, which could have been disastrous to the government. Collective responsibility to lie on behalf of the government is a requirement of accepting a job as a government minister.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,806
|
Post by Danny on Jan 4, 2024 15:05:15 GMT
I would like to see if there are grounds for a criminal case against the Post Office managers for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. In criminal cases, if the police or CPS withhold information from the defence, that can be sufficient grounds on its own to overturn a conviction. I dont know, but I suspect there arent any rules for private prosecutions? Or werent, I think the law has been changed more recently?
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Jan 4, 2024 15:11:25 GMT
"Davey then most likely had advice from civil servants on the official line that this was a private matter for a private company. Obviously it wasnt, since the causal events took place entirely under state control. Moreover, this became a matter of how the whole legal system functions, in that the post office brought private prosecutions where it also controlled all the evidence necessary to prove or disprove a case, and only submitted to court any beneficial to its own case. Operational control and funding of the post office is still essentially under government control because it is a loss making essential service where the profitable parts of the business have been asset stripped from the loss making essential services. So never mind 2010, this is still a matter for government and was clearly so then. However, it was probably at the forefront of government thinking that this scandal would severely hamper any further privatisations, so its existence went unacknowledged officially. By lab, con and libs." Well stated. I would like to see if there are grounds for a criminal case against the Post Office managers for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. In criminal cases, if the police or CPS withhold information from the defence, that can be sufficient grounds on its own to overturn a conviction. What I find difficult to understand, as someone who has worked with computers all my life, is why nobody (neither subpostmasters nor PO managers) thought to run a parallel manual accounting system at a branch reporting problems in order to prove if Horizon was accurate or not.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 4, 2024 15:14:32 GMT
Maybe strong disapproval bordering on intense dislike is justified if you have been deeply affected, both emotionally and materially, by the actions of a particular politician. I can see how that can transpire. I re-read my post. It doesn't totally reflect what I had tried to get across. I won't amend it as that's what i wrote at the time, but I put too much emphasis on the effect that Osborne and co had on me personally. Whether I'd been a civil servant at the time or not I'd have still hated (and I use that word carefully and infrequently) Osborne. It's because I really don't like bullies and I don't like people who punch down. And that's what I saw Osborne doing and before him, Thatcher. Even if I'd never been personally affected by Osborne I would have still hated him for what he snidely, calculatedly and deliberately did to untold millions of the already disadvantaged and struggling. Although he personally affected me I was wrong to make it look like that was the reason I can't stand the man, and I didn't get that across in that post. I hope I have now. Yes, I see the point you're making and I suppose our marginal difference is the degree to which we found Osborne disagreeable. I accept your hatred is genuine, and justifiable on one level, but I just can't, and this may be a failure of mine, carry over my political disagreement with Osborne's economic policies into personal hatred of the man himself. I don't know him in any meaningful sense. We must be careful not to be lured into judging caricatures and cartoon personas. Maybe he thought he was doing good? Delusion is a long way from being bad. I suppose, going off on a tangent a little, it's probably worth all those of us who opposed Osborne and his party in those days, to ponder why the UK electorate rewarded the Tories with an overall majority in 2015, after five years of the policies you so eloquently criticise. Was our political opposition ineffectual (I think it was) and/or do we have to accept that there is a considerable swathe of the electorate who are partial to the politics and personality of figures like Osborne? He made a political and economic argument that millions supported.
|
|