Turn on thread page Beta

Could success kill the Tory Party? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Success? LMAO. NHS failing, 'Brexit means Brexit', moron Johnson as Foreign Secretary, thousands dying due to benefits sanctions...no way they'll win in 2020.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bob Latchford)
    I voted Labour last time around, would never vote for Corbyn and would rather vote BNP then Lib Dems. Id rather have a tory majority of 100 than a lib dem government
    Okay.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Okay.
    The Lib Dems are closet tories who pretend to be socialists
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by rogueone)
    Success? LMAO. NHS failing, 'Brexit means Brexit', moron Johnson as Foreign Secretary, thousands dying due to benefits sanctions...no way they'll win in 2020.
    And a double digit lead in the polls when they should be behind. Even if we suppose polling errors it would do little to change the facts.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    The Tories are likely to win in 2020, but they won't win this huge landslide that people are talking about.

    At best they can increase their majority to something more comfortable than they have at the moment but large parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern England have deep rooted anti-Conservatism, and even if people don't have much interest in Labour, they won't vote Tory because the government since 2010 has done nothing to try and appeal to these communities.

    The brunt of austerity was felt in the north and devolved administrations that were poorer and more reliant on public services and the public sector for employment. The generally perceived Tory attitude to these areas is that it's their own fault for being reliant on the state and they are lazy and have to start working harder if they want to be as well off as the south. This probably plays out well amongst Tory audiences to justify their policies, but it makes it harder for Tory candidates to win hearts and minds on the doorstep. In lots of northern areas the Tory candidate won't even go out knocking on doors as they will just get abuse. And whilst the Tories like to make the argument that the Labour politicians around Corbyn are an out-of-touch well-off metropolitan elite who only pretend to care about the north, it won't win the northerners over to the Tories who cannot help put be perceived as a rich out of touch southern public school set who actively despise the north. Also in the past two Conservative governments, the north has gone backwards and to really convince voters they will need to deliver some actual policy success that makes peoples lives better in the north.

    The only real angle the Conservatives have to try and outcompete Labour in the north is the immigrant angle and the argument that Labour are soft on migration, the Tories are tough on migration. The problem in 2020 will be that immigration will almost certainly be very high around then as people rush to get in before Brexit, possibly the Calais jungle will be relocated to the UK if the French stop co-operating with us over border control, and people that have concerns about immigration will have seen 10 years of high immigration under the Conservatives with Theresa May unable to duck responsibility as the Home Secretary and then PM, so she will have little credibility to fight the election on her toughness on migration compared to Labour. UKIP will at least be authentic, but they might not make the surge some people think - the party is struggling for funds and members and without Farage it may have reached a ceiling.

    There's a long way to go to 2020 but 3 and a bit years out my guess would be the Tories chipping away a handful of seats from Labour, the Lib Dems winning a handful of seats back from the Tories, SNP remaining dominant in Scotland and Labour ending up with a reduced number of seats but not annihilated, even if their vote share in the kind of marginals they have to win to get a majority back ends up reaching worryingly low levels. So a Tory win with a majority of maybe 30 to 60.

    There is then potential for political change, as Brexit will present a lot of difficulties for whoever is in power, Corbyn will move on and the Tories will have then had a decade in power and start being blamed for everything even if it is not their fault, so as we move toward 2025 the argument "its time for change" will start to become more and more powerful.
    While i don't think there's any threat of a 1983/1987 majority nor the Tories overturning 10,000 strong majorities i do think that the Tories can be reasonably confident of a result somewhere between 2005 and 1987 in terms of government seats so a majority of 60-100.

    While its true to say that there are places like the North East and Scotland where the Tories will be lucky to gain a handful of seats the 2018 boundary changes and consecutive increases in vote share (amplified in England and to a smaller degree Wales) do put the Tories in good stead as many safe Labour seats have seen their majorities across 2010 and 2015 be eaten away. Cities like Wakefield and Wrexham for example are not the type of places you'd expect the Tories to win and yet if the Tories can squeeze past 40% of the vote they will take them.

    Unlike the 1980's when electoral results became increasingly divided almost everywhere what we see today is that England and Wales (bar the north east still) have become much more Tory friendly as their sins appear to have slowly been forgiven.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    A rates revaluation - i.e. property taxes coming a bit closer to the reality of property prices - in Scotland proved unsurprisingly unpopular amongst Tory supporters there and one was overdue in England and Wales.

    So it was a case of Something Must Be Done.

    One of the myths of the Tory right has long been that if local election voters all had to pay for Labour policies, far fewer of them would vote for Labour. So that something became Everyone Must Pay, i.e. the Poll Tax.

    I find it hard to believe that any informed focus group preferred it: it was proved enormously unpopular in Scotland when introduced there - it's basically what killed the Tories off in Scotland for years - but she kept on and introduced it in England and Wales too.
    There was a problem buried deep in the heart of the domestic rating system. The old valuations had not been made on a fair basis. Accordingly, a revaluation would not simply deal with relative changes in value of properties but would correct these historic inaccuracies.

    Old rates valuations were based on the annual open market letting value of properties (the modern Council Tax is based on sale value) but there had not been a free market in domestic rents values for decades. Rateable values were thus almost wholly artificial.

    Council tenants did not get a rates bill but paid their rates weekly as part of their rents. Many councils depressed the rateable values of their housing stock to appear to keep the rent (really the aggregate rent and rates) down. The government had of course sold off more than a million of those council houses which were no longer going to get a sweetheart deal.

    Likewise, in 1974 a lot of small local authorities were reorganised into much bigger areas. The last revaluation had been done under the old councils. Many small authorities undervalued domestic properties to throw the rates burden disproportionately onto business occupiers.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Interestingly a lot of polling suggests that Major still had the economic lead heading into the 97 election. The reason Blair won so big is because instead of insulting the Tories, Blair's message related to the proceeds of growth. In essense he avoided that debate by basically saying 'the Tories were right about the economy but here's how we can give the benefits of growth to you'.
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The Consevative party has pretty much morphed into UKIP.

    They've gone from being a party of being obsessed with the economy to being a 'boo Johnny Foriegner' party.
    Heck we even have ministers ****ging off our diplomats in public because they didn't think Brexit would be an easy process...

    My hope is that decent tories like Soubry, Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke desert it and join with the Lib Dems and Labour moderates.
    There is a basic problem that governments run out of talent. Oppositions replenish their talent pool more quickly. Ex-ministers in defeated parties go relatively quickly because 4-8 years (traditionally, now 5-10) years of opposition is unattractive. Moreover as the opposition has to win more seats to get into power, victory inevitably means new blood MPs. Washed up ex-ministers in governing parties tend to hang around.

    Eventually the government in office for a long time has to choose its ministers from those with less ability.

    Cameron tried to avoid this with a noticeably slower turnover of ministers but he didn't reckon on his eventual successor taking office without a commitment to continuity.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    There is a basic problem that governments run out of talent. Oppositions replenish their talent pool more quickly. Ex-ministers in defeated parties go relatively quickly because 4-8 years (traditionally, now 5-10) years of opposition is unattractive. Moreover as the opposition has to win more seats to get into power, victory inevitably means new blood MPs. Washed up ex-ministers in governing parties tend to hang around.

    Eventually the government in office for a long time has to choose its ministers from those with less ability.

    Cameron tried to avoid this with a noticeably slower turnover of ministers but he didn't reckon on his eventual successor taking office without a commitment to continuity.
    Interesting to see the Economist slate May this week. She also gave a very tetchy interview on Sky this morning.

    The pressure is beginning to show. She's been in the job six months and so far hasn't put through a single major policy. The ones she has announced have been either u-turned or scaled down. Such as workers on boards, making companies list foreign workers, introducing grammar schools etc. Even Heathrow expansion has been delayed again with a decent chance that it may never happen.

    It's also becoming increasingly clear that the government is all over the place with its Brexit strategy. Her line that 'Brexit means Brexit' is wearing thin. Senior diplomats and civil servants are in disarray.

    She is getting away with it due to the lack of anything resembling an effective opposition (save a decent effort from the Lib Dems) but the cracks are starting to show.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bob Latchford)
    The Lib Dems are closet tories who pretend to be socialists
    The Lib Dems do not pretend to be socialists. They are currently somewhere in between social democrats and economic liberals.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Interesting to see the Economist slate May this week. She also gave a very tetchy interview on Sky this morning.

    The pressure is beginning to show. She's been in the job six months and so far hasn't put through a single major policy. The ones she has announced have been either u-turned or scaled down. Such as workers on boards, making companies list foreign workers, introducing grammar schools etc. Even Heathrow expansion has been delayed again with a decent chance that it may never happen.

    It's also becoming increasingly clear that the government is all over the place with its Brexit strategy. Her line that 'Brexit means Brexit' is wearing thin. Senior diplomats and civil servants are in disarray.

    She is getting away with it due to the lack of anything resembling an effective opposition (save a decent effort from the Lib Dems) but the cracks are starting to show.
    Someone described May as a Poundshop Thatcher and I have to agree.

    Thatcher, despite the fact I hate her guts would not have made Boris foreign secretary to appease Brexit hardliners and she would have pushed her policies through instead of flaying about like May has done with grammar schools and Brexit.

    May need to seriously get a grip on her government and policies. She doesn't seem to know what she wants to do or how to do it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Someone described May as a Poundshop Thatcher and I have to agree.

    Thatcher, despite the fact I hate her guts would not have made Boris foreign secretary to appease Brexit hardliners and she would have pushed her policies through instead of flaying about like May has done with grammar schools and Brexit.

    May need to seriously get a grip on her government and policies. She doesn't seem to know what she wants to do or how to do it.
    The only similarities May has with Thatcher are her party and gender.

    Thatcher, as much as I disliked her, had a clear ideology and agenda. She had a vision for the country.
    May has nothing. Literally nothing. One minute she's 'we love free trade and business', the next she's 'i'm all about social justice'. Without introducing any policies to support either.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    She also gave a very tetchy interview on Sky this morning.
    It was an improvement.

    We now know the government's firm position is that it is not muddled over Brexit. If that question had been asked two weeks ago the replies would have been:-

    Boris: "Yes, of course we are muddled over Brexit but that doesn't matter. Winston was muddled about whether he was a Tory or a Liberal and that worked out all right in the end"

    Davis: "No, of course we are not muddled about Brexit"

    Theresa: "The comments of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union do not represent government policy. I will decide whether or not the government is muddled over Brexit and an announcement will be made in due course"

    Fox: "Can I have Chevening for two weekends every month?"
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    It was an improvement.

    We now know the government's firm position is that it is not muddled over Brexit. If that question had been asked two weeks ago the replies would have been:-

    Boris: "Yes, of course we are muddled over Brexit but that doesn't matter. Winston was muddled about whether he was a Tory or a Liberal and that worked out all right in the end"

    Davis: "No, of course we are not muddled about Brexit"

    Theresa: "The comments of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union do not represent government policy. I will decide whether or not the government is muddled over Brexit and an announcement will be made in due course"

    Fox: "Can I have Chevening for two weekends every month?"
    I forgot about Fox! He seems to have gone off the radar.

    It's becoming increasingly clear that Theresa May doesn't actually have any plan whatsoever, rather than the official line of 'we can't tell you what the government thinks because it will ruin our chances...'

    What does the government think? You have Phillip Hammond who wants single market access and a transitional deal. You have Fox who wants out of everything, David Davis probably wants something in between the two. Who knows what Boris wants? Probably whatever boosts his chances of becoming PM in the future.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Unlike the 1980's when electoral results became increasingly divided almost everywhere what we see today is that England and Wales (bar the north east still) have become much more Tory friendly as their sins appear to have slowly been forgiven.
    For the Tories to win previously non-Tory voters over to them, they need to have a case that "under a Conservative government, your life will get better".

    The question for most people will be, since 2010 have their lives got better or have they seen housing get less affordable, public services become worse, wages flat for most ordinary people whilst they spike at the top end, and a growing section at the bottom of the job market where people are basically working in vulnerable insecure contracts and exploited by bosses like Mike Ashley, Philip Green and Amazon/uber etc.

    If their actual lives are more difficult, then it's not enough to stand up George Osborne style and read off a load of promising economic statistics because that just entrenches the idea that the Tories are out of touch.

    Theresa May seems to have latched on to some of the realities and has started to talk about them and is promising to end them, with her narrative of just about managing. But this is going to create expectation of it being delivered.

    When Tory candidates knock on the doorstep in 2020, they will have to answer for everybody's complaints about things that are not right and as there has been 10 years of Conservative government it will be hard to try and dodge blame.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    For the Tories to win previously non-Tory voters over to them, they need to have a case that "under a Conservative government, your life will get better".
    Most of the time the correct answer is Clinton's answer "It's the economy, stupid" but this is one of the occasions when that answer isn't necessarily correct.

    Essentially, the only way she can win the "your life will get better" argument is to abandon Brexit. If we assume the sky hasn't fallen in by 2020, the uncertainty and risk of it falling in will inevitably still be there in 2020. The sunlit uplands the Brexiteers foresee will not be delivered by 2020. We crashed out of the Euro in 2002, but it was 2004/5 before the public saw this as a good thing. We aren't going to be out of the EU before 2019 at the earliest and the Brexiteers' claimed benefits aren't going to be apparent, if they exist, for several years.

    She has to fight on a left bogeyman threat (viable even in Corbyn is replaced) or on a victory platform for delivering Brexit (successful for Grey, Lloyd George and Thatcher, unsuccessful for Disraeli and Churchill)


    .
    Theresa May seems to have latched on to some of the realities and has started to talk about them and is promising to end them, with her narrative of just about managing. But this is going to create expectation of it being delivered.
    This is going to end in tears. Different people have different complaints but at the bottom the complaint of the "just managing" always amounts to "I should be protected from the consequences of my bad decisions but other people shouldn't". That isn't the same as the socialist's line which is that the state should take responsibility for everyone's decisions but it is equally a road to hell.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    We crashed out of the Euro in 2002, but it was 2004/5 before the public saw this as a good thing. We aren't going to be out of the EU before 2019 at the earliest and the Brexiteers' claimed benefits aren't going to be apparent, if they exist, for several years.
    I'm confused about what happened in 2002, did you mean we crashed out of the ERM in 1992? In that case, the public were probably not that bothered either way about the ERM membership but what they did see was a) interest rates fell after coming out of the ERM and b) it was really awkward for the Tories after that because John Major had fought the 1992 election on ERM membership and repeatedly told everyone this was the right way to go and then to u-turn on it seemed like a humiliation. So although the general economic figures picked up between 1992 and 1997, he could no longer play the "trust the Tories on the economy" card as the damage was done and Blair put the boot in.

    Regarding costs/benefits of Brexit I expect by 2020 not much difference will have happened. It is quite likely that the Tory strategy in 2020 will be to claim "the doomsday Remainer naysayers got it wrong about the economy". But if they win, this will create problems for them if the economy has a downturn due to adjustment costs of Brexit. They won't be able to use this as an excuse as it will look like either the Remainers were right or the Conservative government just negotiated a bad trading arrangement.

    Longer term there's a potential problem for the Conservatives, if they alienate large parts of the business community by signing a hard Brexit deal which trades off control of immigration at the expense of market access for UK business. If the next Labour leader after Corbyn is a more centrist pro-business Blairite figure like Chuka Umunna, when the Tories phone their pals in the business community to say "come out to support us in the election" they might not be so keen to jump as they were before.

    I don't think the Tories have quite realised yet the long-term dangers of going for populism and alienating business over hard Brexit: if hard Brexit leads to an economic downturn, loss of support in the business community and an increase in the budget deficit then what will the Tories' main claim to competence be based on...? They will have to become a more UKIP style "traditional values" party but surrender the claim for being the party of economic competence.

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    This is going to end in tears. Different people have different complaints but at the bottom the complaint of the "just managing" always amounts to "I should be protected from the consequences of my bad decisions but other people shouldn't". That isn't the same as the socialist's line which is that the state should take responsibility for everyone's decisions but it is equally a road to hell.
    I see the "Just About Managing" as being Theresa May's version of Cameron's "Big Society", something that will be talked about less and less but get brought up against her and be an awkward thing to defend.

    The other problem as time goes on is Theresa Ma is 6 years in to a Conservative led government and is basically drumming up support for her agenda for social change, based on listing problems that will resonate with ordinary families: life is hard, wages are flatlining, bills are going up, cost of living is difficult, even well off families are seeing their children priced out of the housing market. This is about the last time she can play this card. By 2020, trying to list the problems ordinary people are suffering will just invite the response - well you've had 10 years so why haven't the Tories sorted it? Hilary Clinton suffered from this problem too.

    As time goes on, an incumbent government has to go on the defensive about social problems as it can't avoid the blame. You can already see a bit of this on TSR. For a while, the right wingers on here were always complaining about the "left behind working class" that Labour had ignored, Labour's failures in the housing market, health service etc. But now you are starting to see much more them going on the defensive: thread about the housing market - "you don't have a human right to have a house, nobody owes you a living", thread about failing trains - "get a car and drive if you don't like the trains, stop whining". The problem is this is the kind of thing you can say on TSR, but you can't say in a campaign trail to a voter.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I'm confused about what happened in 2002, did you mean we crashed out of the ERM in 1992? In that case, the public were probably not that bothered either way about the ERM membership but what they did see was a) interest rates fell after coming out of the ERM and b) it was really awkward for the Tories after that because John Major had fought the 1992 election on ERM membership and repeatedly told everyone this was the right way to go and then to u-turn on it seemed like a humiliation. So although the general economic figures picked up between 1992 and 1997, he could no longer play the "trust the Tories on the economy" card as the damage was done and Blair put the boot in.

    Regarding costs/benefits of Brexit I expect by 2020 not much difference will have happened. It is quite likely that the Tory strategy in 2020 will be to claim "the doomsday Remainer naysayers got it wrong about the economy". But if they win, this will create problems for them if the economy has a downturn due to adjustment costs of Brexit. They won't be able to use this as an excuse as it will look like either the Remainers were right or the Conservative government just negotiated a bad trading arrangement.

    Longer term there's a potential problem for the Conservatives, if they alienate large parts of the business community by signing a hard Brexit deal which trades off control of immigration at the expense of market access for UK business. If the next Labour leader after Corbyn is a more centrist pro-business Blairite figure like Chuka Umunna, when the Tories phone their pals in the business community to say "come out to support us in the election" they might not be so keen to jump as they were before.

    I don't think the Tories have quite realised yet the long-term dangers of going for populism and alienating business over hard Brexit: if hard Brexit leads to an economic downturn, loss of support in the business community and an increase in the budget deficit then what will the Tories' main claim to competence be based on...? They will have to become a more UKIP style "traditional values" party but surrender the claim for being the party of economic competence.


    Sorry I mean 1992. When you get to my age, what is a decade?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)

    I see the "Just About Managing" as being Theresa May's version of Cameron's "Big Society", something that will be talked about less and less but get brought up against her and be an awkward thing to defend.

    The other problem as time goes on is Theresa Ma is 6 years in to a Conservative led government and is basically drumming up support for her agenda for social change, based on listing problems that will resonate with ordinary families: life is hard, wages are flatlining, bills are going up, cost of living is difficult, even well off families are seeing their children priced out of the housing market. This is about the last time she can play this card. By 2020, trying to list the problems ordinary people are suffering will just invite the response - well you've had 10 years so why haven't the Tories sorted it? Hilary Clinton suffered from this problem too.

    As time goes on, an incumbent government has to go on the defensive about social problems as it can't avoid the blame. You can already see a bit of this on TSR. For a while, the right wingers on here were always complaining about the "left behind working class" that Labour had ignored, Labour's failures in the housing market, health service etc. But now you are starting to see much more them going on the defensive: thread about the housing market - "you don't have a human right to have a house, nobody owes you a living", thread about failing trains - "get a car and drive if you don't like the trains, stop whining". The problem is this is the kind of thing you can say on TSR, but you can't say in a campaign trail to a voter.
    I don't believe Theresa May believes in a free market at all. I think she thinks the sharing society is about giving people like vicars' daughters a free ride at other people's expense, in return for which the vicars' daughters will go sick visiting and run tombola stalls.

    If you don't give a damn about tombola and don't want lady bountiful calling but do want to develop that building plot which the vicar's daughter's cottage overlooks or to hire the bright Asian kid with a degree in computer studies from Mumbai rather than the vicar's grand-daughter with the art history degree from Bristol, then you are going to be disappointed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I'm confused about what happened in 2002, did you mean we crashed out of the ERM in 1992? In that case, the public were probably not that bothered either way about the ERM membership but what they did see was a) interest rates fell after coming out of the ERM and b) it was really awkward for the Tories after that because John Major had fought the 1992 election on ERM membership and repeatedly told everyone this was the right way to go and then to u-turn on it seemed like a humiliation. So although the general economic figures picked up between 1992 and 1997, he could no longer play the "trust the Tories on the economy" card as the damage was done and Blair put the boot in.

    Regarding costs/benefits of Brexit I expect by 2020 not much difference will have happened. It is quite likely that the Tory strategy in 2020 will be to claim "the doomsday Remainer naysayers got it wrong about the economy". But if they win, this will create problems for them if the economy has a downturn due to adjustment costs of Brexit. They won't be able to use this as an excuse as it will look like either the Remainers were right or the Conservative government just negotiated a bad trading arrangement.

    Longer term there's a potential problem for the Conservatives, if they alienate large parts of the business community by signing a hard Brexit deal which trades off control of immigration at the expense of market access for UK business. If the next Labour leader after Corbyn is a more centrist pro-business Blairite figure like Chuka Umunna, when the Tories phone their pals in the business community to say "come out to support us in the election" they might not be so keen to jump as they were before.

    I don't think the Tories have quite realised yet the long-term dangers of going for populism and alienating business over hard Brexit: if hard Brexit leads to an economic downturn, loss of support in the business community and an increase in the budget deficit then what will the Tories' main claim to competence be based on...? They will have to become a more UKIP style "traditional values" party but surrender the claim for being the party of economic competence.



    I see the "Just About Managing" as being Theresa May's version of Cameron's "Big Society", something that will be talked about less and less but get brought up against her and be an awkward thing to defend.

    The other problem as time goes on is Theresa Ma is 6 years in to a Conservative led government and is basically drumming up support for her agenda for social change, based on listing problems that will resonate with ordinary families: life is hard, wages are flatlining, bills are going up, cost of living is difficult, even well off families are seeing their children priced out of the housing market. This is about the last time she can play this card. By 2020, trying to list the problems ordinary people are suffering will just invite the response - well you've had 10 years so why haven't the Tories sorted it? Hilary Clinton suffered from this problem too.

    As time goes on, an incumbent government has to go on the defensive about social problems as it can't avoid the blame. You can already see a bit of this on TSR. For a while, the right wingers on here were always complaining about the "left behind working class" that Labour had ignored, Labour's failures in the housing market, health service etc. But now you are starting to see much more them going on the defensive: thread about the housing market - "you don't have a human right to have a house, nobody owes you a living", thread about failing trains - "get a car and drive if you don't like the trains, stop whining". The problem is this is the kind of thing you can say on TSR, but you can't say in a campaign trail to a voter.
    You're far more hopeful than I am. The Tories, UKIP and their media barons will do what they always do and blame everything on immigration. Always seems to work for them.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You're far more hopeful than I am. The Tories, UKIP and their media barons will do what they always do and blame everything on immigration. Always seems to work for them.
    At the same time the left will continue to blame everything on the media barons, given they clearly believe their constituents incapable of independent thought or cynicism, and when that won't work blame Russian interference.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,072

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.