Tory Country

[Anny Road]

That belongs to the US,like the stuff in Iran,Kuwait and Afghanistan among others.

 

We'd get less oil off the Yanks than the Lib Dems get tickets for the Tory christmas party.

 

Does it fuck. Don't underestimate us. That oil 15 miles of the Argie coast belongs to us because we own a rock a few miles away. Get to get into a fight with us and if it comes to it we can take out one of your cities.

Can you do that to us?

 

Ok US you can point proved. The harder you hit the more you can do.

[Albertini]

The 2nd world war was already won when they dropped the nukes, the Japs had nowhere to go and ready to surrender the USA dropped the bombs as an experiment and to set the tone for the future as a warning to anyone else, the best it did is speed it up a little.

 

No, The Nazi's were defeated sure but Japan was ready to fight to the last man. The fighting in the Pacific around Japan proved that.

 

The US dropped the bombs to end the war, there are differences as to what their motives really were but i feel fairly certain given the Pacific fighting prior to the nukes being fired that more lives would have been lost and more money spent had the Yanks tried a land invasion of Japan instead of using the Nukes. It certainly wasn’t purely an “experiment”. They had tested the things beforehand in the Trinity tests of July 1945, they knew they worked! Why would they need to experiment on something which worked already?

 

A nuclear deterrent removes the option of a land based conflict and invasion of any country which has a nuclear bomb. After all who is going to try and invade a country that has the nuclear button?

 

It also offers a deterrent to any enemy country that also has nuclear weapons from firing them upon us for whatever reason at any point now or in the future. You can’t simply use the argument of “who’s going to invade us” as a valid justification for not having them when discussing this issue. You have to also look at who might want to fire bombs at us (now or in the next 30 years) and how would be able to avert that threat or respond to it if we didn’t have the threat of nukes ourselves?

 

My point has been that if you remove that nuclear deterrent you open yourself up to the possibility of being attacked with the same kind of "traditional warfare” we saw in the first and second world wars which ultimately cost far more lives and more money than a nuclear deterrent costs at the moment. You have nothing to deter any potential future Hitler (and remember we don’t know what threats will present themselves over the next 30 years) from trying the same thing as Hitler did only 60 years ago. It would be foolish to make a decision about the best ways to defend your country and people based on who is threatening us now and who’s going to invade us in 2011. The fact is we’re looking at a defence system which will last 30 years so do you not feel it is prudent to err on the side of caution and to give your country and its citizens the ultimate tool for defending itself in the future against any known or unknown threat now?

 

Your answer is to rely on the Americans to sort things out for us. A country relying on another to bail us out is surely irresponsible and too big a gamble for any reasonable government to take.

 

Look at it this way. If by having nukes ourselves along with our allies, there is never a world war again like the last two we saw then surely that is money well spent given the cost of the last two. Would you agree on that?

 

No one is arguing about defence per se but we have to build to what we are realistically and a nuclear deterrent is not relevant at all to us. Iran is already boxed in by it's surrounding countries and the US needs little excuse to bomb it into oblivion, same for Isreal, they just wouldn't attack us as they wouldn't even get past those two.

If nukes prevent a third world war simply by being there then surely they are relevant to us? Again you are speculating about other countries protecting us on the basis of what you think you know in today’s global politics. What about tomorrow, next year or the next 10 years? How can you be so certain now no future threat will emerge which will threaten this country, whether it be Argentina trying to regain the Falkland’s or France wanting the Channel Islands back! And how can you be certain that other countries with nukes will be there to protect us in any and all potential flashpoints we face in the future? The point is no one knows what the future holds and that means you can’t afford to take any chances.

 

It's not just about health there are a million things we could better spend the money on. The Russians economy was ruined by trying to go down this route, the recent wars have also been a big waste of money and our biggest perceived threat is terrorism for which nukes are only an additional hazard to our own population.

 

No the Russian economy was ruined by the spectacular failing of their version of communism, not their attempts to keep up with the Yanks on defence. There are always things a country can spend its money on but the ultimate responsibility of any country and its government is to protect its territories and its people. A nuclear deterrent is an effective part of the defence of a country. Nukes are clearly not effective against terrorism but again you’re looking in the present and not the future.

 

Are you suggesting that the Uk shouldn’t have a defence budget or armies in place? Or is it the fact you don’t like nukes that’s the issue?

 

Are you saying you don’t mind us having other bombs or equipment but not nuclear ones? Or is it the cost of the nukes? If that’s the case where do you draw the line on cost of equipment? What’s the maximum you feel comfortable spending? The new aircraft carriers are costing billions, should we scrap them as well? What about the cost of the new fighters planned for 2020? Should they be scrapped because of cost as well?

 

Do you see what I’m getting at? It strikes me you have an inbuilt opposition to nukes simply because they are nukes and it’s nothing really to do with the cost of them.

[Albertini]

Exactly, nukes we can't fire without getting US codes to shoot the things, pay untold billions for it all to work and can't afford basic body armour or housing for the armed forces and have to have a charities to pay for rehabilitation services and looking after soldiers etc stuff the army should be paying for and charities ahve to take up the slack, meanwhile we are cutting every other sector, tipping old ladies out of hospital beds or whatever so that we can look really scary with out nukes that we don't really need, we are just a US outpost on the edge of Europe.

When the Cold war was going on the ones who were going to take the Russian nuclear arsenal was us, we kept requesting the US tone things down given the Russians couldn't reach America and we were getting the pummelling if shit went down and the US couldn't give two shiney ones and carried on ramping up the pressure. When we really actually need these codes off the US, they won't give them to us anyway.

 

Sorry to pick up on this old point but i wanted to reply to it before i went to bed. We have the 4th largest defence budget in the world (just below France).

 

Given we have had 13 years of a Labour government and given the size of our defence budget whose fault is it that we don't have decent body armour, houses or equipment?

 

This is where i've been coming from since my first post. It's not about whether you're blue, red or yellow it's that politics and the state in the UK are corrupt and have failed to deliver the things we as citizens require and expect from them and pay them to adminster on our behalf.

 

Moving back to the nuke issue where is your evidence that we require the codes from the US to operate Trident? Gordon Brown himself said (according to the BBC) the Uk does not require the permission, the satellites or the codes of any other country (ie the United States).

 

One other point on another issue you raised in relation to North Korea i forgot to mention.

 

If it is the tinpot outpost you describe why are there 28,500 permanent US soldiers stationed in South Korea?

[VladimirIlyich]

Surely only 1 or 2 weapons is enough? After that its over for everybody.

 

And if its only a deterrent then its failed miserably,Iraq,twice Afghanistan and Kuwait have been conflicts we've been involved in in the last 20 years and we have had nukes before then.

 

We need an army,a navy and an air force but we only need a couple of nukes,if you believe in that sort of thing.

 

As for invading us for our assets,the tories gave them all away in the 80's.

[VladimirIlyich]

PS,is it really true that our soldiers are lacking proper equipment or just the media whipping up a storm?

[Strontium]

Given we have had 13 years of a Labour government and given the size of our defence budget whose fault is it that we don't have decent body armour, houses or equipment?

 

 

It's fucking Nick Clegg's fault, and no mistake

[Albertini]

Surely only 1 or 2 weapons is enough? After that its over for everybody.

 

And if its only a deterrent then its failed miserably,Iraq,twice Afghanistan and Kuwait have been conflicts we've been involved in in the last 20 years and we have had nukes before then.

 

We need an army,a navy and an air force but we only need a couple of nukes,if you believe in that sort of thing.

 

As for invading us for our assets,the tories gave them all away in the 80's.

 

Well the number of missiles is moot and you're right, how many is enough. That being said the important thing is having them.

 

Of course we've been involved in overseas conflicts despite having them. That's not the issue. The issue is we've never been attacked in the manner we were in 1914 and 1939 since having them.

 

And having them for the future means no rogue state, madman or tinpot dictactor who gets them can attempt to bomb us with them if we have them in our own arsenal.

 

In terms of the tories "giving" away all our assets whilst i agree they sold off a lot of the country's assets what about Gordon Brown's decision to sell 400 tonnes of our gold reserves at between US$250 and US$296 per ounce when the price today is over us$1490 per ounce?

 

That's a loss to this country (a give away if you like) of over US$15.3 billion.

 

That could have built a few hosptials.

 

According to the London Standard in 2004 Labour sold £60 billion of government assets and property (and in the case of property much of it then leased back and in the case of the HMRC buildings to a company registered offshore (Mapely) to avoid paying UK tax).

 

let me quote from the article:

 

GORDON Brown has discovered the keys to a £30bn treasure chest of underused Government assets which he plans to sell over the next five years.

 

That will push Labour's privatisation proceeds to a level comparable to the great Tory privatisations of the Thatcher-Major years.

 

Landmark central London properties such as Somerset House off the Strand could be sold in the purge, which the Chancellor unveiled in a single paragraph of his spending review.

 

This will bring Labour's total sales of Government property to £60bn. It has already raised £30bn from disposals, mainly of Ministry of Defence land and buildings, after compiling a Domesday Book of what it owned.

 

The total comes close to the proceeds of 20 years of Tory privatisations under the Thatcher and Major Governments. Between 1977 and 1996, privatisations such as BT, British Gas and the water and electricity industries brought in more than £60bn.

 

 

They are all the same mate!

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

It's fucking Nick Clegg's fault, and no mistake

 

Ah, I see what you're doing. You're trying to cover up things that are Clegg's fault, with things that have nothing to do with Clegg. Brilliant.

[L19red]

Ah, I see what you're doing. You're trying to cover up things that are Clegg's fault, with things that have nothing to do with Clegg. Brilliant.

 

I think you should let him have that one. The lad has had a bad week.

[cochcaer]

Moving back to the nuke issue where is your evidence that we require the codes from the US to operate Trident? Gordon Brown himself said (according to the BBC) the Uk does not require the permission, the satellites or the codes of any other country (ie the United States).

The 'veto' is said to be in the software of the system - much of which is classified and coded in the US. They'd be mad to relinquish total control as it'd be a weapon that could target them - it can't.

[Moo]

It's fucking Nick Clegg's fault, and no mistake

 

You don't really believe the electorate are blaming Clegg and the Lib Dems for the state of the country and/ or the cuts, do you? I doubt very few are under the illusion that this coalition, and it's decisions, isn't vastly Tory-led with a few token Lib Dems.

 

You know, sometimes, often perhaps, people vote based on ideals and how they would like our government to treat those they serve.

So when a party comes along who someone wants to believe in, wants to make a stand against the status quo and then gets that tossed right back in their face, then don't be suprised when a big massive "fuck you" comes back the other way.

 

This should be a time of reflection for the Lib Dems, perhaps an admission (or understanding) of their own massive part in their massive mess. Instead all I see is lashing out at others and blame cast elsewhere.

[VladimirIlyich]

Well the number of missiles is moot and you're right, how many is enough. That being said the important thing is having them.

 

Of course we've been involved in overseas conflicts despite having them. That's not the issue. The issue is we've never been attacked in the manner we were in 1914 and 1939 since having them.

 

And having them for the future means no rogue state, madman or tinpot dictactor who gets them can attempt to bomb us with them if we have them in our own arsenal.

 

In terms of the tories "giving" away all our assets whilst i agree they sold off a lot of the country's assets what about Gordon Brown's decision to sell 400 tonnes of our gold reserves at between US$250 and US$296 per ounce when the price today is over us$1490 per ounce?

 

That's a loss to this country (a give away if you like) of over US$15.3 billion.

 

That could have built a few hosptials.

 

According to the London Standard in 2004 Labour sold £60 billion of government assets and property (and in the case of property much of it then leased back and in the case of the HMRC buildings to a company registered offshore (Mapely) to avoid paying UK tax).

 

let me quote from the article:

 

 

 

They are all the same mate!

 

I'd like to believe that but there's nobody even close to Dennis Skinner in the Tories or Lib Dems and while there are people like him there is still a trace of respectability in politics.

 

As much as I think there are plenty of rotten Labour MPs,I've got absolutely nothing in common with any Tories.

 

In fact up until 12 months ago I'd have said I'd have had a lot in common with a few Lib Dems but not any more.

[Guest TK-421]

Instead all I see is lashing out at others and blame cast elsewhere.

 

I believe it's called "politics".

[TheBitch]

I believe it's called "politics".

 

"Grown up politics"

[dennis tooth]

No, The Nazi's were defeated sure but Japan was ready to fight to the last man. The fighting in the Pacific around Japan proved that.

 

The US dropped the bombs to end the war, there are differences as to what their motives really were but i feel fairly certain given the Pacific fighting prior to the nukes being fired that more lives would have been lost and more money spent had the Yanks tried a land invasion of Japan instead of using the Nukes. It certainly wasn’t purely an “experiment”. They had tested the things beforehand in the Trinity tests of July 1945, they knew they worked! Why would they need to experiment on something which worked already?

 

A nuclear deterrent removes the option of a land based conflict and invasion of any country which has a nuclear bomb. After all who is going to try and invade a country that has the nuclear button?

 

It also offers a deterrent to any enemy country that also has nuclear weapons from firing them upon us for whatever reason at any point now or in the future. You can’t simply use the argument of “who’s going to invade us” as a valid justification for not having them when discussing this issue. You have to also look at who might want to fire bombs at us (now or in the next 30 years) and how would be able to avert that threat or respond to it if we didn’t have the threat of nukes ourselves?

 

My point has been that if you remove that nuclear deterrent you open yourself up to the possibility of being attacked with the same kind of "traditional warfare” we saw in the first and second world wars which ultimately cost far more lives and more money than a nuclear deterrent costs at the moment. You have nothing to deter any potential future Hitler (and remember we don’t know what threats will present themselves over the next 30 years) from trying the same thing as Hitler did only 60 years ago. It would be foolish to make a decision about the best ways to defend your country and people based on who is threatening us now and who’s going to invade us in 2011. The fact is we’re looking at a defence system which will last 30 years so do you not feel it is prudent to err on the side of caution and to give your country and its citizens the ultimate tool for defending itself in the future against any known or unknown threat now?

 

Your answer is to rely on the Americans to sort things out for us. A country relying on another to bail us out is surely irresponsible and too big a gamble for any reasonable government to take.

 

Look at it this way. If by having nukes ourselves along with our allies, there is never a world war again like the last two we saw then surely that is money well spent given the cost of the last two. Would you agree on that?

 

 

If nukes prevent a third world war simply by being there then surely they are relevant to us? Again you are speculating about other countries protecting us on the basis of what you think you know in today’s global politics. What about tomorrow, next year or the next 10 years? How can you be so certain now no future threat will emerge which will threaten this country, whether it be Argentina trying to regain the Falkland’s or France wanting the Channel Islands back! And how can you be certain that other countries with nukes will be there to protect us in any and all potential flashpoints we face in the future? The point is no one knows what the future holds and that means you can’t afford to take any chances.

 

 

 

No the Russian economy was ruined by the spectacular failing of their version of communism, not their attempts to keep up with the Yanks on defence. There are always things a country can spend its money on but the ultimate responsibility of any country and its government is to protect its territories and its people. A nuclear deterrent is an effective part of the defence of a country. Nukes are clearly not effective against terrorism but again you’re looking in the present and not the future.

 

Are you suggesting that the Uk shouldn’t have a defence budget or armies in place? Or is it the fact you don’t like nukes that’s the issue?

 

Are you saying you don’t mind us having other bombs or equipment but not nuclear ones? Or is it the cost of the nukes? If that’s the case where do you draw the line on cost of equipment? What’s the maximum you feel comfortable spending? The new aircraft carriers are costing billions, should we scrap them as well? What about the cost of the new fighters planned for 2020? Should they be scrapped because of cost as well?

 

Do you see what I’m getting at? It strikes me you have an inbuilt opposition to nukes simply because they are nukes and it’s nothing really to do with the cost of them.

 

Look,I'm not wading through that, the first point is fact, the war was done, the Japs were ready to surrender, the USA went and pressed ahead anyway as they wanted to drop them and these are not in dispute or up for discussion as they were the on the ground facts by the decision makers, if you want to make fudged guesses about how many people would have been killed after the Japs had already committed to surrendor in a hopeless attempt to take on the might of the USA with a massive fuel shortage due to the embargo that started the 'all or nothing war' when the Japs didn't have any ships or planes left either versus dropping nukes on people to send a larger message to the world and signal the US beginning of world dominance since and try to tell me based on the non calculating you've done in your head then you are not serious about this subject and more interesting in revisionism to serve an ignorant agenda wherever it leads. For myself I reject that completely.

[dennis tooth]

So you are saying that Iran doesn't have or isn't working on a nuclear bomb program? On what basis do you draw that conclusion?

 

1

 

The point is you said that we were in the pocket of the Yanks and i inferred from you that you thought that that was a bad thing.

2

 

I'm saying that you can't demonise the Yanks and complain about being too close or too reliant on them and then expect them to sort out Iran on our behalf becuase they would have nukes and we don't.

3

 

 

What are you basing this on? Also who said anything about invading us? No one but you talking is about that.

 

It is about bombing us, not invading us. They don't need to invade us to bomb us.

4

 

 

Again you demonise the Yanks on the one hand and us for being too reliant on them, then you expect them to protect us becuase we remove our ultimate deterrent. No one knows the nature of the nuclear bombs these countries have now or are working on, and again i repeat we are talking about security over the next 30 year period not just "now". Who knows how these threats will change over that period or which new threats will present themselves.

 

You really don't think the Yanks take N Korea seriously? Really? Look at the region and the potential neighbours affected. China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US.

5

 

I disagree with you profoundly.

6

 

That being said it still really doesnt excuse the massive increase in debt the last government left the country and future generations with, which is kind of where we started.

 

1 The burden of proof is on you, it is your assertion that they have, mine is a counter assertion that they do not.As far as the facts go, there is no known evidence for this basic statement that they do, so the burden is not upon me.

 

2 I do think it's a bad thing. I also think it bad that we are paying for something we have no control over and is basically and nuclear option not even for our defence but rather an outpost for the US's interests controlled by the US and offering us no defence against the US the most rampant invader in the world who has never shown the slightest regard for our safety and are admittedly only interested in serving themselves and all the loyalty of a heroine addict only coming to us when it is in their own interest. If we died in front of them they would simply rifle through our wallet so to speak.

 

3 Yeah but its different when you are paying for the privilege. I used to have a 'friend' when I was a kid, he was poorer than me even as I had a bike and he didn't, he used to knock at my house every morning to give me a seater on my own bike. What a guy. Thats the problem. No I don't expect anyone to sort out any problem with Iran as I don't see a problem with Iran. I see a problem with us as we actually have a nuclear arsenal problems with storing nuclear waste that will be dangerous for 100,000 years at the very least that will only grow and grow the more we continue and as a small island and no known proven solution has even been thought of that will last anything like that long given man has never created anything that has lasted a tenth of that time in the annals of history much less secure hundreds of thousands of tons on nuclear fuel as well. In 20,000 years ago might have been forgotten about and this unknown nuclear material could wipe out all life if exposed but no you go on about some dreamt up allegation against Iran without any evidence and without any solution to ourselves.

 

4 NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT CATCH BOMBS. Statistically though the nations who are nuclear armed out of all nations are the ones who have to be most aggressive, the USA being the leader in that. Strange with all it's nuclear arsenal at home USA has to go round the world invading a bombing people to secure itself.

 

5 As a threat to itself or anyone other than South Korea with its nukes it is not. As the South Korea is the prime US influence in the region and it's in the face of China is different. As a threat by furthering Chinese interests or as a fusepaper for confrontation with China if unexpected events conspire yes they take all that side of NK seriously but as a nuclear or actual threat in a military sense directly no its not taken as a nuclear threat and if it did it would be caused by nuclear proliferation as it was as a result of the USA knowingly escalating its tensions with Russia during the Cuban missile crisis and before as a matter of US policy (The kind you advocate) and the ruining of Russian economy as a result of it that NK became so isolated and also arrogant with its nuclear weapons as the cold war was played out in Korea between Russian and communist China and the USA. It shows nuclear weaponry build ups lead to nuclear proliferational and weapon buildups and more and more Uranium than the world can actual deal with if it is to preserve life in the only speck of dust of life in the known universe which I'd like to preserve if I can. Thats my personal take on it but you are free to 'profoundly disagree' with that.

[dennis tooth]

So you are saying that Iran doesn't have or isn't working on a nuclear bomb program? On what basis do you draw that conclusion?

 

 

 

The point is you said that we were in the pocket of the Yanks and i inferred from you that you thought that that was a bad thing.

 

I'm saying that you can't demonise the Yanks and complain about being too close or too reliant on them and then expect them to sort out Iran on our behalf becuase they would have nukes and we don't.

 

 

 

What are you basing this on? Also who said anything about invading us? No one but you talking is about that.

 

It is about bombing us, not invading us. They don't need to invade us to bomb us.

 

 

 

Again you demonise the Yanks on the one hand and us for being too reliant on them, then you expect them to protect us becuase we remove our ultimate deterrent. No one knows the nature of the nuclear bombs these countries have now or are working on, and again i repeat we are talking about security over the next 30 year period not just "now". Who knows how these threats will change over that period or which new threats will present themselves.

 

You really don't think the Yanks take N Korea seriously? Really? Look at the region and the potential neighbours affected. China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US.

 

I disagree with you profoundly.

 

That being said it still really doesnt excuse the massive increase in debt the last government left the country and future generations with, which is kind of where we started.

 

I am talking about the next 100,000 years not the next 30 which is your own short termist thinking.

[Cardie]

Anyway, those lib dems, how funny was it that they took an absolute fucking kicking the skew eyed lying two faced Tory cock gobblers.

[Section_31]

Anyway, those lib dems, how funny was it that they took an absolute fucking kicking the skew eyed lying two faced Tory cock gobblers.

 

It's mad that they're getting all the blame though but nobody is mentioning these are actually Tory policies. There seems to be more bad feeling around for them than for the conservatives, when it is in fact all their doing - crazy really.

[VladimirIlyich]

According to the news the LibDems are threatening to derail the Tories NHS 'reform,'AKA cuts.

 

If this is true then go for it Clegg,its what you should have done from the start and not waited until Cameron played you like a fiddle regarding voting reform.

 

Its never too late!

[Moo]

It's mad that they're getting all the blame though but nobody is mentioning these are actually Tory policies. There seems to be more bad feeling around for them than for the conservatives, when it is in fact all their doing - crazy really.

 

Sarcasm?

It seems to me that the only blame they are getting for policy is self-apportioned, it allows them to ignore the real reason why they are now so, so distrusted.

[Vincent Vega]

It's mad that they're getting all the blame though but nobody is mentioning these are actually Tory policies. There seems to be more bad feeling around for them than for the conservatives, when it is in fact all their doing - crazy really.

 

Millions of voters who voted for them would never have done so if they'd made it clear they would form a coalition with the Tories, and that more than anything is the reason for the anger, people feel they were duped. A lot of their votes came from disillusioned Labour voters and they have also managed to piss off the left of their own support.

 

Tory voters knew what they were getting in terms of the fact there were going to be loads of cuts and they are happier to see taxes on spending than incomes. If the Tories make a pigs ear of the NHS reforms then some of the flak may start coming their way even from their own support.

[cochcaer]

It's mad that they're getting all the blame though but nobody is mentioning these are actually Tory policies. There seems to be more bad feeling around for them than for the conservatives, when it is in fact all their doing - crazy really.

 

Tories doing what tories do must measure 0000.1% on the shockometer. The Lib influence on the coalition hasn't been the big policies but stuff like the environment and electoral reform - aka the things most people aren't arsed about. Had people seen Clegg as a restraint on ideological Conservatives then his party would have probably done better at the polls.

[Section_31]

Millions of voters who voted for them would never have done so if they'd made it clear they would form a coalition with the Tories, and that more than anything is the reason for the anger, people feel they were duped. A lot of their votes came from disillusioned Labour voters and they have also managed to piss off the left of their own support.

 

Tory voters knew what they were getting in terms of the fact there were going to be loads of cuts and they are happier to see taxes on spending than incomes. If the Tories make a pigs ear of the NHS reforms then some of the flak may start coming their way even from their own support.

 

If you look at the media coverage of the locals though, there's a lot of unrestrained joy being expressed that the Lib Dems have been drop-kicked into oblivion. The notion is that they've done something terrible, something that deserves punishment, but very little reference to the fact that what they've done - essentially - is side with the Tories, who themselves still enjoy widespread media support and what almost amounts to a blanket policy amnesty of sorts.

[dennis tooth]

According to the news the LibDems are threatening to derail the Tories NHS 'reform,'AKA cuts.

 

If this is true then go for it Clegg,its what you should have done from the start and not waited until Cameron played you like a fiddle regarding voting reform.

 

Its never too late!

 

Mate, in the same breath he's saying it should be an evolution not a revolution. What he is effectively saying is he plans to slow it not stop it. These are all things he privately wants to allow it's only the public opinion holding him back.

 

If he couldnt recognise public feelings before the election/AV results then he

is badly out of touch anyway.

 

He has not learned the error of his ways and the arrogance to be trying to be seen to be doing something as opposed to actually do something serious is astounding. And that's from someone whose gut instinct is to want to feel sorry for him and press the Tories who have escaped this kind of sustained pressure and scrutiny.

Edited May 8, 2011 by dennis tooth