Not everyone to the left of them, but there does seem to be a tendency of at least some of the left to regard the way other countries do things as automatically better without any seeming evaluation of the merits. To me that's unpatriotic. The extreme are those like Corbyn or George Galloway, who appear to cheer any cause that opposes the West.
This isn't exclusively a left-leaning thing, those on the right do it as well. The grass is always greener and all that.
The value of a company is either the current value of its assets in a willing buyer and willing seller transaction, or the discounted value of future forecast cashflow. Not both or you are double counting.
) pipes, and by profits, I meant just the liquid profits as seen by the company bank accounts: Roughly, income minus expenditure. I think it's fair to separate those in the context of this discussion because when Labour was talking about paying to nationalize out of profits, they would certainly have only been talking about liquid profits, not about selling off the physical assets!.Of course, only someone on the right would consider selling off assets as profits
www.theguardian.com
www.independent.co.uk
I would suggest that Mr Anderson should review his English history, specifically the 30 January 1649, when the predecessor to the parliament he sits in executed King Charles I.More dangerous authoritarianism from Anderson:
Tory vice-chair Lee Anderson says anti-monarchists should leave UK
Contentious MP reacts to arrest of coronation protesters by telling British republicans to emigrate
This quotes a tweet: (https://twitter.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1654785473867395073)
Now, I'm not an anti-monarchist. I am neutral on the matter and even watched the coronation earlier. King Charles is, in my view, really quite a decent person and I have no particular desire to see the end of the monarchy.
However if he thinks that republican protestors should leave the UK, he really does have a screw loose.
He is just playing to a certain audience, he just wants the publicity you are giving himMore dangerous authoritarianism from Anderson:
Tory vice-chair Lee Anderson says anti-monarchists should leave UK
Contentious MP reacts to arrest of coronation protesters by telling British republicans to emigrate
This quotes a tweet: (https://twitter.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1654785473867395073)
Now, I'm not an anti-monarchist. I am neutral on the matter and even watched the coronation earlier. King Charles is, in my view, really quite a decent person and I have no particular desire to see the end of the monarchy.
However if he thinks that republican protestors should leave the UK, he really does have a screw loose.
This also is very worrying:
Britain’s top cop in angry clash with Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson
Lee Anderson clashed with the Met commissioner over activists outside Parliament Mr Anderson accused of setting up a ‘Glastonbury on Thames’
To quote:
Of course, I am absolutely 100% sure that Anderson would not complain about loud pro-Brexit protests.
As far as I am concerned, Anderson is a dangerous hard-right authoritarian, who appears to want to silence certain political views. Telling the police how to do their job is not good, either; who does he think he is?
What the hell was Sunak playing at in appointing him? He's not fit to be a local councillor, never mind an MP.
I will finish by saying: King Charles is a good ambassador for the UK. Anderson, on the other hand, is absolutely shameful, and a complete embarrassment to the country.
Anderson is a standard pub bore, and should be ignored as such. It is weird to hear him telling other people to emigrate though, when he's so happy about the government choosing to take away 27 of the best and easiest options for doing so. The pathetic lumbering buffoon really should make up his mind before people start to suspect that he doesn't have one.
He strikes me as the kind of pub bore who brings his own golly collection if the landlord hasn't provided one. Hard to blame him entirely on the Tories after he spent so many years in Labour, but I guess at least he wasn't given any kind of office there
His views are nobody's fault except his own, however giving him a position of authority is 100% on the Tories.
There's certainly still a fairly radical faction on the right who are holding Sunak hostage to keep their representatives in positions of authority, as they probably have the numbers to bring the government down if thwarted. Unfortunately pandering to these factions (and as Johnson did, throwing out many of the more moderates) simply encourages them.
Indeed. The circles on the Venn diagram are moving and the overlap that gave them power in 2019 is disappearing.
Cameron was certainly on the ‘wet’ side of the party. Though I guess whether that’s centre-right depends on where you view the spread of the party.
It depends which voters, I think. One feature of 2015 was how slightly-right-of-centre-economically, affluent social liberals flocked to the Tories, more so than any other recent election. Such voters would presumably have been protected from the worst effects of austerity, and because Cameron was relatively socially liberal, there would have been no reactionary dogma to put them off.
If you look at overall percentage of the vote, the Tories got basically the same as they did in 2010. So I don't think you can claim and increase in support for them there. What did happen though is that the lib dem vote collapsed which led to a fair few seats that were Tory v Lib Dem close runs in 2010 becoming very solidly Tory in 2015 without the actual Tory vote increasing.
). That plus the LibDems had made themselves hugely unpopular with their u-turn on tuition fees causing people to see them as unprincipled, and some of their lost votes would have gone to the Tories.Tend to agree with that. If anybody at the election had thought there was any meaningful prospect of leave winning then the Tories would have lost the election - too much of their support base was anti-Brexit, and prior to the referendum campaign the red wall wasn't exactly all that bothered about it as an issue
Yes, that's reasonable enough. I didn't vote Tory in 2015 (I voted LibDem because I though they'd done a good job in coalition) but I wasn't unhappy with the election result. I just assumed that the promise of a vote on leaving the EU was to keep the loonies on-side and it wouldn't end up changing anything, and it really didn't influence my vote at all.
A lot of UKIP voters previously voted Labour - people underestimate how conservative, especially older working class voters are.I think it's more complex than that. It's true that the Tory vote share was almost unchanged in 2015 (very slightly up), but that was despite UKIP coming from nowhere to take 12.6% of the vote. A lot of those UKIP votes would have been defections from the Tories, which means in turn that a lot of other people must have swapped from Labour/the LibDems to the Tories in order to keep the Tory vote share steady.
Personally I think the key thing was that David Cameron simply came across at the time as a more credible Prime Minister than Ed Miliband (people will of course have different views about whether subsequent events justified that perception
