Archive for September, 2011
Looking at my calendar it tells me that we are in the month of September and the year is 2011. I have done my background checks and I can confirm this is the case. Further research goes to tell me that the year 2015 is not today or tomorrow. It is a good way off yet. Getting out my calculator and doing 2015-2011 comes out with the answer ’4′ so that is how many years until the next time the electorate goes to the polls in General Election terms.
Before then though there will be by-elections, local elections and European Elections but none of these dictate the real national feeling. They will be protest votes against whoever is in power nationally or these elections will be won and lost on local issues. Only when we get to General Election’s do we find out what voters really think and even then the disparity between polling and voting is obvious for all to see.
My favourite example of this comes from the race to be the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential Election in New Hampshire. Every single poll had Barack Obama winning by between 9 and 15% even on polling day itself but when it came down to it Hilary Clinton won in New Hampshire by 3%. So the polls even on polling day were out between 12 and 18% which is what you’d call a huge margin or error. Something happened on to or close to polling day that didn’t filter through to the polls and that led to this victory for Clinton.
In the 2010 General Election over here the polls fluctuated wildly throughout the campaign and one poll – the Angus Reid poll on the Sunday after the first PM debate actually had the Lib Dems on top of the pile. So within a month of the election a legitimate polling company had the Lib Dems ahead in the popular vote. As we know now that didn’t come to pass but it shows that voting intention on day x is not the same as how people actually vote.
2011 is not a General Election year. 2012 is not a General Election year. 2013 is not a General Election year. 2014 is not a General Election year. 2015 will be a General Election year. In 2015 we’ll see how the leaders (whoever they are at the time) come across under the scrutiny of a General Election campaign. I still think that everything would’ve been so much different had it not been for Gillian Duffy and ‘Bigotgate’. I don’t think Labour would have won outright but they have well have somehow remained the largest party and therefore had first dibs at a chance of a coalition with the Lib Dems. We don’t know but a campaign will ebb and flow and millions of voters will change their mind between now and then – millions – that’s a pretty big number folks.
The general consensus is that the electorate hate Nick Clegg today. Will they still hate him in four years time? Who knows but did they give Tony Blair another term in office after the invasion in Iraq where upon a million marched against it? I do believe that they did. If the economy is in a good state in 2015 comparatively speaking and other Lib Dem policies are enacted and welcomed by the electorate then that hate may melt away. It may not of course but four years is an awful long time in both life and politics. Four years ago I was single and look at me now. Oh wait. Bad analogy.
I just don’t get the fascination with polling when you are polling someone on a hypothetical where their opinion may change in between the hypothetical and actually voting. Labour lead the majority of polls today but if Ed Miliband is still leader how will he face up to David Cameron and Nick Clegg under the 24/7 limelight of a General Election campaign? Most observers would say that he would be a distant third with regards to public speaking behind the pair of them so the more we hear from all three the less we’d be impressed by Ed Miliband compared to the other two.
I have spoken before that I believe Nick Clegg needs to apologise and actually say sorry and not regret with regards to tuition fees. I do honestly believe that and I think it’s vital to his chances of carrying on and making progress in 2015. He told Matthew Gibson in an interview with Nick Clegg at Liberal Democrat Conference that success would be more MPs in 2015. He thinks that if the Lib Dems can get more voices in the Commons then that will be a success.
Most of us I think would agree that is a fair target. The polls today would say that is extremely unlikely but the polls today mean nothing with regards to an election which is still the best part of four years away. The polls mean absolutely nothing. They are fun and all to look at and read and dissect (well not that much fun really but hey we can pretend) but asking someone for their voting intention for the next General Election in 2015 today is like asking me what my relationship status will be come that Thursday in 2015 when I go to vote. I’d answer single but that isn’t written in stone.
I can’t predict the future. Nor can the pollsters. The future has yet to be played out and I’m more than fine with that and so should you.
I am sitting here in complete disbelief. I have been for about 15-20 minutes now. To invoke the memory of Jack Buck means that something just incredible must have happened and it did overnight. I have seen many things in the world of sport. Not a lot can phase me but seriously the way the baseball gods ended the American League regular season was just completely off the charts. I started writing this blog post over two hours ago and I still genuinely cannot believe what I just (well a couple of hours ago) saw.
The scenario was simple. The Rays and the Red Sox were tied in the wildcard standings. If they both won or both lost they would play a one-game playoff for the right to travel to Texas to play the Texas Rangers in the ALDS. If one of them won and the other team lost then skip the one-game playoff and go straight to Texas. Simple enough.
The Red Sox were in Baltimore to face the Orioles who had nothing to play for except to act as spoilers. The Rays were at home to face the Yankees who had already clinched home-field advantage throughout the playoffs and knew they were flying home to face the Tigers on Friday night.
Both teams were expected to win.
Then the Yankees pounded David Price and took a 7-0 lead with scrubs pitching. It was just a shock to everyone in baseball. The Red Sox had scratched out a 3-2 lead going into the late innings but then the baseball gods awoke and decided it was time to have some fun. The storm system that had been circling around Baltimore’s Camden Yards finally encroached and dropped its liquid over the playing field. The game went into a rain delay. As that was going on the Rays were mounting a furious rally and were back within one but down to their final strike. As the grounds crew removed the tarp in Baltimore Cory Wade’s 2-2 pitch was launched to right field and smashed off the foul pole. Down to their final strike and they tied it.
With the Yankees not risking any of their premier relievers to ensure they got in sufficient rest everyone knew the Rays were winning this game so it was all down to Boston. They inched their way to holding on to that lead and the Orioles were down to their final out when they got a double so the trying run was on base. They were down to their final strike when Nolan Reimold swatted a Papelbon fastball into the alley to tie the game. Three pitches later a soft liner that Carl Crawford should have caught dropped and the Orioles went berserk. The game meant nothing to them but they treated it like their World Series win.
Down in Tampa the crowd went nuts as first they saw and heard the Orioles had tied it and then that they had indeed beaten the Sox. All they had to do was win and within three minutes Evan Longoria had hit a Home Run that creped over the lowered wall that had first been lowered for Carl Crawford who ironically was the guy who failed to mae the play for Boston just minutes earlier.
No-one could ever have written this script. I still cannot believe it happened. The September collapse of the so-called ‘best team ever put together’ is the worst in the history of the sport. I maybe a Yankees fan but I was rooting for an extra game as I always root for the extra game if it doesn’t directly effect my Yankees so I am disappointed.
I won’t rub salt into the wounds as I know how I’d feel if it had happened to my team. The only thing I will say is if they had to lose last night then I’m glad Papelbon was the one to blow the game for them. This is a guy who once thought he deserved to be the closer on an American League All-Star team in Yankee Stadium when Mariano Rivera was also in the bullpen. Yeah let me think about that Papelbon…
So no baseball today and the playoffs start on Friday.
But still I do not believe what I just saw…
Last week it all kicked off on twitter when some people said that there were not enough women on the Mock The Week panel. The show discussed it via their twitter feed but decided to draw a line underneath the debate. A blogger wasn’t happy and put together a blog entitled Mock the Week Mock the Women which she posted yesterday. She describes herself as a feminist and as an active member of the Bristol feminist network so that is her words not mine so don’t say I’m feminist bashing before you’ve read my 2p worth…
Jo Brand commented two and a half years ago the following (from The Guardian:
Women don’t want to go on panel shows for six reasons. 1) They won’t get a word in edgeways. 2) They may be edited to look stupid. 3) They may get the piss taken out of them. 4) They may not be funny. 5) They don’t like competing for airtime. 6) They may be patronised, marginalised or dismissed.”
Well let’s look at them one-by-one.
1) They won’t get a word in edgeways – That is a fair point as even Frankie Boyle has complained about this. So I can’t disagree.
2) They may be edited to look stupid – Well so can anyone. They have edited the show to make all the comedians look stupid from time to time. Can’t really agree on this one.
3) They may get the piss taken out of them – Er…yes. Have you not seen TV panel shows? When Lee Mack takes the pee out of the very notion of David Mitchell going into Argos is that unfair? So I can’t agree on this one either.
4) They may not be funny – Then why are they in stand-up comedy in the first place?
5) They don’t like competing for airtime – That is an issue but that is the nature of the beast.
6) They may be patronised, marginalised or dismissed – Yep but so can male comedians if they don’t bring a lot to the show. Are producers under duress to ensure everyone gets the same amount of air time whether they are funny or not?
Look Mock The Week is pretty tired these days and I never watch when it’s on although I often will stick in on iPlayer whilst working at some point during the week. There are good female stand-up acts around and some of them should be on the show but should they be invited on to the show just to fill a quota or do they want to make it because they are deemed good enough to be booked for what is still a prime gig to get some exposure?
Looking through the list of women who have been on the show and some of them just aren’t very good. Saying that a lot of the men weren’t very good either. Would I want to see more of Gina Yashere or Lauren Laverne on Mock The Week? No. No I wouldn’t. Would I want to see more Sarah Milligan or Lucy Porter? Yes I would.
Further on in the blog linked at the top of this piece the author writes, ‘But us feminists – we’re not done. Because contrary to Mock the Week’s dismissal, this issue matters. It touches on big issues of cultural silencing of women’s voices, sexism and misogynistic assumptions about women and men.
And this is what pisses me off the most. They say it matters but do they mention anything when you see that the % of women on the show is more than the % of comedians from ethnic backgrounds. So make a huge stink about lack of women but they don’t even mention the fact that comedians from ethnic backgrounds are represented even less.
I don’t see Mock The Week (or the BBC) as a closed shop. I think it is fair to say more people have heard of comedians like Ed Byrne or Stewart Francis or Milton Jones. Is the BBC meant to put together the most popular show for the license fee payers or is it there solely to give everyone a fair crack of the whip? Should they have quotas they need to fill on Mock The Week and other shows? Should 10% of all TV presenters be ginger for example?
Women can be just as funny as men. We all know this. However in reality on the stand-up circuit there are 249 listed on the comedian site Chortle who are female of the 1,380 listed, which means that 18% of the comedians listed have their reproductive organs on the inside of their body instead of the outside. The percentage of guest panelists on MTW who are female is 13% so it isn’t a huge disparity compared to how many are active on the circuit.
I don’t see this as a big issue facing women in this day and age but clearly I’m wrong…
Some may have seen the heralded new star of Labour speaking on Monday. 16 year-old Rory Weal comes from a broken home, the house he grew up in was repossessed and it was only thanks to the welfare state that he wasn’t on the street knifing people with guns in gangs. I may have used some poetic license there but basically his family run out of cash and thanks to the welfare state they weren’t on the street.
However today the Daily Mail did a bit of an exposé on the kid and whilst he clearly had help from the welfare state in times of trouble he’s not exactly as bad off as he made out.
His dad was a millionaire and he grew up in a house worth over a million pounds. His dad lost the lot and his parents split up. He was pulled out of his posh private school because they couldn’t afford it any more. Luckily he got accepted to a grammar school, which Labour are actually opposed to but obviously that is only ideologically and when push comes to shove parents and students believe that they’ll probably get a better education there than they would at a local comprehensive so ideology out the window when it’s so close to home.
He now lives in a nice house in the suburbs with his mum and eight year-old sister. Not exactly on the bread line. Look I know the welfare state is for all – even the upper and middle classes if they fall on bad times. That is one of the great things about the welfare state that it is there for all as and when they ever need it. My problem is he made himself out to be someone that he wasn’t. He made himself out to be someone on the very bottom rung of society financially but he wasn’t. If he is the face of the welfare state then I think it is fair to say that it is false advertising.
Surely Labour would have done their background checks and known all this but you’d guess they didn’t otherwise they would never have let him speak. I just saw a tweet as I was typing this from @_gaylussite saying, ‘Rory Weal owes far more to free market capitalism and Baroness Thatcher than he does to Labour and the welfare state.’ and that is true. He got the start in life due to his dads business and the free market. Does he not think that is more important than a bit of help when he skirted near bad waters?
I know personally how the welfare state can essentially keep a roof over a families head. I have been there myself. So I will never knock the welfare state but really is this young man the right face for Labour to hang their hat on with regards to the welfare state? I’d say no and this has turned out to be a very bad move by the party.
Ed Miliband talks tough on the energy companies – now he’s not in a position to do anything about them
Today we heard Ed Miliband make a stand against energy companies for constantly putting prices up. ‘Prices go up but never come down’ exclaimed the leader of the Labour Party as he chose his fight. It is a great thing to speak on. Energy prices are going up at around five times the rate of inflation. I know that my heating bills will certainly go up this year and I don’t like it one jot. Those on a tighter budget will feel it worse. I can see what Ed Miliband is trying to say but I have one issue with this…
Ed Miliband was Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change from October 3 through to the time of the last General Election. So he was actually in a position to take on the energy companies straight up. No rhetoric from opposition he was actually in a job where he directly oversaw energy companies and did he do anything about it then? Did he heck.
This is the type of thing that pisses me off about politicians and not just Ed Miliband. They talk the talk but when they are actually in a position to make changes you bottle it. My boy Nick Clegg is clearly someone who can be tarred with this brush as well so don’t think I’m just bashing Labour or Ed Miliband but when he was in charge of that department Ed Miliband wasn’t in coalition and had the brief to deal with the sector entirely how he saw fit.
He chose to do nothing of significance and even changed policy on coal powered stations following being accosted by actor Pete Postlethwaite OBE who said he’d give back his OBE if the proposed new Kingsnorth coal power station went ahead. That startled Eds Miliband into a change of tune and that worries me. He had no strength in his convictions and was willing to bend just because of one high -profile incident.
If Ed Miliband wanted to go after energy companies then he had his chance. Now he doesn’t have that chance he is talking tough and you know what folks that just doesn’t wash. That just reeks of someone jumping on a popular bandwagon knowing they can say whatever they like but don’t have to back it up with actions *looks at Nick Clegg*
Not good Ed. Not good…
So Ed Miliband is doing another one of his twitter #AskEdM do dahs on Wednesday. My timeline has been filled with Lib Dems (and Tories if I’m being fair) tweeting questions using that hashtag that are clearly a) never going to be answered, b) pointless political point scoring and c) really rather sad.
Here are some recent questions I have found doing a twitter search for #AskEdM
#askEdM Ed, what do you think is to blame for the current crisis – sunshine, moonlight, good times or ‘the boogie’?
#AskEdM If you were to tie me to a bed, would you use ropes or cuffs? @Ed_Miliband
#AskEdM Have you ever worn the missus’ knickers to a big debate? You know, just for luck.
#AskEdM – why do you keep standing underneath that incontinent seagull? – I will be honest – that one was funny.
#AskEdM How does it feel to be an unprincipled wankshaft running a party with no socialist leanings?
and so on.
I’m no Ed Miliband lover and really this PR stunt can only backfire. It can’t end well but why don’t we just let people with serious questions like ‘How about asking whether the public has forgiven the party that caused tens of thousands of deaths in an illegal war? #Lab11 #AskEdM‘ get through? Just spamming the hash-tag with various stupid questions and ones that no-one is ever going to put to him let alone answer is just pointless – not to be confused with #pointless – which is totally awesome.
Ed Miliband maybe a bit of a tit but there are millions of people who want to hear what he has to say. If Nick Clegg was doing something similar you’d first of all question his PR people but secondly you’d get very annoyed with all the spammers sending him abuse and going on about how he betrayed his voters.
So why not let’s take the high road on this and just watch it play out? Sometimes I despair at MPs in both the Commons and in the media acting like babies but sometimes we don’t cover ourselves in glory either and twitter is without a doubt the worst place for that.
I have a motto of treating everyone how I’d like to be treated and in turn I’d like people to trat others with the respect that they in turn would like to get for themselves. Well we’d like the respect if we were holding a public Q&A via twitter so give Ed his respect and listen to what he has to say. It’ll probably be a load of rubbish but until then let’s allow him his podium and we can discuss (and probably deride) what he actually says afterwards…
From a Belgian Carlsberg advert…
Absolutely chuffing brilliant.
In other news boiler leak will not be fixed today but maybe tomorrow or Wednesday. There is also a leak from the shower than will involve tiles being taken off. Landlord will not be pleased…
Usual political postings will return after these messages (or the passage of time – one of the two…)
Who is more attractive, Marge Simpson, Lois Griffin or Francine Smith? A Rambles of Neil Monnery investigation!
So there I was last night laying in bed having flicked over to American Dad and a question struck me, ‘who is more attractive, Marge Simpson, Francine from Family Guy or Louis from Family Guy?’ A lay there for just a moment and decided that I would investigate and blog about my findings. Who says The Rambles of Neil Monnery isn’t the go to site for the important issues…?
We’ll start with Marge Simpson:
So Marge Simpson. She has been around on our television screens for nearly as long as I’ve been alive. It’s close but I just have the edge. Married to Homer I have at times struggled to see what he sees in her (and more importantly why she wears her hair up all the time).
Marge has a good figure but has a whiny tone in her voice. She nags a lot and very rarely changes her appearance. It is a major fault with the whole Simpsons clan – they really need to get some new clothes. Marge is her teenage years was clearly hot but her face has become more protracted and harsh as the years have gone on and her decision on the hair still beggers belief.
In short Marge just isn’t doing it for me. She’s rather vanilla from what we know and that hair…I know I’ve spoken about it in three paragraphs on the spin but really? Pros are clearly she wanted to be a journalist and that is a great ambition to have. She’s not stupid and was clearly a gifted student. So there are some brains there but I think Homer drags her down and doesn’t allow her to flower. If she wasn’t with Homer then she might be a very different person but she is and the Marge I see isn’t one for me…
Let’s move on to Lois Griffin:
Lois Griffin married out of a very rich family. In a way she has similar tones as Marge in that she is clearly smarter than being married to Peter makes her out to be. She’s ginger which is rarely a bad thing although the hair style doesn’t really do it for me. Reading this back as I go along it makes me out like I have a thing for hair. Well hair is an important feature I think but anyway…
Nice figure and not too tall. She was a naughty side but also has to treat Peter like a big kid sometimes and that is off-putting. She laughs at the problems of others and really doesn’t treat her daughter Meg with as much dignity as she deserves. Constantly gossips and bad mouths people behind their backs really doesn’t tick any boxes for me but she is kinky which does bring her back a bit but overall I’m not a Lois guy either.
This leaves us with Francine Smith from American Dad:
So Francine. Yes Francine. I think American Dad is vastly underrated and might just be the best of these three animated shows and Francine is a big part of that. She’s blonde which isn’t my usual type but she wears her hair well. Her biggest downside is clearly she is the dumbest of the three mentioned in this blog post. She really isn’t the brightest and her daughter Hayley is rather bright and feels challenged by the fact her mum isn’t fully on the ball.
However whilst saying she’s not the smartest she certainly has street smarts and knows about the real world. She treats all her family with respect (unlike Lois) and is clearly a very good soul and a good person.
So overall for me it’s either the smart but downtrodden Marge, the rich, pretty but slightly mean Lois or the loveable but not Einstein like Francine.
When push comes to shove it would be Francine for me. Her good heart shines through compared to Lois and I just don’t fancy Marge…
There we go. The important issues on a Monday morning sorted. Now my plumber should be here in an hour or so. Will my boiler once and for all have it’s leak stopped? I can’t wait to find out…
All screenshots obviously copyright FOX.
The Lib Dems aren’t planning on banning Page 3 but they do want greater regulation on glamour modelling. Well when I say that obviously I don’t mean all Lib Dems do because I don’t. Helen Lovejoy wants us to all ‘think of the children’ but I prefer to have faith that children are not as influenced by magazines and Page 3 as some will have you believe.
I was drawn on to this topic following having read Kelly-Marie Blundell’s post on it behind that link. She was inspired to blog about it following reading Andrew Emmerson’s post on it which you’ll find behind that link. But to sum up both believe that for the sake of the children these magazines or newspapers should be moved on to a higher shelf at your local newsagents.
Thinking about it I’m a pretty regular 28 year-old and I had a pretty typical upbringing. I was never influenced by pictures of naked women or semi-naked women that I saw in a magazine or a newspaper growing up. I didn’t buy The Sun and if I was reading a free copy on the train or in the Chinese whilst waiting for my take-away I certainly wouldn’t be looking at Page 3 – even today this is true. So I think nothing of it. A woman with her breasts out or wearing near to nothing at all is empowered and is doing so because they want to. I don’t think there is much debate about this (or is there?) so the question is clearly about what type of censorship or regulation needs to be placed on topless models or glamour magazines for the sake of the children.
Well you know what glamour mags and page 3 girls have been around for a while. Children are in general pretty interested in finding out all about the opposite sex (or same sex if they are that way inclined) at a fairly early age. Kids these days pretty much all have access to the internet. If they want to look at naked pictures of women or men then they can. Even if they don’t have the internet at home or their parents monitor their usage of the internet they’ll have a friend whose mum and dad don’t. Heck most young people have smart phones so have the internet on the go to use to look up pornographic pictures should they so like.
Does this and this alone lead to humans seeing other humans solely as sexual objects? No. No it doesn’t. Does it play a part? Well that is clearly up for debate a fair bit more but personally I just don’t see it and even if it did then how are you going to regulate it so no-one say under the age of 14 can see a picture of a woman’s breasts? You aren’t and any attempt to do so would infringe on those who want to look and those who want to sell their looks. It is a two-way street.
If there was regulation that curtailed the amount of people who could buy these newspapers or magazines then the money would go down for the models. Some may argue that is fair enough to save the innocent minds of the young but it won’t. The internet wins on this one and let’s be honest here no-one is that innocent even when they are young. Kids may not know it (some will) but they’ll have sexual fetishes and desires even from a young age.
It is normal and healthy for young people to explore themselves and explore the depths of their minds as they grow up. Part of this is dealing with feelings towards the opposite sex (or again same sex if they are so inclined). It is part of the growing up process and is perfectly normal. Seeing a picture of a woman in a skimpy dress or a oiled up man in a magazine is healthy.
There are other people involved in the growing up process to keep a child in the know as to what is right and wrong with how they deal with other people – and that includes teaching your children how to deal with people they want fancy. I am very much a nurture over nature guy and believe a parent should be able to teach their children how to deal with other people. I think by cocooning them it will only repress them and make them struggle once they get older.
Exposing children to the realities of adulthood is not a bad thing. Yes some people don’t treat people right but that isn’t because of magazines or Page 3 girls it is because they weren’t taught to treat people right. In this day and age of the internet and mobile internet you cannot cocoon children from the real world. It does scare me that children face sexual questions earlier and earlier in life but there isn’t anything we can do about that. Society has already gone that way.
The best way to deal with this issue is to be open with children. The cat is out of the bag so we have to deal with it in the most mature way possible and that is to put our faith in parenting and put faith in the children themselves. The more you push it away the more they’ll want.
Women (nor men) are sex objects. They are human beings. The best way to teach children this is by talking to them and treating everyone with respect. Children take the lead from their parents and not from magazines. I am sure of this and just keeping nude and sexy pictures away from their eye-line in newsagents with does nothing.
So I can’t support this even though I see it has good intentions. I just believe that children are not as stupid/influenced as some of us think. A few nude pictures do not change a person’s attitude and if it does then that says everything about the way that the kid was brought up.
The feel good factor is back amongst rank and file Lib Dems. Of that I think there is little doubt. The members up at Lib Dem Conference were in general upbeat and after a long time licking their wounds are starting to grow into being in government and relishing the challenge.
Sadly though the electorate unsurprisingly still aren’t being dragged with us as the following two screenshots will show. These are taken from the Ipsos-Mori September set of questioning. Please click on them to see them in a larger size.
As you can see on all the factors they measured the Lib Dems scored worse or joint worst with either Labour or the Tories. These ideals included ‘Keeps its promises’, ‘Understands the problems facing Britain’, ‘Has a good team of leaders’, ‘Will promise anything to win votes’, ‘Divided, ‘Looks after the interests of people like me’, ‘Fit to govern’, ‘Out of date’
Now this surprises me some of these views of the electorate. They believe the Lib Dems are more out of date than Labour or the Tories. Are you kidding me electorate? Do you not even understand what being out of date is? The only ideal we scored best was whether we were extreme or not and the electorate seem happy that we aren’t extreme, which I suppose is something considering on the political spectrum we stand in the middle.
Not surprised we are seen as divided but I think that is something we can work on. I think though we as a party understand the issues facing the country very well considering we went into coalition for it. It is a shame we aren’t seen as fit to govern with a paltry 23% believing that we are but Labour must not like the fact they scored 38% to the Tories 50% on just that question.
That screenshot just goes to show that in our circle nothing good comes up. Bit of a strange graph that one but still that is what they sent through.
So all in all the Lib Dems are still looking like eejits in the eyes of the electorate but up in Birmingham this week you got the feeling that the ship is starting to turn and there is a lot of time before the country goes to the ballot box to decide on its next government and maybe – just maybe – it won’t be the carnage that every Labour activist will have you believe. They say the Lib Dems will be obliterated leaving only Labour and the Tories as major political parties in this country set to govern for the rest of time.
I’m just not getting that sense…