The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Endangered species

Posted on June 11, 2013 by

A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending, for the sake of a change of scenery and a few convivial drinks with the estimable Lallands Peat Worrier and others, a meeting of the Oxfordshire branch of the Green Party. The subject of the meeting was Scottish independence, which as you might imagine is something of a niche interest in Oxford (let alone among Greens in Oxford).


I don’t precisely recall the number of people who turned up (see “convivial drinks”), but if it wasn’t more than the Scottish Tories drew to the above meeting, hosted by party leader Ruth Davidson, it was certainly within two or three people of it.

For some reason nobody filmed us for the telly, though.

Print Friendly

    53 to “Endangered species”

    1. James Westland says:

      Maybe they were  burstin for a single fish and just left en masse….

    2. scottish_skier says:

      The empty seats represent the ‘silent majority’ the pro-union campaign keep talking about. I thought this was obvious.

      EDIT. Ok, the fish explanation is better.

    3. John Lyons says:

      is that really just 18 people??

    4. Normally there would be all kinds of conservationist trying to save an endangered species, but the line has been crossed. The tipping point has been reached. The poll tax brought them to the line, and the bedroom tax took them over it. All that’s needed is the coup de grace to put them out of their misery.

    5. sneddon says:

      ‘All that’s needed is the coup de grace to put them out of their misery.’
      That’ll be Universal Credit methinks.

    6. CameronB says:

      For some reason nobody filmed us for the telly, though.
      You can only expect so much balance from the Beeb. You wouldn’t want them spending your license fee inappropriately, covering fringe events such as that pictured above, would you? Oh, wait a minute.

    7. Craig P says:

      And only five of them are party members. The rest are venue employees, just waiting for the event to end so they can put the chairs away and clean up. 

    8. DJ says:

      Around 160 seats in total in view (I have a low attention span and lost interest counting so just multiplied rows x columns); 20 seats filled; possibly 3 seats claimed by jackets;137 empty. By the 1979 referendum rules in reverse this means 86% yes!

    9. Luigi says:

      Ruth Davidson must be getting fed up talking to empty chairs.

    10. Iain says:

      @ Luigi
      ‘Ruth Davidson must be getting fed up talking to empty chairs.’
      Aye, but think of how the chairs feel.

    11. Dorothy Devine says:

      Lovely picture! Isn’t it good to see such enjoyment of a Conservative meeting?
      OT but just watched BBBC Distorting Scotland and the main thrust was frightening pensioners
      in a Whhooo! pensions won’t be paid by Westminster and we won’t allow Scotland to continue to use the system howdyelikethemapples sort of a manner – with the indefatigable Mr Campbell street interviewing old ladies and moronic Mr Moore giving it more “whhoooo!” just to clinch the point.

    12. Davy says:

      WOW, their right, the tories are on the up.

    13. pmcrek says:

      The bogs wur hoachin though.

    14. Thistle says:

      Oh dear, that is a shocker 🙂

    15. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

      Those folk were the cleaners waiting for them to finish.

    16. GP Walrus says:

      Should they be renamed the Scottish Unionist Conservation Party?

    17. Yesitis says:

      The Tories – clutching at straws and kept afloat by best mates Labour and the BBC in Scotland.

    18. Robert Bryce says:

      “Whit time dis the Labour fella come oan Agnes?”
      “Crickey Gideon, can you see any seats anywhere?”

    19. Robert Bryce says:

      “Christ Ruthie, could you no have kept that in tae the break?”

    20. Robert Bryce says:

      “If any of you are under 70 and think Scotland would be better off independent then please leave the room”

    21. James Morton says:

      I think its time for an updated version of this paper –

    22. David McCann says:

      “Such is the decline of the once-mighty Conservative party in Scotland that it only laid out 240 seats for members attending its annual conference – and still struggled to fill them.”
      From the FT.

    23. Barontorc says:

      CFR – Conservation for Conservatives has a kind of ring to it – like ‘dunkk!!!’
      There really has to be a logical explanation as to why Wee Willie Rennie, Kick-boxing Ruthie and Truly Lamentable Lamont are all in place at the same time, or is it simply serendipity?

    24. G H Graham says:

      I originally counted 30 people in the photo (including one cameraman & five on the stage) but then reconsidered that one of the delegates may actually be a dustbin & another a shredder.
      I’ve seen more folks form a queue outside Brittney Spears’ bedroom.

    25. john king says:

      just been reading an interesting little poll conducted by MSN  admittedly this poll is open to all no matter where they are from but the sentiment it encapsulates is , well, universal, of 5 responses on the main question
      “should Scotland become an independent country?”
      top response was  “no reason, Scottish independence would be best” attracted 40% of the vote
       the nearest after that was “by keeping the UK  together, it means we  would have global influence” attracted 27%
      then it was “avoid economic damage to all sides” 22%
      after that is was “maintain a shared British history” 8%
      and finally “to avoid breaking up the British military” 3%
      2258 responses

    26. JLT says:

      That’s appalling …I am so shocked …shocked that there are still that many Tories left in Scotland!!!!

    27. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      Is it a recording of “Desert Island Discs?”

    28. pa_broon74 says:

      What are you people talking about, there are at least 200 people in that hall and you all know it!

    29. Doug Daniel says:

      I’d be very surprised if SGP and SSP conferences don’t attract substantially more than this Scottish Tory one has. The Radical Independence Conference last year certainly attracted more. Yet the Tories are the only ones to get much TV coverage.

    30. Turnbull Drier says:

      @ David McCann says:
      the FT link goes to a Paywall… anybody know how to climb it, or do I need crampons?

    31. Luigi says:

      See thon empty hall? That is the fate awaiting Scottish Labour if they don’t get their act together and get as far away from Better Together as possible. The tories are toxic.

    32. Captain Caveman says:

      This constant snarking at how unfashionable it is to be a Tory in Scotland is understandable, but IMO is getting a little stale. After all, the SNP was in the doldrums for a good many years, yet I’m guessing you guys and gals all passionately believe they’re the next best thing since sliced bread.
      Being in the minority doesn’t make you wrong by default, people. The (IMO) ridiculous, moribund, empirically discredited nature of Scots’ left wing politics is the only thing I cannot stand about Scotland – it’s perplexing and frustrating, especially when it had a great deal to do with why idiot-Labour pretty much ruined and bankrupted the UK,  culturally, morally and in monetary terms, for their entirely undeserved 13 year tenure.
      Scotland is the last toehold for the ‘Old Left’; everyone else has moved away from the ridiculous State-controlled, collectivist nonsense mantra that is Socialism, even the SNP, bless ’em. (Well, France has actually lurched back, with 75% politics of envy taxation rates and all the rest, and consequently within the space of just one year, France is now very much the ‘Sick Man’ of even the Eurozone and in total economic free-fall, even as compared to bankrupt Spain and others. They’ll learn!)
      I think it’s an entirely honourable thing to get off your backside, go against the (often idiotic) tide of opinion and risk ridicule (such as in this case), and to stand up for your principles and what you passionately believe in politically. Especially against a backdrop of gurning apathy, misinformation and quite the most uneducated and stupid electorate this country has ever known.

    33. Training Day says:

      Why don’t you and other like minds take the leap and look to form a right of centre party in an independent Scotland? Then your halls might be more full – for example, I know of two people who would happily vote for a Tory-style party in an independent Scotland, but will not do so ever again in their Westminster form.  I suspect that’s the only chance for a revival in fortunes for Tories in Scotland.

    34. joe kane says:

      Captain Caveman, a socialist welfare state for the rich and massive state intervention that Stalin would be proud of, to prevent the free-market from operating properly, is ok for the City of London though. Debts and costs are socialised and passed onto the taxpayer and the general public, while wealth is privatised for the benefit of a few multi-billionaire tax dodgers –

      Bank bail-out adds £1.5 trillion to debt 
      16 June 2011 
      The Telegraph 

    35. Captain Caveman says:

      @Training Day
      I’d love to, if I lived in Scotland, but sadly that isn’t the case (although that might well change in future). For my part, I do take a very active interest in centre-right politics and am a member of my local Conservative Club, here in the north of England. 🙂

    36. Captain Caveman says:

      @Joe Kane
      Agreed – you’re preaching to the converted, more than you could ever know. I should think my opposition to the bank bailouts would outweigh the rest of this board put together; my utter contempt is bordering on the dangerous.
      I am a Capitalist; I believe in the free market and the financial accountability of individuals as well as companies. This ain’t capitalism, and hence we are where we are. Good old Labour, eh.

    37. Shinty says:

      Captain Caveman
      I am an ex tory voter, only a Conservative for Independence campaign would make me consider voting for them again.

    38. pa_broon74 says:

      I don’t think its fair to call the electorate stupid, they’re horribly misinformed by a news infrastructure they’re used to trusting, that’s all.
      I also think there is a difference between voting for a particular party because you agree with their policies, or voting for a party because you disagree with its opponents policies more. I think this has been more prevalent in Scotland than anything else, Scots have seen that the SNP (despite some knee jerk law making and a disposition toward nannying) as being a viable alternative to the usual suspects, since they (the SNP) have never been a mainstream party before – its a bit different from being in the doldrums as the tories are just now. (Ironically, its not necessarily tory ideas that are toxic in Scotland, just the British Tory Party –  Scottish independence may very well save them.)
      In an ideal world, some of the Tory ideas make sense, I mean, if you had full employment, the unemployment benefits system would be redundant anyway, since we’re not living in that bubble; the Tories will continue to be ridiculed. You can’t continually hammer people who are on benefits but not do anything about why they’re on benefits.
      And on socialism. It died years ago, there is no old guard socialism in Scotland any more. The SNP are miles away from it (socialism –  no. Social democracy – yes.) Labour left it behind years ago and the SSP are no where just now (largely down to the vagaries of Holyrood voting and Tommy Sheridan’s situation, what ever you believe that to be.)
      I’m not even sure its about ridiculing Tories, its more about the tories we happen to have yacking it up in Scotland – they and their ideas are pretty dire so deserve all the derision they get and probably a wee bit more just to make sure.

    39. Luigi says:

      Pa Broon,
      Of course the majority of the electorate are not stupid. Many people just don’t like change. And I mean they really don’t like change! They are comfortable with the way things are, even if they know there is a real chance of something better. To get people throught this glass ceiling and change something as fundamental as Scottish self-government requires a heck of a stimulus. You either have to insult them repeatedly or inspire them amazingly. BT negative, scare stories are doing the first job for us, very effectively. It’s up to us to take responsibility for the second part.

    40. joe kane says:

      Captain Caveman, so it’s not just the Left you don’t like, its also the Right.
      It wasn’t just Labour. but both the Labour and Conservative Parties which agreed to massive state intervention to boost the interests of the rich and wealthy and protect them from the effects of their toxic free-market speculation and gambling habits.
      It was actually right-wing de-regulation ideology which caused all the problems in the first place, neoliberal evidence-free dogma which you actually support but which almost destroyed the private UK economy except for the intervention of the public sector which saved it from collapse.
      Lessons about market de-regulation which led to the housing and financial bubble disasters obviously don’t seem to have been learned. By some accounts, both these bubbles are already starting to re-inflate, which shouldn’t come as any surprise to anyone familiar with the City of London’s harmful parasitic relationship to the UK economy.

    41. David Smith says:

      You would be most welcome in an independent Scotland for balance, Captain Caveman.
      My interest in Scotland’s future focuses primarily on re-assuming natural statehood. I’m happy with whatever follows that so long as it is decided upon by the people themselves. I do wish the public would learn to be more questioning of what the media tells them to think though!

    42. pa_broon74 says:

      I don’t think the electorate are stupid, I was responding to a comment made by another.
      I agree though, while its nice to always be positive about independence, its also true that the negativity coming from BT is driving people toward a Yes vote through anger and frustration at constantly being told what we can’t do.
      As you say, I’m doing my bit too.

    43. Luigi says:

      Push and pull – they push and we pull!

    44. Captain Caveman says:

      ‘I don’t think its fair to call the electorate stupid, they’re horribly misinformed by a news infrastructure they’re used to trusting’
      Whilst I agree entirely that people are misinformed by mainstream media (and personally, I think this got a lot worse post-Gilligan affair), I still maintain that the electorate are relatively stupid, taken en masse, as compared to previous generations. To my mind this is, in part, inevitable, given the dramatic fall in State educational standards over the last 30 years, which no-one could seriously deny (that’s another hobby horse of mine I’m afraid; yet another tragedy that I lay firmly and exclusively at the door of perfectly well intentioned yet moronic ‘equalize down’ left wing thinking, but that’s another story). I suspect, though, that it isn’t just down to this fact; frankly, people just seem to be lazier – and have ludicrously high expectations about how the world owes them a living – than ever they did in my parents’, or even my day (I’m only 46).
      If that all sounds a bit “eeh, the youth of today” type moaning old bastard cobblers, let me assure you that I care a great deal about the welfare and opportunities of young people – far more than anything else, and most certainly mere party politics per se. Whichever way you cut it though, young people back then DID have to work much harder at (much less well equipped) schools, doing far harder exams (as under a much harsher disciplinary regime) – and once they’d left, only the top 5% went on to university, with many others doing 3, 5 or even 7 year apprenticeships for tiny renumeration during all of that time. My old dad had to do a 7-year apprenticeship to become a Toolmaker… he worked harder than anyone I’ve ever met; my old mum worked part time in an electronics factory too, he never smoked or drank a drop and despite all this – we lived in a tiny terraced house in Clacton and he drove a 15-year old Austin 1100 that he had to repair almost every weekend lol.
      People – particularly kids and young people – just have so much higher expectations and they’re not prepared to put in the graft, either in genuinely improving themselves (I spent years impoverished at night school whilst my mates made very merry indeed) – and that includes learning and gathering information. I mean seriously, back in the 1960s and 1970s there was a lively, inclusive political debate amongst the working classes, my parents among them. Don’t tell me the current day situation is anything like analogous, because I just don’t believe it. If you ask the average person these days what they think about Left vs. Right Wing politics; their political philosophy and/or the efficacy of Keynesian vs. Free Market Capitalism, you’re going to get some blank looks. People these days often wear leering ignorance as some kind of a badge of honour, but it wasn’t always this way. 
      I’m very sad to be so pessimistic and critical but that’s a conclusion I have wearily drawn over many years of observations. Politics today is little more than unthinking tribalism – I really can’t believe that a huge proportion of Scottish people continue to vote Labour when that party hasn’t even bothered to spell out any meaningful policies over the last three years. What other possible conclusion can one draw?

    45. Captain Caveman says:

      ‘Captain Caveman, so it’s not just the Left you don’t like, its also the Right.
      It wasn’t just Labour. but both the Labour and Conservative Parties which agreed to massive state intervention to boost the interests of the rich and wealthy and protect them from the effects of their toxic free-market speculation and gambling habits.It was actually right-wing de-regulation ideology which caused all the problems in the first place, neoliberal evidence-free dogma which you actually support but which almost destroyed the private UK economy except for the intervention of the public sector which saved it from collapse.’
      I agree the current day Tory Party (more or less) agreed with the bank bailouts – I don’t speak for them. But it’s most certainly fair to say that the de facto nationalisation of the banks (or indeed anything) is an anathema to Tory political thinking. Who said Cameron was a true Tory anyway?
      You say it was “right wing deregulation” which caused the banking collapse – I say that’s nonsense and yet another fig leaf for the Left, which utterly refuses to ever be accountable for so much as one single error of judgement, ever. ‘Conceited’ doesn’t even begin to cover it.
      The Thatcher government partially deregulated the financial sector in 1985 – thirty years ago. We can argue about the efficacy of this; I say the UK (including the financial sector) was in an immeasurably better shape in 1997 than ever it was in 1979, so the empirical facts speak for themselves – you’re welcome to take issue with this.
      But what you cannot surely take issue with, is that IF there was something fundamentally wrong with the 1985 ‘Big Bang’ – don’t you think this would’ve manifested itself sooner than 30 years, especially through the ‘Lawson Boom’, which was actually quite a nasty recession? Of course the problem, from a governmental POV, was that Labour – in all its vanity and stupidity – was so desperate to be a radical, reforming party – that, among many other things, it decided to tear apart the entire regulatory regime and bodies of the City of London and replace it with a demonstrably useless, entirely new set of structures that were entirely of Gordon Brown’s design. It is this NEW structure’s total inability to regulate ‘the market’ and all the rapid changes in practices and technologies that it should have got to grips with that, coupled with a quite deliberate policy to reflate the UK economy by stimulating demand post 2001 by the BoE and Labour, that caused the problems. NOT the Tories 30 bloody years ago (besides all of this, even if that was the case, Labour had more than 10 years to fix things, with money aplenty, even if there was an issue!)
      I don’t blame Labour/left wing politics entirely for the banking crisis – in the final analysis this is down to banks and bankers. But I most certainly DO blame them for regulatory structural failures, and their lack of ability (in the face of greed and belief that the money train could go on funding the ever expanding public sector forever) to even understand what was going on, less still police it.

    46. Captain Caveman says:

      Of course, the credit consumer bubble deserves further mention. I don’t recall blank ‘cheques’ – quite literally – being posted through my letterbox pre 1997, saying ‘sign here, take to your bank branch and we will give you this money, you’ve been pre-approved’. But they most certainly were in 2005. Nor do I remember Carol Vordermann telling us all that 125% mortgages were awesome in the 80s or 90s either.
      I saw this one coming a mile off, yet now we’re all told by very eminent people that the financial crisis was ‘unforeseeable’. Yeah right, I’ll stick to engineering then 😉

    47. pa_broon74 says:

      I disagree.
      I well remember school (at 39) ours was the first year to do ‘O’ and standard grades, listening to young folk (I do voluntary work with 10 – 18 yo’s) its not easier, its just different. Exams have been shortened and diluted slightly in favour of course work (something Gove is currently trying to away with in England.) I think continual assessment is a good idea, it spreads the load and rules out a young person’s future being dashed because they had a bad day at the wrong time.
      I don’t buy into this (as you say) youth of today thing. Things are different, government is different, the EU is here (for better and worse.) Expectations are different, what you’re doing is comparing their expectations in the context in which you grew up – folk growing up can’t help but be swayed by their environment, be it good or bad. All sorts of things went on in the 70’s and 80’s that no longer do, I just don’t buy into the rose-tinted view of the past. The young folk I know work(ed) really hard for the exam results they got and going by what they were studying – it wasn’t dumbed down at all. Maths is the same, as is English and the sciences.
      As ever, its not perfect but nor is it the terrible pit of crapness adults who aren’t familiar with the context make it out to be. If I was 17 or 18, just bust  a gut getting the results I wanted only to listen to some old fart pour scorn on my efforts – I’d be pissed off and I’d probably want to point out that not every youth is character in a Daily Express opinion piece.
      As for habitual Labour voters, you definitely have a point there.

    48. Captain Caveman says:

      I respect your opinion, I really do. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me either – I should think every single person, to a man and woman, do so here of all places, in particular. That’s all fine with me – and of course, I accept I could be wrong.
      But in all seriousness, if you’re saying that examination difficulty has not been eroded over even the last 20 years, let alone a longer time period, then all I can say is I am utterly incredulous? I’ve brought up two girls and took a very active interest in their schooling, up to and including the content of their examinations, in very great detail.
      As regards coursework content, IMO Gove is utterly right to remove this. For far too long, kids with middle class parents who are stupid enough to do their homework for them and/or have internet access to purchase (or plagiarise) model material off the web (and/or private tutors to put stuff like this together) – have had a totally unfair advantage over poorer kids. Not to mention these parents more likely living in more affluent, ever more polarised “good school” areas, with effective PTAs with extra funding and the like, ever attracting all the better teachers.
      It’s unfortunate that some people can’t handle examinations but then life IS an exam. There’s no hiding place in the examination hall – you can either do the work or you can’t.

      None of this is the fault of the kids. It is we adults, as a collective, who are failing them, in all sorts of ways.

    49. joe kane says:

      Deregulating markets and the City of London is right-wing politics not left-wing.
      How anybody can blame the crimes of the City of London on socialism is beyond me.
      Unless, of course, you’re using the Daily Mail/Telegraph definition of socialism which claims the Labour Party and the BBC are over-run by marxists.
      It is unregulated free-market capitalism, which you whole-heartedly support, which caused the housing and banking crash not socialism. 

    50. Glessga says:

      Didn’t think there were that many Tories in Scotland as pictured. How many of them are from England?

    51. Captain Caveman says:

      “It is unregulated free-market capitalism, which you whole-heartedly support, which caused the housing and banking crash not socialism. “
      No. Absolutely and unequivocally.
      The banking crash was down to the fact that bankers – in large numbers – indulged in ludicrously risky, sometimes fraudulent practices that they had not done previously. But – and this is most important – they were allowed to do this (at least on a de facto basis) by the regulatory bodies of the day, which are of course governmental institutions. In the case of the City of London, the world’s most important financial centre, that government was Labour, and had been for fully 11 years at the time of the crash. That same Labour government which had, entirely of its own volition and design, torn down the previous banking regulatory structure (which on an empirical basis had worked up until 1997), and replaced it with demonstrably useless, ineffective, ineffectual systems and structures which clearly did not work. There can be no argument with any of this; these are a matter of pure, cold fact.
      So, it can be empirically demonstrated that the banking crisis was significantly due to a failure of regulation – and therefore governance – of the government of the day. Not the Tories.
      The reasons why this should be the case are, in hindsight, wholly clear also. It’s obvious that Labour – in stark contrast to the Tories that preceded them (and kept the City Slickers on a short leash) – did not understand the world of finance. In Gordon Brown there was that deadly combination – an entirely unjustified, King Canute like over-confidence (‘no more boom and bust’ etc.), coupled with demonstrable incompetence.
      If you don’t understand something, you can’t regulate it – “light touch” or otherwise. Make no mistake; these ‘financial products’ of c.2002 onwards were inordinately complex; most bankers did not understand them, let alone people in government. But ignorance is no excuse; it was incumbent on those within government to understand what was going on.
      In my job, I’m called upon to act as an Expert Witness in multi-million pound governmental litigation claims, and I also act for overseas governments. You can imagine the technical complexities of the things involved; I have to pore over box upon box of technical reports, calculations, notes, 3D environmental computer models and so on. However complex they are, I MUST get a total and complete understanding of them, however long that takes, and however much I have to deconstruct and go right back to first principles – including for all manner of highly polished looking environmental models and all the rest. If I cannot understand them, I have to find/employ someone who can. If I’m found wanting, either in the witness box or in my own correspondence, it’s my neck on the line. Ignorance is no excuse, regardless – “it was all so complex” would not cut any ice whatsoever.
      Now, multiply the importance by perhaps a billion or so, and you have the absolute need of the government and regulators of the day to have an absolute full, working understanding of what was going on in the banking sector. That they did not, is a matter of great regret and significance.
      By the way, I do not support “unregulated” free market capitalism – I support LOW (but crucially, effective and expert) regulation. There’s a big difference, just as I support a LOW tax economy but not a NO tax one. As empiricists, we can clearly see that what the Tories did with their partial derugulation and modernisation in 1985 was a resounding success – we went from basket case to economic powerhouse in 1997, and the ever-fortuitous Labour were very much the grateful beneficiaries of that repaired economy of 1997. If this reform was incorrect, it’s obvious that this would’ve manifested itself as some major financial failure or other during the 12 years of Tory government and regulation that followed, including through a major recession. That it absolutely did not, however, is proof-positive.
      Regardless though, if you think about it (and as I’ve said), it is utterly absurd to blame the Tories in 1985 for the financial crash that happened in 2008 in any event, some 23 years later for God’s sake, and as previously stated, after fully 11 years of the Labour government also at this time. Regardless of the empirical proof to the contrary (and the fact that Labour introduced an entirely new financial regulatory regime anyway etc.), if there really was something wrong with the Tories’ 1985 reforms – Labour had more than a decade to sort it. Can you imagine an MD of a large failed company telling the shareholders that, actually, the failure was down to one of his predecessors of 25 years back? I really don’t think so. No, this is, as I’ve said, yet another example of the Left’s refusal to ever be culpable (in their eyes) for anything, ever, such is their delusion and above all, conceit.
      As for me blaming socialism, well, it’s often said (again by the figleaf-bearing, conceited Left) that New Labour were ‘Tories’ or whatever (albeit funny they kept this schtum during all the ‘good years’, with Union leaders all clapping Tony Blair et al like the dullards they are). But, as a lifelong Tory, I don’t ever recall Tory policy being an unprecedented expansion of the Public Sector – with the aforementioned bank “profits” set to pay for them forever – and REAL jobs, most especially in industry (Rover et al) could go hang. This expansion of the Public Sector (and much, much else besides, from the equalization downwards and erosion of educational standards, vastly increased NHS spend with little to show for it, to mass immigration etc.) IS very much ‘socialism’ and not something that the Tories would ever have countenanced in a million years.

    52. Jiggsbro says:

      No. Absolutely and unequivocally…So, it can be empirically demonstrated that the banking crisis was significantly due to a failure of regulation
      So it absolutely and unequivocally wasn’t caused by unregulated free-market capitalism, but it was caused by unregulated free-market capitalism?

    53. Captain Caveman says:

      Did you read my post in its entirety? I’m not trotting through it all again, sorry.
      I don’t support unregulated capitalism, never have. IMO, the usual diversionary straw man nonsense.

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top