Grammatical correction to the last post but one.

It is either "socialist" or "liberal" or it is socialist or liberal. It isn't socialist or "liberal."

Dick Gaughan eh? Fine guitarist and wonderful singer but daft as a brush when it comes to politics. Mind you, a few years ago when arguing the toss with him over a drink when we booked him, he made my day by saying "If the English want their independence, let them have it."

Achmelvich, it isn't a case of insulting opponents of any camp, it's the blind bollocks from either side. Bridge and Terribulus are poles apart but exuding the same level of intelligence in their posts, which if nothing else is entertaining, but take either of the buggers seriously?

Corbyn is, in my opinion, a useful wake up for politics and cracks the consensus in Westminster down the middle, so a few years with him at the despatch box might be a good thing for the country, but if the reason for the Parliamentary Labour Party existing is to convince the electorate they are fit to govern, they're buggered. Cooper acknowledges aspiration, Burnham can be pragmatic but neither are statesmen, neither have a clear vision, and through curiosity, I have read their stances.

Corbyn has nothing to offer the twenty first century and globalisation of economies. The thing is, most on here are too old to recognise that. They think government is something to do with Westminster and parochialism. Fine, have social policies for spending GDP within The UK, but thinking you can dictate national wealth? Err.. In case you didn't notice, it is our international standing that prevents us being Greece, not our stewardship of The Elgin Marbles. We don't have an empire, we have trade and cooperation.