LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

Well obviously. Which is rather why they got the push.

I think everyone lets their biases show when it comes to politics and think ‘what’s needed to get votes is what’s needed to get my vote’.

Immigration seems to be an issue that gets a lot of people exorcised but I genuinely don’t believe “self-gender identification” ranks on the top 10 issues for very many people if at all. I know plenty of people find the whole thing baffling but it doesn’t seem to get anyone much really bothered. I really can’t see it being an election winner for anyone.

Governments don't direct the economy - at least not here. Labour or Conservative, it's not within their gift to turn an economy around. They can help or hinder a bit, but whether economy is growing or not is mostly the result of larger forces like a significant restriction in the oil supply or a pandemic. One of those in the UK is that, due to demographic shifts and the long tail of Covid, there are not enough economically active people to provide for the number of people who are economically inactive, at least to the level they have come to expect.

I know a lot of people are uncomfortable with the current level of immigration, but without that level of immigration we'd be in a much bigger hole rather than just ticking along. Despite the rhetoric, the Conservative party appear to know this. If people want to lower immigration, we're all going to have to work a lot harder.

As for gender recognition, we still have the same Act of Parliament in place that we had in 2005. There are no plans that I'm aware of to follow Scotland's approach, so there's no self-identification policy in England and Wales.

In years and decades gone by we have had better rates of growth without having the current levels of immigration, so you'll need demonstrate why these levels are now necessary.

Not sure what you mean, but I get the feeling that are doing what Labour are doing and trying to ignore the fact that this is an issue.

It doesn't really matter whether economic success can be significantly influenced by a govt it still reflects well on whoever is in power and allows them greater leeway to spend money on things that are popular with the electorate.

We didn't have so many economically inactive people to support then. Now 9m people plus another 13m over 65. Covid took a lot of people out of the workforce. The proportion of the population over 65 is continually increasing. At the same time the population under 16 is pretty much flat (recovering slightly after a fall over the previous decade).

Put the question the other way: if immigration is going to reduce, how do you fill the gap? You clearly want tax rates to reduce, but the first attempt to adjust a universal benefit (that was introduced as a short term gimmick by Brown) and your favourite party is howling about it as some sort of betrayal.

Governments don't really think long term, though. The results of any actions normally appear well after they have left office - look at the shortage of social housing which is the result of a policy from 40 years ago. The levers take decades to have an effect and nobody can sell 'vote for us, your grandkids might see the benefit if it works out'.

I'm not saying they have no impact, but I think it's far, far easier to make things worse (mini-budget, start a war) than better. For the economy to improve we need to become more productive or have access to some resource that we can extract and sell. Wind is probably our best bet unless we discover a pile of lithium. Planning reform will help a bit, but is still pretty marginal and will take decades to take effect.

Look the impact was huge. You can't tell me the decisions that government didn't have a gigantic impact on the economy of the country, both nationally but also across the individual towns and counties.

It's just nonsense the gov't can't do anything. What people really mean is that the political environment is such that it's hard to do the things that do have an impact.

I spend a lot of time in South Yorkshire - tell me gov't policy has not had a huge impact there over the last 50 years.

it's a mix

revenue from selling off public assets helped boost the economy, but the price is being paid now - bad

stop subsidizing (some) uncompetitive industries, brutal but needed doing - good

right to buy without ploughing revenue back into new stock - bad

pro eu with the determination to get a good deal - good

shaking up the city - pure good

reasonable degree of integrity, puts most since to shame - good

Exactly. Short term thinking for short term gain. You cannot claim the benefits without acknowledging the long term costs. Those costs may take time to materialise or become obvious but they will come.

Flip side is any government taking the long term view will probably be voted out on the basis of costs before the benefits are felt.

Think your first two completely ignore the 5 year cycle.

An agreement to stop strikes? How could that possibly work without removing the right to strike?

Adult education is easily a 5 year+ project

I think Osbourne's austerity shows that with the correct PR governments can continue to get votes for policies where any potential benefit would be long term.

I suppose if the effects are slight, as in nothing much happens, then any party can continue. I'm struggling to see the long term benefits of austerity though.