How many leaders did the tories get through after Major and before golden bollox Camoron turned up?

I've a feeling that once the middle classes see the real consequence of Osbornomics, a chimp in an M&S suit could probably stand a good chance of winning a majority

You're flattering Osborne by tagging his "policies" with a name, I have this vision of him on the phone most evenings to his University professors saying "Could you just run through that first year lecture on sleight of hand distraction techniques with particular regard to fiscal planning again please"

It's pure revisionism to pin the blame for Labour's abandonment of core socialist principles upon Blair because the truth is the party did that NEARLY FIFTY YEARS AGO when Harold Wilson was elected. All Blair did was arrange for a skip to be placed outside of Party HQ so the last scraps of tattered credibility remaining could be hawked before selling out fully.

You can't even consider Labour a socialist party. Even in its heydey (which was before the war) it was only ever a bulwark against [iactual socialism[/i breaking out in Britain. Once WWII ended and the electorate received its payoff for five years of war misery (the NHS) it didn't take long before they were falling back on all their commitments (something these "moral men" claimed only TORIES indulged in). This Labour party has spent more years reneging on its promises than it did MAKING those promises.

Part of Labour's problem is that they think everyone who voted UKIP is a 'wasist' and in the process write off their chances of every gaining back these people to vote for them.

Corbyn only appeals to a small proportion of hardcore lefties who live in some sort of delusion that if he says the right things some imaginary switch will be flicked in the UK electorate and everyone will vote for him. It's just not going to happen.

I have reported your post (and your previous posts) which are clearly aimed at destroying and disrupting discussion on the forum.

You've changed your tune.

The thing is PMQ is not reflective of the bulk of parliamentary business, it is an hour of pantomime once a week, serious government decisions are not made on the back of it. It's more like the annual shareholders meeting of a big company where the chairman and CEO spout corporate bollox and beat their chests about how macho they've been/plan to be cutting costs or sticking it to the competition. At those public meetings the execs have to present a macho super confident front for fear the business press and institutional investors present will view them as hesitant or unclear.

Institutional investors do not attend shareholders meetings. They know its corporate bollox. They have separate briefing sessions with the company.

PMQs is probably a bit more important because its one of the ways that the public form a view on the competence of the PM and Leader of the Opposition. IDS never recovered from his terrible performances at PMQs. But the public form their opinion based on the soundbites shown on the evening news. Not on the intellectual superiority of the arguments.