Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #5 - Leaders Debate Two

[TheDon]

The fact that YOUR strict atheist position forbids others, even those close to you dabbling in religion, does not mean that other areas of their life are not more open.

We're getting off topic, but, I'm pretty sure most atheists don't forbid others from dabbling in religion, I certainly don't. It's their own personal choice. Which is my point, if you're of the opinion there's no God why would you be willing to take away that choice from people? I'm just highly cynical over someone who doesn't believe in God yet raises his children as Catholics anyway.

There's really no need to create an atheist party as religious beliefs shouldn't play a part in politics anyway.

[Gringo]

The fact that YOUR strict atheist position forbids others, even those close to you dabbling in religion, does not mean that other areas of their life are not more open.

We're getting off topic, but, I'm pretty sure most atheists don't forbid others from dabbling in religion, I certainly don't. It's their own personal choice. Which is my point, if you're of the opinion there's no God why would you be willing to take away that choice from people? I'm just highly cynical over someone who doesn't believe in God yet raises his children as Catholics anyway.

There's really no need to create an atheist party as religious beliefs shouldn't play a part in politics anyway.

Who brought up religion?

[snowychap]

Wow thanks for pointing that out for me as I couldn't work it out for myself!

So why the nonsense of your post?

What is your problem? more pathetic inane insults!

Where?

I don't see any insults let alone 'more pathetic inane' ones.

I asked why the nonsense of your previous post as you used Tony's agreement with someone else's (TheDon's) point of view to go off on an anti-Tory rant (most of which was undoubtedly meant to be just a go at Tony).

You are obviously not the sharpest tool in the box...

What was that about 'more insults'?

There is a smear campaign currently being waged against Nick Clegg which is being led by the desperate Tory press and Tory voters. The rubbish that was being said about Clegg is typical of that smear campaign so I related it to the main perpetrators. And the person who was bowing down to this drivel was a Tory voter, if I am not mistaken so the only nonsense is being spouted yet again by you.

And yet the original comment was made by a labour voter who also, though I stand to be corrected by TheDon, has said he was tempted to vote Lib Dem. So, I can only see that you saw another opportunity to have a go at Tories (and one poster in particular) by aligning what a labour voter had said with 'Tory' propaganda and smears.

So rather than posting sarcastic rubbish, please try and address the actual issue of what I have said as I then may be able to take you seriously!

I really don't think you are interested in 'issues', you appear to just want to throw mud at anyone who might want you not to litter this thread with partisan rubbish.

You are just showing yourself up again as you did with your personal attack on me over hunting. It is all rather sad really!

I didn't 'attack' you, I asked you a question.

[tonyh29]

as religious beliefs shouldn't play a part in politics anyway

it's kinda ironic that we are trying to convince Afghanistan to have secular systems rather than those based on Islamic fundamentalism

and yet i don't think we would allow the same thing in the UK

[TheDon]

The fact that YOUR strict atheist position forbids others, even those close to you dabbling in religion, does not mean that other areas of their life are not more open.

We're getting off topic, but, I'm pretty sure most atheists don't forbid others from dabbling in religion, I certainly don't. It's their own personal choice. Which is my point, if you're of the opinion there's no God why would you be willing to take away that choice from people? I'm just highly cynical over someone who doesn't believe in God yet raises his children as Catholics anyway.

There's really no need to create an atheist party as religious beliefs shouldn't play a part in politics anyway.

Who brought up religion?

I dunno. Someone that wasn't me!

I don't care that it's about religion, as the subject is irrelevant to the point being made, which is that he believes one thing, yet is willing to go along with something that entirely contradicts it.

[NulliSecundus]

BTW I wondered what made Boulton bring up Clegg being on the front page of the telegraph .. seemed a clear bias there

I picked up on that, he didn't question anyone else of course! I hate Sky News, I though the ITV one was ran much better which is saying something because I don't like them normally either!!

Anyway, Lib Dem for me.

[OutByEaster?]

I dunno. Someone that wasn't me!

I don't care that it's about religion, as the subject is irrelevant to the point being made, which is that he believes one thing, yet is willing to go along with something that entirely contradicts it.

I suppose it's about the effect of what he allows. If he sees a catholic upbringing (under his watchful eye) as harmless and he compromises by speaking with his children about belief and ensuring they keep an open mind, then it's not entirely contradictory.

It's different for example to being against gun ownership but allowing the kids to have one, that'd be an immediate danger.

Religion for kids is mostly just about common sense rules and odd stories and in the most likely scenario there'll be no harm done and possibly some good before they discard it as they get older.

It's not a clear subject anyway I guess as all families are essentially mad and to try to persuade anyone that you'll be good at running a country because you're good at getting the kids to brush their teeth seems somehow silly - I guess it resonates with politicians though as they're all at it.

[snowychap]

Malcolm Tucker's election briefing.

Squeak, squeak: that's Cam's arse crack

Ah! This is it. This is it, big man. All is flux! The world is being made anew! What bliss it is to watch the Tories freak their nutbags. And **** bliss to be out there spinning their crumble.

It's happening! The polls they are a-moving. Clegg is getting a Full Monty monstering. Jim Murdoch's gone nut-nut. Peter M's doing 50/50 giving the campaign CPR and building you a coffin with a lid strong enough to host a Miliband Minipops dance-off Viking funeral. People are shitting breeze blocks. I heard half of Tory research spent a quarter of a news cycle on Lib-bashing material producing an attack sheet on the spending record of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and an anti-Asquith poster with "Spotty Record, Herbert?" as their killer line.

It's Fergie's squeaky bum time. And in the cavernous valley of Cameron's arse crack, all is flux! It's the time when you look down the barrel of 12 days straight of this and ask yourself the question: do you really want it? Have you got a bag of nails for a stomach and a tracker poll for a heartbeat? Or are you just a PR man who imagined himself on to TV? Are you the ape that got lucky? Or are you a bollock-grabbing man-beast?

See, I've been here before. I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Attack lines on fire in the hand of a Clinton. I've watched worm polls dive near Notting Hill Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like piss down the pipehole. But it's time for "change" to die. It's time to pop open a party bag of adrenal glands and start munching.

Now, the great thing for us as this shit gets increasingly real is the focus the debates give. I'm a massive fan. They give us a much needed chance to get away from the issues. The actual policies. As you know I've never been so much of a policy man. Obviously you need them: they're brilliant, I imagine, most of ours. But they are very lumpen. Very black and white. Very "we're actually going to do this".

What I prefer is a little nugget you can pimp. A fragment that gives a flavour. But can be easily binned in the face of a hostile reaction to a bit of kite flying. That's what's been so enjoyable about Cam's Big Society. It has all the drawbacks of being a big boring over-reaching idea while also lacking any appealing policy protein. It suggests that the City on the Hill the Tories want to build is actually an inflatable castle. With a £45 entry fee. And once you're in, you have to blow the bastard up yourself.

Media: Obviously the perfect storm for us is that the Klegon attack vessel maintains its surge, but only up to a point. So it pushes a Becks bottle into the face of the Tories, but stops short of stamping on our heads on the pavement. What I'd classify as a good clean fight. In this regard it felt fortunate on Thursday not to be living in a full democracy. More of a Berlusconi's Italy situation. The Sun poll giving the debate to Cameron was a nice touch but a little too much for a purist like myself.

But look into the final fortnight, as the polls shift you're going to get a lot of feelings. Endorphins smashing through your noggin like a cocaine supernova due to a 1% shift in who Bromsgrove swing voters would trust most in the event of a shortage of sea bream. Long suicidal nights of depression as we get private indications that Lexus drivers in Hastings are starting to favour Clegg's views on Joe Cole's ability to play "in the hole". In this regard I have a quotation to help you, from my soon to be released Little Book of Getting Your Shit Back Together After You've Broken Some Skinny ****'s Nose for Bringing You News You Didn't Need to Hear Right Now: "It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope."

See, right now what you must learn to do is meet those two imposters just the same and hack them both to pieces and feed them into the meat-rendering machine – and eat the slurry for breakfast. Onwards!

Regards, Malcolm.

[leviramsey]

PR could also lead to an ideal scenario (in my opinion) of giving more independent candidates a voice, instead of having politics divided by old tribal lines, which is only a detriment to everyone involved.

PR generally tends to accrue power to party bosses (since most systems rely at least partially on party lists) which if anything would make things more tribal. In comparison to the Westminster system in practice there may not be much difference.

[leviramsey]

realize

:D

[leviramsey]

I thought compromise was a middle solution. Bringing up his kids as Catholic doesn't seem like a middle solution to me, it seems like one of submission not compromise, seeing as the other party is getting exactly what they wanted, and you are not.

I just don't see how an atheist could ever accept that religious indoctrination is "what is best for their kids". Letting the kids decide when they are old enough, and if they want to be bought up religious going along with that, fine, but making the decision for them?

We don't know what the pro quo was for the quid, do we, and that is surely part of the compromise.

On the second point, if his wife said, "I'm leaving you unless the kids get baptized, confirmed, etc." then I'd say it's quite possible that going along with that is the best decision for the kids (given that there is a body of research that indicates that children of divorces are worse off than children whose parents stay together, though to be fair there is a bit of controversy there).

[leviramsey]

What is your problem? more pathetic inane insults! You are obviously not the sharpest tool in the box so I will try and explain it to you in words of as few syllables as possible.

There is a smear campaign currently being waged against Nick Clegg which is being led by the desperate Tory press and Tory voters. The rubbish that was being said about Clegg is typical of that smear campaign so I related it to the main perpetrators. And the person who was bowing down to this drivel was a Tory voter, if I am not mistaken so the only nonsense is being spouted yet again by you.

So rather than posting sarcastic rubbish, please try and address the actual issue of what I have said as I then may be able to take you seriously! You are just showing yourself up again as you did with your personal attack on me over hunting. It is all rather sad really!

Chill out, spark a bowl, and have a nice veal parmagiana.

[snowychap]

realize

:D

Wot's wrong with that? :winkold:

Yes, sometimes I am inconsistent but I have been trying to be better in using the '-ize' spelling where it is appropriate (i.e. in most cases).

Force of habit (i.e. most of my life) spelling things '-ise' just because it's not American means that I do tend to err, though.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

Chill out, spark a bowl

Done

I am not English but I watched a Cameron interview on BBC International yesterday and he seems to be quite shifty and nervous in his style as opposed to Brown's catatonic , coma inducing manner. He seemed to have vague , no specific responses to specific questions by the interviewer(Some blonde guy with an extremely sarcastic expression on his face).

The American election was more interesting though . Lots more mudslinging and controversy to spice up things.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

:shock:

[momo]

I have a question. Why is it that the Liberal Democrats gets so few seats compared to the others if they achieve this result?

Last night a batch of new polls pointed again to a hung parliament. An ICM survey in the Sunday Telegraph placed the Conservatives on 35% (+2), the Liberal Democrats on 31% (+1) and Labour on 26% (-2), giving the Tories around 284 seats, Labour 232 and the Lib Dems 102.

From the Guardian

[OutByEaster?]

It's a first past the post system momo, so if you have five seats and a million people and the votes go like this:

Seat 1. La. 100,000 Co, 30,000 Li 70,000

Seat 2. La. 30,000 Co. 100,000 Li 70,000

Seat 3. La 80,000 Co. 50,000 Li 70,000

Seat 4 La 20,000 Co. 100,000 Li 80,000

Seat 5. La 70,000 Co. 67,000 Li 63,000

The Lib Dems would get no seats despite picking up more votes than either of the other parties. I'm guessing that the figures are for the total vote and then the seats are worked out individually.

[momo]

Aha....Thanks, OBE. A bit weird system, but I understand it now.

[Demitri_C]

Excuse me, I find that comment highly insulting as you know full well that I am a long-standing vegetarian. Would you tell a Jew to go and have a nice juicy pork sausage or tell a Muslim to have a nice juicy pork chop? I doubt it very much so why do you have to say something like that? If you have any decency then I expect a public apology. Thank you.

my god relax he was only joking

gotta love these politics threads always end up heated...

vote greens i say then everyones happy :-)

[drat01]

Tory plan to have top up fees for nursery places

More basic privileges for those with money?