Election 2010 - Con/Lib Government [Archive]

MoogleViper

06-04-2010, 11:55 AM

To make sure Labour dont get back in?

Yeah that's a great reason to vote.

"Labour is shit, vote for tories."
*tories get in*
"tories are shit, vote for labour"
*labour gets in*
/rinse and repeat

Yeah that's been working great for us so far. Maybe one day when the vast majority of fuckwits that inhabit this country actually wise up and realise that there's more than just 2 parties in the running and don't just blindly follow the Sun/Daily Mail/idiot rag of choice, maybe then we can actually begin to consider possibly thinking about having someone in power who isn't a slimy, corrupt moron. But until then lets all vote for the Tories, after all things were much better back when they were in power.

"David shall we tell people how we're going to improve the economy and make things better for people?"
"No lets just post massive pictures of Brown's ugly face and write about how shit he was. Ignorant retards will sure to vote for us then."

danny

06-04-2010, 12:00 PM

Yeah that's a great reason to vote.

"Labour is shit, vote for tories."
*tories get in*
"tories are shit, vote for labour"
*labour gets in*
/rinse and repeat

Yeah that's been working great for us so far. Maybe one day when the vast majority of fuckwits that inhabit this country actually wise up and realise that there's more than just 2 parties in the running and don't just blindly follow the Sun/Daily Mail/idiot rag of choice, maybe then we can actually begin to consider possibly thinking about having someone in power who isn't a slimy, corrupt moron. But until then lets all vote for the Tories, after all things were much better back when they were in power.

"David shall we tell people how we're going to improve the economy and make things better for people?"
"No lets just post massive pictures of Brown's ugly face and write about how shit he was. Ignorant retards will sure to vote for us then."

You are the bigest type of fuckwit in this country. The sort that will slag people of for using there choice how they wish. If people wish to vote for anyone that is there choice and they cant be wrong for doing so that is democracy. I dont think the torys represent me brilliantly. But there is not a party that i think does it better than they do either. But i think labour should be punished just for having no honour at all. If anyone sticks there hands up and says we did this and we either made a mess of it or we stand by it then that is fair enough. But to lie about and try and cover it up is shocking.

Happenstance

06-04-2010, 12:08 PM

dwarf gourami

06-04-2010, 12:09 PM

Every other party would have done the same.

The thing is, whether you like it or not, Lib Dem supporters will usually vote for Labour/Conservatives because they adopt the 'we won't win so lets vote for the one I prefer' policy.

A big problem I find is that our country is full of blithering dweebs that watch X-Factor and join hellishly dumb and awful Facebook groups who have no idea about how they should vote.

MoogleViper

06-04-2010, 12:17 PM

You are the bigest type of fuckwit in this country. The sort that will slag people of for using there choice how they wish. If people wish to vote for anyone that is there choice and they cant be wrong for doing so that is democracy. I dont think the torys represent me brilliantly. But there is not a party that i think does it better than they do either. But i think labour should be punished just for having no honour at all. If anyone sticks there hands up and says we did this and we either made a mess of it or we stand by it then that is fair enough. But to lie about and try and cover it up is shocking.

Yes I know it's a democracy, and I know people have their own choice. But when the vast majority of retards in this country seem incapable of actually using their brain and making their own minds up, and instead simply regurgitate whatever they read in the tabloids, well then we may as well just see which party has the most media support and give it to them.

Also unless you are a very high earner then I can't see how the tories will benefit you the most. (Although if you're willing then please explain to me.)

I can't understand how the Lib Dem's policy of 0 income tax on the first 10k of earning isn't incredibly popular with the vast majority of people. Wait what's that? They're going to stop the very wealthy from benefiting from tax loop holes? Wait who owns the tabloid news papers again?

Also you say that Labour should be punished. How exactly should they be punished? And you seriously think the tories won't ever cover anything up?

chairdriver

06-04-2010, 12:25 PM

I'm voting Green.

Everyone take this test (http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/). Interestingly, the majority of people choose Green party policies.

Nicktendo

06-04-2010, 12:38 PM

Labour +1.

Tories can suck a fat one, Lib Dems are not economically left enough to get my vote and, as mentioned, are all for cuts. Voting for anyone else will assist the Tories.

Democracy fail.

/Thread contribution.

will'

06-04-2010, 12:41 PM

My political viewpoint is most certainly to the right and in all previous elections that I've been eligible for I've voted Conservative. This time I'm not so sure. It actually seems like smaller parties will have a good chance to make up a good proportion of parliament this time so I'm going to look into everything and see who best represents me.

First stop the test from chairdriver...

Debug Mode

06-04-2010, 12:44 PM

Fuck the big three, I don't feel like I can trust any of them, they just seem like corrupt ass holes who promise a whole lotta good and you end up regretting it. UKIP is getting my vote.

EDIT: 50% UKIP and 50% BNP according to that test.. noice

MoogleViper

06-04-2010, 12:48 PM

I'm voting Green.

Everyone take this test (http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/). Interestingly, the majority of people choose Green party policies.

* BNP 62.50%
* Lib Dems 12.50%
* Labour 12.50%
* Green Party 12.50%

Although the immigration was Labour.

Still I'll be voting Lib Dems.

Paj!

06-04-2010, 12:50 PM

I'm voting Green.

Everyone take this test (http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/). Interestingly, the majority of people choose Green party policies.

It gave me 50% Green Party, 50% Labour.

I have no idea what is going on in the world of politics at the moment...last time I did was almost 3 years ago, when I did Modern Studies/Politics at school.

chairdriver

06-04-2010, 12:55 PM

I have no idea what is going on in the world of politics at the moment...last time I did was almost 3 years ago, when I did Modern Studies/Politics at school.

You just have to know about the expenses scandal, that's the only thing anyone ever talks about... :wink:

* BNP 62.50%

Although the immigration was Labour.

Yeah, this is where that test falls down, because as the end of the day, I hate being associated with racists, even if some of their other policies are good*.

* That's a hypothetical "are" - I hate all BNP's policies. Re-introduction of corporal punishment? No thanks.

MoogleViper

06-04-2010, 01:14 PM

Yeah, this is where that test falls down, because as the end of the day, I hate being associated with racists, even if some of their other policies are good*.

* That's a hypothetical "are" - I hate all BNP's policies. Re-introduction of corporal punishment? No thanks.

TBF I didn't take the test all too seriously, and would vote for a set of policies based on just one.

McPhee

06-04-2010, 01:16 PM

Just remember your ABCs, kids. Anyone But Conservatives.

Amen to that. To be fair to them though, get rid of Willian Hague as Shadow Foreign Minister and they don't have a bad party. Same could be said of Labour with Brown though I guess...

You are the bigest type of fuckwit in this country. The sort that will slag people of for using there choice how they wish. If people wish to vote for anyone that is there choice and they cant be wrong for doing so that is democracy. I dont think the torys represent me brilliantly. But there is not a party that i think does it better than they do either. But i think labour should be punished just for having no honour at all. If anyone sticks there hands up and says we did this and we either made a mess of it or we stand by it then that is fair enough. But to lie about and try and cover it up is shocking.

So your whole vote is based on a hatred of the PM and the belief that all parties are equally shit? So you choose to vote for the Tories? And you think that is an effective Democracy? To me that simply says that the democratic system in this country isn't working.

Must we really have yet another government that gets elected by appealing to voters discontent with the current government? Why can't we have one that is actually putting a message of change out there? One that is focussing on what it can do for the country rather than what the current government aren't doing right? I'm not sure that the Liberal Democrats are the right choice, but I'm definitely swinging that way. Voting is a choice, not a pub-quiz where you need to guess the next party in power correctly. If you actually believe going from a Labour government to a Tory government is the most positive move this country can have then you have my respect, it's not my place to tell people how to vote. However, I really hope that every Tory vote is actually for the Tories and not just against Labour, otherwise the people of this country are handing their Democracy away for yet another 4 years.

Retro_Link

06-04-2010, 01:22 PM

I'll be voting Labour.

I don't trust the Conservatives and especially policyless Cameron one inch! Slimey bastard!

Raining_again

06-04-2010, 01:23 PM

political policies really hurt my head.

I did the test and got 3/4s BNP. Surprising.

Not that I can even vote specifically for the bnp anyways :indeed:

I'll just vote for a party that supports catholics and protestants living together peacefully.

flameboy

06-04-2010, 01:23 PM

I cannot fathom how anybody with an ounce of intelligence can consider voting for either Labour or Tory.

Same here...I've always voted LibDem and just wish more people would so we don't have to have a labour or tory government but meh don't reckon that will happen.

Haden

06-04-2010, 01:34 PM

Have always voted Labour will probably do so again but I am unsure. I was a big fan of Blair but have been dissapointed with Brown some basic stuff like lowering the VAT didn't make sense to me. I also don't think he is a good leader on the world stage. On the other hand who else would I vote for?

I live in Surrey so Labour have no chane in hell but if Brown does well in the Leader debates I think I will vote for him.

Retro_Link

06-04-2010, 01:42 PM

I'll be voting Labour.

I don't trust the Conservatives and especially policyless Cameron one inch! Slimey bastard!Strike that!

I'll be voting Lib Dem.

Living in a Lib Dem/Conservative area it's absolutely pointless voting Labour, so I'll be voting Lib Dem (with Labour in mind), so the Conservatives don't get the seat.

Serebii

06-04-2010, 01:49 PM

Vote for me, I couldn't possibly do worse than the others :p

Cube

06-04-2010, 01:49 PM

After him slapping his face on the billboard at my train station (so I have to stare at him every morning), I will definitely not be voting for David Cameron.

Nicktendo

06-04-2010, 01:54 PM

Undecided, here's part one of the debate...

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/ask-the-chancellors/4od#3052871

McPhee

06-04-2010, 02:06 PM

I'm voting Green.

Everyone take this test (http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/). Interestingly, the majority of people choose Green party policies.

60% Lib Dems, 20% Tory, 20% Green for me. Weirdly chose the Green's policy on Europe and the Tories' on Enviroment. Economy, Democracy and Education were all Lib Dem policies. I didn't bother going through policies on the other topics, they aren't ones that matter much to me personally.

danny

06-04-2010, 02:29 PM

Yes I know it's a democracy, and I know people have their own choice. But when the vast majority of retards in this country seem incapable of actually using their brain and making their own minds up, and instead simply regurgitate whatever they read in the tabloids, well then we may as well just see which party has the most media support and give it to them.

Also unless you are a very high earner then I can't see how the tories will benefit you the most. (Although if you're willing then please explain to me.)

I can't understand how the Lib Dem's policy of 0 income tax on the first 10k of earning isn't incredibly popular with the vast majority of people. Wait what's that? They're going to stop the very wealthy from benefiting from tax loop holes? Wait who owns the tabloid news papers again?

Also you say that Labour should be punished. How exactly should they be punished? And you seriously think the tories won't ever cover anything up?

I do understand what you say my grandma would still vote labour if gordon brown hung a man from every second lamp post. But thats her choice. I just dont like it when people resort to name calling on the issue.

The lib dems just seem very wishy washy to me. Its a month to the election and i still dont really know what there policys are. I came home after being away for 5 weeks and i could barely open my door for leaflets from labour and the torys. I havent had one leaflet from them. Dosent seem like they are that arsed. Also i think its very easy for them to make claims for thwat they will and wont do money wise. As they know theres no way they will ever have to do it. (or not at this election anyway).

Well i just d not think this labour govenment has any buisness being in govenment anymore. I am not a closed book to ever voting labour. But i have no respect for any of higher members of the labour partys. the party should be punished by being pushed out of govenment and being forced to chnge there leadership in my opinion.

The torys may cover things up. As of the partys might but the difference is that labour have. And the trys probably have in the past. But if there are any members of the party still left its will only b a few not like the many in the labour party.
I just dont think someone wh can go to an inquiry in to the death of hundreds of servicemen and women and lie in front of there families and the nation is a man that should be leading the country. On that fact alone it is my belief the labour party should have disowned him.
Tony blair went to the inquiry said we got things wrong but i still think it was right thing to do. You cant fault tony blair for that. But to lie in front of the families ofdead people at a public inquiry just shows he has no honour at all.

So your whole vote is based on a hatred of the PM and the belief that all parties are equally shit? So you choose to vote for the Tories? And you think that is an effective Democracy? To me that simply says that the democratic system in this country isn't working.

Yeah hatred and the incopetance of the labour party for keeping such a man as leader of there party. If they think its ok for him to do such things then they shoudnt be in power.
Also i dont think the govenment has done enough to fight imigration at all. it is my belief there should be some kind of annual cap.

The fish

06-04-2010, 02:59 PM

My 2 cents will find there way on to this thread later, but two things quickly: contrary to the other two recent new threads, I will certainly not be agreeing with Danny, and, secondly, nice to see a decent amount of Lib Dem support around here. :)

Zell

06-04-2010, 03:16 PM

I'm in the Buckingham constituency and will most certainly be voting for the Speaker, John Bercow. He has served this constituency exceptionally well over the past thirteen years and I'm very happy for him for his election as Speaker.

At first I was going to transfer my vote over to the constituency where I live at university since I thought people did not stand against the Speaker. However now that twats like Nigel Farage and some BNP bint are running against him, it looks like I'm going to have to vote for Bercow to make sure he gets re-elected.

Ellmeister

06-04-2010, 03:25 PM

Why does that voteforpolocies website not work for me! Dammit.

Can someone tell me what Lib Dems would actually do if they got to power, because I sure as hell struggle to find that out.

Pancake

06-04-2010, 03:39 PM

I've not decided yet. I've yet to do my full research. The problem i have, is that it's always going to be somewhat of a blind vote. For every claim a party makes, the other parties accuse them of lying, or find holes in their policies. And how the hell are you as a civillian really ever going to know what's going on behind closed doors? Every time i hear a policy from a party that sounds good, another party is laying down why it won't work. And so on and so forth...
So it's just hard to vote with much conviction i find... i don't trust any of them. But of course i'll choose the least repulsive party in the end, and hope for the best.

ipaul

06-04-2010, 03:43 PM

So I might be voting Liberal.... I like them the most out of the main parties but in my constituency that vote is completely wasted. I have the fun of living in a marginal constituency, which has voted with the country on maybe every election back to 1974? So if I am going to 'waste' my vote, I'm thinking I may as well vote Green.

Gizmo

06-04-2010, 04:03 PM

Raining_again

06-04-2010, 04:07 PM

Gizmo

06-04-2010, 04:23 PM

That quiz was really helpful for me, considering I got

* Labour 25.00%
* UKIP 25.00%
* Conservatives 25.00%
* Lib Dems 25.00%

So other than the rascists and the eco-mentalists, I agree with bits of everything.

McPhee

06-04-2010, 04:39 PM

The lib dems just seem very wishy washy to me. Its a month to the election and i still dont really know what there policys are. I came home after being away for 5 weeks and i could barely open my door for leaflets from labour and the torys. I havent had one leaflet from them.

Have you ever wondered how much it costs to canvas the country with these leaflets? Or where that money comes from? Labour essentially get their blank cheque from the Unions and the Tories get it from peers like Lord Ashcroft. The lack of such canvassing from smaller parties is simply down to the fact that they can't afford it. They can't secure huge backing because they are unlikely to get in to power and thus any large financial backers are unlikely to get any return on their investment.

Can someone tell me what Lib Dems would actually do if they got to power, because I sure as hell struggle to find that out.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/PDF/Pocket%20Guide%20March%202010.pdf

That's the brief outline, with more specific details available on their site. It's not ordered in a "strongest policies first" way though, so you pretty much have to read the whole thing to get a measure of what they plan on a national scale.

Jimbob

06-04-2010, 04:39 PM

Well, i won't be voting for Labour. If it wasn't for them, i'd still be in full-time work earning mega-bucks. Plus i never vote for Labour anyway.

gaggle64

06-04-2010, 04:47 PM

The BBC News website also has an "Election 2010" section up now, including bite size summations of each party's policies for your easy consumption-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8515961.stm#subject=key&col1=conservative&col2=labour&col3=libdem

Supergrunch

06-04-2010, 05:22 PM

I got a bit of everything on that quiz also (although no BNP :heh:), although it turns out I love the UKIP education policy, which suprises me. I'm not so keen on their views on Europe, however...

Anyway, I have a bit of a problem because I want to vote for neither Conservative nor Labour, yet am not totally enamoured with the Lib Dems either. However, if voting based on constituency (which is what you're supposed to do), then I like the look of them, although my constituency is a permanent Lib Dem seat anyway. I basically want lots of educational reform along the lines of UKIP, including an increase in vocational courses and reduction of academic ones. The problem, however, is that I also think the academic higher eduction that remains needs a much better distribution of funding, less along the use-based lines in which it seems to be heading, and I doubt UKIP are hugely for that. Furthermore, I want us to stay in Europe (with certain reservations) and have very liberal immigration policies.

I'd like a hung parliament, to be honest. :heh:

ReZourceman

06-04-2010, 06:05 PM

Which party is Cameron? Am I a bad person for wanting him to win?

chairdriver

06-04-2010, 06:12 PM

Which party is Cameron? Am I a bad person for wanting him to win?

Conservatives. Also known as the "Tory" party.

As their name suggests, they essentially want to keep things the same - as in, keep the rich rich, and keep schools running the way they were in the past, frown upon gays and people that aren't married etc etc.

Obviously that's a really facile summary, but essentially they're the people NOT to vote for if you are liberal / aren't particularly rich.

So yeah, you should probs vote for Lib Dems - they're the most realistic, since everyone hates Labour atm - or Green, if you're interested in telling a joke.

UKIP has things to tell too, but I hate the pointless self-removal from the EU. Why burn bridges? I'd prefer to be in the bosom of all the essential countries of the world.

Dannyboy-the-Dane

06-04-2010, 06:12 PM

Supergrunch

06-04-2010, 06:27 PM

The test doesn't work for me, either, so I can't find out which party represents my views the most. In general I'm a liberal socialist, meaning I believe in the freedom of the people as well as a large public sector.

As far as I can gather from this thread, it seems like the UK voting system follows the American voting system somewhat in that votes are "lost" because of the way total votes are counted. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Try refreshing the test a few times, that made it work for me.

And yep, it's a little like the American system but not quite as bad. Parliament (or more specifically, the House of Commons) is split into around 650 seats (it was 646 for the last general election, not sure how many it'll be for this one), each of which represents a geographical area, known as a constituency. Each party then puts forward candidates for each seat, and you vote for the candidate you want for your constituency, although in practice people instead tend to vote based on the government that they want. The winning candidate in each constituency then gets a seat in parliament, representing their party. After all constituencies have been counted, the party with the majority of seats wins - with a majority, any proposal can be put through parliament as they have the majority of the vote. If there's no majority, then you get what's called a hung parliament, and things all get more complicated.

So yes, many constituencies are, say, invariably Labour, and so if you're in that constituency and vote Conservative but Labour still get in, your vote will have no influence on the overall result of the election, though it will of course unsuccessfully influence the choice of candidate for your constituency.

Dannyboy-the-Dane

06-04-2010, 07:05 PM

Right, that's what I gathered as well. I hate that system. I'm happy that we have a more direct democracy in Denmark: We can vote for local politicians or simply for the party we support, but in any case the vote ultimately goes to the party and is thus never lost.

Jimbob

06-04-2010, 07:16 PM

Just did the test, and based on my results i should be voting for Labour.

I only did what the test asked me to do, which was to click on the policies i agree on and not the party. According to the survey, i'm Pro-Conservative on Crime, Labour on Economy, Lib Dem on Environment and Labour on NHS/Healthcare.

Still, Elections in my eyes means we can finally get our say on who we want to run Britain. No vote, no say really.

ReZourceman

06-04-2010, 07:30 PM

I wish I could run for Priminster.

MoogleViper

06-04-2010, 07:52 PM

I wish I could run for Priminster.

I hope this is a shit pun that I don't get.

ReZourceman

06-04-2010, 07:58 PM

Afraid not. I'd like to have a shot at it. :)

Raining_again

06-04-2010, 08:08 PM

We'll let him run for priminster, if the title even existed...

Is that one of your comic book heros? ;)

Coolness Bears

06-04-2010, 08:27 PM

Unfortunately I'm not politically wise in anyway.

If someone asked me to vote for them and offered me a plate of biscuits, I'd go with that.

It's scary how easily influenced I am by food! :)

weeyellowbloke

06-04-2010, 08:37 PM

Well, I think I'll be sticking with the Lib Dems. I like the Greens, but I generally don't find their policies that realistic in terms of being able to implement them. Survey pretty much backs what I thought 75% Lib Dem and 25% Labour on the score of Economy, Education, Environment and Welfare (when I finally got it working).

MoogleViper

06-04-2010, 08:38 PM

It's scary how easily influenced I am by food! :)

I'll give you a biscuit if you [action edited out due to illegality in the United Kingdom]

Jimbob

06-04-2010, 09:11 PM

I wish I could run for Priminster.

Oh dear, could we imagine a Britain with ReZ running it.

Manditory viewings of "Comedy Rainbow" just to begin i would imagine really.

Dannyboy-the-Dane

06-04-2010, 09:24 PM

Oh dear, could we imagine a Britain with ReZ running it.

Manditory viewings of "Comedy Rainbow" just to begin i would imagine really.
Suddenly the BNP seems more sensible.

Jimbob

06-04-2010, 10:01 PM

Suddenly the BNP seems more sensible.

So does UKIP as well.

Supergrunch

06-04-2010, 10:59 PM

So I looked up the UKIP educational policy in its entirety (http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/ukipeducation.pdf). There's a lot of good stuff (like the higher education reform, higher standards for exams, and scrapping of all unnecessary coursework), but also some really batshit stuff especially relating to sex, like scrapping sex education below the age of 10 (i.e. when it's actually necessary), and advocacy of US-style abstinence education. So they're not getting my vote, especially coupled with the fact that I'm pro...ish Europe these days.

Daft

06-04-2010, 11:17 PM

The bigoted Tories can fuck off.
Labour can fuck off for bringing the education system in this country slowly to its knees and giving corporations direct power over everyone's home with their new Digital Economy Bill.

And every other party is pretty much a wasted vote.

Thank God for democracy...
I'm emigrating.

DuD

07-04-2010, 01:20 AM

I've taken the test as I really don't have much of a clue as to what each party is offering at the moment.

My Results:

BNP - 33.33% - Crime, Health, Welfare
Lib Dems - 22.22% - Economy, Education
Green - 11.11% - Environment
UKIP - 11.11% - Europe
Labour - 11.11% - Immigration
Tory - 11.11% - Democracy

Pretty inconclusive results, but at least it's given me a starting point for researching my vote before May. Thanks Chair :)

killthenet

07-04-2010, 02:42 AM

I got 50% Labour/50% Green, but I will be voting Labour in the election. I don't want to risk the Tories gaining a stronghold.

If we get a hung parliament my only request is that Vince Cable becomes the chancellor of the exchequer. If Politics were Football, Cable would be David Beckham.

You know, as in he's popular and a nice guy and he makes good business decisions.

Iun

07-04-2010, 04:13 AM

UKIP has things to tell too, but I hate the pointless self-removal from the EU. Why burn bridges? I'd prefer to be in the bosom of all the essential countries of the world.

...you consider Luxembourg to be essential?

Crap, I took the test: 50% BNP. 25% UKIP, 25% Green.

Hmm.

I don't agree that immigration is at the heart of all our social problems, but I do think we should withdraw from the EU Human Rights treaty and replace it with one of our own.

MoogleViper

07-04-2010, 10:20 AM

darksnowman

07-04-2010, 10:25 AM

I'm voting Green.

Everyone take this test (http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/). Interestingly, the majority of people choose Green party policies.

I did this, not thinking about what four subject areas I selected. Results:

25.00% Labour
25.00% UKIP
25.00% Green Party
25.00% Lib Dems

Paj!

07-04-2010, 12:29 PM

The test works best if you choose all the categories.

Dannyboy-the-Dane

07-04-2010, 02:14 PM

I took the test, and it just sent me back to square one without showing me any results. I didn't really feel it was that good, anyway. I'm more interested in the parties' general ideological viewpoints on certain areas, and those weren't always easy to figure out from the policies listed.

Ellmeister

08-04-2010, 07:30 AM

...you consider Luxembourg to be essential?

Crap, I took the test: 50% BNP. 25% UKIP, 25% Green.

Hmm.

I don't agree that immigration is at the heart of all our social problems, but I do think we should withdraw from the EU Human Rights treaty and replace it with one of our own.

What EU Human Rights Treaty. There is no such thing.

If you are referring to the ECHR treaty that we joined prior during the 1950's, which is what the HRA 1998 subsequently goes on, then you sir, are unfortunately mistaken :)

Only human right idea that has only just come into effect is the effects of the Lisbon Treaty. The effects of which we have not been able to experience so I don't believe that you are judging the human rights part on that?

As far as I'm concerned, leaving the EU is a massive mistake.

danny

08-04-2010, 12:28 PM

Tbh, Labour without Brown is probably the best option. But the only way to get rid of Brown is to have Labour lose the election. On the other hand, that means 5 years of the Tories.

YAY FOR DEMOCRACY

Not true. It just needs people in the labour party to grow a set of balls. Plenty of people seem to have talked about bining him. But very few have actually come forward t odo something about it. Remember you do not vote for PM you vote for your MP/Party, it is down to the party who they make leader.

Have you ever wondered how much it costs to canvas the country with these leaflets? Or where that money comes from? Labour essentially get their blank cheque from the Unions and the Tories get it from peers like Lord Ashcroft. The lack of such canvassing from smaller parties is simply down to the fact that they can't afford it. They can't secure huge backing because they are unlikely to get in to power and thus any large financial backers are unlikely to get any return on their investment.

Well i know what the BNP stand for maybe the Lib dems should be a bit more creative with there press work if they cant afford to do it the conventional way.

Supergrunch

08-04-2010, 01:09 PM

Well i know what the BNP stand for maybe the Lib dems should be a bit more creative with there press work if they cant afford to do it the conventional way.
To be fair, it's a lot easier to publicise extreme and controversial ideas than it is detail the moderate policies typical of the Lib Dems. Indeed, even the negative publicity for the BNP has caused them to be a lot more (in)famous of late. And they're currently on a publicity drive and have been since the European elections, so I'd imagine they're spending an awful lot on publicity; the Lib Dems are already better known and better liked and so don't need to take similar measures.

Gizmo

08-04-2010, 01:22 PM

Not true. It just needs people in the labour party to grow a set of balls. Plenty of people seem to have talked about bining him. But very few have actually come forward t odo something about it. Remember you do not vote for PM you vote for your MP/Party, it is down to the party who they make leader.

If he wins the election he won't get binned.

danny

08-04-2010, 02:07 PM

To be fair, it's a lot easier to publicise extreme and controversial ideas than it is detail the moderate policies typical of the Lib Dems. Indeed, even the negative publicity for the BNP has caused them to be a lot more (in)famous of late. And they're currently on a publicity drive and have been since the European elections, so I'd imagine they're spending an awful lot on publicity; the Lib Dems are already better known and better liked and so don't need to take similar measures.

I know it is easier for them to get publicity but still. Well i would dispute the fact they need to take similar measures. If they dont have a big publicity drive how can they expect to make huge gains? I mean they will make gains this tim but im sure they could make bigger ones if more people knew what they stood for.

If he wins the election he won't get binned.

Im not so sure on that. I think the reason many people in the labour party didnt want to get rid of him was that they didnt want to change just before an election. If they win then suerly its a good time to change the PM with 5 years until another election?

MoogleViper

08-04-2010, 02:45 PM

Im not so sure on that. I think the reason many people in the labour party didnt want to get rid of him was that they didnt want to change just before an election. If they win then suerly its a good time to change the PM with 5 years until another election?

No if he wins then it shows that people want him to be pri[me]minister.

Seeing as he's unpopular it would make more sense to axe him now rather than later and start afresh.

Gizmo

08-04-2010, 04:40 PM

If they were going to do it, it would have happened about 12 months ago.

As is, they can't get rid of him before the election. If they do well, he will stay, because it will be taken as a sign that he is popular. If they do badly, then he will step down / be pushed, but we will have 5 years of David Cameron.

ReZourceman

08-04-2010, 04:48 PM

I still don't understand the different parties.

MoogleViper

08-04-2010, 04:55 PM

I still don't understand the different parties.

What exactly don't you understand? (apart from how to spell Prime Minister.)

Daft

08-04-2010, 05:45 PM

I still don't understand the different parties.

They're all self-serving twats.

Supergrunch

08-04-2010, 06:02 PM

They're all self-serving twats.
Well obviously, it's (democratic) politics. Meaning parties spend far more time and effort on their appearance than on their substance.

ReZourceman

08-04-2010, 06:33 PM

I just don't understand the difference between them.

Labour = The current ones
Conservative = The smug ones
BNP = The racist ones
Green Party = The tree hugging ones.

Honestly, the racist ones seem the best bet at the moment.

Daft

08-04-2010, 07:02 PM

And the LibDems?

ReZourceman

08-04-2010, 07:39 PM

And the LibDems?

Sounds like Dildos and Lube. So they're the sexy ones.

The fish

08-04-2010, 09:24 PM

Sounds like Dildos and Lube. So they're the sexy ones.

Jo Swinson MP - I would.

Wait, what? :confused:

Pancake

10-04-2010, 03:19 PM

Sheikah

10-04-2010, 04:34 PM

Thanks Conservatives - for making my decision who to vote for easier. You are now not even a considersation due to your "tax breaks for married couples" ridiculousness. Couples living together already have the advantage of a joint income. What about tax breaks for single people who have to pay the same bills on a lone income??

Well, relieving financial burdens can help at least reduce some stress, thus slightly increasing the chance of couples staying together.

And it's known that at a glance, having a father figure around can help reduce the chance of children growing up to be antisocial.

Now before anyone flames this, such as people from single parent backgrounds, I am not directing this towards you since you obviously have the competency to turn on a computer and type coherent sentences. I'm talking about Britain as a whole, and the average picture.

Daft

10-04-2010, 05:13 PM

And it's known that at a glance, having a father figure around can help reduce the chance of children growing up to be antisocial.

Maybe that's because policies, and society as a whole, are geared to help and favour couples more. So really it would make sense to give bigger tax breaks to single parents - as Pancake says, they don't have the benefit of a joint income. Surely this would also help releave the stress of raising a child alone and thus allowing the parent to be more independent which would probably help society as a whole.

Sheikah

10-04-2010, 05:28 PM

Maybe that's because policies, and society as a whole, are geared to help and favour couples more. So really it would make sense to give bigger tax breaks to single parents - as Pancake says, they don't have the benefit of a joint income. Surely this would also help releave the stress of raising a child alone and thus allowing the parent to be more independent which would probably help society as a whole.
But as I said, if it reduces the financial burden there's a higher chance couples stay together, thus a child has a reduced chance of becoming antisocial. I think it's more important to tackle that rather than increase single parent handouts or breaks, as Labour are known to do. If anything, I think it promotes the wrong attitude and is a very easily abusible system (some teenagers see becoming a single mother with a council house as a life focus).

Ashley

10-04-2010, 05:37 PM

That could be potentially worse; "oh I want to leave my partner who I don't like/love anymore...but its financially better if I don't." Isn't that just subconsciously encouraging empty marriages?

Although if you don't want to be in a relationship that badly I'd hope you'd leave anyway.

Plus didn't the Tories try and spin it that they're planning it for married and cohabitation couples to show how progressive/inclusive they are, when in fact it would be illegal to apply it to just one group? Something I heard which amused me, but not bothered seeing if its true or not.

Daft

10-04-2010, 06:05 PM

But as I said, if it reduces the financial burden there's a higher chance couples stay together, thus a child has a reduced chance of becoming antisocial. I think it's more important to tackle that rather than increase single parent handouts or breaks, as Labour are known to do. If anything, I think it promotes the wrong attitude and is a very easily abusible system (some teenagers see becoming a single mother with a council house as a life focus).

That means you've already made the assumption that couples raise a child better than a single parent and although statistically that might be true I suspect it's because societly is much less accepting and accomodating of single parents. I'm not say either way is especially better but there definitely has to be an attitudinal shift.

You've got to look at core reasons as to why single parents are apparently meant to raise more antisocially prone kids. It's rather weak just promoting this core idea of the family when in many cases that's not realistic (and in fact a very modern invention). Processionally, raising a child as a single parent isn't that different from doing it with a partner - so where is it going wrong exactly?

I'm not really sure how you can say one is the right attitude and one is the wrong attitude.

As for teenage pregnancies, I would proffer that issue is much more closely linked to a lack various factors like education and future prospects - I don't think anyone sees tax breaks for a single parent and says, "Why not have a baby?"

Sheikah

10-04-2010, 06:15 PM

That means you've already made the assumtion that couples raise a child better than a single parent and although statistically that might be true I suspect it's because societly is much less accepting and accomodating of single parents. I'm not say either way is especially better but there definitely has to be an attitudinal shift.

Well society will always think that...because in reality it's true. I'm not trying to knock single parenting, as there is every chance that you will grow up to be a well-mannered person, but having two responsible parents is the ideal. Statistically it is true (proportions of antisocial youths from single-parent backgrounds) and I believe this is because there is evidently an absent family figure, typically the father. And I think I can realistically say, on average it would be the father to nip potential antisocial behaviour in the bud; or at least there may be an even response from both parents, meaning that a child living with both parents would be subject to additional lecturing.

In fairness, what I'm saying usually applies to those from poorer backgrounds. I'm not referring to separated partners where both are considerably well off. It's sad that it's attributed to poorer families, but true.

You've got to look at core reasons as to why single parents are apparently meant to raise more antisocially prone kids. It's rather weak just promoting this core idea of the family when in many cases that's not realistic (and in fact a very modern invention). Processionally, raising a child as a single parent isn't that different from doing it with a partner - so where is it going wrong exactly?

Partners may come and go, and often a partner won't be able to have anywhere near the same amount of influence on a child once they are past a certain age. Trying to lecutre a child that isn't your own when it has a father that it knows about would mean the child probably would object to your lecturing - "You're not my father", and what have you. Fathers are commonly known to play an active role in discipline and lecturing; that is why single parent (usually mother) families are more prone to antisocial behaviour (again, going by averages), to which I see no fix other than assistance in keeping families together. As you said, it's not always feasible for a family to stay together, so I'm not saying that they always should. But in circumstances where additional help could help keep a family together, it's certainly worthwhile.

I'm not really sure how you can say one is the right attitude and one is the wrong attitude.

By wrong attitude I was referring to teenage girls with the aspiration of becoming a single parent to acquire a council house and a future without working. Which I'm sure most would agree, is not a very good attitude to have.

As for teenage pregnancies, I would proffer that issue is much more closely linked to a lack various factors like education and future prospects - I don't think anyone sees tax breaks for a single parent and says, "Why not have a baby?"

No, but the option to have your own council house and a jobless future is certainly the basis for why they would do it. My point was that breaks for couples can relieve financial difficulties, which in turn can reduce stress in a relationship to promote couples staying together. Which can, ultimately, reduce the number of single parents where there was a possible chance of intervention to save the relationship.

That could be potentially worse; "oh I want to leave my partner who I don't like/love anymore...but its financially better if I don't." Isn't that just subconsciously encouraging empty marriages?

Although if you don't want to be in a relationship that badly I'd hope you'd leave anyway.

Plus didn't the Tories try and spin it that they're planning it for married and cohabitation couples to show how progressive/inclusive they are, when in fact it would be illegal to apply it to just one group? Something I heard which amused me, but not bothered seeing if its true or not.

If you didn't love your partner but stayed with them for tax breaks, I could only imagine that the person was an idiot. Or a sadist. Obviously the tax breaks are an aid to family living, and certainly relieve some financial burden, but I could hardly imagine they'd be sufficient to continue living a life with someone you didn't love.

Daft

10-04-2010, 06:38 PM

Well society will always think that...because in reality it's true. I'm not trying to knock single parenting, as there is every chance that you will grow up to be a well-mannered person, but having two responsible parents is the ideal. Statistically it is true (proportions of antisocial youths from single-parent backgrounds) and I believe this is because there is evidently an absent family figure, typically the father. And I think I can realistically say, on average it would be the father to nip potential antisocial behaviour in the bud; or at least there may be an even response from both parents, meaning that a child living with both parents would be subject to additional lecturing.

In fairness, what I'm saying usually applies to those from poorer backgrounds. I'm not referring to separated partners where both are considerably well off. It's sad that it's attributed to poorer families, but true.

Reality is subjective and in this respect completely socially constructed. It is true because society always favours its ideal. You say the farther would realistically "nip potential antisocial behaviour in the bud" but why? Why the father? Because of socially constructed gender acts? I'm not arguing with you that it's the ideal, but it shouldn't be. Society should support every parent, in every situation.

As for having twice the parents meaning twice the lecturing, I can't tell you how much of an absurd assumption that is. Taking anecdotal evidence, I got bollocked by my mother enough to compensate for single parent situation; a single parent is going to respond to having to raise a child by themselves - they're not going to rigidly adhere to acting how they would with a partner at hand.

On the flip-side, what's not to say that a child raised by a single parent doesn't have to take on more responsibility as a sooner age? I know I, and some of my friends, have experienced this and logically it makes sense.

You say this antisocial behaviour usually applies to families from poorer backgrounds but doesn't the chance of antisocial behaviour as a whole go up in people of poorer backgrounds? What else comes with a poorer background? Like I said, lack of education and prospects, higher chance of alienation, poor nutrition, what else? There's much more at work than the single parent status.

You're contradicting yourself when you say it's usually worse in poor families because you're emphasising the luxury of a dual income.

No, but the option to have your own council house and a jobless future is certainly the basis for why they would do it. My point was that breaks for couples can relieve financial difficulties, which in turn can reduce stress in a relationship to promote couples staying together. Which can, ultimately, reduce the number of single parents where there was a possible chance of intervention to save the relationship.

Really? The basis for why they should chose that path in life is because of tax breaks? Do you honestly think that?

You're honestly not looking at the issues intrinsic to the system.

Cube

10-04-2010, 06:39 PM

Teenage parents can survive on the benefits given to them, but they can't really live off them.

I'm 21 and it's not often that someone in my family gets to that age without having a kid. My sister (18) currently doesn't work (it's hard to go straight into a job that will leave her with the money that would pay for childcare costs), but her boyfriend does. She realises that you can't live a good life off just benefits, and she knows that parents can't just give her loads of money.

Sheikah

10-04-2010, 06:56 PM

Reality is subjective and in this respect completely socially constructed. It is true because society always favours its ideal. You say the farther would realistically "nip potential antisocial behaviour in the bud" but why? Why the father? Because of socially constructed gender acts? I'm not arguing with you that it's the ideal, but it shouldn't be. Society should support every parent, in every situation.

Sadly I don't see society changing. Although I don't think it's entirely society. Men are genetically predisposed to be more aggressive, which in many cases allows them to strike a little sense of fear into children. In many cases, mothers can do this. But again, I'm dealing with averages. On average, men are typically more aggressive, more prone to occupying a dominating role, and therefore more likely to 'rain hell' on a child that started smoking at, say, 13. Although, I feel the need to say this in every sentence now- I'm talking averages, and you may well know different.

As for having twice the parents meaning twice the lecturing, I can't tell you how much of an absurd assumption that is. Taking anecdotal evidence, I got bollocked by my mother enough to compensate for single parent situation; a single parent is going to respond to having to raise a child by themselves - they're not going to rigidly adhere to acting how they would with a partner at hand.

I made a statement that my comments reflect the average, not every case, particularly after factoring in those from poorer backgrounds where antisocial behaviour is rife; likely to be none of the people frequenting these boards (purely speculative, but this hardly seems like an antisocial person's hangout of choice).

You say this antisocial behaviour usually applies to families from poorer backgrounds but doesn't the chance of antisocial behaviour as a whole go up in people of poorer backgrounds? What else comes with a poorer background? Like I said, lack of education and prospects, higher chance of alienation, poor nutrition, what else? There's much more at work than the single parent status.

Lack of education also falls under the banner of upbringing; it's all interconnected. Truency and failure to complete homework is something I believe could be combated by stricter parenting, and is also more commonly performed by youths of poorer backgrounds (which are, again, more likely to have separated families). It's one big, interconnected mess.

You're contradicting yourself when you say it's usually worse in poor families because you're emphasising the luxury of a dual income.
I don't see how that is the case. In poorer single-family upbringings, the father is even less likely to play an active role in any upbringing (sometimes entirely absent), but that outcome is significantly reduced in richer separated families. So, yet again, the increased absence of a second parent, on average (remember, in many cases this will not apply), can be partially attributed to an increased chance of developing an antisocial tendency.

Really? The basis for why they should chose that path in life is because of tax breaks? Do you honestly think that?

You're honestly not looking at the issues intrinsic to the system.

The decision to have a child for many teenage girls is because they understand that there is the potential to eventually acquire your own council house, and get financial support. While many teenage prenancies are unplanned, it's undeniable that the fact many have their children as opposed to an abortion reflects their decision that they actually want to have children and know that there is a system in place to support them.

If there were so few benefits to assist raising a child, do you honestly think there would be anywhere near the number of girls having children?

Raining_again

10-04-2010, 07:04 PM

You get plenty of benefits for having kids and being single... working tax credit, child support...

If I lived on my own I'd be entitled to NO benefits. Surely the people like that (single, no kids, working full time) would be as just to recieve benefits? The ones who are hugely giving to society by actually working, and paying taxes. And in the most part don't claim a lot off the state in medical needs.

A person can bring up kids as a single parent just as well as two can... It's just parental laziness that turns children into these antisocial monsters.

Daft

10-04-2010, 07:06 PM

Stuff.

This gets tricky because I'd have to start talking about social theory and this topic isn't simple. I'll say one thing, notions of gender are much more socially dependent than you're giving credit for.

It's a cop out but it would require a lot of effort and today is my day off from that Hell. I'm sure someone else can fill the gap though. Sorry - especially after you put time into that response. : peace:

Sheikah

10-04-2010, 07:11 PM

lol, it's ok. :p

I understand that many people have had wonderful upbringings from single parents. I just think that if there is a chance to relieve some financial stress for couples, perhaps so they can focus on repairing a relationship; and given that children would often prefer to have both of their family members with them, it's surely a good thing to give people a break?

Although Pancake's initial thought sums up politics really. It's all about voting for whatever party does something that favours exactly you, or not voting in a party that does something against you. We're all so selfish. Screw voting in the green party. The environment can burn. :p

Daft

10-04-2010, 07:15 PM

Well the biggest problem facing the world is overpopulation so we should probably really give tax breaks to people who don't have kids at all. :heh:

Not really sure there's a party that has that policy...

Dannyboy-the-Dane

10-04-2010, 07:21 PM

"The Daft Party - Preventing pregnancies since '10!"

Raining_again

10-04-2010, 07:26 PM

"The Daft Party - Preventing pregnancies since '10!"

I'd vote for ya Daft :heh:

Dannyboy-the-Dane

10-04-2010, 07:29 PM

Me too, especially since none of the other British parties really appeal to me. :heh:

Daft

10-04-2010, 07:34 PM

Someone got to do something about over population...

Mwahahahahaaaa!!!

MoogleViper

11-04-2010, 08:28 AM

You say this antisocial behaviour usually applies to families from poorer backgrounds but doesn't the chance of antisocial behaviour as a whole go up in people of poorer backgrounds? What else comes with a poorer background? Like I said, lack of education and prospects, higher chance of alienation, poor nutrition, what else? There's much more at work than the single parent status.

Well a single parent would have to work longer hours to support their children. Therefore leaving less time to actually bring them up.

david.dakota

11-04-2010, 09:09 AM

Someone got to do something about over population...

Mwahahahahaaaa!!!

Hitler tried. :woops:

Daft

11-04-2010, 09:54 AM

Well a single parent would have to work longer hours to support their children. Therefore leaving less time to actually bring them up.

This is part of why I'd argue they need more support.

I'm not going to say any more for reasons I've already explained.

Hitler tried. :woops:

That was ethnic cleansing. A little bit different. One day, not too far away, the world will not be able to avoid the issue of overpopulation.

danny

11-04-2010, 11:40 AM

Well, relieving financial burdens can help at least reduce some stress, thus slightly increasing the chance of couples staying together.

And it's known that at a glance, having a father figure around can help reduce the chance of children growing up to be antisocial.

Now before anyone flames this, such as people from single parent backgrounds, I am not directing this towards you since you obviously have the competency to turn on a computer and type coherent sentences. I'm talking about Britain as a whole, and the average picture.

Well said and im from a single parent background. Although my dad was around (once a week) i still think im one of the few who faired better than a lot of people i know fro msingle parent backgrounds.

Teenage parents can survive on the benefits given to them, but they can't really live off them.

I'm 21 and it's not often that someone in my family gets to that age without having a kid. My sister (18) currently doesn't work (it's hard to go straight into a job that will leave her with the money that would pay for childcare costs), but her boyfriend does. She realises that you can't live a good life off just benefits, and she knows that parents can't just give her loads of money.

Bollcks. I work in a fairly well paid job (over 20k a year), pay taxs, pay a mortgage etc. I cant afford to go out twice a week. Yet there seems to be plenty of single mothers that i know do. My sister recently had a kid shes on the lowest kind of maternity pay now which is next to nothing yet with the benefits she manages to go to go out at least once a week, go to manchester for a night every now and again. Th kid i well looked after and wants for nothing. I know she dsent get any money of my dad and her mam and her dad dosent talk to her. You can live well on benefits. There are estates full of people in the north who prove this fact. They have and endless supply of cider and fags. £100 trainers ad all the most expensive clothes you can buy from JD sports etc. I only wish i had such a low moral compass to have realised this when i left school.
Now before anyone flames me some people do need/deserve benefits, but theres a lot more who dont. im the sort of person who would empty the bins/work in mcdonalds before i would go on the dole. Many of the people on benefits are not they see themselves being above these kind of jobs. I would dispute this fact anyone who works is far far above long term dolies.

Daft

11-04-2010, 11:56 AM

Anecdotal evident ftw.

I saw a flying pink elephant the other day. They're coming. Coming to kill us all.

Pyxis

11-04-2010, 02:01 PM

Someone got to do something about over population...

Mwahahahahaaaa!!!

White people aren't the problem, you would have to control the birth rate of ethnic minorities. The BNP is probably the best party for that.

chairdriver

11-04-2010, 02:14 PM

White people aren't the problem, you would have to control the birth rate of ethnic minorities. The BNP is probably the best party for that.

...

:hmm:

Don't know where to begin...

------------------

We should just build metal wombs, and raise children extracorporally - one per family (but you can earn the right to more if you're good at life).

Pyxis

11-04-2010, 02:16 PM

...

:hmm:

Don't know where to begin...

------------------

We should just build metal wombs, and raise children extracorporally - one per family (but you can earn the right to more if you're good at life).

It's factually correct, so it would be silly to argue against unless you can't handle facts. I am obviously not racist (my girlfriend is Chinese Malaysian) and I don't think population control makes that much sense since its economically unwise, especially when it comes to pensions.

Ashley

11-04-2010, 02:22 PM

Gizmo

11-04-2010, 02:26 PM

Isn't Japan currently having trouble with dwindling population?

Pyxis

11-04-2010, 02:59 PM

But race shouldn't have anything to do with it. We want to control the birthing of people, not ethnicities, regardless of whether or not certain ethnicities have more children than others. Adopt China's 1 kid scheme or what not.

(you know, in this bizarro hypothetical world we're living in)

Yeah, but when the problem is over population, certain groups are the ones to blame and not others, why put in place laws that would also target groups that aren't to blame? That is unfair. It is unfair in this case to be PC and to ignore the actual problem by being blinded by PC tinted glasses. Sure, its wrong to discriminate against skin colour, but not culture, since this all comes down to cultural differences. Europeans (white people, they come from europe..this is not racist) really don't need population control, just like the Japanese don't. To target these people is pointless and wrong. Even China only controls the Han population and not the population of other ethnic groups.

India's population is set to rocket to 1.4 billion, which is 1 country and the whole of Europe only has a population of something like 500 million and white people are going to be a fraction of that number in the future. India itself tried population control methods and they didn't work simply because India is a democracy, so it is pretty foolish to think that people would vote for their right to have children to be taken away from them.. It's pretty childish to assume that its feasible in the first place and even then, people would be ignoring the economical problems that a country like the UK would face in such a situation.

"There is a demographic catastrophe happening in Europe that nobody wants to talk about, that we daren’t bring up because we are so cagey about not offending people racially. And rightly we should be. But there is a cultural thing as well… By 2020, fifty percent of the children in the Netherlands under the age of 18 will be of Muslim descent… And don’t forget, coupled with this there is this collapse of numbers. Western Europeans are not having any babies. The population of Germany at the end of the century is going to be 56% of what it is now. The populations of France, 52% of what it is now. The population of Italy is going to be down 7 million people." - John Rhys-Davies

Daft

11-04-2010, 03:02 PM

White people aren't the problem, you would have to control the birth rate of ethnic minorities. The BNP is probably the best party for that.

Haha!! Are you a fucking nut?

It's not an issue of race, it's an issue of an over burdening species. Last time I checked we were all human.

If you really want to talk about the contribution 'white' people have made to the situation then you can start by looking at the overindulgence inherent in the West. (A personification of this being the morbidly obese American driving his gas guzzlers.)

Anyone who votes for the BNP is symphonically stupid. "We are a good Christian country." "British people are those who established themselves on this island when it geographically became cut off from Europe." Contradiction much?

Isn't Japan currently having trouble with dwindling population?

Yes, indeed they are. I think they are increasing migrant workers but there are issues of preserving national identity.

Pyxis

11-04-2010, 03:20 PM

Haha!! Are you a fucking nut?

It's not an issue of race, it's an issue of an over burdening species. Last time I checked we were all human.

Laughing is something some people do when they are insecure in order to give others the impression of confidence. Offensive name calling is something people do when they don't have an argument. Yeah, we are all humans, but we don't all go around swearing at others. I will leave it there because I've got better things to do and really don't care.

Ashley

11-04-2010, 03:25 PM

Swearing is also something a Londoner does when they open their mouth, its dialectic not profane :heh:

Yeah, but when the problem is over population, certain groups are the ones to blame and not others, why put in place laws that would also target groups that aren't to blame? That is unfair. It is unfair in this case to be PC and to ignore the actual problem by being blinded by PC tinted glasses. Sure, its wrong to discriminate against skin colour, but not culture, since this all comes down to cultural differences. Europeans (white people, they come from europe..this is not racist) really don't need population control, just like the Japanese don't. To target these people is pointless and wrong. Even China only controls the Han population and not the population of other ethnic groups.

India's population is set to rocket to 1.4 billion, which is 1 country and the whole of Europe only has a population of something like 500 million and white people are going to be a fraction of that number in the future. India itself tried population control methods and they didn't work simply because India is a democracy, so it is pretty foolish to think that people would vote for their right to have children to be taken away from them.. It's pretty childish to assume that its feasible in the first place and even then, people would be ignoring the economical problems that a country like the UK would face in such a situation.

Well your original post seemed to suggest within this country (or at least that was my interpretation), rather than worldwide.

But you say India has an overpopulation problem but its the result of a number of problems; high infant mortality, the need to send children to work etc. You can't just say "India has a population problem, that must be fixed" without looking at the bigger picture. There probably isn't a solution, its all intertwined with other issues. Part of the reason their previous population controlling methods didn't work was because they were implemented undemocratically, e.g. forcefully sterilising people.

Plus we're judging this from a Western perspective whereby smaller families are now the normal. Who are we to say that also means its the 'modern' way of living? Perhaps (and this is pure conjecture as I have no way of knowing) some families don't feel it is right to control the amount of children they have (outside of controlling it out of their own choice, or for medical reasons) because its un-Indian. Again, it could be seen as the West simply saying "you're doing it wrong!"

I have a lot of problems with this:

"There is a demographic catastrophe happening in Europe that nobody wants to talk about, that we daren’t bring up because we are so cagey about not offending people racially...By 2020, fifty percent of the children in the Netherlands under the age of 18 will be of Muslim descent… - John Rhys-Davies

This is a problem? That a religion is on the rise? Why is this one a problem? Because we don't like this religion? Because its not 'ours'? What the fuck difference should it make? Religions go up an down in numbers all the time but by splicing in mentions of increasing Muslim populations within discussing other "problems" only furthers the process of labelling them a problem, and causing more troubles.

Perhaps its just different ways of looking at things; personally I'm more of a globalised "all one world" (as naff as that saying sounds) kind of person, I'm guessing JRD was more concerned with keeping "national" boundaries as if we should say stuck in the past. We chose to open ourselves up to the world (or, more accurately, we chose to use it to further ourselves). We can't just say "we want these aspects of globalisation, but not these because we don't like them/don't agree with them". Perhaps I'm not the best to be arguing about this anyway (this ramble aside), because I don't really care about national boundaries and believe most notions of national identity/culture are largely fictional anyway (fictional is not quite the best word but I can't think what word is, its escaping me at present).

Yes, indeed they are. I think they are increasing migrant workers but there are issues of preserving national identity.

They always seem to be struggling with this :heh:

Urr reading through a bit of clarification because I seem to contradict myself slightly; I have no problems with people seeking to feel part of a national identity. If you can feel part of a nation and that has a positive effect on you that's wonderful (not something I personally feel but hey ho). I have a problem with using the idea of a "national identity" to 'justify' xenophobia.

Daft

11-04-2010, 03:31 PM

I will leave it there because I've got better things to do and really don't care.

Evidently.

Since I wasn't laughing in real life (Actually, I was embarrassed for you) you don't have to worry about me being insecure.

As for swearing, do yourself a favour and take some of Stephen Fry's words with you,

"The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a lack of education or of a lack of verbal interest is just fucking lunatic, or they say, 'It's not necessary.' As if that should stop one doing it. Things not being necessary is what makes life interesting."

Your reaction to my emphatic response says much more about you since, as illustrated on the previous page and elsewhere, I can quite clearly hold a logical discussion.

ipaul

11-04-2010, 03:53 PM

I must remember those words of Fry the next time I swear somewhat inappropriately.

South Shields (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/apr/12/south-shields-david-miliband-labour)

Continuing their election tour, The Guardian goes to South Shields in what I thought was a very interesting video on a Labour stronghold, South Shields.

Ramar

12-04-2010, 05:34 PM

Just had labour on the phone trying to get my vote, told them I'd not decided. And when they asked if I had any national concerns, I told them I wasn't happy with this Digital Economy Bill. To which I got the reply "Ok, I'll make note of that"... Take note, like balls you did.

If anything pestering for my vote like a cold caller has put me off voting for them.

BlueStar

12-04-2010, 06:10 PM

"There is a demographic catastrophe happening in Europe that nobody wants to talk about, that we daren’t bring up because we are so cagey about not offending people racially. And rightly we should be. But there is a cultural thing as well… By 2020, fifty percent of the children in the Netherlands under the age of 18 will be of Muslim descent… And don’t forget, coupled with this there is this collapse of numbers. Western Europeans are not having any babies. The population of Germany at the end of the century is going to be 56% of what it is now. The populations of France, 52% of what it is now. The population of Italy is going to be down 7 million people." - John Rhys-Davies

Sounds a lot like the unfounded half-truth scaremongering and outright lies I saw in a youtube video not too long ago, which Snopes did a rather good job of debunking

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/demographics.asp

You'll notice there's a similar statistic about the Netherlands - this time claiming that 50% of all new borns are muslim. That would mean that the Muslims who account for 5.8% of the population would each have to be having 14-16 times more babies than anyone else. Does that sound reasonable to you?

It's like when you hear statistics saying "x out of every x boy born in x is called Mohammed", something which demonstrates that Muslims aren't particularly imaginitive when it comes to naming their kids more than it does that they're breeding like something out of Alien, with little eggs unleashing millions of scary foreigners scuttling out to clamp onto the face of poor whitey.

The fish

13-04-2010, 12:53 PM

UKIP annoy me immensely. Their policies go something like this:

Good idea
Very good idea
Very good idea
Good idea
Scrap Human Rights Act
Leave EU

They're a bit like the English Democrats - they have a string of fairly appealing ideas, interrupted by massive stinking nationalist/fascist turds.

Ashley

13-04-2010, 05:58 PM

Speaking of policies that annoy you; fuck off Tories with your ideal to repeal the fox hunting ban. If you make it legal again I'll shoot Cameron. I've never met a smarmier and slier fox than him anyway.

BlueStar

13-04-2010, 06:41 PM

Don't like the Tory plan of tax breaks for married couples, talk about a nanny state. "Get married and be the kind of family the government wants you to be or we'll fine you" basically.

Daft

13-04-2010, 07:36 PM

Ashley

13-04-2010, 07:44 PM

Foxes are a pest.

If we're going to kill of pests we'll have to carry on with the aforementioned plan to kill children :p

Its a part of nature. I hate how we try and play god sometimes. But then my views are slightly skewered by my animal-loving hippie dippy ways I'll admit. But still, banning it was humane progression. "Vote for change" indeed.

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 07:49 PM

Foxhunting is cruel, no matter what way you look at it. To be torn apart by a dog is a cruel and disgusting way to die.

The fish

13-04-2010, 07:58 PM

Foxhunting is cruel, no matter what way you look at it. To be torn apart by a dog is a cruel and disgusting way to die.

But it's TRADITIONAL!!! Because, of course, that obviously justifies it...

Daft

13-04-2010, 08:00 PM

Ashley

13-04-2010, 08:04 PM

Nature is cruel. You're not going to stop lions hunting antelope because it's not civil, are you?

What's the difference between hunting foxes and killing rats? Both could be seen as completely inhumane.

I think what's interesting is here is clearly in my head I separated humans from nature/animals, which again colours my response. But I see your point, we're merely one animal killing another animal.

As I said, my views are bound to be biased so I'll admit I'm not going to be the best to argue. This particular policy just bugs me as it does seem like a step backwards. I'm not not voting Tory because of just this obviously.

And I'm personally against killing rats. Not to the point of trying to get people to change their ways (I assure you, I'm no PETA, I know its an unachievable goal) but I wouldn't do it personally. Even if we had some in the house. I'd find other routes to remove them. Or do a Bard and adopt them.

Daft

13-04-2010, 08:16 PM

This particular policy just bugs me as it does seem like a step backwards.

A step backward? What exactly would we be the ideal world we are moving towards? A world where everyone is vegetarian and happy about it?

Fox hunting is a cultural institution, why does it not deserve the same protection that, for example, the Kuranko's rite involving self-inflicted pain get? (I can't be bothered to think of ones that involve animals, but I assure you there are a lot.)

Ashley

13-04-2010, 08:21 PM

A step backward? What exactly would we be the ideal world we are moving towards? A world where everyone is vegetarian and happy about it?

Fox hunting is a cultural institution, why does it not deserve the same protection that, for example, the Kuranko's rite involving self-inflicted pain get? (I can't be bothered to think of ones that involve animals, but I assure you there are a lot.)

In the sense that I presumed as it was passed it was something that society, in the majority, thought was now antiquated. But I guess not.

Don't try and taint me with Dynasty's brush. I'm not trying to make everyone a veggie I just find the notion of hunting for sport to be cruel.

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 08:22 PM

Nature is cruel. You're not going to stop lions hunting antelope because it's not civil, are you?

What's the difference between hunting foxes and killing rats? Both could be seen as completely inhumane.
Last I remember, foxhunting isn't nature. It's artificial. As in, we take dogs and train them to savagely rip foxes apart.

Ellmeister

13-04-2010, 08:23 PM

Its not "teared" apart by dogs...they would snap the neck almost instantly, except in the odd case where difficulties arise.

Don't go attacking me as I don't have much of an opinion on it all, I've heard the story from both sides, with the term "class war" being used by both.

Foxes get killed on the roads a lot worse everyday when you think about it anyway, whereas the dogs are just doing what nature has told them to do effectively?

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 08:26 PM

Foxes get killed on the roads a lot worse everyday when you think about it anyway, whereas the dogs are just doing what nature has told them to do effectively?
Again, how is what we tell dogs to a do a force of nature?

I'm just wondering at what point some people become so egotistical to believe they are the voice of mother nature.

McPhee

13-04-2010, 08:29 PM

9gv4Abt3sZU

Saw this. Made me laugh, a bit of John Cleese is always good :D

Nature is cruel. You're not going to stop lions hunting antelope because it's not civil, are you?

What's the difference between hunting foxes and killing rats? Both could be seen as completely inhumane.

They're a pest and their numbers do need controlling. Being shot and then ripped limb from limb by hounds really isn't the most humane way to go about it though. Not that the currently legal method of shooting them and leaving them to bleed out is any better. I'm not too up to date on what the suggested humane solutions are (if any exist).

Daft

13-04-2010, 08:29 PM

Last I remember, foxhunting isn't nature. It's artificial. As in, we take dogs and train them to savagely rip foxes apart.

So you're saying culture is unnatural? Or only specific types of culture?

Irrigation must be unnatural then...and anti-septic...Where does it stop?

Ellmeister

13-04-2010, 08:29 PM

I'm a bit perplexed on your reply there. I highly doubt someone really looks at it that oddly so as to believe they are playing mother nature.

I'm struggling to picture someone laugh manically believing they have become greater than mother nature...

Besides, the dogs just have an instinct in them. The hunters have simply used this and sure they have trained them it doesn't just delete the dogs underlying desire to go for the foxes.

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 08:33 PM

So you're saying culture is unnatural? Or only specific types of culture?

Irrigation must be unnatural then...and anti-septic...Where does it stop?
I am saying that artificial isn't natural. They are two absolute opposites.

Most of what humans do is now beyond the call of nature, hence the term 'artificial'. And foxhunting is most definitely one of those things.

As McPhee said, if it was really about controlling numbers, there would be a far more humane way to do this. If it was about food, they would all be eaten afterwards. It is neither of these. It's a sick sport for rich toffs.

Edit: of course antiseptic is unnatural. Does that mean it's bad? No. I was using the unnatural argument when Ell said that dogs were just obeying nature. Which was pure horeshit, since they are obeying the rather unnatural commands of man.

McPhee

13-04-2010, 08:33 PM

Its not "teared" apart by dogs...they would snap the neck almost instantly, except in the odd case where difficulties arise.

They will grab the fox by the scruff of the neck and shake it. This does snap the neck, but it can also result in the fox becoming disembowelled (and some times in the wrong order). The results get even more messy if the dog grabs the wrong part of the fox.

As McPhee said, if it was really about controlling numbers, there would be a far more humane way to do this. If it was about food, they would all be eaten afterwards. It is neither of these, and therefore, unnatural. It's a sick sport for rich toffs.

Whoa, you've got me wrong here. I'm actually for lifting the ban. As I said, there's a tendency these days to shoot the fox and let it bleed to death because the hounds aren't allowed to go in for the kill. That's a much, much worse fate. I'd have preference to a more humane method, though one that can preserve the traditional sport.

Daft

13-04-2010, 08:34 PM

They're a pest and their numbers do need controlling. Being shot and then ripped limb from limb by hounds really isn't the most humane way to go about it though. Not that the currently legal method of shooting them and leaving them to bleed out is any better. I'm not too up to date on what the suggested humane solutions are (if any exist).

You want to tell that to the chickens that the Foxes rip apart, limb from limb?

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 08:37 PM

You want to tell that to the chickens that the Foxes rip apart, limb from limb?
There's a huge difference between killing to survive; to eat, and killing for entertainment while pretending to give a half shit about 'controlling' fox numbers (as I mentioned; if this was the case, there'd be humane methods in place).

The fish

13-04-2010, 08:39 PM

You want to tell that to the chickens that the Foxes rip apart, limb from limb?

Part of what defines civilization is that punishment isn't the same as the crime.

I can't see how it's not better to shoot them.

McPhee

13-04-2010, 08:41 PM

You want to tell that to the chickens that the Foxes rip apart, limb from limb?

I'd rather tell the idiot farmer to secure his coop better. I keep chickens. Zero fatalities to foxes (so far).

There's a huge difference between killing to survive; to eat, and killing for entertainment while pretending to give a half shit about 'controlling' fox numbers (as I mentioned; if this was the case, there'd be humane methods in place).

Foxes kill for entertainment. There's times when they'll get in to a chicken run and kill every single bird without eating a scrap. It's fun ;) The bin next to the house likely has far more tasty treats in it anyhow...

MoogleViper

13-04-2010, 08:43 PM

Foxes kill for entertainment. There's times when they'll get in to a chicken run and kill every single bird without eating a scrap. It's fun ;)

And cats kill birds and other animals for fun but I don't see anyone going round tearing them limb from limb.

Daft

13-04-2010, 08:44 PM

I am saying that artificial isn't natural. They are two absolute opposites.

Most of what humans do is now beyond the call of nature, hence the term 'artificial'. And foxhunting is most definitely one of those things.

As McPhee said, if it was really about controlling numbers, there would be a far more humane way to do this. If it was about food, they would all be eaten afterwards. It is neither of these, and therefore, unnatural. It's a sick sport for rich toffs.

Okay, I get artificial is not natural but you haven't defined what 'nature' is.

I don't see how you can say it is beyond nature. Don't other animals hunt in packs? Is it the method you have a problem with? That people use guns and trained dogs instead of running and using their bare hands?

Is this really a problem with class? With 'toffs'?

As for whether it's humane, like I said, foxes rip chickens and other animals to pieces. In fact Fox hunting fulfils a very basic need and desire to protect territory - as well as facilitate social bonds.

Part of what defines civilization is that punishment isn't the same as the crime.

Civilisation is completely defined by infrastructure and institutions. Not socially constructed morals.

McPhee

13-04-2010, 08:46 PM

And cats kill birds and other animals for fun but I don't see anyone going round tearing them limb from limb.

Do you see your local cat population breeding out of control due to plentiful food supply and a lack of any form of natural predator? No?

MoogleViper

13-04-2010, 08:51 PM

Do you see your local cat population breeding out of control due to plentiful food supply and a lack of any form of natural predator? No?

I'm not against the killing of foxes (if necessary). But you can't use that they kill for fun against them. As other animals do it.

I can't be arsed to get in a long debate as we've had this thread when it was first banned. I will say that I've pretty much agreed with what Sheikah has said on this matter.

The fish

13-04-2010, 08:54 PM

As for whether it's humane, like I said, foxes rip chickens and other animals to pieces. In fact Fox hunting fulfils a very basic need and desire to protect territory - as well as facilitate social bonds.

It is entirely beyond me as to how getting enjoyment out of ending a life is anything other than deserving of a visit from men in white coats.

Ellmeister

13-04-2010, 08:54 PM

So how should the issue of the overpopulation of Foxes be sorted then?

Poison them so they die in a much more prolonged and painful way?

Daft

13-04-2010, 08:59 PM

It is entirely beyond me as to how getting enjoyment out of ending a life is anything other than deserving of a visit from men in white coats.

Really? I suspect the reaction is biologically and socially based. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's right or wrong.

McPhee

13-04-2010, 08:59 PM

I'm not against the killing of foxes (if necessary). But you can't use that they kill for fun against them. As other animals do it.

I can't be arsed to get in a long debate as we've had this thread when it was first banned. I will say that I've pretty much agreed with what Sheikah has said on this matter.

I wasn't saying they should be killed because they kill for fun. I was making the point that them only killing for food isn't a defence because it simply isn't true.

Anyhow, isn't this a bit of a minor matter? Surely there's more important topics for the election?

The fish

13-04-2010, 09:07 PM

Really? I suspect the reaction is biologically and socially based. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's right or wrong.

Well, no, in the grand scheme of things, nothing is inherently right or wrong. As such, why are you even discussing voting?

I do understand it. It's because they think it's fun. I, however, think that finding that fun is a sign of having something wrong with you mentally.

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 09:08 PM

Okay, I get artificial is not natural but you haven't defined what 'nature' is.

I don't see how you can say it is beyond nature. Don't other animals hunt in packs? Is it the method you have a problem with? That people use guns and trained dogs instead of running and using their bare hands?

Ok, my point regarding nature was merely to state that (as Ell before said) that dogs are not acting on nature; they've been trained by man (thus it's an artificial response).

Controlling other species to do your bidding is hardly natural. But I think you're getting a little too hung up on the natural aspect. I'm not against things that aren't natural. I'm a scientist. But living in the belief that this is all especially hunky dorey because it is natural is just escapism.

Is this really a problem with class? With 'toffs'?
Personally, I dislike upper class bigots. But that's just me.

As for whether it's humane, like I said, foxes rip chickens and other animals to pieces. In fact Fox hunting fulfils a very basic need and desire to protect territory - as well as facilitate social bonds.

Definition of humane:

"showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement ".

I'd be suprised if foxes were humane, given they aren't human.

Civilisation is completely defined by infrastructure and institutions. Not socially constructed morals.

So if a human being swats a fly, it's morally sound for someone to kill the person? Your one size fits all argument is pretty weak. Just as here; foxes may kill chickens (and in most cases to eat), but it's not right to kill them purely for entertainment purposes in a barbaric fashion.

The fish

13-04-2010, 09:09 PM

Anyhow, isn't this a bit of a minor matter? Surely there's more important topics for the election?

Sadly, some people think the most important thing at the moment in this country is that they can't hunt foxes.

Ashley

13-04-2010, 09:14 PM

Anyhow, isn't this a bit of a minor matter? Surely there's more important topics for the election?

I didn't expect it to get this far. But it is an election issue. Got another you wish to discuss? (not snark, even if it sounds like it)

[COLOR=Black]Ok, my point regarding nature was merely to state that (as Ell before said) that dogs are not acting on nature; they've been trained by man (thus it's an artificial response).

But certain breeds are chosen for it because the hunting desire is within them. There's a reason fox hunting isn't done with papilons (http://listsoplenty.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Papillon.jpg) afterall. Yes, perhaps foxes aren't their prey of choice naturally, but as others have said we do a lot of unnatural things. Milk of a cow anyone?

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 09:15 PM

But certain breeds are chosen for it because the hunting desire is within them. There's a reason fox hunting isn't done with papilons (http://listsoplenty.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Papillon.jpg) afterall. Yes, perhaps foxes aren't their prey of choice naturally, but as others have said we do a lot of unnatural things. Milk of a cow anyone?
But this is irrelevant; they are trained to kill in a certain way, and are placed in artificial situations.

Most of all, dogs themselves are pretty much the product of unnatural human directed breeding. Therefore to say that their instinct is natural is, well, pretty much nonsense.

It's about as natural as dairylea cheese. :p

Daft

13-04-2010, 09:19 PM

Personally, I dislike upper class bigots. But that's just me.

Upper class bigots? Yeah. I hate middle class louts and lower class scum.

Oh, hold on. Sweeping generalisations there.

Definition of humane:

"showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement ".

I'd be suprised if foxes were humane, given they aren't human.

Yeah, I worded that wrong. My point was that foxes get ripped to pieces, chickens get ripped to pieces - it's the whole circle of life thing Elton John was talking about.

So if a human being swats a fly, it's morally sound for someone to kill the person? Your one size fits all argument is pretty weak. Just as here; foxes may kill chickens (and in most cases to eat), but it's not right to kill them purely for entertainment purposes in a barbaric fashion.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I was disputing the definition of civilisation.

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 09:24 PM

Upper class bigots? Yeah. I hate middle class louts and lower class scum.

Oh, hold on. Sweeping generalisations there.

Except I was talking about upper class people who did/want to foxhunt. Performing an activity of bigots makes one a bigot.

Yeah, I worded that wrong. My point was that foxes get ripped to pieces, chickens get ripped to pieces - it's the whole circle of life thing Elton John was talking about.

One size doesn't fit all. If someone goes and murders a baby, is that just the circle of life? Can you imagine a newspaper article titled 'Baby Murdered - The Circle of Life!' Clearly you can see that not everything is equal. Just as a fox that acts primitively mostly to fulfill its desire to continue living is in no way the same as pompous oafs, with supposedly far developed intelligence and understanding, cruelly taking down animals for sport.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I was disputing the definition of civilisation.

Trace the quote back; it's perfectly valid. It's a point that Fish called you out on.

Ellmeister

13-04-2010, 09:33 PM

So how should the issue of the overpopulation of Foxes be sorted then?

Poison them so they die in a much more prolonged and painful way?

Sheikah, provide an answer for my question as you seem so strongly against hunting.

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 09:36 PM

Sheikah, provide an answer for my question as you seem so strongly against hunting.
Firstly, I wasn't aware there was a huge problem with chicken populations (presumably the problem with a high fox population). Have you seen how cheap chickens are? Have you seen the numbers of chickens pumped into supermarkets? To complain about foxes...well, as someone previously said, build better chicken coops.

What are you going to do about human overpopulation Ell? Sterilise yourself? Just wondering, since you seem very keen to protect overpopulation of species. Be the man, do the right thing.

Daft

13-04-2010, 09:44 PM

Except I was talking about upper class people who did/want to foxhunt. Performing an activity of bigots makes one a bigot.

One size doesn't fit all. If someone goes and murders a baby, is that just the circle of life? Can you imagine a newspaper article titled 'Baby Murdered - The Circle of Life!' Clearly you can see that not everything is equal. Just as a fox that acts primitively mostly to fulfill its desire to continue living is in no way the same as pompous oafs, with supposedly far developed intelligence and understanding, cruelly taking down animals for sport.

Trace the quote back; it's perfectly valid. It's a point that Fish called you out on.

1) Ah right. I didn't read it like that. My bad.

2) No, I'm saying why do we need to be humane? Why can't superior human intelligence give us the right to treat animals like shit - or why doesn't it?

3) No, it isn't. His point was that civilisation is based on civility, which funnily enough it really isn't. It's based on systems and structures. Moral judgements are a product of that. There are examples of cultures that do have that 'eye for an eye' system - you steal, you get your hands chopped off.

I'm just fucking with you though. I'm not pro or against Fox hunting - it's not really an issue I come into contact with. I just like getting people's points of view.

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 09:51 PM

[quote]2) No, I'm saying why do we need to be humane? Why can't superior human intelligence give us the right to treat animals like shit - or why doesn't it?

We can be inhumane, and many are. Hence why there are some people who want foxhunting, and some people who don't. Thankfully, most people probably fall under the latter category.

3) No, it isn't. His point was that civilisation is based on civility, which funnily enough it really isn't. It's based on systems and structures. Moral judgements are a product of that. There are examples of cultures that do have that 'eye for an eye' system - you steal, you get your hands chopped off.

Well I guess what I was trying to imply was that I was too lazy to go back to the start of the quote chain, which was Fish saying this:

"Part of what defines civilization is that punishment isn't the same as the crime."

I'm just fucking with you though. I'm not pro or against Fox hunting - it's not really an issue I come into contact with. I just like getting people's points of view.

Fair enough. Gives me something to do anyway, lol.

Daft

13-04-2010, 09:54 PM

I hate these quote strings...make things so hard to follow sometimes.

Ellmeister

13-04-2010, 10:58 PM

Firstly, I wasn't aware there was a huge problem with chicken populations (presumably the problem with a high fox population). Have you seen how cheap chickens are? Have you seen the numbers of chickens pumped into supermarkets? To complain about foxes...well, as someone previously said, build better chicken coops.

What are you going to do about human overpopulation Ell? Sterilise yourself? Just wondering, since you seem very keen to protect overpopulation of species. Be the man, do the right thing.

Seem very keen? By posting twice? I do worry about you sometimes.

Besides, I might be sterile already, either the condom, the pill or my baby maker isn't working may explainwhy my girlfriend isn't pregnant nor does she have a bazillion kids already. :p

I'll ignore the fact that was clearly a jibe just to rile me up. Whilst it did work, I'm too tired to attempt a witty response. I wouldn't manage to pull it off anyway, so I'll leave my dignity slightly intact.

Sheikah

13-04-2010, 11:03 PM

Posting twice...what? I was just saying that you seemed a bit 'over-keen' to control the population of something which, frankly, is the last of the planet's worries!

Using a condom is not sterility, lol.

Ellmeister

14-04-2010, 11:25 AM

I know using a condom isn't. I meant I could be sterile, but the mixture of other factor stops me from finding out. Like I said..way too tired=fail joke, least it wasn't as bad as a ReZ attempt.

And by posting twice about sorting out the population of foxes which I'm sure many do consider important in the countryside. Sure its not the biggest worry in the world. But neither is most of the stuff in a party's manifesto, so why aren't you arguing why they seem a bit keen to talk about anything other that the most important thing in the world?

Like I said earlier I don't really have an opinion as such since it doesn't affect me at all. I was just stating my opinion that it may actually be one of the more humane ways to kill the foxes as some people (not me Sheikah before you bring that up again >_>) do believe they are too overpopulated and causing a big nuisance.

Coolness Bears

14-04-2010, 11:27 AM

If you want to get rid of a fox just use a cat. TRUE FACTS.

Cats would rip them apart. :grin:

danny

14-04-2010, 02:04 PM

Well UKIP have have released there plans and if they got in to power it appears the UK would be exactly how i would like it to be more or less. But unfortunatly this is the real world and i have no idea how they would achieve these things.

Some key points:

Tax

Introduce 31% Flat Tax rate for all
Abolish National Insurance for Employees
Abolish Inheritance Tax
Cut Council Tax by scrapping EU laws, non jobs and political correctness

Defence

Boost the military budget by 40%...equip our troops properly
Increase the army by a quarter and double the Territorial Army
Look after our service personnel with better pay and conditions.

Economy

Create a million new manufacturing jobs
End means testing for pensions and benefits
Introduce Workfare community projects for those on benefits

Health

Introduce ‘franchise partners’ to run hospitals and healthcare services
Allow patients ‘Health Credit Vouchers’ for healthcare choice – NHS and private
Restore free dental check-ups and eye tests under the NHS

Immigration

End mass uncontrolled and unlimited immigration
End abuse of UK asylum system
Introduce work permits visas for limited periods
End support for multiculturalism and promote one, common British culture

Crime

Build the prisons we need
Double the number of police
Abolish the Crown Prosecution Service
Deport foreign criminals andextremists

Call the nut house if UKIP think this is possbible then they need a bed.

http://www.ukip.org/content/features/1498-downloadable-resources

ipaul

14-04-2010, 03:23 PM

Supergrunch

14-04-2010, 03:24 PM

Introduce 31% Flat Tax rate for all
End means testing for pensions and benefits
End support for multiculturalism and promote one, common British culture
Abolish the Crown Prosecution Service
These policies are just crazy. I don't get UKIP, they're such an odd mix of sensible and totally insane.

Dannyboy-the-Dane

14-04-2010, 03:27 PM

Also, ending support for multiculturalism? I just don't get nationalism ...

ipaul

14-04-2010, 03:27 PM

These policies are just crazy. I don't get UKIP, they're such an odd mix of sensible and totally insane.

I missed that last one. That too is crazy...it's also my dad out of a job :P I should ask him what he thinks of UKIP...

-He thinks their all wankers. Surprise surprise.

will'

14-04-2010, 03:33 PM

The flat rate of tax for all is maybe a bit far but lumping NI in with tax is definitely a sensible idea. The tax system could really do with a massive simplification.

Why get rid of inheritance tax?

Why have it? The money has already been taxed at least once already, do the government really need to take another chunk of it?

Fierce_LiNk

14-04-2010, 03:34 PM

Basically, increase police, double the number of troops, create new jobs. How do they plan to do this? It's just a classic case of "tell the public what they want to hear."

Also, how do they intend to just have one United British Culture? Is that even a good idea? Multiculturalism isn't an entirely bad idea...the world is made up of so many people.

Dannyboy-the-Dane

14-04-2010, 03:37 PM

Basically, increase police, double the number of troops, create new jobs. How do they plan do this? It's just a classic case of "tell the public what they want to hear."

Also, how do they intend to just have one United British Culture? Is that even a good idea? Multiculturalism isn't an entirely bad idea...the world is made up of so many people.
The whole idea of national identity is a bit silly, really. Who decides what's British and what's not? We all have different ideas of what is [insert nationality adjective], all of them essentially stereotypes and prejudices with more or less truth in them.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 03:39 PM

The flat rate of tax for all is maybe a bit far but lumping NI in with tax is definitely a sensible idea. The tax system could really do with a massive simplification.

Why have it? The money has already been taxed at least once already, do the government really need to take another chunk of it?

A massive simplication that means poor people are paying more than before (or at least as much as) whilst the rich have their taxes heavily reduced and public services like the NHS are left to die.

I actually think inheritance tax, as long as it is reserved for rich people (say 500k, a little higher than the current threshold, which I think is too low) is one of the fairest taxes there is. It makes more sense than income tax on a level. Think about someone like...Paris Hilton. Not a great example I know, but what did she really do to earn all of that money she's inheriting? Is it really fair to keep all of that money between a few wealthy families?

For middle class and working class people, inheritance tax doesn't make all that much sense, taking a chunk of money from an already meagre sum. But for the rich, I support it. (class being used purely in the American economic term here)

will'

14-04-2010, 03:50 PM

ipaul

14-04-2010, 03:58 PM

It only results in the poor paying more if you do it in a stupid way. There's no reason a tax simplification has to fuck anyone over.

The thing with inheritance tax, let's use your example, is that most of that money is tied up in assets and business that won't be inherited at all - merely passed on as part of a business that comes under someone else's control at some point.

I think a parent who has worked all their life should be able to choose where their money goes without someone taking a huge chunk out of it. In fairness all that ends up happening is that people pass on their wealth before they die so as to avoid it. It would be much easier just to let it go completely.

Their tax simplification does no favours for anyone. Apart from the wealthiest people in the country. It is profoundly right wing and regressive, even Thatcher would look at that and go 'Wow that's a bit far'. The abolish national insurance bit and it incorporate into income tax would be welcome, but they heavily reduces taxes for the wealthiest few and that to me is just perverse.

Fair point about inheritance there, but still, it be nice if we could at least try and spread that money around a little. Tax evasion's a massive problem generally, not just with the inheritance.

will'

14-04-2010, 04:03 PM

Oh sorry wires crossed on that one, I totally agree the way they plan to do it is ridiculous. I agree with the idea though.

Absolutely right on the evasion point, the trouble is it's usually the rich who are able to do it. Again, it's something I think a big simplification of tax in general would sort out.

Mr_Odwin

14-04-2010, 04:16 PM

I don't support UKIP. Let me get that out there.
But ... to make their 31% look better consider this:

1) The tax free amount one earns would be raised to £11500.
2) Abolishing NI accounts for the other 11%, that would be added to the standard 20%.

Essentially they are merging the two and raising the amount you can earn. It would simplify a wage slip and the poorest people would see a tangible net wage increase. (And so would the mega rich, and their net increase would be much larger. I personally fall on the "tax the rich because no one needs that much money" side of the fence.)

ipaul

14-04-2010, 04:18 PM

will'

14-04-2010, 04:25 PM

Supergrunch

14-04-2010, 04:39 PM

Yeah I think you're right on that, personally I'd go for a higher tax free limit, say £15k, the next £85k taxed at 25-30% (Tax and NI combined) and then anything over £100k tax the hell out of, say 60% or so. You'd obviously need to know the real figures to tweak that correctly but I don't see why it couldn't work.
So wait, someone earing a gross of £90k gets say, £63k after tax (assuming 30%), but somone on £100k only gets £40k? I'm all for higher percentages of tax on those who earn more, but I think they should still end up actually earning more.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 04:44 PM

So wait, someone earing a gross of £90k gets say, £63k after tax (assuming 30%), but somone on £100k only gets £40k? I'm all for higher percentages of tax on those who earn more, but I think they should still end up actually earning more.

No but only the money earned from £100k onwards would be taxed at that amount. They earn £150k - £100k is taxed at 30%, £50k is taxed at 60%.

Supergrunch

14-04-2010, 04:46 PM

No but only the money earned from £100k onwards would be taxed at that amount. They earn £150k - £100k is taxed at 30%, £50k is taxed at 60%.
Ah okay, that makes more sense. Not sure what precise figures I'd advocate though.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 04:57 PM

Ah okay, that makes more sense. Not sure what precise figures I'd advocate though.

Yeah I think it's impossible to name any precise figures when you don't have the entire budget and a team of accountants with you.

Mr_Odwin

14-04-2010, 05:48 PM

So wait, someone earing a gross of £90k gets say, £63k after tax (assuming 30%), but somone on £100k only gets £40k? I'm all for higher percentages of tax on those who earn more, but I think they should still end up actually earning more.

Grunch doesn't understand tax bands! WE FOUND HIS WEAKNESS GUYS!!

Dannyboy-the-Dane

14-04-2010, 06:41 PM

It's pleasant to see we share the same opinion on these things. :)

uəʌəsʎɐɾ

14-04-2010, 06:46 PM

lawl :P

I've just realised the date for the election so I have a fantastic new excuse for not voting; I have essays due in on teh 5th and teh 7th of May.

will'

14-04-2010, 06:47 PM

Pretty much the whole labour party just came round to our area. They buzzed every flat at the same time, rude! They will definitely not be getting my vote now (not that they would have anyway).

nightwolf

14-04-2010, 07:17 PM

lawl :P

I've just realised the date for the election so I have a fantastic new excuse for not voting; I have essays due in on teh 5th and teh 7th of May.

Pah, nobody needs an excuse to not vote.

I haven't voted, why? Because I have no fecking clue about politics and in a year I may be abroad. Pah

*shuffles on*

ipaul

14-04-2010, 07:47 PM

Non voters annoy me. I swear they should make politics compulsory at secondary education.

dwarf gourami

14-04-2010, 07:49 PM

It is, but barely.

I actually think Brown is the least twattish of all 3 leaders.

nightwolf

14-04-2010, 07:49 PM

It is, but barely.

I actually think Brown is the least twattish of all 3 leaders.

No it isn't.

I wasn't taught anything about voting at my high school nor college.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 07:56 PM

It is, but barely.

I actually think Brown is the least twattish of all 3 leaders.

What's wrong with Clegg?

MoogleViper

14-04-2010, 07:57 PM

No it isn't.

I wasn't taught anything about voting at my high school nor college.

We spent an hour on it.

They essentially said that there's three parties, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem.

What's wrong with Clegg?

Although I'm a Lib Dem I'm not the world's biggest fan of Clegg.

Vince Cable however... :love:

ipaul

14-04-2010, 08:00 PM

We spent an hour on it.

They essentially said that there's three parties, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem.

Although I'm a Lib Dem I'm not the world's biggest fan of Clegg.

Vince Cable however... :love:

I'm not either but I don't think he's a twat...

Raining_again

14-04-2010, 08:09 PM

Non voters annoy me. I swear they should make politics compulsory at secondary education.

Couldn't agree more, an impartial explanation would be brilliant, then people would actually know who to vote for.. Especially in this country, politics is messyyy.

danny

14-04-2010, 09:00 PM

Their tax plans are absolutely fucking insane. Why get rid of inheritance tax? Why make people earning 150k+ pay the same tax as those on 10k? It's so regressive.... Then after you've messed up the tax system, increase the budget of the military by 40%...sounds great.

How can you support that shit?

Why not? I bet statisticaly people on 10k are more likely to take more out of the system than people on 150k who have private health care and send there kids to private schools.

And if you read there plans they would have to raise the budget by 40% it woudnt be possable to do what they say without doing that.

Like i said in my post it wont ever happen and UKIP need sectioning for actually putting it forward. But if there was a way of that all being achieved i would support it. I work in defence why woudnt i want us to get an extra 40%?

Also, ending support for multiculturalism? I just don't get nationalism ...

Muliticulturalism dosent work it puts up borders and divides communitys (it shoudnt but it does) I like the idea of a new all inclusive British ID take the best parts from what we have and forge a new British ID.

Well the two points you raise i agree with. But if you're gonna tax normal folk 31%, then rich people should be maybe ...55%?

I think we all agree here :P

Yeah I think you're right on that, personally I'd go for a higher tax free limit, say £15k, the next £85k taxed at 25-30% (Tax and NI combined) and then anything over £100k tax the hell out of, say 60% or so. You'd obviously need to know the real figures to tweak that correctly but I don't see why it couldn't work.

I just dont get why you should punnish people who create the countrys wealth. Im not saying it should be equal but never more than 50%. If possable less. Many of these buisness people give more to the country than just the money from there taxs but the entire basis of our economy why punish them for it? And if you do whats to make them stay? Look a F1 drivers yes they mover abroad to live somewhere sunny. But they also do it because its not worth them living here. Footballers would do the same if they could but they have to train everyday.
Whats to stop buisnessmen moving to france if its worth say 50K a year upwards to them? Then you loose all there tax.

Non voters annoy me. I swear they should make politics compulsory at secondary education.

I think it should be the law that you must vote (like australia i think) even if you dont vote for anyone. But still have to go and tick a box saying you arnt voting for anyone.

will'

14-04-2010, 09:14 PM

At the end of the day the government have to make their money somewhere. Ideally I'd totally agree with a flat rate of tax for all but I just don't think it's financially viable, if it is then it should be brought in asap.

As for the moving away from the country thing - it's just not going to happen. Sure some people where it's viable for them may do, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people will be staying put. As for the F1 driver thing, in reality they are traveling so much their nominated home doesn't make much difference, of course you would say you live somewhere with a low tax rate in that situation. In reality I doubt it makes much difference to them being here or anywhere else and would happen regardless of actual tax rates.

Basically it's a balancing act, everyone wants a 0% income tax but the money has to come from somewhere.

Everyone should vote, even if it's just by spoiling their ballot paper and dropping it in the box. It's one of the few times we have a chance to make a big change and a high turnout really does make a difference.

danny

14-04-2010, 09:20 PM

Basically it's a balancing act, everyone wants a 0% income tax but the money has to come from somewhere.

I understand that. And i understand a flat tax probably isnt viable. But i think if you had say a 60% tax rat you would suffer a loss of people. I mean the sort of people we are talking about deffinaly have the money to move away. And a very large part of our economy is based on (in comparisson) a quite small group of people.
I just hate the idea of tax him hes rich. I just think well good for him hes gone and done somehting to get that money why punish him/her for it.

Raining_again

14-04-2010, 09:25 PM

danny

14-04-2010, 09:29 PM

no tax bracket should be over 50%. Getting less than half of what you earn is unfair.

People in 100k jobs are under stress and make big decisions, so they've every right to a fair sum, as much as a person on min wage.

I'd be mortified if I earned 100k and was expected to pay 60k of it in income tax!!!

It would never be a true 60% as you would be taxed as normal up until a certain ammount. Then anything over that would be at 60% but its still shit.

will'

14-04-2010, 09:30 PM

Raining_again

14-04-2010, 09:36 PM

It would never be a true 60% as you would be taxed as normal up until a certain ammount. Then anything over that would be at 60% but its still shit.

Yes that would be fairer, but still crappy nonetheless.

I've seen the sort of money my dad pays in tax (40% super tax!), and he has minimal "use", private pension, private healthcare, etc.

Whereas i pay comparably nothing, but probably take my equivalent net wage from the government in health costs..

It'll never be 100% fair, but gotta get a bit of damage control in there somewhere.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 09:43 PM

Why not? I bet statisticaly people on 10k are more likely to take more out of the system than people on 150k who have private health care and send there kids to private schools.

Alright, so your argument is that rich people don't use the system and therefore shouldn't pay much for the system? Way to completely miss the fucking point of the public sector. Things like the NHS and the police are publicly run so that everyone can benefit from them, not just the wealthy few. Regardless of whether they use it or not, they should pay more, because it is unjust that they spend all their money on material goods and live in luxury whilst others are struggling for any kind of education or healthcare.

I know you're incredibly right wing danny, especially on this forum, but do you really think that because poor people use public services more, they should be taxed as much as rich people?

dwarf gourami

14-04-2010, 09:47 PM

I thought law was compulsory. As in you have to spend a few hours of lessons doing it, that's why I said 'barely'. Our school said it was a compulsory thing they had to do along with sex ed and some sort of citizenship. I'm not even eligible to vote until November so it may have changed for my year?

danny

14-04-2010, 09:48 PM

I do agree with you, but at the end of the day for most people it's not just a financial consideration. You still have to be able to generate more money and have the lifestyle you're used to. I think the argument of people will move away if you tax them too much is one of the worst thought out things ever. Did the country empty back in the days when the top rate was something like 80%?

No it didnt but i still think that these days it is easier to move abroad than it was, the world is a smaller place than it was. Easier to travel back if you want to see family etc. And if we are going to abuse people whats to say other countrys arnt going to give them big tax breaks to move there and create them wealth, infact im pritty sure this has already come about with bankers and places sch as dubai.
I dont believe a flat tax rate is actually possible but i am strongly against taxing the rich to death. Im far from rich and none of my family are, a fairly typical family really. I dont stand to benefit from reduced taxs for the super rich. I just dont agree with it.

Alright, so your argument is that rich people don't use the system and therefore shouldn't pay much for the system? Way to completely miss the fucking point of the public sector. Things like the NHS and the police are publicly run so that everyone can benefit from them, not just the wealthy few. Regardless of whether they use it or not, they should pay more, because it is unjust that they spend all their money on material goods and live in luxury whilst others are struggling for any kind of education or healthcare.

I know you're incredibly right wing danny, especially on this forum, but do you really think that because poor people use public services more, they should be taxed as much as rich people?

If you read my posts i say i dont think it is possible. But i just hate the argument to tax the super rich. In an ideal world i would like a flat tax rate.
Im not saying they shoudnt pay as much for the system. But by the fact of being rich paying 33% of 100k is still more than 33% of 15k.

Dyson

14-04-2010, 09:54 PM

Mr_Odwin

14-04-2010, 09:56 PM

It's more about what's left after the tax comes out. The rich are still rich.

danny

14-04-2010, 09:58 PM

I think dyson that theres a law in the works to stop MPs being non doms. Apart from that i dont think theres much you can do to stop it.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 09:58 PM

No it didnt but i still think that these days it is easier to move abroad than it was, the world is a smaller place than it was. Easier to travel back if you want to see family etc. And if we are going to abuse people whats to say other countrys arnt going to give them big tax breaks to move there and create them wealth, infact im pritty sure this has already come about with bankers and places sch as dubai.
I dont believe a flat tax rate is actually possible but i am strongly against taxing the rich to death. Im far from rich and none of my family are, a fairly typical family really. I dont stand to benefit from reduced taxs for the super rich. I just dont agree with it.

If you read my posts i say i dont think it is possible. But i just hate the argument to tax the super rich. In an ideal world i would like a flat tax rate.
Im not saying they shoudnt pay as much for the system. But by the fact of being rich paying 33% of 100k is still more than 33% of 15k.

I know you said you didn't think it was possible but that doesn't matter when talking about ideals. WELL DUH. I'm saying rich people should pay a higher proportion of tax and I think a flat tax rate is close to immoral. Thankfully, even the more right wing of the tory party would agree with me that generally, rich people should be taxed more than the poor. Going over 50% isn't great I agree but poor people shouldn't have to pay much tax like the rich should.

I'm sorry but I just find your entire political stance utterly perverse. Nearly everything that you post I find contemptible. Your positions on policing, on the army, that quotation you have and now your position on taxation I just often find ill thought out, hugely right wing and sometimes just insane.

danny

14-04-2010, 10:08 PM

I know you said you didn't think it was possible but that doesn't matter when talking about ideals. WELL DUH. I'm saying rich people should pay a higher proportion of tax and I think a flat tax rate is close to immoral. Thankfully, even the more right wing of the tory party would agree with me that generally, rich people should be taxed more than the poor. Going over 50% isn't great I agree but poor people shouldn't have to pay much tax like the rich should.

I'm sorry but I just find your entire political stance utterly perverse. Nearly everything that you post I find contemptible. Your positions on policing, on the army, that quotation you have and now your position on taxation I just often find ill thought out, hugely right wing and sometimes just insane.

The quote i just find amusing it dosent mean i believe in what it says. Just as the charicter dosent in the program it is from. My bold forgot i had chaned it. I stand by the comment if you are not on our side then bassically you are sentanicing women in afghan to a life with virtually no rights. I would say thats pritty facist. Dont respond to this here tho as this thread is about the election PM if you want to discus it.
Im not going to respond about the policing ad army issues as i cant be arsed with it in this thread feel free to PM me or MSN me though.
And my opinion on taxation is why should people who have done well for themselves be punished? A flate rate of tax isnt even really a flat rate as its not like i am saying everyone should pay £5k a year. Rich people still pay more, i just dont see why the country should take the piss. The idea of a 60% tax rate its sickening to me. These people earn there money and get very little in return where as plenty of people put nothing in and get a great deal out.

Dannyboy-the-Dane

14-04-2010, 10:15 PM

Muliticulturalism dosent work it puts up borders and divides communitys (it shoudnt but it does) I like the idea of a new all inclusive British ID take the best parts from what we have and forge a new British ID.
While it's true that multiculturalism can divide people into groups - which I'll argue several other things can do as well, as it's natural for humans to divide themselves into communities - you really think the solution is forcing everybody to have the same culture? You want everybody to be one, homogenous bunch? Not only is it unrealistic, I also really doubt it would do any good at all.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 10:23 PM

The quote i just find amusing it dosent mean i believe in what it says. Just as the charicter dosent in the program it is from.
Im not going to respond about the policing ad army issues as i cant be arsed with it in this thread feel free to PM me or MSN me though.
And my opinion on taxation is why should people who have done well for themselves be punished? A flate rate of tax isnt even really a flat rate as its not like i am saying everyone should pay £5k a year. Rich people still pay more, i just dont see why the country should take the piss. The idea of a 60% tax rate its sickening to me. These people earn there money and get very little in return where as plenty of people put nothing in and get a great deal out.

Taxation isn't a punishment. Ultimately, more equal societies just do better. I'm not saying I would go as far as 60%. I'm not sure that's fair. I'm also not sure it's fair that footballers get paid £100k+ a week. I'm not sure it's fair that bankers who have fucked up our economic system get paid millions of pounds in bonuses. All in the game though, right?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ETqOvBKnKdk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ETqOvBKnKdk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3WbtFga4c3g&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3WbtFga4c3g&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

danny

14-04-2010, 10:25 PM

While it's true that multiculturalism can divide people into groups - which I'll argue several other things can do as well, as it's natural for humans to divide themselves into communities - you really think the solution is forcing everybody to have the same culture? You want everybody to be one, homogenous bunch? Not only is it unrealistic, I also really doubt it would do any good at all.

Dannyboy i dont know how things are in denmark having never been. But in the UK things cant continue as they are its clearly not working. It probably is unrealistic but i think it is a goal that should be worked towards. Someone once said there will be rivers of blood in the streets. (im not saying i wish this to happen) but i fear that one day this could happen. If the country was less divided there would be less chance of this happening. A few years ago now there were a fair few mass riots in the north west of england whites and blacks (strangely) on one side and mostly people from the indian sub continent on the other. Again i repeat i never want this to happen but i think there is a very large chance in years to come this could becombe a common scene. I mean we live in a country where there are still two waring communitys although it is far far better than it once was.

gaggle64

14-04-2010, 10:29 PM

So, is anyone aware of the LibDem manifesto at this point? No?

Here's the jist of it anyway:

Raise income tax allowance to £10,000
Future tax rises not ruled out
"Mansion tax" on £2m homes
Scrap ID cards
No like-for-like replacement for Trident
£400 cap on pay rises in the public sector
£2.5bn "pupil premium" to reduce primary class sizes
Raise pay of new members of armed forces
Scrap strategic health authorities
3,000 more police officers
Cut number of MPs by 150

Anyway, I'll leave you gentlemen to... whatever it is that you're doing. *flees*

ipaul

14-04-2010, 10:31 PM

danny

14-04-2010, 10:32 PM

Taxation isn't a punishment. Ultimately, more equal societies just do better. I'm not saying I would go as far as 60%. I'm not sure that's fair. I'm also not sure it's fair that footballers get paid £100k+ a week. I'm not sure it's fair that bankers who have fucked up our economic system get paid millions of pounds in bonuses. All in the game though, right?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ETqOvBKnKdk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ETqOvBKnKdk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3WbtFga4c3g&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3WbtFga4c3g&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I dont agree that bankers should get the bonuses for failure. But there are some banks that didnt get any direct aid. So i have no problem with tere bankers gettng any bonuses that can afford to be paid.
But then theres the argument with the govenment owned banks that if you dont pay the bonuses are those staff going to leave that bank, to go and work for one that can pay bonuses. Then banks need these people to make the money, much like the country needs people who have the drive, ambition and ability to create money and jobs. Which is why i dont agree with taxing them to death.
As for footballers if the club can afford to pay 100k a week then why shoudnt the footballer get it? At the end of the day thats what people pay to see. And clearly people are willing to pay the prices for tickets so i dont see an issue with it.
I cant watch the videos as im on a dongle and the signal is crap. A brief idea what there about?

ipaul

14-04-2010, 10:32 PM

McPhee

14-04-2010, 10:34 PM

This election is beginning to annoy me. It seems that the general consensus among a lot of people is that Labour cannot be allowed to get back in and therefore they MUST vote Conservative because voting for anyone else means Labour get back in. I've been told repeatedly over the past few days that I'm an idiot for wanting to vote LibDem by people who have been brainwashed in to actually believing that their only salvation relies in protest voting Cameron in to office.

Last I checked I was voting LibDem because their policies (and as of today, their Manifesto) are the best. If I was voting for Labour I'd be ticking a different box at the polls.

Fierce_LiNk

14-04-2010, 10:35 PM

Dannyboy i dont know how things are in denmark having never been. But in the UK things cant continue as they are its clearly not working. It probably is unrealistic but i think it is a goal that should be worked towards. Someone once said there will be rivers of blood in the streets. (im not saying i wish this to happen) but i fear that one day this could happen. If the country was less divided there would be less chance of this happening. A few years ago now there were a fair few mass riots in the north west of england whites and blacks (strangely) on one side and mostly people from the indian sub continent on the other. Again i repeat i never want this to happen but i think there is a very large chance in years to come this could becombe a common scene. I mean we live in a country where there are still two waring communitys although it is far far better than it once was.

People fight. Humans always have done and humans always will. Plenty of whites and blacks (as you put it) still fight amongst themselves. Things have got better, as you say, but it still happens. People still fight over football teams (I'm looking at you, Millwall fans) and there's gang warfare. As Dannyboy said, humans will always put themselves into smaller communities. It's a bit unfair, in my opinion, to blame multiculturalism purely for these riots. Maybe we should look at why they're rioting in the first place.

So, we force everyone to follow one ideal. What then? Yes, we should be proud of our country and we should be proud to live here, but that doesn't automatically mean people are going to start loving each other and that these riots will suddenly stop.

will'

14-04-2010, 10:37 PM

ipaul

14-04-2010, 10:37 PM

I dont agree that bankers should get the bonuses for failure. But there are some banks that didnt get any direct aid. So i have no problem with tere bankers gettng any bonuses that can afford to be paid.
But then theres the argument with the govenment owned banks that if you dont pay the bonuses are those staff going to leave that bank, to go and work for one that can pay bonuses. Then banks need these people to make the money, much like the country needs people who have the drive, ambition and ability to create money and jobs. Which is why i dont agree with taxing them to death.
As for footballers if the club can afford to pay 100k a week then why shoudnt the footballer get it? At the end of the day thats what people pay to see. And clearly people are willing to pay the prices for tickets so i dont see an issue with it.
I cant watch the videos as im on a dongle and the signal is crap. A brief idea what there about?

Everything that is wrong with the Thatcherite way of thinking, basically.

I'm not saying they club should hold that money for themselves, I'm saying it's unfair that such a job should fetch should high pay in our world. Of course it's all in the game of Capitalism. I'm no socialist but I find this rather despicable.

Dannyboy-the-Dane

14-04-2010, 10:39 PM

Dannyboy i dont know how things are in denmark having never been. But in the UK things cant continue as they are its clearly not working. It probably is unrealistic but i think it is a goal that should be worked towards. Someone once said there will be rivers of blood in the streets. (im not saying i wish this to happen) but i fear that one day this could happen. If the country was less divided there would be less chance of this happening. A few years ago now there were a fair few mass riots in the north west of england whites and blacks (strangely) on one side and mostly people from the indian sub continent on the other. Again i repeat i never want this to happen but i think there is a very large chance in years to come this could becombe a common scene. I mean we live in a country where there are still two waring communitys although it is far far better than it once was.
But those problems won't be solved by trying to force a single culture down upon everyone. If anything, I believe it will simply increase cultural tensions. The problem is not different cultures, the problem is people who cannot accept other cultures. The former is a prerequisite of the latter, but the latter is not necessarily an inevitable consequence of the former. The key is trying to achieve understanding and acceptance of other cultures, not eradicating all our points of difference.

McPhee

14-04-2010, 10:39 PM

And yet one thing a lot of people seem to skirt over is the issue of non-doms, which is something that'd help. I havn't seen any of the parties address this issue (though to be fair I haven't dug too deep) - can anyone enlighten me as to where the three main parties stand on this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/14/liberal-democrats-tax-avoidance-crackdown

There's one answer for you :)

danny

14-04-2010, 10:40 PM

So, is anyone aware of the LibDem manifesto at this point? No?

Here's the jist of it anyway:

No like-for-like replacement for Trident

I dont know how they can say this. They either want nukes or not.
If not then fair enough thats up to them and they should say so.
If they want nukes then its hard to see what other options we have but to have 4 nuclear submarines to carry the missiles. They were banding around the idea of only having three submarines.
But that idea dosent work every defence review has said 4 is the minimum number of submarines needed.
1 on patrol
1 just back off patrol
1 in refit
1 in maintenance/training.
Without having four there is no way of being sure we have a constant deterant. And without it being costant theres no point in having one at all.
And submarine is the only system that really works for the UK.
We havent got enough space to have a land based deterent. Apparently we would need an area about the size of wales.
Airbourne launched nukes is a thing of the past as its to easy to shoot the planes down.
And shipbourne woudnt be that much cheaper but would make it far easy to destroy than a submarine.
If they dont want nukes just say. Otherwise come out with a decent new idea rather than 'not like for like' when there is not really another option if we are to have them.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 10:41 PM

I could actually see the lib dems doing very well this time round, there's so much hatred towards the other two they may well pick up a lot of votes. As a long time Conservative voter this could well be the first time I change my vote - currently I'm totally undecided as to who to vote for.

I actually think they will lose seats...they may get more votes then last time but I think they will struggle to hold on to the seats they won in 2005. 65 or so seats for the Liberals is a lot after all. Hope I'm wrong though.

McPhee, it annoys me as well. There was an article in The Guardian saying lab/lib voters should make a pact, but that's bull if the policies I support about the Lib Dems are completely opposed to Labour's ideas.

danny

14-04-2010, 10:44 PM

Everything that is wrong with the Thatcherite way of thinking, basically.

I'm not saying they club should hold that money for themselves, I'm saying it's unfair that such a job should fetch should high pay in our world. Of course it's all in the game of Capitalism. I'm no socialist but I find this rather despicable.

I just dont get that its so communist. The clubs make money people might moan that tickts, shirts, sky tv is to expensive. But they still pay it. There not essential items. There not food or water.
As far as im concerned its a very valid way to make money. If people dont like it dont pay it and the prices will drop when profits start to be hit. Supply and demand and all that.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 10:46 PM

I just dont get that its so communist. The clubs make money people might moan that tickts, shirts, sky tv is to expensive. But they still pay it. There not essential items. There not food or water.
As far as im concerned its a very valid way to make money. If people dont like it dont pay it and the prices will drop when profits start to be hit. Supply and demand and all that.

You just explained how it works. I know how it works. I dislike the results. I have a moral problem with footballers earning what they do when so much of the world is in utter poverty.

will'

14-04-2010, 10:46 PM

On the income thing the fact of the matter is that over a certain amount of money there is absolutely no need for it to be able to cover your basic human needs. I do in general agree with a flat tax rate for all, but the fact of the matter is once you're earning above a certain level there's no arguable reason not to tax it at a higher rate.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 10:48 PM

danny

14-04-2010, 10:49 PM

You just explained how it works. I know how it works. I dislike the results. I have a moral problem with footballers earning what they do when so much of the world is in utter poverty.

I earn more than i need to survive on, does that mean i shouldnt? I consier i live very comfortably (now hasnt always been this way although i have never been poor) does that mean i shoudnt be able to spend money on trivial things. Wheres the line?

ipaul

14-04-2010, 10:52 PM

I earn more than i need to survive on, does that mean i shouldnt? I consier i live very comfortably (now hasnt always been this way although i have never been poor) does that mean i shoudnt be able to spend money on trivial things. Wheres the line?

Hard to determine exactly, very true, but I look at many parts of Africa, the slave workers in Dubai and other Asian countries and I can safely claim they fall below it. Far far below it.

Dyson

14-04-2010, 10:54 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/14/liberal-democrats-tax-avoidance-crackdown

There's one answer for you :)

Muchos appreciated. I was going to vote LibDem anyway this election but reading this has cemented my position. Cheers McPhee! : peace:

I mean really, does this not piss anyone else off?

They claim that a further £750m could be found from stamp duty, the tax on property sales, by stopping a legal dodge permitted for the last decade by the Labour government under which expensive houses are registered offshore by one of the 112,000-plus non-doms who get special tax breaks in the UK.

will'

14-04-2010, 10:54 PM

So you're saying your own position is indefensible?

Yes, basically.

From a personal point of view I would always go with the flat rate of tax. Looking at the bigger picture I just don't see it as a tenable position for anyone. As a voter I'd go for the people who broadly give a large tax free allowance, a wide standard rate of tax and a big tax on very very high earners. As far as I can see that is the fairest way of doing it.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 10:56 PM

Yes, basically.

From a personal point of view I would always go with the flat rate of tax. Looking at the bigger picture I just don't see it as a tenable position for anyone. As a voter I'd go for the people who broadly give a large tax free allowance, a wide standard rate of tax and a big tax on very very high earners. As far as I can see that is the fairest way of doing it.

Well...sounds a bit muddled but fair enough. It almost sounds like your admitting your ideal is the bastard's way of doing things =P

Pisses me right off, Dyson :heh:

danny

14-04-2010, 10:58 PM

Hard to determine exactly, very true, but I look at many parts of Africa, the slave workers in Dubai and other Asian countries and I can safely claim they fall below it. Far far below it.

Yes but i mean what people in this country is it just footballers? Or many normal people. I bought a t shirt for £45 yesterday, should that be allowed? Should i have money taken off me and set to africa as that is a ridiculas amount to spend on something i could have got far cheaper? People spend money on all sorts of shit they dont need (look in the post your purchases thread) where is the line?

And are there actual slaves in the UAE? As i did a quick search and coudnt find anything.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 11:09 PM

Yes but i mean what people in this country is it just footballers? Or many normal people. I bought a t shirt for £45 yesterday, should that be allowed? Should i have money taken off me and set to africa as that is a ridiculas amount to spend on something i could have got far cheaper? People spend money on all sorts of shit they dont need (look in the post your purchases thread) where is the line?

And are there actual slaves in the UAE? As i did a quick search and coudnt find anything.

Unofficially there certainly are.

Look I don't have a problem with people having more money than they need. I think it's idiotic spending £45 on a t shirt but I would never forbid it. I simply have a problem with people doing so little, yet getting so much. Rather like you do, because I mean according to you, people on benefits get so much and do so little right?

The mass imbalance of wealth is a global problem and I think it would be in all our interests if we were more economically even. Most of the wealth in the west has originated from exploiting the people and the resources from places like Africa. I'm not a communist, however it's completely reasonable to say that, when swathes of the world population are underfed and in real poverty, then the rich should help out a little.

McPhee

14-04-2010, 11:09 PM

You just explained how it works. I know how it works. I dislike the results. I have a moral problem with footballers earning what they do when so much of the world is in utter poverty.

Footballers earn a shit wage. It's the very few at the top of the game that earn £100,000+ per week and even that is low compared to high fliers in other industries.

I mean really, does this not piss anyone else off?

That's the sort of thing that happens when your government is born of a political party that has had a lot of investment from very rich people. They have to keep them happy.

It's one of the many reasons why we need just one term of somebody other than the Conservatives or Labour. We need someone who is able to remove some of the shackles from our political system and allow it to be more open (along with getting rid of this crappy "first past the post" system which has kept us in this endless swing).

gaggle64

14-04-2010, 11:14 PM

I like pretty much all of those policies. The thing that concerns me most in this election really is civil liberties and I think the Liberals came out pretty strongly for them. I really despise the I.D card scheme.

I agree. I also like their attitude to Trident - I'd rather we had a smaller nuclear deterrent that we can actually afford and completely control, rather then all these oversized American ballistics we can't even run ourselves.

Generally though I hope in a hung Parliament the LibDems can become the catalyst for genuine and long overdue electoral reform. That's still my number one concern for this election.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 11:14 PM

Footballers earn a shit wage. It's the very few at the top of the game that earn £100,000+ per week and even that is low compared to high fliers in other industries.

That's the sort of thing that happens when your government is born of a political party that has had a lot of investment from very rich people. They have to keep them happy.

It's one of the many reasons why we need just one term of somebody other than the Conservatives or Labour. We need someone who is able to remove some of the shackles from our political system and allow it to be more open (along with getting rid of this crappy "first past the post" system which has kept us in this endless swing).

The average wage is £24k per year. £40k puts you in the top 10% of earners. Perspective here.

I don't care how much people earn in other industries, calling £100k per week a low wage in any context is ridiculous. Even if other people earn 30x that, it is still a very high wage. Obviously all I meant was the people in the premiership.

danny

14-04-2010, 11:16 PM

Unofficially there certainly are.

Look I don't have a problem with people having more money than they need. I think it's idiotic spending £45 on a t shirt but I would never forbid it. I simply have a problem with people doing so little, yet getting so much. Rather like you do, because I mean according to you, people on benefits get so much and do so little right?

The mass imbalance of wealth is a global problem and I think it would be in all our interests if we were more economically even. Most of the wealth in the west has originated from exploiting the people and the resources from places like Africa. I'm not a communist, however it's completely reasonable to say that, when swathes of the world population are underfed and in real poverty, then the rich should help out a little.

People on benefits do nothing an do get plenty. (and i dont mean people who hae genuine reasons to be on them).
Footballers how ever by playing football which may not seem like a lot support an entire industry how many peope do you think man utd employ or are employed as a result of man utd. A squad of arround say 20 players create so much wealth and give so employment to so many people. So i dont see a link between footballers and people who make a career of claiming benefits.

Ok and have you got any links to support this? Im not doubting you just puerly intrested thats all.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 11:19 PM

People on benefits do nothing an do get plenty. (and i dont mean people who hae genuine reasons to be on them).
Footballers how ever by playing football which may not seem like a lot support an entire industry how many peope do you think man utd employ or are employed as a result of man utd. A squad of arround say 20 players create so much wealth and give so employment to so many people. So i dont see a link between footballers and people who make a career of claiming benefits.

Ok and have you got any links to support this? Im not doubting you just puerly intrested thats all.

You want me to link you and prove that poor people exist in Africa? I think I might give that one a miss.

The players could still do that if they weren't paid as much. People watch football because they're good and the game is brilliant, not because the people who pay are paid a lot. They create wealth for themselves in the main.

McPhee

14-04-2010, 11:24 PM

I dont know how they can say this. They either want nukes or not.
If not then fair enough thats up to them and they should say so.
If they want nukes then its hard to see what other options we have but to have 4 nuclear submarines to carry the missiles. They were banding around the idea of only having three submarines.
But that idea dosent work every defence review has said 4 is the minimum number of submarines needed.
1 on patrol
1 just back off patrol
1 in refit
1 in maintenance/training.
Without having four there is no way of being sure we have a constant deterant. And without it being costant theres no point in having one at all.
And submarine is the only system that really works for the UK.
We havent got enough space to have a land based deterent. Apparently we would need an area about the size of wales.
Airbourne launched nukes is a thing of the past as its to easy to shoot the planes down.
And shipbourne woudnt be that much cheaper but would make it far easy to destroy than a submarine.
If they dont want nukes just say. Otherwise come out with a decent new idea rather than 'not like for like' when there is not really another option if we are to have them.

They don't think we need a constant nuclear deterrent. They'd replace Trident with at most two nuclear-armed submarines. They would also modify some Astute class submarines to carry (when necessary) nuclear warheads on Tomahawk missles and keep a stock-pile of weapons-grade fissile material. Japan uses a similar system already.

danny

14-04-2010, 11:26 PM

You want me to link you and prove that poor people exist in Africa? I think I might give that one a miss.

The players could still do that if they weren't paid as much. People watch football because they're good and the game is brilliant, not because the people who pay are paid a lot. They create wealth for themselves in the main.

No unofficial slaves in dubai.

Yes but the clubs make what they can, fans pay the money. So why shoudnt the players get there share? Bollocks that they make money for themselves in the main. Everyone from alex ferguson to the guy who picks up the litter after the game is employed because of those 20 or so players.
If the clubs are making the money what do you want them to do with the money? Give it to africa? Why not apply this to every buisness in the country.
Is the fact that most footballers pay 50% tax and support all the services that were mentioned earlier not enough?

They don't think we need a constant nuclear deterrent. They'd replace Trident with at most two nuclear-armed submarines. They would also modify some Astute class submarines to carry (when necessary) nuclear warheads on Tomahawk missles and keep a stock-pile of weapons-grade fissile material. Japan uses a similar system already.

I think that idea is flawed. Im not certain we need nukes. In my eyes they are something i want us to keep. But if the money isnt there the money isnt there. I think having a part time nuclear deterant is a flawed idea, if we are going to have nuke whats the point in having them if we cant realitate at a moments notice hence the deterant.
And this sort of wishy washy idea just enforces why i would rather vote labour than lib dems there ideas always seem half baked.
Also where did you get tha info about japan? Im pritty sure (and wiki is) that japan dosent have nuclear weapons. Japan still has very close ties to the USA with regards to defence. And thus dosent need them.

ipaul

14-04-2010, 11:31 PM

No unofficial slaves in dubai.

Yes but the clubs make what they can, fans pay the money. So why shoudnt the players get there share? Bollocks that they make money for themselves in the main. Everyone from alex ferguson to the guy who picks up the litter after the game is employed because of those 20 or so players.
If the clubs are making the money what do you want them to do with the money? Give it to africa? Why not apply this to every buisness in the country.
Is the fact that most footballers pay 50% tax and support all the services that were mentioned earlier not enough?

What's wrong with Dubai (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html)

No, but those litter pickers could still be employed if the footballers made £100k a year. Litter will never pick itself up, nor will a team ever manage itself, even if they are on lower pay.

Obviously footballers pay their tax (hopefully) and that is enough at 50%, I just think it's sad that we as a society have decided that kicking pigskin in a particular fashion is worth £150k per week.

Actually we haven't. The marketplace has. We, as consumers, have obliged reluctantly.