David Cameron

[Skidfingers McGonical]

I love last night of the proms

 

I always get left with the feeling it's like I've been watching Shawadywady on tour playing the same hits on a nostalgia tour of Butlins and Pontins, with only one original member in the actual line up, and all the glam pop loving girls from that era thinking they can still pull of the fan club t-shirt look when they have piled on at least 14 stone since their teenage years.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

These images have tried to be suppressed by Gideon.

 

As for the death of politics, it's not apathy that prevents the public from voting it's the lack of alternative. (Insert South Park reference).

 

People feel disenfranchised not because they don't care. Insert the option "None of the Above" on the ballot paper and see what happens.

 

"None of the Above" for my ward. "None of the Above" for parliament. "None of the Above" for Prime Minister.

 

THAT would be real democracy.

 

It is very easy to present a spoiled ballot, which is effectively the same thing.

[Section_31]

It is very easy to present a spoiled ballot, which is effectively the same thing.

 

Couldn't be arsed going all the way down there just to do that, I think you should be able to vote against someone - i.e rather than vote Labour you can vote to remove a Tory vote.

[Dirk]

It's not apathy, it's a complete lack of faith in politics and politicians that prevents people from voting. Given that many politicians are self-centred, it's not entirely surprising that they blame people's "apathy" for low turn out rather than enter into self-reflection.

[Spy Bee]

My advice is not to vote, it just encourages the bastards!

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

think you should be able to vote against someone .

 

Yeah, I agree with that. Not the same thing as I was replying to, but I certainly agree.

 

I'm not too unhappy with the way things are done now, even if they could be improved upon.

[William_Ulsterman]

fools, its not the politicians that run the country its the media, Murdock et all.

 

Shame on all the mongs who read their shit and take it as gospel. Politics is just show business for ugly people.

[Section_31]

All of Birtain's problems could be solved by giving tax-breaks to married people, because we all know people get divorced and children are abandoned because it's all very expensive.

[Strontium]

It's not apathy, it's a complete lack of faith in politics and politicians that prevents people from voting. Given that many politicians are self-centred, it's not entirely surprising that they blame people's "apathy" for low turn out rather than enter into self-reflection.

 

 

It's not so much apathy, I just think people are lazy, ignorant fucks. Anyone who cannot see clear blue water between social democracy, conservatism and social liberalism is a lazy, ignorant fuck.

 

How do you think I feel when someone tells me all political parties are the same? My party wants to slash income tax for the poor. The Tories want tax cuts for the rich and married couples. Anyone who cannot see a clear difference on even just this solitary issue is a cast-iron IDIOT who is just advertising their complete and utter ignorance and laziness.

 

The problem is people want everything served up to them in little bite-sized chunks. They have the attention span of a sausage roll and zero capacity for independent thought. No, it's not apathy, but it is laziness, which is closely related.

[stringvest]

David Cameron is that dinosaur from Jurrasic park that Newman gets into the car with. Fact.

 

"Ah, look at the cute litte dinosaur on the bike with its nice ties"

 

*Goo in the face, torn limb from limb inside the jeep*

 

 

Anyone driving a jeep should be subjected to the same shit.

[stringvest]

It's not apathy, it's a complete lack of faith in politics and politicians that prevents people from voting. Given that many politicians are self-centred, it's not entirely surprising that they blame people's "apathy" for low turn out rather than enter into self-reflection.

 

Unfortunately in the vast majority of cases is not a conscious political decision not to vote based on ideology or even a decision reached after even a cursory analysis of the facts, it's laziness, fecklessness, stupidity, ignorance and precisely the same self-centredness you accuse (rightly) a good proportion of politicians of.

[Kevin D]

It's not so much apathy, I just think people are lazy, ignorant fucks. Anyone who cannot see clear blue water between social democracy, conservatism and social liberalism is a lazy, ignorant fuck.

 

How do you think I feel when someone tells me all political parties are the same? My party wants to slash income tax for the poor. The Tories want tax cuts for the rich and married couples. Anyone who cannot see a clear difference on even just this solitary issue is a cast-iron IDIOT who is just advertising their complete and utter ignorance and laziness.

 

The problem is people want everything served up to them in little bite-sized chunks. They have the attention span of a sausage roll and zero capacity for independent thought. No, it's not apathy, but it is laziness, which is closely related.

 

Blaming the eletorate; a vote-winner if ever I saw one.

 

"The problem is people want everything served up to them". So serve it up to them,then. Tell them in a way they can understand and convince them of your righteousness as leaders in a democracy should.

 

That is assuming the Lib Dems want to win the election which I don't think is the case.

[Stu Monty]

It's not so much apathy, I just think people are lazy, ignorant fucks. Anyone who cannot see clear blue water between social democracy, conservatism and social liberalism is a lazy, ignorant fuck.

 

How do you think I feel when someone tells me all political parties are the same? My party wants to slash income tax for the poor. The Tories want tax cuts for the rich and married couples. Anyone who cannot see a clear difference on even just this solitary issue is a cast-iron IDIOT who is just advertising their complete and utter ignorance and laziness.

 

The problem is people want everything served up to them in little bite-sized chunks. They have the attention span of a sausage roll and zero capacity for independent thought. No, it's not apathy, but it is laziness, which is closely related.

 

I don't see that much difference and I doubt you'd call me ignorant or lazy when it comes to educating myself on politics. You see the slight variations within a very tight framework as being enough, I don't really. You're looking at three cricket players and saying they are all different because one's an aggressive player, one's defensive and one can't bat for shit. I'm looking at them and saying: "Yes, but they're all wicket-keepers".

 

Any significant differences outside of the acceptable norms of policy are kept quiet in case they lose votes. I agree that people are ignorant though, but that doesn't mean they're wrong when they say there's little difference, just that a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

. I agree that people are ignorant though, but that doesn't mean they're wrong when they say there's little difference, just that a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

But what if some cunt has thumbed in your LCD screen on your digital clock and it shows 88:88?

[Guest Ulysses Everett McGill]

But what if some cunt has thumbed in your LCD screen on your digital clock and it shows 88:88?

 

I'd be making sure that no-one in the neighbourhood has a flux capacitor, or a bat winged disontinued Irish sports car

[Stu Monty]

Got yet another flyer in the post from the Labour candidate today. Once again says absolutely nothing about what she stands for or why I should vote for her, just scaremongering about the Lib Dems and a really dodgy Independent headline that they're clearly trying to attribute to Clegg.

 

I may send her an e-mail. I may ask her if she's planning on sending me any more flyers with her next to Geoff Hoon after his latest star turn.

[aws]

I don't see that much difference and I doubt you'd call me ignorant or lazy when it comes to educating myself on politics. You see the slight variations within a very tight framework as being enough, I don't really. You're looking at three cricket players and saying they are all different because one's an aggressive player, one's defensive and one can't bat for shit. I'm looking at them and saying: "Yes, but they're all wicket-keepers".

 

Any significant differences outside of the acceptable norms of policy are kept quiet in case they lose votes. I agree that people are ignorant though, but that doesn't mean they're wrong when they say there's little difference, just that a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

 

I don't see any really significant policy differences between the three UK parties either - a change of emphasis here, a headline-catcher there. They all criss-cross over each other on different policies. SD says he wants to slash income tax for the poor and contrasts this with the tories wanting to give tax allowances to married couples as if there aren't millions of poor, married couples.

[Strontium]

I don't see that much difference and I doubt you'd call me ignorant or lazy when it comes to educating myself on politics. You see the slight variations within a very tight framework as being enough, I don't really. You're looking at three cricket players and saying they are all different because one's an aggressive player, one's defensive and one can't bat for shit. I'm looking at them and saying: "Yes, but they're all wicket-keepers".

 

 

Okay, radically different tax policy isn't enough for you - give me an example, then, of a distinctive policy that would constitute a significant deviance from these apparent norms.

 

For the record, I want to state that I don't think £700 a year less income tax for someone earning £10,000 is something that is a "slight" difference. I don't think that having to carry an ID card round under pain of imprisonment versus not having to carry one around is something "slight". I don't think pissing away £100bn of public money on new Trident weapons systems versus not pissing away £100bn is "slight". These are all things that will make a significant difference to the lives of many people depending on which way they go. And this is just three policies.

 

 

I don't see any really significant policy differences between the three UK parties either - a change of emphasis here, a headline-catcher there. They all criss-cross over each other on different policies. SD says he wants to slash income tax for the poor and contrasts this with the tories wanting to give tax allowances to married couples as if there aren't millions of poor, married couples.

 

 

AWS, you're missing the point.

 

It goes without saying that slashing income tax for the poor is going to benefit many of the same people that tax allowances for the married would do.

 

However, those poor married people should shoulder less of a tax burden because they are poor, not because they have chosen to get married!

 

One of these policies is intended as a progressive measure to combat poverty; the other is cynical social engineering designed to sustain the outdated tradition that is marriage. Therein lies the difference.

[aws]

Okay, radically different tax policy isn't enough for you - give me an example, then, of a distinctive policy that would constitute a significant deviance from these apparent norms.

 

For the record, I want to state that I don't think £700 a year less income tax for someone earning £10,000 is something that is a "slight" difference. I don't think that having to carry an ID card round under pain of imprisonment versus not having to carry one around is something "slight". I don't think pissing away £100bn of public money on new Trident weapons systems versus not pissing away £100bn is "slight". These are all things that will make a significant difference to the lives of many people depending on which way they go. And this is just three policies.

 

 

 

 

 

AWS, you're missing the point.

 

It goes without saying that slashing income tax for the poor is going to benefit many of the same people that tax allowances for the married would do.

 

However, those poor married people should shoulder less of a tax burden because they are poor, not because they have chosen to get married!

 

One of these policies is intended as a progressive measure to combat poverty; the other is cynical social engineering designed to sustain the outdated tradition that is marriage. Therein lies the difference.

 

You say marriage is outdated but I suspect that belief is not official Liberal policy. If it is, they've kept quiet about it. Most people would say that the best long-term way to tackle poverty is to make sure that every kid has the best possible start to life which means a stable family background and that marriage tends to be more stable than co-habitation. Haven't the ONS just produced some survey which supports the last point? Don't most european countries give tax support to married couples?

 

Not that I'm a massive supporter of marriage in principle - it's just that I don't see chucking a few tax allowances that way as being some kind of idealogical divide which indicates a desire to perpetuate poverty.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

I'd be making sure that no-one in the neighbourhood has a flux capacitor, or a bat winged disontinued Irish sports car

 

Well the fella who lives at number 32, wears a white coat and goes by the E. Brown.

[cosmo]

i'll be voting lib dems but unfortunately I think conservatives will win in my area. I think lib dems are the only party with any really different ideas. However in my experience a lot of people don't consider them a serious party, which is a shame

[Strontium]

You say marriage is outdated but I suspect that belief is not official Liberal policy. If it is, they've kept quiet about it.

 

 

No, that's my personal opinion. In the Lib Dems, we allow people to have their own opinions ;).

 

However, as liberals, we recognise that there are many more types of relationship than hetero marriage, all of which are capable of giving children a good start in life.

 

We value diversity and hate conformity, hence any political policy which seeks to artificially engineer conformity (such as incentives to marry) is anathema to us.

 

So far as the research is concerned, I don't know. But I have seen studies which say that stable, unmarried relationships are every bit as good for raising children, and that relationships where partners remain unmarried can even be more stable than marriages.

 

Either way, we don't feel the need to interfere in people's lives to make them choose a particular path in life. For a liberal, that is not the role of government. We believe government should empower people to make up their own minds, not dictate to them.

 

No offence to you intended, but if people understood political ideology, then they would understand why we would oppose tax breaks to married couples (or at the very least consider it a much lower priority) and also why the Conservatives, as strong believers in tradition and conformity, would support it.

[Vincent Vega]

What's really winding me up in the run up to this election is that all the parties are in agreement that the country's budget deficit needs to be cut and that this will result in tax rises and cuts in services, but not one of the parties is willing to say what tax rises they are going to implement or what services they intend cutting. I know this isn't news the electorate particularly want to hear and the parties are fearful that it will be a vote loser, but when you are asking for us to vote you in to run the country for the next five years, the least we deserve to know is what you intend doing to address the deficit and how it will affect the electorate.

[Dirk]

It's not so much apathy, I just think people are lazy, ignorant fucks. Anyone who cannot see clear blue water between social democracy, conservatism and social liberalism is a lazy, ignorant fuck.

 

How do you think I feel when someone tells me all political parties are the same? My party wants to slash income tax for the poor. The Tories want tax cuts for the rich and married couples. Anyone who cannot see a clear difference on even just this solitary issue is a cast-iron IDIOT who is just advertising their complete and utter ignorance and laziness.

 

The problem is people want everything served up to them in little bite-sized chunks. They have the attention span of a sausage roll and zero capacity for independent thought. No, it's not apathy, but it is laziness, which is closely related.

 

 

They nearly all say "All political parties are shit except for mine." Funny that, isn't that what religious loonies say about their religion?

[Strontium]

They nearly all say "All political parties are shit except for mine." Funny that, isn't that what religious loonies say about their religion?

 

 

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. Each party has a different vision for how they would like the country to be run. One would hope that, unlike religion, the parties would use evidence and reasoned argument to make their individual cases.