General Election 2010

Don't forget the helicopter. Leonardo Da Vinci was responsible for 'Nam.

Don't forget the helicopter. Leonardo Da Vinci was responsible for 'Nam.

By rights we should really get 'WingedAngel' in on this one.

personally I blame Aristotle.

I wouldn't say it's pointless. If we can't define a gene, then defining a scientific basis for "race" seems a bit premature?

just for fun: 5 'definitions' for a 'gene':
1.A mendelian Unit of Heritability- backed up by Crick and Watson's discovery of DNA

1. De Vries' interchangeable part- backed up by the fact that certain genes are shared throughout species to such a degree that they can be swapped and carry out the same task/role
   
2. Garrodian One Gene One Disease- errors in a gene lead to a disease- therefore a healthy gene leads to healthy phenotype.
   4.Watson and Crick's and Brenner's definition of mechanism- genes code for proteins (and other things) which carry out a role- a 'recipe'
   5.Jacob and Monod's switch- genes switching off and off determine phenotype.
   
   

with respect to Matt Ridley- 'Nature via Nurture'

Also relevant to the election: Does an acid donate a proton, or accept a pair of electrons?

Trick fucking question!!

An acid increases the concentration of H3O+!!!

don't bring your chemistry chat here- you know full well it depends if you like Lewis or not.

And who doesn't?

On that note, I'm off to bed.

Wow, someone ill-advisedly uses the term 'racist' against a party of downright xenophobes and then you get 2 pages of smartarses laying into them as if they were in some way guilty of outright bigotry themselves?

The only smartarse on here is edscoble, as he still hasn't found a saddle he can ride more than ten miles on.

However:
Racism is defined more easily than race.
It is a discrimination based on prior misconceptions.
I think you are heading down the Orientalist line with the above comments- 'perceived other'.

Quite. Racism is a problem because it is based on very superficial perceptions of people that are then attempted to be used as a justification for discrimination against them (their 'race' is generally only a couple of superficial characteristics that have no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the discrimination in question).

Fuck off back to Germany Oliver, you foreign bastard.

Geez. Tyans are all the same.

.

Geez. Tians are all the same.

Oh, what nonsense. They're all very different indeed.

How about we analyse a few comments from some 'randomly selected' politicians and see if we think any of them fall into the category of 'racist'? I think that would be helpful, no?

1. "They [Muslims] are backward and evil and if it is racist to say so... then racist I must be - and happy and proud, to be so"

2. "We will never win the nigger vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us."

3. [Referring to Spanish people as] "rag-arsed dagos"

4. "The Muslims are breeding ten times faster than us."

5. "I would allow employers and landlords to qualify their advertisements with phrases like "niggers and faggots need not apply."

6."The orgy of thieving in Iraq has more to do with the character of the people than the absence of restraining troops. And to think that good, decent, law-abiding young British and American men and women laid down their lives to liberate this thieving mob."

1. "Jewish merchant bankers [are] responsible for the ills of England."

2. [response to claims from John Sentamu that there are racists within the Church of England]: "I would have thought the fact that he was made an archbishop with a face as black as Newgate's knocker would belie that."

3. [Paratroopers should] "herd the immigrants together" [and dump them on a] "slow boat to - wherever"

4. "Moslems everywhere behave with equal savagery."

That sounds like a conversation with prince philip.

Unfortunately the defence budget being £36.9 billion a 40% boost would take it to £51.7 billion.
The £14.8 billion difference would go an incredibly long way in schools, hospitals, wind farms, whatever.

It's not going to be before at least Monday, my friend is very high up in Lib Dems and he has important meetings all weekend.

I told him no pressure but if they don't deliver on real electoral reform they risk losing the trust of a generation. And Guardian readers and middle class liberal types will think seriously before ever backing them again.

I am putting my monies on a Lib/Con pact before the morning.

whilst trying to find where those quotes were from i came across this document

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/assets/docs/briefing/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf

"25 things you didn't know when you voted for UKIP (and why you'll never vote for them again)"

all referenced to news articles. happy tynan?

Yeah, they're all former or current UKIP members, bar the one about employers and landlords which is from Sean Gabb who's got strong ties with UKIP and has been invited to speak at their party rallies etc.

One commentator on the BBC yesterday was saying that if the political parties can not form a stable government the Queen can make the decision. It would have to be very extreme circumsatnces - such as the whole place going to economic ruin (which it is anyway but not as bad as Greece).

The Queen does have these powers. She approves the new PM each time and in theory could say something different. However, the House of Commons has the power to vote and abolish the Monarchy if it wanted. It's one of many arrangements that keeps the UK a very stable place. The constitution isn't written down but is formed from a patchwork of overlapping laws and precedents.

Does the government tread carefully with the Queen because she has the army on her side? When you join the army you pledge allegiance to the Queen and the country - not the politicians.

In reality if the Queen did anything out of the ordinary then there'd be outrage and she'd probably lose all of her power here.

Personally speaking, I'd much rather have an elected head of state and a written constitution.

It's not going to be before at least Monday, my friend is very high up in Lib Dems and he has important meetings all weekend.

I told him no pressure but if they don't deliver on real electoral reform they risk losing the trust of a generation. And Guardian readers and middle class liberal types will think seriously before ever backing them again.

yup, there are a lot of labour voters tactically voting in Libdems in libdem/tory close seats like Solihull, where the lib dems won by a thousand or so votes, that will never vote libdem again if they go with the tories.

If they manage to get PR they won't have to vote for them again though i guess...

yup, there are a lot of labour voters tactically voting in Libdems in libdem/tory close seats like Solihull, where the lib dems won by a thousand or so votes, that will never vote libdem again if they go with the tories.

If they manage to get PR they won't have to vote for them again though i guess...

its a tough one as the lib dem membeship tend to split 2:1 left leaning lib : right leaning Lib. A lot depends on who their main opposition is. in south west they fight the Tories in places like birmingham and sheffield they fight labour mainly. Nick Clegg is an orange booker liberal (less left wing) at heart which is not too far from Cameron really. This process is a mix of trying to get things that you want without alienating your own supporters too much, be interesting to see how it all falls out. history being made