-
Election live + pizza anyone?
http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/whatson/election-night-screening-at-pizza-express-article-9648.html
-
• #728
I say to you (I learnt that off the politicians) - the suggestion that given a big enough majority that extreme superstition like this might 'show itself' (it's not entirely clear what Horatio means here) - is silly - and if this is put forward as a partisan issue New Labour is as steeped in this kind of cloying shit as any party.
I just got back from the pub, but....
Are you disagreeing with my argument or my example?
I used an example to demonstrate what conservative values are, and how, although they may not be policy issues, they are the things which a conservative is likely to believe (that is, these are things which the people who may be running the country, believe). You argued many New Labour members have similar views. I don't disagree. New Labour, however, is not a conservative party. Their members do not join New Labour because they are self-described "Conservatives." Why they join, or what the party is, is not the point of discussion. This issue was based around one person asking why there is a base level of distrust towards the Conservative party. My argument was that this is because they are a conservative party.
From this, I believe, you argue this is an invalid point because many people in other parties also believe in the same thing.
If this *is *what you're arguing, then "meh." You can believe this. I may even agree with you. My point is there is a level of distrust towards the Conservative party because they are the party of conservatism.
-
Are you disagreeing with my argument or my example?
Not sure, might not have read all the relevant posts.
What I do say to you (© UK Lib/Lb/Con) . . . the Conservatives have any number of superstitious idiots like the one you linked to, New Labour is equally populated by superstitious idiots all the way up to the highest office.
Do the Conservatives conceal these nutbags ? (the 'secret face of Conservatism' unwritten in the policy book) - Yes they do, just like New Labour don't mention the Muslim Council of Britain's homophobia, Ruth Kelly's involvement in Opus Dei, Tony Blair's belief in the risen Christ (etc etc).
Religious thinking is all pervasive, it is a non-partisan issue, New Labour may have it's nose ahead in the race to deliver as many impressionable children as possible into the hands of elderly superstitious virgins - but, of course, the Conservatives will only try and match the spread of sectarian education in the UK if elected.
-
How are they (the New Labour party) less socially conservative ? Serious question.
Well, this comes as a bit of a shock - I prefer to criticise Labour, so I don't have a fund of references in their defence. Still, here goes:
NL introduced civil partnerships for homosexual couples in 2004. The Tories want to introduce tax breaks for heterosexual married couples. Section 28 was introduced by the Tories in 1988 and supported by them up until 2003 (though Cameron formally apologised for the policy last year). The Shadow Home Secretary suggested as recently as April that B&B's should be allowed to turn away gay couples. Cameron allows his MEPs free votes on legislation which challenges LGBT lifestyles. Cameron suggested in a recent interview with The Catholic Herald that he would be in favour if reducing the upper limit on abortions from 24 weeks to 22 or 20 weeks in light of recent medical advances (Ben Goldacre wrote about why this is bollocks some time ago), as well as preventing people from seeking assisted suicide. Labour tabled the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 2008 and had to allow a free vote on the key issues, thanks to an internal Catholic rebellion. The Tories took advantage of the controversy to table amendments to abortion law at the same time and most prominent Tories, including Cameron, were in favour of a reduction. During the passage of the same bill, Cameron and his party voted against amendments that would have given lesbian couples the right to IVF treatment.
Those are just examples culled from the last few years' headlines and a quick trawl through theyworkforyou. Obviously I can't prove a negative, so it will fall to someone less partisan to point out how equally socially conservative Labour are.
*See next bit
I used an example to demonstrate what conservative values are, and how, although they may not be policy issues, they are the things which a conservative is likely to believe (that is, these are things which the people who may be running the country, believe). You argued many New Labour members have similar views. I don't disagree. New Labour, however, is not a conservative party. Their members do not join New Labour because they are self-described "Conservatives." Why they join, or what the party is, is not the point of discussion. This issue was based around one person asking why there is a base level of distrust towards the Conservative party. My argument was that this is because they are a conservative party.
From this, I believe, you argue this is an invalid point because many people in other parties also believe in the same thing.
+1
The concern is that, while Labour may be full of religious headbangers, it's a "broad church" (geddit?) and I don't think its policies are pushed in any one direction by religion. Blair wasn't just a Christian - he was a bit Protestant, a bit Catholic, a bit New Age, all forget-rationality-just-go-with-your-"convictions". They have Opus Dei, Islam, Christians, and lots of former Trots, with no religion.
Labour pushed Faith Schools as a great thing, but that was one of many bits of tinkering that they did to the education system, and was more influenced by the New Labour ideology that "other people do it better" (be that the private sector, the Church, whoever).
Although I haven't seen any data, I would be willing to bet quite a lot of money on either of the following two statements: 1) the Conservative have more self-identified religious members 1a) either in the party as a whole or 1b) in parliament than Labour; 2) of their religious members, a greater proportion of them are Christians, of some denomination, than Labour.
Traditional Tory Values are a good fit with Traditional Religious Values. Let's look again at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, because it's instructive. This was introduced and guided through parliament by Labour - it was a Labour bill. It didn't do anything too controversial, it was mostly an update of a previous bill. A small number of Catholic Labour MPs threatened a rebellion and parts of the Bill were put to a free vote. One of these changes was an amendment to the original language of the 1990 act, changing "the need of that child [produced by IVF] for a father" to "the need of that child for supportive parenting", i.e. allowing lesbian couples access to IVF.
Cameron voted with his party on two failed amendments: changing "a father" to "a father and a mother", and changing "a father" to "supportive parenting and a father or male role model". These changes were successfully opposed in a free vote, with about 92% of the Tories (including Cameron, in both votes) in favour of a change that still excluded lesbian parents and 82% of Labour opposing the suggested amendments. -
Sorry, meant national debt, not budget deficit. Govt figures have it currently at 900 billion and forecast to rise to 1 trillion by 2011.
I still don't see that as "worse than any other industrialised nation". The US national debt is a hair under 13 trillion dollars.
In relative terms, by any metric, the UK isn't that badly fucked (though, to be sure, it is badly fucked). For instance, I live in Spain, and official unemployment is over 20%. Unofficial estimates are quite a bit higher, closer to 25%.
-
Point of order: I believe these breaks are for married couples and couples in civil partnerships
Good point, I think you may be right.
1) That isn't actually contradicted by what I wrote :P
2) I still think that this demonstrates traditional Tory values. The message is intended for the Tory base. Strong families, etc etc.
-
Well, as far as I can see, there's only one thing to do:
Armed Revolution! The Facist Capitalist Pigs (wich ever ones get in) Must Die!
I'm afraid I wont be able to help too much as I just moved to France but do let me know how you get on.
-
Good point, I think you may be right.
1) That isn't actually contradicted by what I wrote :P
2) I still think that this demonstrates traditional Tory values. The message is intended for the Tory base. Strong families, etc etc.
Sure, but it's not a bad message. stable families promote social cohesion, and statistically are more likely to raise better behaved happier children who do better in life. You can see why they'd use the tax system to promote it, as it should result in lower social costs and a net saving.
-
With regards to conservatives and religion, Britain is not America, so I'd imagine that the Tory religion of choice is CofE and anything else is seen as a bit subversive. I also think it doesn't do well to be too religious. It's the old "I'm not interested in politics so I vote conservative, I'm not religious so I'm CofE" thing.
To say Christian religious conservatives are more likely to vote conservative is probably true. However Muslim religious conservatives (who probably make a larger demographic) are probably more likely to vote Labour.
-
With regards to conservatives and religion, Britain is not America, so I'd imagine that the Tory religion of choice is CofE and anything else is seen as a bit subversive. I also think it doesn't do well to be too religious. It's the old "I'm not interested in politics so I vote conservative, I'm not religious so I'm CofE" thing.
See the (genuinely very interesting) second link. It's from the FT, so it's not a hatchet job written by the Guardian's work-experience kid, or anything like that.
More here and here on the wholly unsurprising links between the Tories and the Evangelical Christian movement.
-
Sure, but it's not a bad message. stable families promote social cohesion, and statistically are more likely to raise better behaved happier children who do better in life. You can see why they'd use the tax system to promote it, as it should result in lower social costs and a net saving.
Using the tax system to tell people how to live? I'd have thought with your anti-state, anti-government viewpoint you would abhor such actions. -
Sure, but it's not a bad message. stable families promote social cohesion, and statistically are more likely to raise better behaved happier children who do better in life. You can see why they'd use the tax system to promote it, as it should result in lower social costs and a net saving.
They are not using it to promote "stable families" they are using it to promote marriage (with the civil-partnerships thing being nothing more than a typical Cameron "look we have changed" gesture). It is grossly unfair, not to say outdated, patronising and without any evidence at all that it will have the desired effect. I think the tax break is going to be about £150 a year; worth getting married for? Or staying married for? It is pure idealogy.
A husband, let's say, er, Boris Johnson, cheats on his wife. They get divorced. He remarries, she does not but she chooses to live with her new partner in a happy and stable relationship. He gets the tax break, she does not. How exactly does this promote social cohesion? -
Sure, but it's not a bad message. stable families promote social cohesion, and statistically are more likely to raise better behaved happier children who do better in life. You can see why they'd use the tax system to promote it, as it should result in lower social costs and a net saving.
Where are these statistics? how reliable are the sources?
photoben
tynan
Seeds
bq
ocdc
Streaky_Twanger
James1822
deleted
rpm
GA2G-
Post a reply
About
General Election 2010
Posted by
@lpg
I think I agree with the T-man in that this particular example is not a good one. A better one would be the two councillors who were suspended for making, or e-mailing, a racist joke. They are not racists, of course. They just like a racist joke. That, I think, is more what this is about; that a lot of tories have these prejudices, old fashioned, narrow minded or just plain ignorant views, they don't really 'get' what is wrong with this kind of crap but they have learned not to say it in public. And I doubt that is really true for most Labour or LibDem politicians for all their faults.