Poll: The Last Leaders Debate – Live tonight at 2030 BST on BBC One

Who will you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 67 11.8%

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 231 40.7%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 227 40.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 42 7.4%
  • Total voters
    567
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
RDM said:
Not to mention though we are now well past the point of only doing things that ensure propogation of the species so it is a bit of a pointless argument to make.
Click to expand...

I never said we weren't past that, I merely pointed out that it is unbiological
 
rypt said:
I never said we weren't past that, I merely pointed out that it is unbiological
Click to expand...

I refute that, there simply isn't enough evidence to make that assumption. Many species of animals have been observed to undertake homosexual activity, who are you to say that it's not some sort of population control method or something?
 
Nick Cleggs claim that only 3000 people will benefit from the tories new inheritance tax is the worst, most blatant lie of this entire campaign!

Is he seriously actually trying to tell us that only 3000 people have more value in their estate than 325,000 pounds?
 
Strife212 said:
Nick Cleggs claim that only 3000 people will benefit from the tories new inheritance tax is the worst, most blatant lie of this entire campaign!

Is he seriously actually trying to tell us that only 3000 people have more value in their estate than 325,000 pounds?
Click to expand...
Yet, 56% of people 'trust' Nick Clegg (YouGov poll).
 
rypt said:
I never said we weren't past that, I merely pointed out that it is unbiological
Click to expand...

It isn't even unbiological, lots of biology involved in sexual attraction. The only thing you can say as far as nature goes is that it does not lead to personal genetic propogation. Which frankly means nothing. You seem to be trying to justify a stance against homosexuality that just isn't backed up with evidence. "It's icky and I don't ike it!" is perfectly fine, but trying to class it as "unnatrual" "unbiological" is just not backed up by anything substantial.
 
One of the basic animal instincts is to breed as I said, so being homosexual goes counter to that
 
rypt said:
One of the basic animal instincts is to breed as I said, so being homosexual goes counter to that
Click to expand...

So does killing each other, or eating your own young as some species do. If you have ever seen two male dogs going at it with each other in the local park you will see that the sexual imperative can over-ride any instinct to breed specifically.

Homosexuality has always existed in Mankind, the ancient Greeks held homosexuals in reverence, bisexuality was the norm. Only since the rise of Abrahamic religions has it become predominantly negative, although since the 1800s this has been changing, especially in recent decades.

A 1999 review paper by reasercher Bruce Bagemihl showed that over 1500 species of animal showed evidence of bisexual, homosexual and transgender behaviour, so to say that it is un-natural or counter to instinct is disingenuous.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990813,00.html
 
Homosexualty is as 'natural' as heterosexuality I don't understand how you can argue otherwise. But i guess that depends on what you define as 'natural' or 'unbiological'.
 
Strife212 said:
Nick Cleggs claim that only 3000 people will benefit from the tories new inheritance tax is the worst, most blatant lie of this entire campaign!

Is he seriously actually trying to tell us that only 3000 people have more value in their estate than 325,000 pounds?
Click to expand...

The nil rate band for inheritance tax is transferable between married people and civil partners, effectively giving you £650,000 allowance on a joint estate.
Also if it is such a lie why has no one but you realised it? The Tory press would jump all over something like that, I just had a quick look around and I don't see anything.
 
bam0 said:
The nil rate band for inheritance tax is transferable between married people and civil partners, effectively giving you £650,000 allowance on a joint estate.
Click to expand...
Yes - *a* joint estate. Most couples have two sets of parents.


Also if it is such a lie why has no one but you realised it? The Tory press would jump all over something like that, I just had a quick look around and I don't see anything.
Click to expand...
Because people don't really care about detail. It is a lie.

The anomaly between what Clegg/Brown says and reality (what Cameron says) is that 90+% of inheritances that would be caught in the existing £350,000 to £1,000,000 threshold avoid it anyway (by having the foresight to transfer assets early, or fraud).

Just because 96% of people avoid a tax does not mean "only 3000 will benefit". All it means is that "100% of the people in the margin will no longer have the burden of worry, and the 4% that do actually fall in the trap no longer do.
 
Andy_82 said:
That is absolutely crazy. Wonder whos bright idea it was to select her
Click to expand...

What makes you think it was someone's bright idea? It's clear from the article that she's well connected with the heart of the Conservative party. Put that together with the Conservatives joining a homophobic coalition in the EU parliament and a senior Tory claiming that B&Bs should be able to turn away homosexuals and I'm afraid you get a picture of a particularly nasty party that will probably form the next UK government :(
 
scorza said:
What makes you think it was someone's bright idea? It's clear from the article that she's well connected with the heart of the Conservative party. Put that together with the Conservatives joining a homophobic coalition in the EU parliament and a senior Tory claiming that B&Bs should be able to turn away homosexuals and I'm afraid you get a picture of a particularly nasty party that will probably form the next UK government :(
Click to expand...

Is state enforced tolerance any less authoritarian than state enforced intolerance? I haven't seen the Conservatives advocating state enforced anything, unlike both labour and the lib dems...
 
scorza said:
What makes you think it was someone's bright idea? It's clear from the article that she's well connected with the heart of the Conservative party. Put that together with the Conservatives joining a homophobic coalition in the EU parliament and a senior Tory claiming that B&Bs should be able to turn away homosexuals and I'm afraid you get a picture of a particularly nasty party that will probably form the next UK government :(
Click to expand...

I was hoping as a society we had moved away from homophobia
 
bam0 said:
The nil rate band for inheritance tax is transferable between married people and civil partners, effectively giving you £650,000 allowance on a joint estate.
Also if it is such a lie why has no one but you realised it? The Tory press would jump all over something like that, I just had a quick look around and I don't see anything.
Click to expand...

Anyone with an estate under £1m for single and £2m for couples will be exempt, the vagaries of the nil rate taxation system mean that the higher the value the more benefit you recieve, but that is true of all nil rate taxation.

It will effectively take out all middle income earners or people with houses worth more than 325000 out of the inheritance tax trap.

Clegg stating that only the top 3000 estates will benefit is disingenous and anyone with a modicum of sense can see that.

An example, an elderly spinster wishes to leave her house to her children, she bought their house in the 1950s when typical house prices were far lower, the typical 3 bed semi is worth the average £350000 (in my area Salisbury), add that to her savings and rest of her estate to say 400k, her children would be liable for 40% of 75k, meaning they would have to sell the house to pay it. Is that fair?


The super rich can get out of inheritance tax simply by giving their house to their children and moving out, after 7 years no IHT is payable, could the average middle income family or retiree do that, no.

The Conservatives plan for IHT benefit the middle income earners far more than the 3000 wealthiest estates, and that is fact.
 
Last edited:
Superewza said:
Then don't vote conservative.
Click to expand...

I wish it was that simple. Its a really difficult decision this time around, not sure if anyone else is finding this but the more i read about each parties policies the more difficult the decision on which party offers the best option for the UK's future. I don't think it helps that non of the parties are really being honest about the grave economic situation this country is in. But then, is the electorate ready for that kind of honesty after all ignorance is bliss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom