Poll: General election voting round 4

[ubersonic]

I'd like the leaders to openly state who they would/wouldn't form a coalition or formal agreement with.

Labour have ruled out a SNP deal.

Tories have ruled out a UKIP deal.

This leaves just the Lib Dems as an option for both.

labour almost certainly won't get a majority even with the lib dems regardless, so the likely outcome is some confidence and supply deal wi the SNP.

A LabLib coalition looks to be the only viable outcome as the SNP would back them up on most things to spite the tories, the only exception being Trident which would have Tory backing anyway.

 

[joeyjojo]

Could you please explain how it works? as far as I can tell the 0-100% rating doesn't correlate to anything, they parties are in a random order and nothing has any bearing on anything :S

The only thing that is apparent is if a part has gone up or down, but again the is no indication how much by so they can't be compared.

I think ANOther just took the % for each party in alphabetical order (which got reversed in Excel, because it's strange like that sometimes) for each poll. So they always add up to 100%, but because a different number of people voted in each poll they represent different absolute numbers of votes.

Gay rights gained traction naturally, in time, just like women's rights or race rights and they had nothing to do with who it was that initially supported them. You just happened to live through the transition period, I'm sure you would have complained if you had lived through the race rights transitional period, just like the rest of the traditionalists.

Reminds me of an xkcd:

https://xkcd.com/1431/ (mouse over the chart for a description, or visit http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1431 )

In this case it's interesting to note that in the USA public support for interracial marriage lagged legal support for it by several decades. I.e. only after legislative action did it switch from being morally unacceptable to being morally acceptable to the majority. Same sex marriage however shows the opposite, public opinion was generally in favour before the majority of states were.

Anyway, Thompson_NCL's view (I think) is of meta-ethical moral relativism, i.e. that morality is a result of cultural traditions. This is a fine position to hold, but it seems to me he goes further to the very worst kind of conservatism - arguing that "traditionalism" should oppose the extension of rights to oppressed groups, regardless:

I suppose what I am saying is that the reactive force of traditionalism is needed to fend off the self interest of minority groups, wanting to wholly redefine our morality. If they didn't exist, anything would go.

This is barbaric. The reason minority groups are "self interested" is because they've suffered, and want to be accepted and treated like the mainstream. I've always disliked what I've read from you Thompson_NCL but this takes the biscuit, it sounds like you couldn't be less empathetic if you tried.

Edit: sorry for OT morality rant, this just annoyed me a lot.

 

[doodah]

Hopeless and BS pledges, £30bn Tory black hole in so called pledges, "vague borrowing figures" for Labour......God I love election season!

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

mmmm so which bunch of money grabbing crooks do I want to try and help put in power this time

 

[elmarko]

Labour have ruled out a SNP deal.

Tories have ruled out a UKIP deal.

This leaves just the Lib Dems as an option for both.

Labour have indeed ruled out a formal coalition.

But I don't think anybody has ruled out a vote by vote agreement.

 

[Mr Jack]

Neither Labour nor Tories have ruled out a deal: they've said they won't enter a coalition. That's not the same thing.

 

[Freddie1980]

Labour have indeed ruled out a formal coalition.

But I don't think anybody has ruled out a vote by vote agreement.

Does the SNP have any choice but to vote with labour? If they don't vote in a Labour Queen's speech or budget their effectively siding with the Tories by proxy.

 

[robgmun]

Neither Labour nor Tories have ruled out a deal: they've said they won't enter a coalition. That's not the same thing.

True

But i don't believe a word that comes out any Labour politicians mouth and it wouldn't shock me that they would enter a coalition with the SNP, lying is in their DNA

 

[elmarko]

True

But i don't believe a word that comes out any Labour politicians mouth and it wouldn't shock me that they would enter a coalition with the SNP, lying is in their DNA

Stop being so dramatic.

Hopefully UKIP support will mean they won't need to form a coalition with anyone & you can enjoy an unfettered Labour government.

 

[The Geezer]

I'm glad the SNP are at the table with their policies which echo Labour of the late 70s early 80s when Labour were more liberal in their thinking.

SNP are the only choice if you are leaning left the proof is in the pudding look at what has happened in Scotland the main parties went right and the voters in the majority kept left.

The SNPophobia in the press is no surprise given they support a right of centre narrative

 

[Telecaster]

It's blindingly obvious if you hang around the "Life" section for a little while.

That's probably why I never picked up on it, I barely post out of the hardware sections.

I'm quite surprised actually!

 

[Tom_ed1987]

Did anyone catch the interview between Evan Davis and Nigel Farage last night? Disgraceful conduct by the BBC – A clear last-ditch before the election attack against the man at the head of the party with the only credibly costed manifesto. I never realised quite how much of a *** Evan was.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Indeed, they always seem to get bundled together by a certain type of forum member.

Besides, which socially progressive groups advocate the cause of paedophiles?.

Some groups prefer an approach which focuses on prevention & rehabilitation (as opposed to vengeance) but this isn't akin to 'advocating the cause of them'. Even the most fervent liberal agrees with the incarceration of dangerous criminals for the prevention of innocents.

Either this is a pathetic attempt to slander liberals as being paedophile sympathisers or an accidental showing that he equates paedophiles to homosexuals.

Which one is it? (I'm fairly certain I know already).

Let me be clear, I don't believe all or even most 'socially progressive' persons are in favour of paedophilia. I believe its a very minor group who currently advocate for their rights. But, I could easily see it being a cause picked up by the broader progressive movement down the line. I imagine they'd argue for softer sentencing, lower age of consent and that paedophilia eroticism (art, stories etc) is entirely harmless. That at least is where it would start.

We've already seen groups like PIE receiving government funding in the 80's. What I am suggesting is not outside the realms of possibility.

Anyway, Thompson_NCL's view (I think) is of meta-ethical moral relativism, i.e. that morality is a result of cultural traditions. This is a fine position to hold, but it seems to me he goes further to the very worst kind of conservatism - arguing that "traditionalism" should oppose the extension of rights to oppressed groups, regardless:

I've a slightly more nuanced view of the world than can be summed up in four words. But you're right, I view morality as a construct. Some constructs are better than others, which is why I generally advocate for traditional Western values.

And of course traditionalist should resist 'progressives' values, because if they didn't, they'd not be traditionalists. It's up to the 'progressives' to win the arguments for change and for the traditionalists to challenge them. If people are convinced by the argument of extending new rights to another special interest group, then it will happen.

This is barbaric. The reason minority groups are "self interested" is because they've suffered, and want to be accepted and treated like the mainstream. I've always disliked what I've read from you Thompson_NCL but this takes the biscuit, it sounds like you couldn't be less empathetic if you tried.

I have pretty high emotional intelligence, so a lack of empathy is not something I am afflicted by.

 

[robgmun]

Stop being so dramatic.

You'll see, mark my words

 

[robgmun]

But, I could easily see it being a cause picked up by the broader progressive movement down the line. I imagine they'd argue for softer sentencing, lower age of consent and that paedophilia eroticism (art, stories etc) is entirely harmless. That at least is where it would start.

We've already seen groups like PIE receiving government funding in the 80's. What I am suggesting is not outside the realms of possibility.

I'm afraid i'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Even through liberal progressives have effectively been in control of this country without challenge for 20 years. The opposite has happened to what you're suggesting, a few years back the UK passed a law that cartoon drawings of someone underage can be classed the same as a real picture. Effectively this means that you can be arrested and charged for owning manga's that depict schoolgirls if they are in suggestive posses or sexual activity.

Even through it was indeed nasty, one man as already been found guilty and jailed for owning Japanese drawings of children having sex, as far as i'm aware he didn't posses any real child pornography of any kind. I don't see this law getting repealed anytime soon

 

[ethan]

Did anyone catch the interview between Evan Davis and Nigel Farage last night? Disgraceful conduct by the BBC – A clear last-ditch before the election attack against the man at the head of the party with the only credibly costed manifesto. I never realised quite how much of a *** Evan was.

Didn't get them very far though did it?

 

[Schlong&Stable]

I'm afraid i'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Even through liberal progressives have effectively been in control of this country without challenge for 20 years. The opposite has happened to what you're suggesting, a few years back the UK passed a law that cartoon drawings of someone underage can be classed the same as a real picture. Effectively this means that you can be arrested and charged for owning manga's that depict schoolgirls if they are in suggestive posses or sexual activity.

Even through it was indeed nasty, one man as already been found guilty and jailed for owning Japanese drawings of children having sex, as far as i'm aware he didn't posses any real child pornography of any kind. I don't see this law getting repealed anytime soon

That is because paedophilia is not the current pet-project of the social progressives right now. It might not ever become their pet-project, its possible they'll move onto something more palatable like polygamy or incest once they've 'won' the battle for the rights of transsexuals. But I think there has always been a softness towards victimless (those that don't act criminally, but just indulge in fantasy) paedophilia on the far-left.

Plus, the current government is Conservative. It's true that the current leadership of the Tory's is anything but socially conservative, but the back benches certainly are. It was the back benches who opposed gay marriage.

 

[Tunney]

That is because paedophilia is not the current pet-project of the social progressives right now.

And it never will be for the same reason that bestiality never will be - consent.

 

[elmarko]

And it never will be for the same reason that bestiality never will be - consent.

Indeed, or incest (due to the problems related to family hierarchy & a position of abuse/power).

Trans, homosexual & equal rights for women & minorities are promoted by progressives for a reason.

 

[D.P.]

Pedophilia is actually already legal, it is only enacting on the desires which is rightly illegal.

This is in stark contrast to things like same sex marriage where for absolutely no good reason at all certain people are discriminated against.