-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF: General election thread of LibCon Coalitionage
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
- Status
Either way it needs to be done unless you want a gilts strike and have the IMF impose cuts for us. When the parties start talking about cuts the voters run scared, so none of the main 3 have actually gone into proper detail about how frontline services will be affected (and they will be). Lib Dems have specified a higher percentage of the cuts required, because they want to cut some big ticket items that the other 2 don't want to: Trident, for example (which isn't even that big a saving, it's £4bn a year off the budget from 2015 onwards).Chinner said:
I kinda like X Factor though. :lolSmokyDave said:
brain_stew
Member
Chinner said:
Bloody hell, they're worse than the BNP!
Surely the church aren't happy to have their name attached to that sort of party? Surprised there's no amnesty for child abusers.
jorma said:
Read it again - "a proposed referendum on the reinstitution of the death penalty for severe crimes, where two or three witnesses were present at the crime scene and forensic science confirms involvement."
It doesn't say 3 witnesses unless you're a man and then only one witness is necessary, does it?
No, it says that we should ask the people if they wish to restore the death penalty for crimes where guilt has been proven beyond doubt. I agree with that sentiment and fail to see the Shariah implications. Does America have Shariah Law?
Then they should have said when guilt has been proven beyond doubt.SmokyDave said:
Instead they said "where two or three witnesses were present at the crime scene and forensic science confirms involvement", which doesn't sound very wise and possibly religiously motivated.
Witnesses are notoriously unreliable, increasing the number of them doesn't necessarily mean their account become safer as they might consciously or unconsciously collaborate their accounts, and "involvement" can be anything from fingerprints or DNA evidence left on the crime scene, both with high grade of failure and not an clear cut indicator of guilt - even with the combination of eye witnesses.
I must admit that I am no expert on criminology and forensics, but I doubt whoever thought up this proposal was.
To clarify, I am suspicious of the way the worded it all. They might just mean "proven beyond reasonable doubt" in which case I've over reacted, but I have to wonder seeing how the other statements seem to have been derived from the bible
To be fair, I interpreted it to mean 'beyond reasonable doubt', they didn't say that and I may well be mistaken. All I'm saying is I am personally in favour of a referendum on re-instating the death penalty and I personally would vote 'yes' if I felt we were only using it for exceptional cases where the guilt of the offender was beyond reasonable doubt. I probably shouldn't have said that I agree with them and instead laid out my feelings as above.
Since the Christian Party will receive an even smaller slice of the vote than the BNP, I doubt we need to worry about exactly how they'll implement this.
Since the Christian Party will receive an even smaller slice of the vote than the BNP, I doubt we need to worry about exactly how they'll implement this.
Well, yeah, normally. That was the basis I was working on. You just never know with these fringe parties though and their wording didn't make it absolutely clear. Better to be safe than sorry.jorma said:
You are welcome to your opinion and as the weight of the majority is in agreement with you we will do things your way, not mine.Sir Fragula said:
I'm not keen on the death penalty but I do feel that society needs a measure with which it can remove the elements of society that will not play by the rules and cannot be rehabilitated. For the greater good and all that. Not everyone in a civilisation can be civilised.
Indeed; if only there was a place where such individuals could be removed from the general public. Perhaps locked in a big, secure building with other dangerous people for a pre-determined period of time, based on the nature and degree of their offences. Unfortunately, as far as I know, no such place exists. So, we have no choice but to set them free.SmokyDave said:
To which I reply "Prison overcrowding, don't want my taxes keeping scum warm and fed while pensioners starve and freeze". You then (rightly) point out the appeals cost for death row prisoners would be higher than incarceration costs and I say "Stick a bullet in their head then - £3". You then realise I'm a psycho dictator that shouldn't be trusted with animals, let alone people. I stand by my opinions though, on an overcrowded and under-resourced planet, we can afford a selective cull (let me guess, it starts with me! haha!).Sir Fragula said:
The death penalty is not coming back to the shores of our islands, have no fear. I'm in a tiny minority.
my local tory mp is massively anti-gay.. I don't know why the lib dems or labour don't run attack pieces in their leaflets, they all just say the same shit about not cutting NHS, lowering council tax and looking out for local people. If the people knew WHO they were voting for, and not just the party attached they might actually think about who they are putting the X next to.
Sky reporting it:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...yreshire_And_Arran,_Suspended_For_Gay_Remarks
Reading the comments is amusing/depressing, I can't work out if this one is satire or not:
I hope it's satire ...
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...yreshire_And_Arran,_Suspended_For_Gay_Remarks
Reading the comments is amusing/depressing, I can't work out if this one is satire or not:
I hope it's satire ...
Well, yeah, normally.iapetus said:
Seriously though, I honestly don't know. I'd like to think not but it's obvious that some will slip through the net. If we were to re-instate the death penalty it would have to be for the most exceptional and clear cut circumstances. I know the conventional wisdom is that it's better to release 1000 guilty men than kill 1 innocent man but I disagree. I'd give my life gladly if I could pick 1000 hardened criminals to take with me.
radioheadrule83
Banned
DECK'ARD said:
Some of them are hopefully bad 'jokes'. The ones by posters called 'oldfart' and 'hetroman' almost certainly are I think...
Linkified said:
Some of those quangos are actually needed - they were set up for a reason. Undoubtedly there is waste but the entire budget deficit cannot be sorted by cutting a few quangos. Also, the Conservatives have ring-fenced the foreign aid budget, as well as defence (while a review is carried out) and the NHS (they're the only one of the 3 to promise an real terms increase every year). That means we come back to huge cuts to all other departments which no parties wish to discuss.
As I said before, the public say they want the politicians to tell them the truth; when they tell them the truth they run scared. People are in denial about the state of our public finances.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
holy shit at nick griffin, just listened to an interview where he said he'll put all the murders, rapists and pedo's to work digging trenches to lay high speed fibre optic cabling across the country...fucking brilliant.
So...err... someone steal the idea pls. :lol :lol :lol
So...err... someone steal the idea pls. :lol :lol :lol
brain_stew
Member
fizzelopeguss said:
Genius! :lol
New Tory party political broadcast attacking PR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oMooR9yBc&feature=player_embedded
awful, awful stuff. even outside of my personal political opposition to it, it's lame scare tactics combined with horrible "comedy", and a poorly produced advert in general.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oMooR9yBc&feature=player_embedded
awful, awful stuff. even outside of my personal political opposition to it, it's lame scare tactics combined with horrible "comedy", and a poorly produced advert in general.
Left Foot Forward has been studying the IFS report and found some interesting things:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/#comments
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/#comments
Tories helping only the rich? NO WAY!The IFS analysis of the parties tax and benefits plan shows that, relative to the Labour and Liberal Democrats policies, the National Insurance cut would benefit those towards the top of the income scale to a greater degree than those at the bottom.
Lal.
Just watched it, was terrible!
brain_stew
Member
Empty said:
What happened to Cameron only wanting to lead a "positive campaign" and detesting scare tactics?
Flip-flop-flip-flop...............
Linkified said:
the implication is that the Lib Dems are the yellow branded "hung parliament party" because they support PR which will lead to hung parliaments and coalition governments going forwards, on top of them trying to scare people into voting for a majority tory government.
brain_stew
Member
Linkified said:
Also, PR = the UK to never suffer a majority Tory government again
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked