General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[TheKnightWho]

I think you're making two mistakes.

Firstly, intolerance against gays would be things like committing violence against, or ostracising, or treating people really badly purely because those people are gay. The mere fact of believing that gay marriage should not be legalized is nothing remotely like that. I can think of a few people I know who have that opinion, but at the same time would treat gays with exactly the same respect that they do for others. So I'm not saying that that point of view is justified intolerance, I'm saying it's not (by itself) intolerance. Discriminatory, sure. Unfair, sure. But those are different things. I think you're devaluing the word 'intolerance' by applying it far more widely than it really means (Although obviously there is a bit of subjectivity about what constitutes intolerance).

But secondly, you're using the word in a way that insults and shows disrespect to others.

Suppose you're trying to persuade someone that gay marriage should be legal: Here are two possible arguments you could put:

1. Making gay marriage legal would make a massive difference to many people who otherwise feel that love and commitment to each other is not adequately represented by laws. It also removes what is arguably a discriminatory anomaly whereby some people through not fault of their own are not allowed to get married to their chosen partner. And it would achieve all this without harming anyone.
2. You're just being intolerant by opposing gay marriage.

Which of those do you think is more likely to pursuade the person you're (hypothetically) talking to?

And it's the same thing with UKIP. Personally I wouldn't dream of supporting UKIP, because I perceive so much to be wrong with not just their policies, but their whole underlying philosophy. But I have no doubt that many people who support UKIP presumably do so for genuine reasons. They are for whatever reason convinced that UKIP will somehow make life better. I think you and I both agree that those people are mistaken. But wouldn't it be more constructive to explain what specifically you think is wrong with UKIP's policies, rather than labelling them, and UKIP, with the somewhat subjective, and inflammatory, label 'intolerant' (or with similar subjective labels like 'a joke' or 'dangerous'? (Even if you personally think some of those policies do amount to intolerance)

1) Firstly, as I've already said, it's not reasonable to define intolerance merely as direct, targeted and conscious prejudice as you are doing. It ignores more insidious, subtle and (frankly) dangerous forms of intolerance that seep through our society. As I've said already, defining it in the way you do first of all doesn't fully address the issue, as just because someone doesn't mean to be harmful doesn't mean they aren't, and secondly allows people to conveniently define the issue in such a way as it doesn't target them. The reason I define intolerance broadly (and, indeed, I think opposing gay marriage is intolerant even by your definition in most cases), is because I want a definition of intolerant that is meaningful and cannot easily be avoided. And hey, even if you don't call it intolerant, that doesn't make it any better than what it is, which is discriminating against someone based on an aspect of their life that's none of anyone else's business. If that's not intolerance then I don't know what is.

2) Secondly, calling me rude doesn't change the fact that these issues do very much affect me and they do very much affect my life. It also doesn't make me wrong. I mean, I feel like UKIP are disrespecting my existence by wanting to ban, regulate or otherwise insult a number of areas of my life - me being a bit arrogant and calling them intolerant hardly compares.

These are issues I encounter every day, and yours are arguments that I deal with every day. I don't mean to be condescending, but what I'm trying to say is that these are issues I've thought about, and the reason I act the way I do is because it's not always easy to be calm and "reasonable" (whatever that means) when people are literally arguing that some core part of you is morally repugnant.

Finally, saying that people support UKIP for genuine reasons might be true. That doesn't mean I have to view it as right, and it certainly doesn't mean I have to respect their decision. Views can still be poorly thought out, ignorant or otherwise worse than they could be, and standing behind the "it's just my opinion" argument doesn't really say anything at all other than the fact that it's not illegal to have your opinion. Indeed, I'd like them to explain to me why they want to impose themselves on my life in the way they do - and so frankly it very much is my business.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

2) Secondly, calling me rude doesn't change the fact that these issues do very much affect me and they do very much affect my life. It also doesn't make me wrong. I mean, I feel like UKIP are disrespecting my existence by wanting to ban, regulate or otherwise insult a number of areas of my life - me being a bit arrogant and calling them intolerant hardly compares.

In my view UKIP have disrespected a lot of people over the last few years, both by their policies and by the attitude conveyed in much of their publicity. Indeed, I'd say my key fundamental objection to both UKIP and the Conservatives is that IMO both parties seek to help some groups of people at the expense of others - and that stands in sharp contrast to Labour and the LibDems, both of whom to a good approximation seek (albeit, often imperfectly) to help basically everyone to the best of their abilities. I regard this aspect of both UKIP and the Conservative's approach as fundamentally immoral. And of course if you are one of the people that UKIP are (apparently) not seeking to represent, then that is going to be very frustrating - and yes, it would make a lot of people angry so I do sympathize.

But disrespecting or being rude to people who happen to support UKIP is not going to help! And it's arguably likely to make things worse because it just confirms the perception that many UKIP supporters have that no one addresses their concerns. If lots of people do that, then you just end up with two groups of people (UKIP-supporters and UKIP-opponents), neither of whom understand each other, and both of whom are convinced that the other side is intolerant towards them.

These are issues I encounter every day, and yours are arguments that I deal with every day. I don't mean to be condescending, but what I'm trying to say is that these are issues I've thought about, and the reason I act the way I do is because it's not always easy to be calm and "reasonable" (whatever that means) when people are literally arguing that some core part of you is morally repugnant.

I don't doubt that you have thought about things a lot. In the past, I've regarded many of your posts as well thought out and perceptive. But surely you can see that if you make out that other people are in some way morally repugnant just because they support UKIP and hold certain views, then they are probably going to feel and react just the same way that you do, and then you end up with a vicious circle!

Finally, saying that people support UKIP for genuine reasons might be true. That doesn't mean I have to view it as right, and it certainly doesn't mean I have to respect their decision. Views can still be poorly thought out, ignorant or otherwise worse than they could be, and standing behind the "it's just my opinion" argument doesn't really say anything at all other than the fact that it's not illegal to have your opinion. Indeed, I'd like them to explain to me why they want to impose themselves on my life in the way they do - and so frankly it very much is my business.

Offhand I don't recall seeing any post in this thread in which anyone has sought to impose themselves on you. I have seen many views expressed that appear to be poorly thought out, or which demonstrate ignorance of certain facts, but I'd have thought the solution to that is to explain in what manner (you think) the view is poorly thought out. And any variant of 'you're intolerant' isn't really going to cut it.

 

[ExRes]

Being intolerant of intolerance is not a bad thing. Once again, if you want to prove me wrong show how UKIP are good - don't just say I'm being unfairly biased. At least me calling them intolerant is a thing about UKIP's policies themselves, rather than your cries of intolerance which are simply "you don't like them! Stop being mean!".

Can we have your considered opinion on the comments made today by Nigel Farage on the migrant/refugee situation in the Mediterranean and reported by the BBC and others, as linked below



http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...WigKgP&usg=AFQjCNFN6Tgl2AJQ7JIc09UwXkVfZ7Kxpg

 

[yorksrob]

Must be hard if your looking at this from a 20th century view of Britain rather than a 21st century view of Europe made up of regions.

Ha ha, you've got my number !! I feel far more at home with my twentieth century view of Britain. I have to say though, I'd feel less concerned about the Europe of the Regions if they weren't as concerned about privatising and selling off everything.

Why did we have to flog off the post office ? Why are all European Nations forced to franchise out their railway operations.

As a left of centre Briton, I don't see why I have to support an EU whose aim seems to be to be a Toryesque view of flogging everything off.

I don't like the 21st century Europe of the regions if it involves having no control over our affairs.

I'd like to hear more about TTIP, yet we've had nothing about it from any of the parties, except from the Greens. What do they have to hide ?

I have a lot of suspicions about the Europe of the Regions we're supposed to support. Plus, Britain might be old fasioned, but its kept Naziism and Communism at bay, for all its faults.

 

[St Rollox]

Europe of the Regions is exactly where we're heading.
Btw, being old enough to have voted back in the Common Market referendum, the Left were against it.
The present lot love it.
Ukip in an English context is like a teenager that's just let slip at a family gathering mum is having an affair with the man next door.
They have a habit of saying the things polite society doesn't want aired.
And the danger of it is, much of it is true.
Even if it is said by right-wing oddballs.

 

[yorksrob]

Europe of the Regions is exactly where we're heading.
Btw, being old to have voted back in the Common Market referendum, the Left were against it.
The present lot love it.
Ukip in an English context is like a teenager that's just let slip at a family gathering mum is having an affair with the man next door.
They have a habit of saying the things polite society doesn't want aired.
And the danger of it is, much of it is true.
Even if it is said by right-wing oddballs.

Far too young to have voted in the Common Market referendum myself. (the fact that it was described as a referendum on the "common market" illustrates the lies that were told to support it).

Ultimately England's place in the EU depends on whether we can negotiate a reasonable separation of powers between the Eurozone and us. I'm sceptical as to whether this can be done in the long run. We set out on a different course when we didn't accept the Euro. This is why I think that we will go eventually.

You Scots are going to have to decide which side you want to go with.

 

[St Rollox]

Far too young to have voted in the Common Market referendum myself. (the fact that it was described as a referendum on the "common market" illustrates the lies that were told to support it).

Ultimately England's place in the EU depends on whether we can negotiate a reasonable separation of powers between the Eurozone and us. I'm sceptical as to whether this can be done in the long run. We set out on a different course when we didn't accept the Euro. This is why I think that we will go eventually.

You Scots are going to have to decide which side you want to go with.

I wouldn't start the engine on leaving just yet.
There's no guarantee a referendum might ever happen.
Having just seen what a referendum really looks like, not the AV nonsense, your in for the biggest shock of your life.
What's in the EU Exit corner, the Daily Mail, Ukip and assorted right-wingers.
Maybe a few old lefties like me.
The State will turn on you and then eat you and spit you out.
Wait till jobs get mentioned or British passport holders living all over Europe.
I'd be surprised the EU Exit camp could reach Scotland's 45%.
Btw, did i mention the silent majority.
The famous don't knows who will quietly wipe you out on Referendum Day.

 

[yorksrob]

I wouldn't start the engine on leaving just yet.
There's no guarantee a referendum might ever happen.
Having just seen what a referendum really looks like, not the AV nonsense, your in for the biggest shock of your life.
What's in the EU Exit corner, the Daily Mail, Ukip and assorted right-wingers.
Maybe a few old lefties like me.
The State will turn on you and then eat you and spit you out.
Wait till jobs get mentioned or British passport holders living all over Europe.
I'd be surprised the EU Exit camp could reach Scotland's 45%.
Btw, did i mention the silent majority.
The famous don't knows who will quietly wipe you out on Referendum Day.

You make the mistake of assuming that just because I don't like the EU, I'd automatically vote out. In truth I'd probably not rock the boat if I was convinced it was going to create a lot of upheaval.

The separation of powers bit that I mentioned is the key that I don't think a lot of people have realised. If the Eurozone becomes more of a voting block and begins to decide everything in Eurozone interests, we might not have much choice but to get out.

The Eurozone is another thorny issue that your independent Scotland will have to decide on (i.e whether you do actually want self Government, or whether you just want to hitch yourself to a bigger block).

 

[Tetchytyke]

UKIP is not allowed on the premises by many student unions but the Oxford Union has invited hate preacher Anjem Choudary to speak despite being on bail for being a member of a banned terror group.

UKIP are not no-platformed by students' unions.

Certain people within UKIP are no-platformed, due to their historic and present links with organisations like the National Front and Combat 18.

The Oxford Union- which is a debating society and not a students' union- has a history of inviting controversial speakers to attend. It's invited the likes of the self-styled "Tommy Robinson" and Nick Griffin before.

Firstly, intolerance against gays would be things like committing violence against, or ostracising, or treating people really badly purely because those people are gay.

Opposing gay marriage is not by itself intolerant. It's perfectly possible for someone to oppose gay marriage (for example, for theological reasons, or because they believe that gay civil partnerships amount to the same thing) but at the same time to believe in treating gays fairly and well in every other aspect of life (and to actually do so in their personal life).

Total nonsense.

Intolerance and discrimination is sometimes about the overt, but more often than not it is about the covert. It's about denying people access to certain services or legal relationships because of their sexuality.

If you genuinely think homophobia is only about gay-bashing you're either being disingenuous or you're being exceptionally naive.

The mere fact of believing that gay marriage should not be legalized is nothing remotely like that. I can think of a few people I know who have that opinion, but at the same time would treat gays with exactly the same respect that they do for others.

Except it is- it is about denying someone something because of their sexuality. It is about making a value judgment- gay people should absolutely not be allowed to marry- and imposing that value judgment on other people for no good reason.

If that's not discriminatory I don't know what is.

The "I'm not homophobic, some of my best friends are gay" lot are not treating gay people with the same respect as straight people. They're denying them the right to marry the person they love. They're making a value judgment against their adult consensual relationships. That's disrespectful.

I've highlighted the bit that proves what I mean and disproves what you're trying to argue. Someone who is intolerant of gay relationships is intolerant of gay people. It really is as simple as that. Tolerance only of the bits you agree with is not tolerance. It's as disingenuous and homophobic a position as the Catholic doctrine that gay people are fine so long as they don't have sex with each other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although saying that, all of the NI parties (including Sinn Féin) appeared on Newsnight earlier this week. It was said that there is a bit of positivity in NI at the moment due to suggestions that the province could gain with a hung parliament as there is a possibility that the national parties have to do deals with the NI parties to secure support in the Commons.

The Northern Irish situation will be very interesting, especially if it looks like the unionist parties will have a casting vote in a hung parliament.

Sinn Fein historically do not attend Parliament as they will not take the oath of allegiance to the Queen. Whilst Sinn Fein technically have MPs, because they do not attend you can ignore them.

It'll be interesting to see if Sinn Fein are willing to take a more pragmatic approach to stop the unionists having the balance of power.

 

[Antman]

UKIP are not no-platformed by students' unions.

Certain people within UKIP are no-platformed, due to their historic and present links with organisations like the National Front and Combat 18.

The Oxford Union- which is a debating society and not a students' union- has a history of inviting controversial speakers to attend. It's invited the likes of the self-styled "Tommy Robinson" and Nick Griffin before.





Total nonsense.

Intolerance and discrimination is sometimes about the overt, but more often than not it is about the covert. It's about denying people access to certain services or legal relationships because of their sexuality.

If you genuinely think homophobia is only about gay-bashing you're either being disingenuous or you're being exceptionally naive.



Except it is- it is about denying someone something because of their sexuality. It is about making a value judgment- gay people should absolutely not be allowed to marry- and imposing that value judgment on other people for no good reason.

If that's not discriminatory I don't know what is.

The "I'm not homophobic, some of my best friends are gay" lot are not treating gay people with the same respect as straight people. They're denying them the right to marry the person they love. They're making a value judgment against their adult consensual relationships. That's disrespectful.

I've highlighted the bit that proves what I mean and disproves what you're trying to argue. Someone who is intolerant of gay relationships is intolerant of gay people. It really is as simple as that. Tolerance only of the bits you agree with is not tolerance. It's as disingenuous and homophobic a position as the Catholic doctrine that gay people are fine so long as they don't have sex with each other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The Northern Irish situation will be very interesting, especially if it looks like the unionist parties will have a casting vote in a hung parliament.

Sinn Fein historically do not attend Parliament as they will not take the oath of allegiance to the Queen. Whilst Sinn Fein technically have MPs, because they do not attend you can ignore them.

It'll be interesting to see if Sinn Fein are willing to take a more pragmatic approach to stop the unionists having the balance of power.

By saying those who oppose gay marriage are intolerant you are simply exposing your own intolerant attitude. I have no strong feelings on the subject, it doesn't effect me, but my mother in law for example who is a regular church goer is strongly opposed to it. That doesn't make her intolerant (I mean she's tolerated me as a son in law for long enough) and it doesn't make her a bad person, she actually does a lot of voluntary work for homeless people. Her opinion on the subject is as valid as anybody elses.

Until some people can move away from this blinkered view that anybody who disagrees with them is intolerant then any sort of rational debate is out of the question.

 

[Oswyntail]

By saying those who oppose gay marriage are intolerant you are simply exposing your own intolerant attitude. I have no strong feelings on the subject, it doesn't effect me, but my mother in law for example who is a regular church goer is strongly opposed to it. That doesn't make her intolerant

.Actually, yes it does. She strongly opposes gay marriage, so she wouldn't tolerate it. She is intolerant of gay marriage

and it doesn't make her a bad person, she actually does a lot of voluntary work for homeless people

.I am sure she is a lovely person. But, like most of us, she has her imperfections, one of which is being intolerant towards gay marriage

Her opinion on the subject is as valid as anybody elses.....

An oft used argument, but utter piffle, generally. If someone held the opinion, for instance, that the River Thames consists of chocolate, would that be as valid an opinion as that of a Thames boatman? Of course not. The question of gay marriage is less obvious (to some) but that does not mean the various opinions are equally valid. I suspect that what you really mean is that she has the right to hold that opinion, despite being invalid and intolerant. On that every thinking person would agree

 

[radamfi]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tolerant

1. tending to permit, allow, understand, or accept something
2. tending to withstand or survive

 

[DarloRich]

@Theknightwho:

A question - Do you consider your views of intolerant views intolerant? Using your own definition of intolerance suggests we are all intolerant ( and we all are of something) especially if we consider our inherent/internal/unconscious bias which we all have!

What does concern me is the march towards a "PC" uniformity of views based on a liberal, metropolitan, elitist, leftist stance that seeks to vilify/demean/denigrate anyone who doesn't follow that code or suggests a different stance. While I am all for liberailsation/freedom within society generally I think that with that freedom comes the responsibility to accept the rights of others to espouse views/ideas you don't agree with. Surely opening these views up to debate is the correct way to challenge and change them? Merely seeking to dismiss them as intolerant doesn't offer any challenge or correction and just dismisses the views held by others as being unsophisticated.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I do think it is possible to be against something yet still tolerant of it - in the case of gay marriage, you could personally be opposed (conceptually) to it however if you don't do anything to actively campaign or disrupt against it then to me that counts as being tolerant of it: live and let live if you like.

 

[St Rollox]

You make the mistake of assuming that just because I don't like the EU, I'd automatically vote out. In truth I'd probably not rock the boat if I was convinced it was going to create a lot of upheaval.

The separation of powers bit that I mentioned is the key that I don't think a lot of people have realised. If the Eurozone becomes more of a voting block and begins to decide everything in Eurozone interests, we might not have much choice but to get out.

The Eurozone is another thorny issue that your independent Scotland will have to decide on (i.e whether you do actually want self Government, or whether you just want to hitch yourself to a bigger block).

I'm better being honest, Scottish Independence is probably off the record now and that story will now move to Home Rule which 75% of Scottish voters support.
The Tories will probably help that along since they want to cut the number of MPs at Westminster.

 

[Tetchytyke]

By saying those who oppose gay marriage are intolerant you are simply exposing your own intolerant attitude.

Huh?

Tolerate means:

to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

Your MIL might be many things, but tolerant isn't one of them.

She, of course, has the right to hold the view that gay marriage is wrong, and her Church should have the right to refuse to marry gay people within their Church if they think it wrong.

However neither her nor her Church should have the right to impose their views on anybody else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A question - Do you consider your views of intolerant views intolerant? Using your own definition of intolerance suggests we are all intolerant ( and we all are of something) especially if we consider our inherent/internal/unconscious bias which we all have!

Intolerance and prejudice are not synonyms.

Everyone is prejudicial about something, everyone makes assumptions and everyone has things they almost instinctively disagree with.

That doesn't mean they have to be intolerant though.

I'm prejudicial against organised religion- I consider it the megalomaniacal and delusional ramblings of Iron Age tribal leaders. Nothing more and nothing less. I don't have any interest in what a sky fairy supposedly says because all it does is expose the prejudices of the people who are claiming a divine moral code.

I'm not intolerant though. I wouldn't want to see any religion banned, nor would I want to see one religion chosen as "better" than another.

What does concern me is the march towards a "PC" uniformity of views based on a liberal, metropolitan, elitist, leftist stance that seeks to vilify/demean/denigrate anyone who doesn't follow that code or suggests a different stance. While I am all for liberailsation/freedom within society generally I think that with that freedom comes the responsibility to accept the rights of others to espouse views/ideas you don't agree with.

People often talk about "elitist leftist liberals" without really explaining a) what these views are, b) how these views are dominant, c) who holds these views or c) where people with other views are being "vilified".

Economically we live in a right-wing country. We have regressive not progressive taxation policies, we have a focus on the poor being "scroungers", we have an economic celebration that greed is good and that wealth is the only sensible way of keeping score. This country hasn't been anything approaching left-wing (if it ever really was) since the early 1970s. The fact that Ed Miliband, for instance, is believed to be a "socialist" shows just how far to the right this country has moved.

We also live in a relatively totalitarian country. It's not a dictatorship but protest is largely banned or heavily policed, and anyone who thinks we have freedom of speech should look at the number of kids on Twitter being arrested for making nasty jokes.

 

[Busaholic]

For those who weren't around at the time, or who have not genned up enough, the 1975 referendum was on our CONTINUING membership of the Common Market, as we had been brought into it by Ted Heath's Conservative government a year or so prior to the referendum. The referendum was a result of Harold Wilson's Labour governments of 1974, the Labour Party being much more split on the issue than the Tories back then. I found it so hard to decide how to vote I decided to escape to Paris for a long weekend, postal voting not existing then, so chickened out.

P.S. Can't say whether the concept of postal voting existed then, only know being on holiday meant you couldn't vote.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm better being honest, Scottish Independence is probably off the record now and that story will now move to Home Rule which 75% of Scottish voters support.
The Tories will probably help that along since they want to cut the number of MPs at Westminster.

Surely if SNP win the number of seats suggested in recent polling they will HAVE to offer another referendum having wrung that concession out of whomever forms a government in return for support. The central ethos of the party is delivering an independent Scotland. Any other policies are simply the framework for delivering that.

If they have a large number of seats and they could, on recent polling, be the third party they will have to deliver that referendum or face a lack of credibility next time round.

If they win 20-30 seats I can see devo-max as the required outcome with a view to moving towards independence when the situation allows

 

[St Rollox]

Surely if SNP win the number of seats suggested in recent polling they will HAVE to offer another referendum having wrung that concession out of whomever forms a government in return for support. The central ethos of the party is delivering an independent Scotland. Any other policies are simply the framework for delivering that.

If they have a large number of seats and they could, on recent polling, be the third party they will have to deliver that referendum or face a lack of credibility next time round.

If they win 20-30 seats I can see devo-max as the required outcome with a view to moving towards independence when the situation allows

Do you think the YES side would win a referendum?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For those who weren't around at the time, or who have not genned up enough, the 1975 referendum was on our CONTINUING membership of the Common Market, as we had been brought into it by Ted Heath's Conservative government a year or so prior to the referendum. The referendum was a result of Harold Wilson's Labour governments of 1974, the Labour Party being much more split on the issue than the Tories back then. I found it so hard to decide how to vote I decided to escape to Paris for a long weekend, postal voting not existing then, so chickened out.

P.S. Can't say whether the concept of postal voting existed then, only know being on holiday meant you couldn't vote.

Be interesting to know what Ukip members of a certain age voted in 1975.

 

[ExRes]

Be interesting to know what Ukip members of a certain age voted in 1975.

Not just what UKIP members/supporters/sympathisers of certain policies voted in 1975, what about current Labour/Tory/Lib Dem/Green/etc supporters ?

The UK in 1975 was a very different place to the UK of today, animosity toward politicians was on gas mark 9 courtesy of our country being sold down the river to the French, if UKIP had been in existence at that time I have no doubt whatsoever that Nigel Farage, aged 11, would have walked an election and started his comprehensive school education at a school very close to Downing Street while Heath and Wilson would have met their fates on November 5th

 

[St Rollox]

Not just what UKIP members/supporters/sympathisers of certain policies voted in 1975, what about current Labour/Tory/Lib Dem/Green/etc supporters ?

The UK in 1975 was a very different place to the UK of today, animosity toward politicians was on gas mark 9 courtesy of our country being sold down the river to the French, if UKIP had been in existence at that time I have no doubt whatsoever that Nigel Farage, aged 11, would have walked an election and started his comprehensive school education at a school very close to Downing Street while Heath and Wilson would have met their fates on November 5th

Farage is an ex Tory.
The Left were against the Common Market in 1975.

 

[telstarbox]

SNP manifesto launch today.

I think the Conservatives have left it too late to win a majority of seats now as they were supposed to 'cross over' in the polls a few weeks ago; David Cameron's "coalition of chaos" warning isn't having an impact either.

 

[ExRes]

Farage is an ex Tory.
The Left were against the Common Market in 1975.

Was he a Tory in 1975 though, I thought he was a member of the Wide Awake Club then ...........

Having just looked at the results of the 75 referendum I'm amazed how wide the result was, 67.23% to 32.77%, memories fade of course but I really can't remember that level of support for membership in day to day life

You say 'The Left', do you mean the ruling Labour government ?, a quote on Wikipedia states 'During the campaign, the Labour Cabinet was split and it's members campaigned on each side of the question, a rare breach of Cabinet collective responsibility'

 

[DarloRich]

Was he a Tory in 1975 though, I thought he was a member of the Wide Awake Club then ...........

Having just looked at the results of the 75 referendum I'm amazed how wide the result was, 67.23% to 32.77%, memories fade of course but I really can't remember that level of support for membership in day to day life

You say 'The Left', do you mean the ruling Labour government ?, a quote on Wikipedia states 'During the campaign, the Labour Cabinet was split and it's members campaigned on each side of the question, a rare breach of Cabinet collective responsibility'

Yes from what i understand the Labour cabinet of the day was released from the convention of collective responsibility to campaign for whichever side they chose.

Do you think the YES side would win a referendum?

No idea.

.....

My view is clear - if we want to live in a liberal democracy (which we do) we must accept people have different views and that they are entitled to both hold an express those views, however abhorrent to us, as long as they are not so gross as to be criminal. We must debate these points we may find abhornabt ( and in doing so allow people to express them) in order to defeat them and change perceptions.

The problem is that many people feel that the media presents an urban/metroploitan/"trendy" agenda which is at odds with the real life issues many face and which actively seeks to diminish these issues in favour of "right on" ideas and that if you don't agree with these "right on" views you are not worthy of being listened to or your views considered. I have some sympathy with that view.

 

[Tetchytyke]

We must debate these points we may find abhornabt ( and in doing so allow people to express them) in order to defeat them and change perceptions.

...if you don't agree with these "right on" views you are not worthy of being listened to or your views considered. I have some sympathy with that view.

I would agree with the first view, as would most sensible people.

The problem comes, of course, is those who hold racist or homophobic opinions do not generally wish to debate these opinions. The second you try and debate xenophobia with a UKIP supporter, for instance, sees an immediate attempt from them to shut the debate down. Nigel Farage's behaviour during the hustings last week is a great case in point: the audience disagreed with his tub-thumping xenophobia and were immediately dismissed as a "left liberal BBC plant", even though the fact is they weren't.

I don't think the racists or the homophobes do get a hard time, but they claim that they do because they have no intention of actually debating their opinions and beliefs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The UK in 1975 was a very different place to the UK of today, animosity toward politicians was on gas mark 9 courtesy of our country being sold down the river to the French

Yet the majority of people voted with the government.

That doesn't sound like animosity to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

David Cameron's "coalition of chaos" warning isn't having an impact either.

And it won't, either.

SNP voters have generally switched from Labour. If the SNP made any moves towards siding with the Conservatives, these votes would immediately switch back to Labour. There are not many Conservative to SNP defectors.

In England, the SNP are an irrelevance. People are not going to vote Conservative and shy away from Labour because of SNP scaremongering. Those who vote Labour will do so because they want a more centrist government; those who vote Conservative are voting for more of the same.

I understand why Cameron is trying the tactic- his lackeys in the papers tried to claim a vote for Labour was a vote for Sinn Fein a few weeks ago- but I don't see how it will give him the success he wants.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Opposing gay marriage is not by itself intolerant. It's perfectly possible for someone to oppose gay marriage (for example, for theological reasons, or because they believe that gay civil partnerships amount to the same thing) but at the same time to believe in treating gays fairly and well in every other aspect of life (and to actually do so in their personal life).

Perhaps it would be better to reserve strong and very emotionally charged phrases like 'intolerant' for cases where they are really justified?

Being intolerant of intolerance is not a bad thing. Once again, if you want to prove me wrong show how UKIP are good - don't just say I'm being unfairly biased. At least me calling them intolerant is a thing about UKIP's policies themselves, rather than your cries of intolerance which are simply "you don't like them! Stop being mean!"

Intolerance is more complex than being actively and consciously prejudiced against someone. You might think it's justified intolerance, for example for theological reasons, but that's an entirely different ballgame. However, claiming that something isn't real intolerance because it's not strong enough is problematic, and is the same sort of logic used to say that something isn't real racism, where real racism is always more extreme than anything that person in particular happens to do: see the UKIP supporter who used a particular n-word (the not-quite-so-bad one) and still thought she wasn't racist.

I think it's perfectly alright to be intolerant of others being intolerant of certain lifestlyes or choices, as an example.

I'd like to first point out that "gay marriage" is a misnomer, and isn't what people want. Gay marriage would allow marriage between people of the same sex. What we want is marriage equality - that anyone can be married to anyone else (provided they are of legal age, consent freely, etc), regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. It's a common problem with LGBT* rights debates that trans, queer and gender non-conforming people are often left out. Of course I'd personally like to see the laws that ban bigamy done away with as well (I don't see why three people can't be married), but that's a side issue for now.


Opposing marriage equality (gay marriage is a misnomer) is intolerant. You may be saying that you do think two people who are not cisgendered heterosexual should not be able to be married, but what you are implying is that you believe their relationship itself is invalid, that they are not full citizens in your eyes. We've made a lot of progress, and so as a good rule of thumb, if you find yourself arguing against a minority having rights, ask whether it would be ok if you replaced that minority's descriptor (eg "gay") with descriptors such as "black", "Hindu" or "female". We would rightly think it abhorrent to deny someone marriage just because of their race, why are gender identity and sexual orientation any different?

I should also point out that saying you support marriage equality does not mean you are intolerant of religion. One can support marriage equality as a civil matter, but think that religions ought to make their own minds up. However, if that religion enters the sphere of public service and discriminates, that is intolerant, even if the beliefs are deeply held. For instance I wouldn't expect a church to bless a marriage between two men; however if they hire out their hall for wedding receptions where the wedding is not a church wedding, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate about which wedding parties they will allow to use it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'd like to first point out that "gay marriage" is a misnomer, and isn't what people want. Gay marriage would allow marriage between people of the same sex. What we want is marriage equality - that anyone can be married to anyone else (provided they are of legal age, consent freely, etc), regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. It's a common problem with LGBT* rights debates that trans, queer and gender non-conforming people are often left out. Of course I'd personally like to see the laws that ban bigamy done away with as well (I don't see why three people can't be married), but that's a side issue for now.


Opposing marriage equality (gay marriage is a misnomer) is intolerant. You may be saying that you do think two people who are not cisgendered heterosexual should not be able to be married, but what you are implying is that you believe their relationship itself is invalid, that they are not full citizens in your eyes. We've made a lot of progress, and so as a good rule of thumb, if you find yourself arguing against a minority having rights, ask whether it would be ok if you replaced that minority's descriptor (eg "gay") with descriptors such as "black", "Hindu" or "female". We would rightly think it abhorrent to deny someone marriage just because of their race, why are gender identity and sexual orientation any different?

I should also point out that saying you support marriage equality does not mean you are intolerant of religion. One can support marriage equality as a civil matter, but think that religions ought to make their own minds up. However, if that religion enters the sphere of public service and discriminates, that is intolerant, even if the beliefs are deeply held. For instance I wouldn't expect a church to bless a marriage between two men; however if they hire out their hall for wedding receptions where the wedding is not a church wedding, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate about which wedding parties they will allow to use it.

Agree with all of this, and I actually think the whole LGBTQ* marriage thing was a complete red herring, as marriage as an institution has a number of sexist, homophobic, transphobic and queerphobic issues - not even to mention issues such as polyamory and the pressures on asexual people. That all being said, I think if people want to get married that's entirely their prerogative. However, I was toning it down for this forum a bit

Will get back to the other points that ExRes, DynamicSpirit and DarloRich have raised after lunch.

 

[DownSouth]

Of course I'd personally like to see the laws that ban bigamy done away with as well (I don't see why three people can't be married), but that's a side issue for now.

The strong correlation with domestic abuse of women should be a good enough reason to hold back on allowing polygamy.

A woman's right not to be abused is a bit more important than a bloke's right to have more than one set of in-laws.

 

[Busaholic]

Was he a Tory in 1975 though, I thought he was a member of the Wide Awake Club then ...........

Having just looked at the results of the 75 referendum I'm amazed how wide the result was, 67.23% to 32.77%, memories fade of course but I really can't remember that level of support for membership in day to day life

You say 'The Left', do you mean the ruling Labour government ?, a quote on Wikipedia states 'During the campaign, the Labour Cabinet was split and it's members campaigned on each side of the question, a rare breach of Cabinet collective responsibility'

If there had been a referendum about joining the Common Market in 1973 the result would probably have been a lot closer, indeed a NO vote may have won the day. A lot of people I think agreed with my viewpoint in 1975 that, having joined, we should at least give it a go. I myself would probably have voted 'no' in 1973, being broadly on the left. Enoch Powell was the Tory most vociferously against Britain's membership of the Common Market, but other prominent politicians against were Julian Amery, Duncan Sandys, Teddy Taylor and Keith Joseph. In the Labour Party Michael Foot and Tony Benn were amongst the antis, but perhaps the most anti of all was the centrist figure of Peter Shore. His widow, Elizabeth, now resides in West Cornwall and stood in the UKIP cause in the last round of local elections, failing to get elected.

 

[BlythPower]

The problem is that many people feel that the media presents an urban/metroploitan/"trendy" agenda which is at odds with the real life issues many face and which actively seeks to diminish these issues in favour of "right on" ideas and that if you don't agree with these "right on" views you are not worthy of being listened to or your views considered. I have some sympathy with that view.

Media such as The Sun, The Daily Express and The Daily Mail?