I'd like to see Nick Griffin on the BBC again as the...

Of course she was uncomfortable, it's against her religion ffs. How is that so hard to understand? Is Tony Blair a right wing Tory, because his faith is against homosexuality? I'm not sure Christianity is entirely comfortable with it.

I think the point is being missed here. All religions are B*ll*cks, but as far as I'm aware, most are against homosexuality. Mainly because they're ******* stupid enough to believe in fairytales and a retard interpretation of said fairytale.

 

It's not spot on at all. Religious beliefs aren't political beliefs. It doesn't matter what political sway you are.

 

Stop getting so irate with your 'ffs' and your 'how is that hard to understand'. Jesus man, start smoking again or summat.

Do we excuse her homophobia because it's against her religion? I don't. You mention Tony Blair, but he never made any homophobic comments. Just because a faith is for or against something doesn't mean you have to take on those ideals whole sale. She has right wing views on same sex relationships, these may or may not be due to her religion, but they are certainly one of the reasons why she is so comfortable being a Tory.

 

If I had no alternative yes

... but whilst we have a situation where I could be 'better off on benefits' then it won't happen.</p>

Benefits paid to able bodied people who chose not to work drain money away from genuine needy cases.</p>

Social security is the conerstone of a civilised society IMO but should not be used as a 'career choice'</p>

Also I'm not against the migrant workforce, far from it I'm just pointing out that there is a potential work force out there.</p>

 

RE: Rather see Livingstone and Griffin

It would revert back to people on benefit doing them whilst still claiming.

 

So what do you advocate then?

Putting benefits down below subsistence levels to force people to work</p>

or</p>

putting up the wage rates of these jobs to make them worthwhile?</p>

 

Did I suggest we excuse it? It's a ridiculous stance for anyone to take. The point I've made is that James suggested she'd said something on the show which she hadn't and I was trying to point out what she actually said. Along the rights of "....it's their right"

And once again, it's very, very, very easy to put a Catholic, Protestant, Christian or Muslim from any party in front of a camera and make them squirm a little in regards to homosexuality. It's not political though is it? It was cheap trick aimed to stir a hornets nest. Personally for all her discomfort, I thought she handled it like a politician does. My guess is that she's been afforded the same kind of media training that Blair has had since her profile was raised.

Apologies for getting irrate Jay, but I don't think the argument is a political one and you seem to think it is, or at least you're implying it. There are definitely Labour MP's that are Muslims as well as other parties.

You jumped in on a comment I made with a different argument. That's why I reacted.

 

But your religious beliefs should not fuel your political beliefs in a secular society nt

 

Which is why, during the show she said "it is their right" and that will be maintained as her political stance. I don't think just because she's a Tory, IF the Tories win, homosexuality will be banned or do you honestly think that?

 

I don't

But I'm pretty sure that civil partnerships would never have come in to being under a Tory government.

 

Why not

The gay torries want to avoid inheritance tax just as much as the gay labour cabinet members.

 

I don't think the 3 gay Tory MPs would make that much difference

 

But that's an impossible thing to state as fact isn't it? Without being over dramatic and histrionic about things, I'm not entirely sure anyone can safely say where the Country would be right now under Conservative leadership, can they? Would anyone have predicted privatisation under Labour? Or a wider poverty gap?

I wanted a Labour Government in 1997 and I want a Tory government in 2010, I had no idea what the Country would look like in 12 years from 1997 and I have no idea what it will look like in another 12 years. I hoped for much better and I still will.

 

It's OK, Dave has noted that

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6879470.ece#

 

You can know about individual policies though. For example, the Tories would not have brought in a minimum wage. They just wouldn't, they were so dead set against it, it just wouldn't have happened. Yet last week David Cameron admitted it was a success and that it wouldn't be abolished. Similarly, the Tories wouldn't have brought in civil partnerships. It wouldn't have even been on their radar. I have no idea what state the country would have been under the Tories but I'm pretty certain there would have been no civil partnerships.

 

ok

b followed by a</p>

I'd significantly increase the minimum wage and then reduce benefits.</p>

Employers would say WTF but I'd pass on some of the savings in benefit to the employer and employee through reductions in National Insurancecontributions.</p>

Might work ?</p>

 

RE: If I had no alternative yes

It's not about being better off on benefits it's about wanting a better job, a better life. More and more people are leaving school with qualifications these days. These people don't want to work in low paid horrible jobs. There's nothing wrong with that. There are more low paid menial jobs than there are dole scroungers so how do you fill the positions?

 

Yo Jay

I'm going to a civil partnership thing tomorrow. A Lesbian wedding if you will. How fcking right on am I.

 

excellent

Are they sexy lesbians?

 

RE: excellent

Unbelievably yes. One more so than the other. She is absolutely catwalk model standard.</p>

How far can I go with this until umbrage ?
</p>