Election 2010 - Con/Lib Government

[Gizmo]

Not true. It just needs people in the labour party to grow a set of balls. Plenty of people seem to have talked about bining him. But very few have actually come forward t odo something about it. Remember you do not vote for PM you vote for your MP/Party, it is down to the party who they make leader.

 

If he wins the election he won't get binned.

[danny]

To be fair, it's a lot easier to publicise extreme and controversial ideas than it is detail the moderate policies typical of the Lib Dems. Indeed, even the negative publicity for the BNP has caused them to be a lot more (in)famous of late. And they're currently on a publicity drive and have been since the European elections, so I'd imagine they're spending an awful lot on publicity; the Lib Dems are already better known and better liked and so don't need to take similar measures.

 

I know it is easier for them to get publicity but still. Well i would dispute the fact they need to take similar measures. If they dont have a big publicity drive how can they expect to make huge gains? I mean they will make gains this tim but im sure they could make bigger ones if more people knew what they stood for.

 

If he wins the election he won't get binned.

 

Im not so sure on that. I think the reason many people in the labour party didnt want to get rid of him was that they didnt want to change just before an election. If they win then suerly its a good time to change the PM with 5 years until another election?

[MoogleViper]

Im not so sure on that. I think the reason many people in the labour party didnt want to get rid of him was that they didnt want to change just before an election. If they win then suerly its a good time to change the PM with 5 years until another election?

 

No if he wins then it shows that people want him to be pri[me]minister.

 

Seeing as he's unpopular it would make more sense to axe him now rather than later and start afresh.

[Gizmo]

If they were going to do it, it would have happened about 12 months ago.

 

As is, they can't get rid of him before the election. If they do well, he will stay, because it will be taken as a sign that he is popular. If they do badly, then he will step down / be pushed, but we will have 5 years of David Cameron.

[ReZourceman]

I still don't understand the different parties.

[MoogleViper]

I still don't understand the different parties.

 

What exactly don't you understand? (apart from how to spell Prime Minister.)

[Daft]

I still don't understand the different parties.

 

They're all self-serving twats.

[Supergrunch]

They're all self-serving twats.

Well obviously, it's (democratic) politics. Meaning parties spend far more time and effort on their appearance than on their substance.

[ReZourceman]

I just don't understand the difference between them.

 

Labour = The current ones

Conservative = The smug ones

BNP = The racist ones

Green Party = The tree hugging ones.

 

 

 

Honestly, the racist ones seem the best bet at the moment.

[Daft]

And the LibDems?

[ReZourceman]

And the LibDems?

 

Sounds like Dildos and Lube. So they're the sexy ones.

[The fish]

 

Sounds like Dildos and Lube. So they're the sexy ones.

 

Jo Swinson MP - I would.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait, what?

[Pancake]

Thanks Conservatives - for making my decision who to vote for easier. You are now not even a considersation due to your "tax breaks for married couples" ridiculousness. Couples living together already have the advantage of a joint income. What about tax breaks for single people who have to pay the same bills on a lone income??

[Sheikah]

Thanks Conservatives - for making my decision who to vote for easier. You are now not even a considersation due to your "tax breaks for married couples" ridiculousness. Couples living together already have the advantage of a joint income. What about tax breaks for single people who have to pay the same bills on a lone income??

 

Well, relieving financial burdens can help at least reduce some stress, thus slightly increasing the chance of couples staying together.

 

And it's known that at a glance, having a father figure around can help reduce the chance of children growing up to be antisocial.

 

Now before anyone flames this, such as people from single parent backgrounds, I am not directing this towards you since you obviously have the competency to turn on a computer and type coherent sentences. I'm talking about Britain as a whole, and the average picture.

[Daft]

And it's known that at a glance, having a father figure around can help reduce the chance of children growing up to be antisocial.

 

Maybe that's because policies, and society as a whole, are geared to help and favour couples more. So really it would make sense to give bigger tax breaks to single parents - as Pancake says, they don't have the benefit of a joint income. Surely this would also help releave the stress of raising a child alone and thus allowing the parent to be more independent which would probably help society as a whole.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Daft

[Sheikah]

Maybe that's because policies, and society as a whole, are geared to help and favour couples more. So really it would make sense to give bigger tax breaks to single parents - as Pancake says, they don't have the benefit of a joint income. Surely this would also help releave the stress of raising a child alone and thus allowing the parent to be more independent which would probably help society as a whole.

But as I said, if it reduces the financial burden there's a higher chance couples stay together, thus a child has a reduced chance of becoming antisocial. I think it's more important to tackle that rather than increase single parent handouts or breaks, as Labour are known to do. If anything, I think it promotes the wrong attitude and is a very easily abusible system (some teenagers see becoming a single mother with a council house as a life focus).

[Ashley]

That could be potentially worse; "oh I want to leave my partner who I don't like/love anymore...but its financially better if I don't." Isn't that just subconsciously encouraging empty marriages?

 

Although if you don't want to be in a relationship that badly I'd hope you'd leave anyway.

 

Plus didn't the Tories try and spin it that they're planning it for married and cohabitation couples to show how progressive/inclusive they are, when in fact it would be illegal to apply it to just one group? Something I heard which amused me, but not bothered seeing if its true or not.

[Daft]

But as I said, if it reduces the financial burden there's a higher chance couples stay together, thus a child has a reduced chance of becoming antisocial. I think it's more important to tackle that rather than increase single parent handouts or breaks, as Labour are known to do. If anything, I think it promotes the wrong attitude and is a very easily abusible system (some teenagers see becoming a single mother with a council house as a life focus).

 

That means you've already made the assumption that couples raise a child better than a single parent and although statistically that might be true I suspect it's because societly is much less accepting and accomodating of single parents. I'm not say either way is especially better but there definitely has to be an attitudinal shift.

 

You've got to look at core reasons as to why single parents are apparently meant to raise more antisocially prone kids. It's rather weak just promoting this core idea of the family when in many cases that's not realistic (and in fact a very modern invention). Processionally, raising a child as a single parent isn't that different from doing it with a partner - so where is it going wrong exactly?

 

I'm not really sure how you can say one is the right attitude and one is the wrong attitude.

 

As for teenage pregnancies, I would proffer that issue is much more closely linked to a lack various factors like education and future prospects - I don't think anyone sees tax breaks for a single parent and says, "Why not have a baby?"

Edited April 10, 2010 by Daft

[Sheikah]

That means you've already made the assumtion that couples raise a child better than a single parent and although statistically that might be true I suspect it's because societly is much less accepting and accomodating of single parents. I'm not say either way is especially better but there definitely has to be an attitudinal shift.

 

 

Well society will always think that...because in reality it's true. I'm not trying to knock single parenting, as there is every chance that you will grow up to be a well-mannered person, but having two responsible parents is the ideal. Statistically it is true (proportions of antisocial youths from single-parent backgrounds) and I believe this is because there is evidently an absent family figure, typically the father. And I think I can realistically say, on average it would be the father to nip potential antisocial behaviour in the bud; or at least there may be an even response from both parents, meaning that a child living with both parents would be subject to additional lecturing.

 

In fairness, what I'm saying usually applies to those from poorer backgrounds. I'm not referring to separated partners where both are considerably well off. It's sad that it's attributed to poorer families, but true.

 

You've got to look at core reasons as to why single parents are apparently meant to raise more antisocially prone kids. It's rather weak just promoting this core idea of the family when in many cases that's not realistic (and in fact a very modern invention). Processionally, raising a child as a single parent isn't that different from doing it with a partner - so where is it going wrong exactly?

 

Partners may come and go, and often a partner won't be able to have anywhere near the same amount of influence on a child once they are past a certain age. Trying to lecutre a child that isn't your own when it has a father that it knows about would mean the child probably would object to your lecturing - "You're not my father", and what have you. Fathers are commonly known to play an active role in discipline and lecturing; that is why single parent (usually mother) families are more prone to antisocial behaviour (again, going by averages), to which I see no fix other than assistance in keeping families together. As you said, it's not always feasible for a family to stay together, so I'm not saying that they always should. But in circumstances where additional help could help keep a family together, it's certainly worthwhile.

 

I'm not really sure how you can say one is the right attitude and one is the wrong attitude.

 

By wrong attitude I was referring to teenage girls with the aspiration of becoming a single parent to acquire a council house and a future without working. Which I'm sure most would agree, is not a very good attitude to have.

 

As for teenage pregnancies, I would proffer that issue is much more closely linked to a lack various factors like education and future prospects - I don't think anyone sees tax breaks for a single parent and says, "Why not have a baby?"

 

No, but the option to have your own council house and a jobless future is certainly the basis for why they would do it. My point was that breaks for couples can relieve financial difficulties, which in turn can reduce stress in a relationship to promote couples staying together. Which can, ultimately, reduce the number of single parents where there was a possible chance of intervention to save the relationship.

 

 

That could be potentially worse; "oh I want to leave my partner who I don't like/love anymore...but its financially better if I don't." Isn't that just subconsciously encouraging empty marriages?

 

Although if you don't want to be in a relationship that badly I'd hope you'd leave anyway.

 

Plus didn't the Tories try and spin it that they're planning it for married and cohabitation couples to show how progressive/inclusive they are, when in fact it would be illegal to apply it to just one group? Something I heard which amused me, but not bothered seeing if its true or not.

 

If you didn't love your partner but stayed with them for tax breaks, I could only imagine that the person was an idiot. Or a sadist. Obviously the tax breaks are an aid to family living, and certainly relieve some financial burden, but I could hardly imagine they'd be sufficient to continue living a life with someone you didn't love.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Sheikah

[Daft]

Well society will always think that...because in reality it's true. I'm not trying to knock single parenting, as there is every chance that you will grow up to be a well-mannered person, but having two responsible parents is the ideal. Statistically it is true (proportions of antisocial youths from single-parent backgrounds) and I believe this is because there is evidently an absent family figure, typically the father. And I think I can realistically say, on average it would be the father to nip potential antisocial behaviour in the bud; or at least there may be an even response from both parents, meaning that a child living with both parents would be subject to additional lecturing.

 

In fairness, what I'm saying usually applies to those from poorer backgrounds. I'm not referring to separated partners where both are considerably well off. It's sad that it's attributed to poorer families, but true.

 

Reality is subjective and in this respect completely socially constructed. It is true because society always favours its ideal. You say the farther would realistically "nip potential antisocial behaviour in the bud" but why? Why the father? Because of socially constructed gender acts? I'm not arguing with you that it's the ideal, but it shouldn't be. Society should support every parent, in every situation.

 

As for having twice the parents meaning twice the lecturing, I can't tell you how much of an absurd assumption that is. Taking anecdotal evidence, I got bollocked by my mother enough to compensate for single parent situation; a single parent is going to respond to having to raise a child by themselves - they're not going to rigidly adhere to acting how they would with a partner at hand.

 

On the flip-side, what's not to say that a child raised by a single parent doesn't have to take on more responsibility as a sooner age? I know I, and some of my friends, have experienced this and logically it makes sense.

 

You say this antisocial behaviour usually applies to families from poorer backgrounds but doesn't the chance of antisocial behaviour as a whole go up in people of poorer backgrounds? What else comes with a poorer background? Like I said, lack of education and prospects, higher chance of alienation, poor nutrition, what else? There's much more at work than the single parent status.

 

You're contradicting yourself when you say it's usually worse in poor families because you're emphasising the luxury of a dual income.

 

No, but the option to have your own council house and a jobless future is certainly the basis for why they would do it. My point was that breaks for couples can relieve financial difficulties, which in turn can reduce stress in a relationship to promote couples staying together. Which can, ultimately, reduce the number of single parents where there was a possible chance of intervention to save the relationship.

 

Really? The basis for why they should chose that path in life is because of tax breaks? Do you honestly think that?

 

You're honestly not looking at the issues intrinsic to the system.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Daft

[Cube]

Teenage parents can survive on the benefits given to them, but they can't really live off them.

 

I'm 21 and it's not often that someone in my family gets to that age without having a kid. My sister (18) currently doesn't work (it's hard to go straight into a job that will leave her with the money that would pay for childcare costs), but her boyfriend does. She realises that you can't live a good life off just benefits, and she knows that parents can't just give her loads of money.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Cube

[Sheikah]

 

Reality is subjective and in this respect completely socially constructed. It is true because society always favours its ideal. You say the farther would realistically "nip potential antisocial behaviour in the bud" but why? Why the father? Because of socially constructed gender acts? I'm not arguing with you that it's the ideal, but it shouldn't be. Society should support every parent, in every situation.

 

Sadly I don't see society changing. Although I don't think it's entirely society. Men are genetically predisposed to be more aggressive, which in many cases allows them to strike a little sense of fear into children. In many cases, mothers can do this. But again, I'm dealing with averages. On average, men are typically more aggressive, more prone to occupying a dominating role, and therefore more likely to 'rain hell' on a child that started smoking at, say, 13. Although, I feel the need to say this in every sentence now- I'm talking averages, and you may well know different.

As for having twice the parents meaning twice the lecturing, I can't tell you how much of an absurd assumption that is. Taking anecdotal evidence, I got bollocked by my mother enough to compensate for single parent situation; a single parent is going to respond to having to raise a child by themselves - they're not going to rigidly adhere to acting how they would with a partner at hand.

I made a statement that my comments reflect the average, not every case, particularly after factoring in those from poorer backgrounds where antisocial behaviour is rife; likely to be none of the people frequenting these boards (purely speculative, but this hardly seems like an antisocial person's hangout of choice).

 

 

 

You say this antisocial behaviour usually applies to families from poorer backgrounds but doesn't the chance of antisocial behaviour as a whole go up in people of poorer backgrounds? What else comes with a poorer background? Like I said, lack of education and prospects, higher chance of alienation, poor nutrition, what else? There's much more at work than the single parent status.

 

Lack of education also falls under the banner of upbringing; it's all interconnected. Truency and failure to complete homework is something I believe could be combated by stricter parenting, and is also more commonly performed by youths of poorer backgrounds (which are, again, more likely to have separated families). It's one big, interconnected mess.

 

You're contradicting yourself when you say it's usually worse in poor families because you're emphasising the luxury of a dual income.

I don't see how that is the case. In poorer single-family upbringings, the father is even less likely to play an active role in any upbringing (sometimes entirely absent), but that outcome is significantly reduced in richer separated families. So, yet again, the increased absence of a second parent, on average (remember, in many cases this will not apply), can be partially attributed to an increased chance of developing an antisocial tendency.

 

Really? The basis for why they should chose that path in life is because of tax breaks? Do you honestly think that?

 

You're honestly not looking at the issues intrinsic to the system.

 

The decision to have a child for many teenage girls is because they understand that there is the potential to eventually acquire your own council house, and get financial support. While many teenage prenancies are unplanned, it's undeniable that the fact many have their children as opposed to an abortion reflects their decision that they actually want to have children and know that there is a system in place to support them.

 

If there were so few benefits to assist raising a child, do you honestly think there would be anywhere near the number of girls having children?

Edited April 10, 2010 by Sheikah

[Raining_again]

You get plenty of benefits for having kids and being single... working tax credit, child support...

 

If I lived on my own I'd be entitled to NO benefits. Surely the people like that (single, no kids, working full time) would be as just to recieve benefits? The ones who are hugely giving to society by actually working, and paying taxes. And in the most part don't claim a lot off the state in medical needs.

 

 

A person can bring up kids as a single parent just as well as two can... It's just parental laziness that turns children into these antisocial monsters.

[Daft]

Stuff.

 

This gets tricky because I'd have to start talking about social theory and this topic isn't simple. I'll say one thing, notions of gender are much more socially dependent than you're giving credit for.

 

It's a cop out but it would require a lot of effort and today is my day off from that Hell. I'm sure someone else can fill the gap though. Sorry - especially after you put time into that response. : peace:

Edited April 10, 2010 by Daft

[Sheikah]

lol, it's ok. :p

 

I understand that many people have had wonderful upbringings from single parents. I just think that if there is a chance to relieve some financial stress for couples, perhaps so they can focus on repairing a relationship; and given that children would often prefer to have both of their family members with them, it's surely a good thing to give people a break?

 

Although Pancake's initial thought sums up politics really. It's all about voting for whatever party does something that favours exactly you, or not voting in a party that does something against you. We're all so selfish. Screw voting in the green party. The environment can burn. :p