Two Acres

She doesnt have political relevance. However her position as leader of country and church gives legitimacy to the views of the leaders of the church - In my opinion.

How so Skyhuck? I'm assuming, from your bold text, in terms of the irrelevance of The Church of England rather than the time difference of a couuple of months? If so I think its important to point out that the UK, while it might be a secular society is not a secular state. The Queen is, after all, the supreme leader of said Church.

Thats the Tory idea Egnsean - deflect attention from the wealthy bankers that are the cause of the financial crisis by getting us plebs to argueamonst ourselves about welfare scroungers, immigrants etc. Nasty, but clever and effective.

Of course you have the right to vote for who you want to Hodge but this is about debate that could, perhaps, influence some of us to change our opinions - sure y thats a good thing? My quote from the Church of England is from February 2015 by the way, so very relevant IMHO

I agree with you on the last point - starting with Fred Goodwin - lets not forget that he fecked off with a 10 million pension pot, aged only fifty, having totally shafted RBS and the British taxpayer.

If you don't believe that conservatism is intrinsically nasty then maybe this quote from Brittanica may help change your mind: 'In The Devil’s Dictionary (1906), the American writer Ambrose Bierce cynically (but not inappropriately) defined the conservative as “a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” '

To my mind Thatcher feelsl like only yesterday and its the ideology of Thatcherism that drives men like Osbourne.

Fair call

No, the Tories are the worst of a bad bunch. If they form any part of a new government we're doomed.

You don't think the Tory party are 'nasty' Mr Idiot? Goodness me. Maybe this extract from the Telegraph will help to convince you - even the Church of England thinks they're nasty. Here you go: 'Thatcherism should be consigned to history because it no longer has the answers to Britain’s problems, the Church of England claims. In a highly political pre-election intervention which has angered Conservatives and prompted a response from David Cameron, the Church’s most senior clerics said the free-market ideas embodied by Margaret Thatcher were “fragmenting” society and “entrenching” inequality between rich and poor. They urged Christians to resist the power of big business as much as that of any over-mighty state and threw their support behind efforts to bolster Britain’s place in Europe amid growing calls to leave the EU. The intervention came in the form of a 52-page pre-election pastoral letter from the House of Bishops, amounting to an unofficial election manifesto from the established Church. It calls for a new approach to politics, moving away from ideas of left and right, and an end to “politics as an extension of consumerism” in which policies are spliced together to appeal to narrow groups of voters.'

Its because the foreign workers graft really, really hard Skyhuck. I've not done any research onthis, so this is a guess, but I wouldthink that you could explain that by the cost of living being lower in Eastern European countries than in the UK. Work here for a few years and go back him with a nice big fund saved up maybe? Contrast that with anEnglish person on a, relatively,low wage then the motivation level would be considerably different.

I guess thats wha the Greeks have done too with Syriza in power and it looks like Podemos may get some success in Spain too. I think the UK needs a populist party of that sort too.

Thats a good point Trouble I think is that if you support The Green Party their not likelyto be doing too much either in governement or opposition are they?

Don't vote for the status quo Felix, vote for change - keep them on their toes:thumbup1:

I'm in the same, but opposite, position Detritus. In my part of the world it'll be a twit in a blue tie. Trying to figure out how to make my vote 'count' is a tough job. We desperately need a system that can represent the views of people in the position that we find ourselves in, otherwise its pointless. I also strongly object to the idea of 'safe' seats. Here the official 'opposition' have simply given up, they're nowhere to be seen, theres no challenge, no debate, no representation.

I don't think that you can possibly maintain a healthy, functioning, democracy,in practice, without debate, change etc. If a party won 20 elections in a row democracy would have changed into something else don't you think?

I voted for it

Because without change democracy can't function effectively - you'd exclude a sizeable minority from representation, thats not healthy

It is for Mugabe, hes loving it

Or complacent - I'm finding as I get older I'm becoming grumpier and one of the things that makes me grumpy is the facile temperament of our youth. Where on earth is the next rebellion coming from? The middle-aged? Ridiculous!

I guess you're right but wouldn't it transform democracy into something else?

But that would represent an oligarchy, a tyranny or a monarchy!The ancient Greeks experimented with those and settled on Democracy. Western political philosophycould certainly benefit from some fresh though, thinking thats for sure.

Almost completely agree Mr Idiot, but its important to remember that democracy relies on change for its effectiveness.

UKIP is sadly, a party of the far right that thrives on fear and ignorance. Its shameful.

For the record I also strongly object to Browns coronation as PM. From a choice of two to no choice at all- hardly democratic.