Blah Blah

But where does it say Adam and Eve are jews? The earliest accounts of the Old testament were written in Hebrew and two versions of genesis evolved from that. Neither go beyond describing Adam and Eve as more than creations of 'god'. In fact the Hebrew word 'Elohim' can be translated both as God (singular) and Gods (Pagan deities). At the time of its writing, both understandings of god and gods were commonplace. It is only later translation that applies the meaning singular God and rejects the idea of Gods.

You're welcome Aquarius.

But there have been plenty of Tory campaigners in the past who didn't use language like that Louisa. Don't know what steak has to do with anything either. It has nothing to do with policy. What I do think is that certain Tories felt a need to compete with the nationalistic fervour that seemed to be so popular from the SNP and UKIP. The irony is that for all the fear they tried to create around the SNP, they played to the same sentiment in their own campaign. You only have to look at the post election anger and the split between views to see how divisive this Tory government are. It's not a good sign of anything. What I think the reality will be is no significant change to anything. There are going to be Tories who don't toe the whip, and I think many bills will have to be watered down to get through Parliament and the Lords.

I think the Tories didn't help with the tone of language they used though. Instead of saying 'ammendments which might mean rewriting from scratch etc' they chose to use the language of the jingoist with 'tear it up'! Live by the sword, die by the sword I'm afraid.

Me neither Aquarius. Innocent people ARE wrongly convicted and there is no evidence of the death penalty being any kind of deterrent either. I wonder if 'when' polling is carried out makes a difference. i.e would a poll in favour be more likely after the reporting of a heinous crime? I would support life meaning life though.

Tribal loyalties are complex LondonMix because they are a mix of die hard generational loyalty, some of it glavanised by bitter experience and class, and increasingly shaken up by the widespread aspirational culture that has emerged over the last 30 years. I suspect there are far more floating voters than there were 30 years ago too.

I agree DaveR that public spending went up under labour (they created a million public sector jobs I think) but that's the cost of repairing the underfunding of public services from the Thatcher era. Labour did get NHS waiting lists down, they did employ more doctors, nurses, police etc. We can't have it both ways on that. Either we want public services or we don't. Which is why I keep banging on about wages and jobs. When the Tories find a way to eliminate the need for the state (i.e. tax payers) to subsidise jobs, when they find a way to regenerate the economy nationwide and tackle the real areas of unemployment etc then I'll buy this idea that they are better for the economy than Labour. The truth is that both parties have little answer to any of that, which is why we get into idealogical debates about who should get what share of the economy there is.

Can't see the death penalty ever coming back personally. It would just be too controversial.

'Average' income always suggests that most people earn it when in fact most people in work earn below the average income. London is a kind a bubble in that wealth is relative to other wealth in London. It's why many feel wealthy politicians to be out of touch in their lack of understanding of the kind of income most people live on. James is right though in that Southwark is a poor borough as a whole. And it's not the only one in London. The London Boroughs that stayed or went blue demographically are higher in income. It's a clear divide. I agree strea. Coalition for the Libdems alienated their core vote. But we have no way of knowing what would have been the outcome had they not done that. All economies recover after a deep crash. Greece and Italy have other problems not relevant to the UK, problems that go back a long way. Greece on Tax, Italy on consensus. And of course, the biggest lie of the Tory campaign has always been blaming Labour for an economic mess. No, the global banking crash caused the recession, and the economy had started to recover by the 2010 election. Labours first mistake was their silence in opposition during the first two years of the coalition reign. And they are about to make the same mistake again whilst they look for a new leader. I think the Libdems will recover in time. All the the main parties have been down at some point. It just takes time. And the Tories are in for a rocky time. Coalition gave them a overwhelming majority. Their jubilation in a single majority may well be short lived once the real business of keeping every Tory MP under a whip gets going - because that's what it's going to take to get anything through parliament. The SNP have won their share of seats as a party opposed to austerity and they have the energy of the new kids on the block. They will be working hard to lobby opposition form all the parties I'm sure.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Labour need to stop Union influence. For those of > us old enough to remember the 70s, it was a pretty > @&?# time to be around. That generation has > broadly not forgiven Labour, and they sway > elections. Labour only wins on the centre ground, > like under Blair and the unions forced Miliband on > the party, when his brother was clearly the better > choice. As much as a swing to the left would be > great for core vote, that don't play well in > middle England. I would love Andy Burnham as > leader but I fear he would isolate the south, just > as Chukka would isolate the core vote IMO. They > need someone who cuts through with everyone, > another Blair. > > Louisa. So Ted Heath was a Labour PM was he? Oh and the oil crisis had nothing to do with anything either did it? Complete and utter tosh to blame all the woes of the 70's on unions. The truth is that the 70's were the decade of decline. The wake up call from the post war boom, as the eastern economies rose. Unions did what they always do, in trying to protect jobs and livelihoods. Their only flaw was in not realising they were fighting for a declining economy that could never afford to go on as it had. By the 80's some unions had learned from this, which is why we always talk about the miners but never about the other countless state owned employers and their unions who negotiated agreements on redundancies with government instead. The outcome was the same both ways. Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost within transport, manufacturing, shipping, etc and nothing evolved to replace them. Without unions, millions of workers would have NO access to employment rights and the legal system in taking on unscrupulous employers. Is that what you really want Louisa? A return to serfdom? Labour were established as the party of the working man. Their link with unions is perfectly logical and nothing to fear. I completely agree though on the need to unite both the north and the middle classes of the south. That is why Blair was so successful. They need another Blair, minus the war missionary thing obviously.

I agree they will have to alter proposals. The Tories may have a majority but it's only a tiny one and I'm sure activists will be lobbying backbench Tories in marginals to make life as difficult as possible for Cameron.

Found an answer yet UGlen? You were quick enough to be pedantic about spelling on another thread.

Red brick road humps at junctions are though designed to slow traffic and make it easier for pedestrians to cross. Can't personally see what the op cyclist did wrong.

yawn....

Where does the old testament say that?

Why do you think he's clever?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > William Wilberforce. Bloody champagne socialist. LOL...that'll be it then :D

You are such an idiot/ troll (haven't decided which yet) uncleglen. I agree that Simon Hughes couldn't expect anything else after towing the Tory whip in pretty much every vote of the first three years of the Tory coalition, including on tuition fees. Being a good local MP counts for nothing when you run the kind of campaign he did to get that seat and then at the first grasp of central government sells out on every principle that made him a liberal democrat in the first place (and for what? A vote on AV - which is not PR btw). No symapthy from me. He chose that path. I have my issues with James Barber's views, but that doesn't stop me from acknowlegding the effort he puts into local issues and representing local people.

My point too Townley. He is too 'London' centric imo. As an aside, petition here to stop the NHS being part of the planned TTIP deal.... http://action.sumofus.org/a/nhs-ttip/?sub=fb Sign if you can.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I said straight away that I'd like to see Chuka as > new Labour leader. Reading that has confirmed > that. There's no doubting his intelligence. It's just a question of whether the public will like him, given that the press make so much out of image these days. I suspect the north will see him as another London-centric MP. Andy Burnham is equally capable but again there's that image thing with the South seeing him as a Northern lefty. So I suspect Chuka's time is not now (but definitely one for the future). Labour for now have to find someone that can narrow that division accross those they seek to represent. And the Tories are now likely to get through the boundary changes that the Lib Dems blocked, making it even harder for Labour to come back. What was clear from the election results, is that the Tories also took votes from Labour, particularly in marginals. Again I think it comes back to the perception that Labour were only for the poorest, against the richest and offered nothing for the middle. What also suprises me is that after the event suddenly there are many Labour MPs mirroring Chuka's views. Why do they wait for the inevitable before airing them? I never understand this about parties, sticking with leaders and directions that many within think or worse still know are taking them to defeat. Gordon Brown was absolutely a case in point. No-one, not even in his own party thought he would or could win that election.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What Foxy said. Get over yourselves with your > melodramatic nonsense. Anyone who thought life > would be better under Labour has to accept that > they were in the minority. Not really. There was only 6% between the voting share of Tory and Labour and the Tories polled around 37% of the vote which means that 63% of those who voted didn't vote for them. So that makes those who voted Troy in the minority clearly, hence calls for voting reform. Labour took 31% of the vote btw.

I never understand why people sneer with labels like 'champagne socialists'. If it were not for MPs and Lords (who in the past were more likely to be from the landed gentry) taking up causes to help the poor and bring about social reform, we'd still be living in some kind of early Victorian nightmare. Affluent people are as capable of wanting a fairer society as anyone. Not everyone has to be totally self interested and damning everyone else.

"Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle." Spot on ????. To win an election in the UK you have to win the support of this group of voters. It is said that just 150 seats decide elections in the UK (maybe more after the SNP tsunami) but those 150 seats are definitely middle ground. And Chuka is being tipped as a possible new leader for Labour too.

Yes indeed. Seeing how voting share translates into seats for the parties is eye opening reading. And just to add that whne UKIP did so well in the Euro elections, it was pointed out that under the parliamentary system they'd make little impact.

London is also different to the rest of the country in that it has so much money floating around. You'll also have a council estate next to millionaires mansions. It's that mix that skews everything, whilst at the same time levelling the quality of local services up, rather than down. Local authorities in other cities however, don't have revenue for keeping parks nice, or funding community events on anything like the same scale. They are far more restricted by the overall demographic of the area they manage, just because the demograhpic mix isn't so wide ranging within their boroughs. Even someting like Tfl is unique to london.