State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[Beef Oven!]

Why on earth would you do that ?

The keyword being PRESUME

Because we have to make sensible assumptions when we are speaking from a general, broad-brush perspective.

You said that 'did us no harm crap' and I, as one who does not believe it did any harm, understandably asked you what harm you thought it did.

[Beef Oven!]

Anti-politics. Hmm. Hope it catches on!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30142575

[P. G. Tipps]

Mr GongGong, I know your time may well be at a premium but I haven't as yet noticed any response to my vitally important question posed earlier. Apologies if I have missed it, quite inadvertently.

For your convenience, here is the question again ...

Well maybe 'condoning' (burning poppies) might have been a better word. Here's your chance to come clean and say whether you condone/promote burning poppies or not, and also whether you are against insulting people of religious faith as well as those with a different colour of skin or sexual orientation?

I am anxious for the same 'straight answer' from you that you required and swiftly received from me, Mr GongGong ...

[teamsaint]

Or it might explain nothing at all.

Which wasnt the main point ,really.....

[MrGongGong]

Well maybe 'condoning' (burning poppies) might have been a better word. Here's your chance to come clean and say whether you condone/promote burning poppies or not, and also whether you are against insulting people of religious faith as well as those with a different colour of skin or sexual orientation?
.

Whether I condone or promote any of that makes little difference
YOU seem be suggesting that it's OK to insult people on one hand and on the other think that people who protest by burning a symbol should be thrown into prison for it. You can't have it both ways.

It's also a question of who holds power.

DO you think Jamie Reid should have been sent down for the cover of God Save the Queen?

[P. G. Tipps]

Whether I condone or promote any of that makes little difference
YOU seem be suggesting that it's OK to insult people on one hand and on the other think that people who protest by burning a symbol should be thrown into prison for it. You can't have it both ways.

It's also a question of who holds power.

DO you think Jamie Reid should have been sent down for the cover of God Save the Queen?

Well, that clear enough. I have already told you I'm against insulting anyone deliberately and also said that I don't favour putting people in jail for burning poppies so, as you well know. I suggested the exact opposite of what you claim.

Your stout defence of Political Correctness and yet accompanying refusal to condemn those who deliberately and knowingly insult people of faith and who also burn poppies is certainly indicative.

Many thanks for finally responding and confirming what I had long suspected was the truth about all this Pseudo-Marxist Politically Correct 'Equality'!

In other words all this talk of 'sensitivity' when dealing with others is really a right load of old Hogwash & Humbug, isn't it, MrGongGong ... ?

[visualnickmos]

I presume that my mind is like the wider population's. That's the point.

So you follow like a sheep; well, at least you're being honest. Full marks. But what exactly is the 'wider population' in your estimation, and how can you presume for other people?

[MrGongGong]

Well, that clear enough. I have already told you I'm against insulting anyone deliberately and also said that I don't favour putting people in jail for burning poppies so, as you well know. I suggested the exact opposite of what you claim.

Your stout defence of Political Correctness and yet accompanying refusal to condemn those who deliberately and knowingly insult people of faith and who also burn poppies is certainly indicative.

Many thanks for finally responding and confirming what I had long suspected was the truth about all this Pseudo-Marxist Politically Correct 'Equality'!

In other words all this talk of 'sensitivity' when dealing with others is really a right load of old Hogwash & Humbug, isn't it, MrGongGong ... ?

I haven't "refused" to condemn anyone and
Guess what, i'm not answerable to YOU

"Pseudo-Marxist Politically Correct" any more meaningless cliches for us this afternoon ?

[Flosshilde]

Well, that clear enough. I have already told you I'm against insulting anyone deliberately

Where? I am quite sure that you have posted saying that you object to the 'censorship' of 'political correctness' as it infringes your freedom of speech. As the only thing it prevents you doing is insulting people, I can't see how you could possibly be against doing that.

(in fact 'political correctness' doesn't prevent you from doing anything, as it doesn't exist - it's simply a construct of the Daily Mail and its like. There are a number of laws promoting equality of treatment & preventing people suffering physical and verbal attacks because they happen to have some characteristic that their attackers don't like.)

[MrGongGong]

Where? I am quite that you have posted saying that you object to the 'censorship' of 'political correctness' as it infringes your freedom of speech. As the only thing it prevents you doing is insulting people, I can't see how you could possibly be against doing that.

Exactly

[french frank]

The subject of the OP would be quite an interesting topic, if anyone felt inclined to carry on with it. But don't let me interfere with anything you want to say.

I had a colleague who took an amused, detached view of political discussion except to say that one 'side' of the Great Divide seemed to be clever but wrong and the other was stupid but right. I won't say which was which - in his opinion.

[MrGongGong]

The subject of the OP would be quite an interesting topic, if anyone felt inclined to carry on with it. But don't let me interfere with anything you want to say.

I had a colleague who took an amused, detached view of political discussion except to say that one 'side' of the Great Divide seemed to be clever but wrong and the other was stupid but right. I won't say which was which - in his opinion.

Surely the whole "issue" of whether we are being shackled by so called PC censorship is rather central to the way in which politics is at the moment?

[french frank]

Surely the whole "issue" of whether we are being shackled by so called PC censorship is rather central to the way in which politics is at the moment?

Of course it is. But I was referring to the title of the thread: State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

But, as I say, talk about what you like.

[ahinton]

Of course it is. But I was referring to the title of the thread: State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

But, as I say, talk about what you like.

I do agree that fewer and fewer of recent posts in this thread have been on-topic and that this is a pity; perhaps a dose of the right kind of "political correctness" might be salutary here - i.e. the correctness implicit in continuing to discuss the thread topic of the state of UK political parties in the run-up to the next General Election which, it seems to me, could arguably be summed up (albeit over-simplistically) as
Tories - in poorish shape and marginally vulnerable to UKIP encroachment
Labour - in worse shape and continuing to field an even less convincing leader than the Tories
SNP - the third party in UK, which is patently absurd given that well less than 10% of UK's electorate is entitled to vote for their candidates
UKIP - the noisy party almost as the Tories were once thought of as the nasty party, with two policies (on immigration and severance from EU) that appear almost entirely to conceal what if anything their others might be - and who might be a minor threat to Tories
Greens - remains to be seen but apparently willing to risk fielding a number of candidates that might be thought of as wholly disproportionate to their current level of representation, at least in Parliament
Liberal Democrats - er, wait a minute - let me find my magnifying glass.
A handful of others and independents whose fate is unlikely to be any different to what it's been in previous elections.

The likelihood is that a government will be formable only if at least two and possibly more parties agree to try a coalition and that, whereas last time coalition was a possible outcome, this time it will be a well-nigh inevitable one but far harder to establish in practice.

A mere week being a long time in politics, much could of course change in almost as many months as a week has days but, as matters currently stand, we could be staring at the most unstable and uncertain political / governmental scenario that Britain has ever encountered.

[Flosshilde]

There are only two people here who keep banging on about 'political correctness'; the others are simply responding . If there weren't any responses then I assume PG Tippy would give up, as he doesn't seem interested in anything else, & BO would restrict himself to UKIP, which would be bad enough.