tactical voting ...

ha ha ha - dead poetic that. Tim Rice: a man full of profound metaphor and deep religious understanding. or: a man full of brandy, fine cheese and impressive line in rhymes. 'I closed my eyes, drew back the curtain To see for certain, er.... nothing much because my eyes were still closed - shit, that didn't - um - work- um - any words will do...no...er... feck... does that work Sir Andrew? No? Shite. I'm a famous wordmith me. Bugger. What do you mean did they even have curtains back then? I hardly think that's relevent. I'm sure that had *metaphorical* curtains. There have been *metaphorical* curtains throughout all history. Right. Let's picture ourselves back there.. .put ourselves in 'the minds' of the Egyptians... Er... What's happening with Joseph at this point...? He's saying he's a bit of dream whore - he can read anyone's dreams, doesn't matter who... he's... er...a bit of an arrogant sod isn't he? No? Um? He can see without opening his eyes can't he? Yeah, that's it. Right. Brilliant. See doesn't have to mean literally does it? No. so... "I closed my eyes, drew back the curtain To see for certain, what I thought I knew." Now that's perfect isn't it. Wonderful. Full of meaning and sanguine savoir faire with a little je ne sais quoi... yes...I almost feel my pen is being guided by the Lord himself...There'll be no need for the Bible after this... - lights dim on Sir Tim and Sir Andrew fondly stroking each other's egos tenderly by candlelight.

Such insight warms me, Hayley.

ooh. let's all vote lib dem, they are a lovely bunch of people, so unlike the tories and labour, they never promise things and go back on their word, they never fudge answers because they daren't tell the truth, they always put the needs of the people first before party politics, ooh let's all vote lib dems and they'll create a shining socialist-with-enterprise, healthy, well-educated, safe, harmonious and utterly egalitarian society. we'll get more teachers, more nurses, better roads, nicer coppers, smaller tax bills, better local councils, viagra-on-demand and lots of lovely ginger babies on the telly. marvellous.

Glad to be of service George.

You blew it with the ginger bit, sorry.

Liana is a tory! Liana is a TORY! Liana, do you want to come on a really good rally with me? It's called "stamp on scum and bring back work houses!" . The idea is to alleviate poverty in single parent families by sending their children up chimneys.

oh i hate tony blair so much that i ate my own children, rather than face the sickening nightmare that they might one day turn on the television and see his repugnant slimy face. i blame tony blair for this.

There you go then, ferg, if you can do better then you won't need to worry about a job.

>> ...Actually, if I liked him, works hard for the town etc I'd vote for him. Thats Democracy innit. I don't hold with this tactical voting stuff. Vote for the person you think would represent your views/interests locally. << I'm beginning to miss bits here. How did I let this little bit of folly slip past me? Gerry, voting for central government on local issues is just about as naive as it's possible to get. Local issues are decided by local councils in the main, who in turn have absolutely NO input on foreign affairs or overall taxation, law (ok, they can put a few yellow lines and parking bays in, big deal), national transport including roads as well as rail. In fact voting on what the wankers say they will do for local people whilst standing on your doorstep, or a soapbox in the high street, is lunacy.

I happened to love all those musicals when I was a kid, and probably do now - but - at least now I'm older I know there are frothy pap. Enjoyable frothy pap, but frothy pap none-the-less. And if someone wants to give me a job as a lycricist I reckon I'd be better than Tim Countdown Rice anyday.

:o)

I meant 'they' are rather than 'there' are... I seem to be making more and more typos these days.

why don't people just vote for the liberal democrats? Or even the green party? Why does it always have to come down to conservative and labour?

It comes down to who has a chance, Ritchie, and the slightly balding, overweight, gingery, sometime alcoholic ain't got a hope in hell.

hm. it's a tricky one. the world's changed but socialism never changes. how do we get out of this moebius loop? i know! let's just pretend that it's 1975 again! yippee!

"On the other you have thing like a belief in using the tax system to redistribute wealth and the belief that while business making profits is a good thing, it's not the only consideration for economic policy. These are principles." Blimey. I must be a socialist too. You see I do believe in a redistribution of wealth, however I don't believe for 1 minute that the sustainable way to achieve that is to increasingly tax the rich and give to the poor. No, I'd say that is a failed way, the rich are rich because they have created wealth, however they have done it. Taxing them excessively disincentivises them (as it would you or me if we were in that position), which means less wealth to share around, thus a diminishing pot... it defeats the very objective you set out to achieve in the first place. Yes, but we want to make it a fairer society! I would ask who makes the rich rich in the first place, and the answer is... all of us. Consumers. Through the hundreds of litte choices we make every day. You see, if you really want to redistribute wealth, you need to re-educate the consumers (all of us) into spending their money more wisely... We all need to re-educate ourselves on the concept of 'value' and direct our choices where it counts... you think organic/ethical/fair trade/independent shops are good... welll bloody spend your money there rather than moaning about capitalism then going to Tescos and buying their own brand products. You think ABCtales is good, direct your little money through there... and if others think likewise it will have a future... (ok.. they have to drop their useless idealogy and keep making it easier for us) We have more choice now than we have ever had on who we make rich and poor... just act on it. That more than any idealogy about nationalising this or taxing that will make a real difference. Guess what? We are a long way off but the trend is in the right direction, consumers are getting more powerful, they ARE increasingly exercising their choices in line with their real interests. Of course we have to learn what our real interests are in the first place, but then that is another sort of idealogy, I suppose.

If no one voted for parties that had no chance, we wouldn't have the Labour party, it would still be the wigs and the wotsits...

>> ...spending their money more wisely... << But surely if everyone does this the money would still end up in the same few pockets. We would ALL be making the same wise decisions.

So the ginger hair is irrelevant, Tim?

Hell no!

>>Why does it always have to come down to conservative and labour?<< It doesn't really, Funky but unless you live in a marginal seat and a huge campaign is organised by some minority party one of the big three will get in. I live in a tory stronghold (john major's old seat - it used to be the safest tory vote in the country, might still be) so I have tended to use my vote to support whatever minority cause I believe in. And that's all you can do, really. The problem is, is that when that minority cause gets enough votes to make the big boys notice, they promptly adopt 'some' of the small party's headline policy's (although in reality it is only lip-service) thus mainly wiping out the minority party's vote in the next election. I've just realised I was about to launch into a hugely boring political discourse - which is not a good idea - so I'll end with this: An election result is decided by very few people. They tend to be not very bright and they read red-banner tabloids. It is these people the parties are addressing - hence the emotive headlines about the NHS and educashon and immigration. Get them on board and you can stuff anyone who cares to think about it like you are doing, Funky. Me? No idea yet but it won't be Labour and it never will be. The image of my penniless 70 yr old widdowed grandmother making the effort to heave herself out of her chair and shuffle across the room using her zimmerframe to gob on Harold Wilson (he was on the tv!) has stuck with me.

You're not good enough, johnnie.

The people who really amuse me are those that say they won't vote. They believe that by not casting a vote they have no responsibility for the outcome. There's an argument that every vote really counts twice if cast and once if not cast at all, so those that don't tick the box still count.

Wot, failed the audition already. Wot a swizz :(

Well the job requires at least two braincells and you're deficient.

I've just zoomed down the thread and don't know if anyone else has pointed out the same thing. But. Jesus surely was the first socialist. I didn't go to school a lot but I did gather that he railed against greed, selfishness, and that one should share one's skills to benefit humankind. I think he may well have smote Maggie Thatcher, the personification of 'greed is good.' It isn't; it's what is destroying the world as we don't speak.

As I've said before. Let's have a vote against option 'cos I know who I don't want.

No because consumers must also be encouraged to be 'value' creators too, thus we are consumers sometimes, other times we sell 'value' that we create. We buy and sell from each other. Think Ebay... which has done more for redistribution for tens of thousands in a few years, than decades of socialism ever did. That is the future of wealth creation and distribution... that peruvian jewellery makers can reach their customers in Europe directly through the internet, and that there are people here who recognise the 'value' of a hand made product rather than the mass produiced crap they can get locally. These things are happening now, even if many don't recognise it as so... as I said, in practice, idealogy is dying.

At least I have one more than you, georgie :)

Back to cake, liptick and pink fluffy things...what do you think...for my holiday to Rome

Forgot to mention, George. If you fancy a bit of lilac wine... Elkie's on here next week and I can get you a ticket for £20. Not your 'cup of tea' I expect.

Then I've had a lifetime of amusing you, George. I've worked with, for and against politicians, and I wouldn't grace any of them with my vote - the closer you get to them, the more you realise that Lord Acton was right. I'm very interested in politics, so it isn't apathy. Like Stormy, I live in a safe seat, so a vote isn't worth casting. Now, if I was a swing voter in a key marginal, then I would find the least worst candidate and vote for them. I don't much like Labour (and even Brown, who I do quite like, has done a lot of stuff on PFI that is a dreadful thing for this country long-term), I couldn't countenance voting for the racist-friendly rebranded Tories and the Lib-Dems that are closer to my views on most things - well, they're never going to get in so it is easy to have nice voter-friendly policies, because they can make promises they know will never be put to the test. I'd actually quite like politics to come out of Government altogether and just have a group of people run the economy efficiently and let schools and hospitals sort themselves out - we pay enough money to hospital managers, they ought to run themselves without constant tinkering from Ministers.

Sounds more like a job than a holiday Jude.

faith in your heart AND on your feet the j :)

Don't you start me on fucking ebay! I just 'won' my first auction only to have the seller not honour the sale. Possibly because he/she didn't like the price they got.

But my one works.

I agree with you bingo. Socialism is dead (good riddance), more than that, idealogy is dead. Hip hip hooray. Which is why we have politcians scurrying around like rats these days not knowing quite which way to turn. I bet party politics will be entirely irrelevant in 50 years time... People will care more about their peers/friends located thousands of miles away in different parts of the globe than thair neighbours next door. Gosh, they may even elect to move and live together in communities of their own choosing.... See the even today, the rumbuctious lot on here would rather spend hours to be with each other virtually rather than go and engage with their neighbours 'down the local'. How do you govern that in the future?

Your maths is none too good either is it georgie :)

Jude - you said "I can't vote for parties that have had any associations with socialist values." Well I'd love to vote for a party that *has* socialist values, instead of pretending to, whilst operating to all intents and purposes as a right wing party... I certainly wont be voting labour.

The thing with this election is that the outcome is certain, Labour will get in with at least a workable majority, probably one with 120 majority. So the only issue is whether you cast a vote supporting that, or whether you don't wish to indicate support for what Labour have achieved since 1997. Vote for Labour, if you like them, vote for someone else or abstain if you don't. But in terms of affecting the result, the vote isn't worth agonising over, because it won't make the slightest bit of difference. If I could vote for a Labour win with a majority of 25, so that the Government had to respect the Parliamentary process, then I'd cast a vote for that. They've actually done a decent job of running the economy, which is the only thing that matters now that both parties are right of centre. If there was a vote to ensure that Blunkett never gets a position of any power, I'd cast a vote for that, too.

"Gerry, voting for central government on local issues is just about as naive as it's possible to get. Local issues are decided by local councils in the main, who in turn have absolutely NO input on foreign affairs or overall taxation, law (ok, they can put a few yellow lines and parking bays in, big deal), national transport including roads as well as rail. In fact voting on what the wankers say they will do for local people whilst standing on your doorstep, or a soapbox in the high street, is lunacy" I thought we were talking about electing MPs in a forthcoming General Election... Given someone who saunters around on the National or International stage voicing their long held agendas on 'big issues' as opposed to an MP who shows his face in his constituency, works hard at listening to what people say, tries and sorts out their problems, puts their cases forward effectively in parliament etc... I would vote for the locally focussed one every time. Why? If they can demonstrably do a good job pof representing local interests fairly and effectively, then I would have greater trust in them when it come to the 'bigger issues' of the day. I would also think they would be better at bringing an open mind with them, and be less blinded by fixed idealogical politicians. I hate obvert idealogies in politicians, whatever their political ilk. I think these distinctions between local, national, international are fading anyway. We all increasing want the same sort of things from our politicians at all levels... to be effective as well as fair and to be decisive and take responsibility for their decisions.

Well I do have to behave...Sr Amy is taking me on a tour of Santa Sabina to see Saint Dominic's cell. Looking forward to popesoaponarope

Does it wash away your sins?

I'll let you know. I am the sad kind of individual who posts when on holiday.

It sounds more like you're the kind of sad individual who doesn't really get a holiday.

Fatal, I don't wanna spoil your illusion, but 'jesus' is a character in a fairy story, he didn't REALLY exist you know. A bit like Father Christmas or a caring Conservative.

Sounded worse than I meant, Jude. I just thought that few people would see touring Italy with a nun as a holiday.

*bursts into tears*

Mind you, I'd probably enjoy it :o)

Jesus surely was the first socialist? Some say yes - the "Liberation theologians" in Latin America par example. He advocated "sell all you own, give your money to the poor and follow me." but it was an invitation to be done out of genorosity of the spirit. He did not advocate institutionalised relocation of funds. I don't see what is Christian about giving someone who genuinely can't be fagged to work the money for a sattelite TV. I want to choose how I am charitable. When he said "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's" I take this as meaning do not confuse political/worldly issues with spiritual ones which is what exactly what liberation theology priests in Latin America and elsewhere have done. They claim to align themselves on the side of the poor but what they are really doing is using their position as clergy to propegate their leftwing political agendas. Of course one very intelligent and holy man saw through this and did something about it! His name ? Joseph Ratzinger - bless him!