Disappointed of Geordieland ---

[Space cat]

A few days back, in a different thread, I lamented the fact that our boring old two-party politicians always dodged the issues that I cared about. Well I've been watching the leaders' debates and, half way through the second one, three of them came up in the same question: abortion, contraception and homosexuality. So what happened? I'll tell you what happened. All three leaders jumped on the one thing they felt safe with, ie rogue priests, and fudged around everything else. The chairman even had to prompt them to answer the rest of the question!

I expected as much from Cameron and Brown. Stuck as they are with their left-right, class-based brand of politics they really don't understand that stuff. Terrified of losing votes and unsure of the potential gains, they did what they've always done; they played safe and ducked out - though Cameron at least had the balls to suggest that the Pope might be wrong.

But there were three leaders in that debate. Nick Clegg, that was your chance. The questioner gave you an opportunity to demonstrate that you 'really can do things differently' - and you fluffed it! Sitting smugly in the middle while the other two slag each other off is fine but I didn't vote Liberal so that you could just sit back and take the middle position. I haven't been so disappointed with a TV performance since the CrackerJack team forgot the words to "It's Getting Better".

I realize that you didn't dare criticize the Pope or you'd be in the doghouse when you got home but there was a way out. Something like "The Pope is entitled to his opinions but he won't be your next prime minister" would have done nicely. You could then have said something positive about all the issues cunningly wrapped up in that question. Instead you let David Cameron win the argument by default. Nick Clegg, you let me down.

 

[Whitespirit66]

I'm not a big fan of Papal. I prefer to use my credit card.

 

[gregers]

i use postal orders.

 

[Whitespirit66]

 

[Lincsbodger]

Well I've been watching the leaders' debates and, half way through the second one, three of them came up in the same question:.....homosexuality.

If we vote for you, your not going to make it compulsory, are you ?

 

[dextrous]

Well I've been watching the leaders' debates and, half way through the second one, three of them came up in the same question:.....homosexuality.

If we vote for you, your not going to make it compulsory, are you ?

It's in the interest of glowball worming.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

what's a pope

 

[Space cat]

If we vote for you, your not going to make it compulsory, are you ?

You mean like this:

"God help us; they'll be making it compulsory next!"

That was a not uncommon statement in the early eighties. Going back even further to the sixties when I was at school, there were those who thought it was something you could catch! How things have changed. Economists now talk about the 'pink pound' and how it's shrinking because homosexual couples are adopting children.

But which of our major parties did the most to bring this about? Well as far as I can see the answer is neither. Our political lords and masters have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the Dark Ages and that's the point I was trying to make. This is just one of a string of issues that they have steadfastly avoided because they don't fit into their concept of what is political.

Here's another one. The licensing laws were introduced during WWI to reduce the accident rate in munitions factories. That was fair enough, but why were they still blighting our lives seventy years after the war ended?

 

[holmslaw]

The day after the election.

Senior civil servants speaking to new prime minister - does'nt matter which party.

"PM your manifesto was complete bollerx, you can't do any of those things"

PM "No s*** sherlock, you need to speak to someone who gives a f***, where are the expenses claim forms?"