dusqi

I did laugh in a horribly cynical way when Cameron told a joke, and the camera switched to a couple of audience members in suits laughing their heads off, but when Brown was talking, the camera switched to an extended shot of someone in the audience yawning. They also seemed to take a good number of camera shots from behind Clegg when he was talking. But then, since a media commentator said that he looks hot, perhaps showing his [wagon] was a compliment? ;) Camera shots are subjective, but the most obvious bias was when Adam Boulton brought up a Telegraph headline just before Nick was about to speak. He didn't do that with any of the other leaders. There have been complaints about this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/23/nick-clegg-ofcom-sky-debate Edit: Actually, I just saw some articles about a camera shot of Gordon Brown's notes. The papers make a big deal about how Gordon's jokes were prepared in advance, but honestly all leaders' jokes and slogans are. The big issue here is that this camera shot shouldn't have been made available - it didn't happen in the ITV debates. Sky has shown itself to be too unprofessional to be involved in these important occasions in future.

It's amazingly ironic too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8561683.stm The more desperate the newspapers get, the more obvious their agenda becomes, and the more people get annoyed by their deceit.

Yes, every area ("constituency") votes a (local?) representative - their Member of Parliament (MP). The MP goes to London and votes in legislation to (apparently) represent their constituency (most vote along party lines).

Well, Labour and the Tories are going to do their best to take the policies apart over the next few weeks, so I recommend that you follow the debate and see if they succeed. It's worth noting that the Lib Dem manifesto is the only one to cost up their policies, and the only one that doesn't rely on "efficiencies" to pay for things. This comedy picture also has a serious point:

Those two books were taken out by "President". Just below an entry for another two books taken out by "Mickey Mouse". :P

Murdoch has already taken over in the UK also. Back in 1992, the election was close and an unexpected (conservative) party ended up winning it. The Sun newspaper had supported the conservatives and on the day after the election it claimed responsibility for them winning it (headline: "It was the Sun wot won it") I remember something from last year which I think really demonstrates how much power Murdoch's newspapers still have. In the middle of the expenses scandal (june 2009), the editor of the Sun got married. Who was at the ceremony? Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron. The event didn't lead to much publicity, it was certainly not on TV - they just went in order to suck up to The Sun. I despair of politics as usual when leaders take time out from the most significant political event of the year in order to schmooze The Sun.

woo, the lib dems are in the lead. oh no wait, lets put this new data into the seat calculator... oh look, this would still end up as.. CON 245 seats (+47) LAB 275 seats (-81) LIB 99 seats (+37) Gotta love our awesome system huh? Yup, but it would put the Lib Dems in a position to push for a better voting system. Also, it would mean that the media would have to pay more attention to them until the next election, giving them more exposure and more ability to persuade voters next time. If anyone is unsure whether to vote Lib Dem, here's a very good reason: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem

Latest poll - this time YouGov's daily one for the Sun - shows the Lib Dems in the lead on 33%, Conservatives 32%, Labour 26%, Others 8%. Polling was carried out on Saturday and Sunday.

"A surge in the past couple of weeks, however, saw 250,000 people register online, of whom 40% were under 25. At the 2005 election, only 37% of young people voted." 2 days left :) http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/

The lib dems stand no chance whatsoever of actually getting in. The voting system in this country is completely [bleep]ed up. If we had PR, then maybe, but as it is, not a chance. That said, I'll still be voting for them. also dusqi, yes, the lib dems did oppose the bill, but don't forget that it was a lib dem lord that added the most controvertial clause in the bill, before it was passed to the commons. Erm you do realise over recent years they have progressively closed the gap between them and labour/conservatives and that this year as it stands they are topping or close to topping a lot of opinion polls, so for once they actually do stand a chance of getting in. No, they really don't. It isn't a "whoever gets the most votes wins" system. There are way WAY too many safe seats for both the tories and labour for the lib dems to stand a realistic chance. Its a first past the post system I know that. However what you fail to see is that most of the safe seats are no longer considered safe. Safe seats are the ones obtained from voting areas where location specific opinion polls and voting trends have always favour one party by a huge margin. Many of the labour safe seats are no longer considered safe as a lot of people have become disillusioned with it. Equally many of the conservative safe seats are considered in threat as the lib dems are making significant encroachment on their margin. Over the past years Lib Dems have actually taken some of the conservative and labour safe seats. And by all counts they do stand a real chance this year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8627292.stm "The ComRes poll for the Sunday Mirror and Independent on Sunday puts the Conservatives on 31, the Lib Dems on 29 and Labour on 27. The poll of 1,006 people was conducted on on 16 and 17 April. Meanwhile, an ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph puts the Conservatives on 34, Labour on 29 and the Lib Dems on 27. It says this is the Conservatives' lowest rating in an ICM poll since September 2007. " And as more people poll for the Lib Dems, more people who have always liked the Lib Dem policies but don't think they could win will see that that is not the case and so will add their support. And there are still 19 days to the election.

Nope - Liberal Democrats did not support it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/16/digital-economy-bill-nick-clegg From the article: [Nick Clegg]"We did our best to prevent the Digital Economy Bill being rushed through at the last moment. It badly needed more debate and amendment, and we are extremely worried that it will now lead to completely innocent people having their internet connections cut off. "It was far too heavily weighted in favour of the big corporations and those who are worried about too much information becoming available. It badly needs to be repealed, and the issues revisited." "As Clegg points out, the Lib Dems always opposed the controversial bill, which was rushed through parliament in the "wash-up" period just after the election was called." It demonstrates that the Lib Dems are a different and refreshing party compared to the old politics of the Labservatives. Labour rammed it through without proper scrutiny and the Conservatives didn't even bother to vote. This was the same as the reforms to clean up the House of Commons that were proposed by the Lib Dems and discussed in the debate on Thursday. Labour voted against them and the Conservatives didn't even bother to vote. Now Labour suddenly agrees with Nick. The other parties talk about change, but when it comes to the actual votes and policies they're still doing nothing.

This year's going to be my first year of voting too, having turned 18 in December. Yet, I'm one of those who probably won't end up voting. To be honest, it's simply just that I've had no interest in the politics of the country - I don't complain so that common argument can't really apply. In my scenario though, I don't see the point in registering and voting for something random - surely that's just throwing out an invalid vote if there's no consideration really been put into it? On the other hand though - if I were to stand back and look at myself it's (rather ashamedly) sheer laziness! :P I think I can be opinionated so really should take the time to look at different issues and who I think is the most viable...I would say that from small looks at it the Liberal's are the ones that stand out most, that's probably largely due to all the talk about them at the moment though! ;) But if politicians know that you and people like you vote, then they'll start saying things that are relevant to you and trying to get you to vote for them. In other words, if you vote for someone random this time, then next time they'll start caring about what you think, and they'll start saying things that relate to you and people like you - they'll have to start being interesting to you. If they think that you won't bother voting, of course they'll never say anything that is relevant to your interests. They won't do anything that is relevant to your interests either. They want votes, so if you don't vote you don't exist to them.

What if the kids were chanting "Thank-you Dawkins for helping us to realise that only man's science grew and prepared this food" or "Thank-you Obama and the Democrats for funding the food we're about to eat". Would there be a problem with this? It's just a chant after all. Even kids can pair up food with saying the word "God" and so in future get happy feelings whenever they hear "God" again.

For UK people who have not registered to vote yet, you have until April 20th so there is still time. Do it online now: http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk Young people are getting a raw deal at the moment. Young people have the highest unemployment, young people have to go into massive debt for university fees, young people have to fund the generous pensions of older people with an uncertain prospect of getting a pension of their own, young people can't afford a house (the average age of first-time buyers without parental help is 37) Part of the reason for this is that young people don't vote, so politicians ignore them. I don't care who you vote for, just register.

I would not have said this 8 years ago, but I would like to see the UK show more interest in Europe. The US-UK relationship is fine, but Europe has more to offer us in terms of potential influence in the world. Europe needs to make our collection of nations work so that we can project our liberal interests in a future world dominated by an increasingly selfish and aggressive US and China.

I don't really think this crazy in "real life". However, the internet is a good forum to go a bit extreme and see what stands up to scrutiny. Test arguments out :) It is why I am not offended when someone disagrees with what I say, so I hope no one else is offended by what I say.

Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, it doesn't change how your tone was. You said people who do not believe global warming deserve to die from global warming. You don't see anything wrong with that? "If global warming was a proven fact instead of just a hypothesis, then people would suddenly start believing it." Why does this surprise you? Let's think about if god were to come down to earth for a second here. Do you think all the atheists in the world should deserve to suffer? No, I suspect you'd be fighting at the front of the line to get your prayers answered. :roll: On a more serious note, you can't expect people who didn't believe in global warming to not want help if it was proven to them, just as you cannot expect atheists to not want help if god revealed himself. Bottom line is that you act like not believing global warming is immoral, which is pretty ridiculous. People who don't get healthcare insurance in the US are basically left to die. I see nothing wrong with saying that people who do not support efforts to stem human-induced global warming, should also be left to die. Perhaps someone who does not buy health insurance will never get sick, and if so they've saved themselves lots of money by not purchasing health insurance. Perhaps global warming is not human-induced and will not happen, and if so those people would save themselves lots of money. But if they don't think it's worth getting my hypothetical global warming insurance, then why shouldn't they be left? It's not about their "beliefs", it is about them taking responsibility for their viewpoint. People take healthcare seriously, because they know that they'll be held responsible for purchasing or not purchasing it. People don't take global warming seriously, because they think they'll get a free ride anyway. As far as I know, Christians believe that if God came down, he'd smite the atheists without giving them a second chance. God is all about having faith without evidence, and if you don't have the faith then when the evidence comes it's too late. At the risk of starting a religious debate, I consider this to be immoral because no one should have to believe something on faith. Global warming is different. There is lots of evidence, some of it might be only to some (high) level of certainty, but the evidence is there - and that is why people can be held responsible for their views, because there is evidence and many people are ignoring it or distorting it. That is why they "deserve to suffer". I've talked about a similar thing in the past, on the scale of countries rather than individuals. I think that if human-induced global warming turns out to be true, then the rest of the world has a duty to nuke the USA off of the map, because it was the USA that did most to stifle global efforts to do something about it. It's a similar point about getting a free ride. George Bush and the US people thought that their short-term business interests trumped the world's long-term interests. They thought that if global warming was not true, they'd save a load of money by not doing anything, and if global warming was true then no one would hold them accountable for not doing anything about it anyway. So they might as well disregard and distort the evidence. This is why it is the world's duty to hold them accountable. And after all, why not? If the USA attacked another country, then that country would be allowed to retaliate. But if the USA causes millions of deaths and a much lower quality of life by pretending that global warming isn't real, then it's all fair? I think not.

Well said. I wanted to say pretty much the same thing, but didn't know how to word it. If people are sure there's no climate change, then why should they be offended? You are so sure that the situation will never occur, that you would not pay 1% of your income and would not expect any but a tiny fraction of other people to pay it either. The only reason someone would be offended by my statement is if they have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps there's something in this climate change stuff - but they're pretending to themselves that it's not a problem in order to get out of having to do anything about it. As to who would pay 1% of their income - many developed countries already took part in the Kyoto Protocol and so are missing out on significant GDP. Many individuals are doing green things rather than using the cheapest option. Many people vote for political parties that will do green things on their behalf. You don't have to spend much money or time doing something green in order to get to 1% of your income. If only there was a way for individuals to guarantee their own welfare by paying 1%, I suspect that a high proportion of them would. In reality, we're all stuck with getting the same global outcome, whatever that may be. But I think that it's an interesting thing to think about - would the climate skeptics admit their culpability if famine occurred? I suspect they'd be fighting at the front of the line to get the food rations.

Except, there are timelines for how much we need to reduce emissions in order to keep damage to an acceptable level, and obviously the longer you wait the more effective you have to be later. It might be that it's better to start on some of the best options we have now rather than wait for something that could possibly be better but too late. I think there should be a register of people who think there is no such thing as human-induced climate change. Then if things go wrong, they can all be rounded up and thrown into the (rising) sea, and then perhaps the rest of us can live on top of them. I do have a serious point though: All of these people who say that we don't need to do anything will suddenly change their minds in the future once cities start flooding. They'll complain about how nothing was done, and will expect everyone else to look after them still. In other words, no one will be held responsible for their views - there won't be consequences, so people have the tendency to be selfish and hope it will go away. Imagine a situation where the government said that, "everyone who believes in climate change can choose to pay a climate-insurnace tax of an extra 1%. Everyone who doesn't can carry on paying what they do now. However, if in future something happens and we only have the resources to look after 50% of the population, then everyone who didn't pay the tax will have to fend for themselves." If this were to happen, suddenly I suspect that people would take the situation much more seriously, and would do some proper research into understanding it (as opposed to the bs that people are writing in this topic and others like it).

hahaha, what a selfish b******. "Screw my children, it's more important to me that I can drive to school in a tank." Why do you get up in the morning anyway? You're going to die one day. What an "ultimately pointless endeavour". It's OK, "the experts" already did it. It's a greater than 95% chance that we're causing it. 2oC is already almost certain. But why have governments around the world recently agreed to try set a ceiling of 2oC (despite them having no intention of actually doing anything to achieve this)? because beyond that the scientists say that it gets to the situation where things spiral out of control. Ice starts melting in various northern places, releasing previously trapped methane into the atmosphere which then makes it even hotter and leads to even more ice melting and rainforests dying, etc.etc. Yeah, only thousands of pages of IPCC reports by top scientists around the world and thousands of scientific papers in peer reviewed journals. I read that the term used was changed to "climate change" from "global warming" because in some places it could get colder, but more importantly "climate change" sounds far less scary. In fact, the globe is still warming - so "global warming" is an accurate term. Yeah, because "greater than 95%" isn't certain enough. The experts already did their research on it, and they published it, expecting people to do something about it, but have been greatly disillusioned ever since. Even The Economist (bastion of corporate interests) said that it's better to spend the 1% or so of GDP on combating global warming, than suffer the likely massive consequences of doing nothing.

I am doing a PhD involving research on decision making, after which I'd like to span between research/teaching in academia and entrepreneurial activities in the commercial world. My current enterprise involves personality testing. I met a woman last week who set up a foundation in Ecuador after visiting for a while ( http://www.childrenofguayaquil.org/ ). She started it while a junior in college. She spoke about how they spend a lot of time integrating it and making it a community project, so she's passionate about getting to know the locals. She's still working at a large management consultancy firm currently, so it's not as if she has put her whole life on hold for it. Very inspiring, and the point is that you do not necessarily have to wait! And even if you do wait, as someone highly educated you may find that your skills are better used in other areas than (just) volunteering or labouring. There are lots of areas of psychology, some of which are well paid. Clinical psychologist, educational psychologist, sports psychologist, forensic psychologist, occupational/industrial psychologist. Psychology is also related to lots of other areas like neuroscience, economics, etc.etc. and if you're interested in finding stuff out you can do research in basically anything at all that involves humans.

If any pollster asks, I always say I'm undecided. If you say that you've made up your mind, then politicians just ignore you. The only people they care about are "floating voters".

I am interested in what you're doing, but I don't plan to read these blogs frequently. Update your FB!

I think that OT should have an official "these are the facts of evolution" page, and so whenever someone comes along who does not think that evolution occurs we can just link them there rather than be sidetracked. It would stop us having to write the same posts over and over to try and explain the real world to the religious fundamentalist trolls. A similar page could be written for "these are the facts of the Big Bang".

My mistake on her job title. All MDs should bow down to your credentials in their utter ignorance. I didn't say that she was utterly ignorant, only that she may be going outside of her area of expertise when she strays into these kinds of areas. For all I know though, she might have cited a load of studies where they look at how women behaviourally react to conflict vs. men. But if she's just going by chemicals though then I am dubious, since they can be far removed from actual behaviour. But yes, in general I do find it annoying when people think that they know something about psychology just because they are a human. I don't pretend to know anything about kidneys despite having two of them. You can attack her credentials all day, it doesn't have anything to do with the thread, but that's okay. The information quoted is from a NY Times bestseller The Female Brain which was required reading in many college settings, and was reviewed itself by multiple PhDs, she got a Neurobiology degree from Berkley, a M.D. from Yale, and a MMHC from Harvard Medical School. ...as I found out when I looked her up earlier, which caused me to say that she knows about physiology, not psychology. In fact, after she published her NY Times Bestseller, there was a fair amount of controversy since some of her 'facts' were not. Sadly you'll find that a NY Times "bestseller" is often not so academically rigorous, given that no other expert will check the facts before they get to print. Publishers will print anything as long as it's controversial enough that it'll sell books. Here is part of a review of the book from Nature (an extremely academically rigorous journal) So, my point about her credentials stands. She knows about hormones and biology, but not how they translate into psychology. She's going beyond her area of expertise. And thus, coming back to the topic at hand, the idea that men are more argumentative than women is not supported by this quote.