Indeed. They've also tried to take credit for lifting x % of people out of paying tax, when it was a Libdem initiative they resisted at the time.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Have the Tories and Lib Dems been made aware that the SNP have a new leader?

They do but only because salmond is a nothing at the moment. It'll change when he becomes an mp.

I'd say hallucination had he not added the UKIP bit.

Yes, the Tories refusing to take part seems like potentially a huge strategic mistake by them. Just gives the other leaders the chance to maul them on prime time television without answer surely?

You'd think so, but the BBC are compensating for the PM's absence by allowing his strategists to be interviewed for reaction after the debate.

I also suspect a few of the opposition parties will focus their criticism on Milliband. After all, the Greens etc arent likely to gain any votes from the Tories.

Knowing they have the last word, I worry what Cameron's spin doctors and professional bullshitters could achieve.

I guarantee the chair (dimblebum I presume) will step in if the topic gets onto why the Tories aren't there, or too much in the way of kicking the government (who 'aren't there to defend themselves'). Even the questions will be phrased in such a way as to emphasise the candidates should be talking about their own policies and not about the deficiencies in the govt's.

monkey wrote:

or too much in the way of kicking the government (who 'aren't there to defend themselves').

To which the easy response is that they had the opportunity to come here and defend themselves, and the fact that they didn't speaks volumes.

I've been pretty interested in politics since New Labour got in the first time. Even they, at their most shameless, were nothing like as bad as these Tories for completely contradicting reality. It's something that American politics has had for a while though, at least since Bush. Say something, anything, and sound convincing about it. Media outlets are required to give weight and consideration to your opinion, it might sound superficially plausible and it works at confusing reality and muddying the waters and shifting around debates. An interviewer might question it, but then he has to question the other guy as well and it sounds like everyone's lying. 

Re Tory supporters, earlier in the thread Funk framed it as a simple inward-looking, selfish mentality versus a generous, society-wide mentality. That's pretty simplistic imo. Many people who vote Tory think they are making the moral choice, the better choice for society. People are lifted up through instilling a strong work ethic, too many handouts encourages people to be lazy so benefits should be minimal, you're harming the person more by giving them money instead of encouraging them to stand on their own two feet, etc etc. This is a reasonable point of view to a certain extent. There's clear flaws* in it, but these require a marginal amount more intelligence and care when thinking about, so it's not surprising that people miss them and stick with the "I made it out of my council estate, why can't they?" stuff that's pretty easy to think about and comprehend. 

*I'm thinking along the lines of us living in a capitalist society that requires some people to be at the bottom regardless of how motivated or intelligent they are, a capitalist economy needs a certain amount of people to be unemployed at any one time so there is enough of a pool to draw workers from, the bottom of society needs to be sufficiently penurious in comparison to the top to encourage people to engage in the capitalist reward system etc etc.

Encouraging people to be capable and independent isn't a bad thing. 
I just think you can't affect it through the benefits system. Give people education and prospects. Of course, they'll say they are doing this, and present their statistics, despite things being bleaker then ever for people on welfare.

monkey wrote:

Encouraging people to be capable and independent isn't a bad thing.  I just think you can't affect it through the benefits system. Give people education and prospects. Of course, they'll say they are doing this, and present their statistics, despite things being bleaker then ever for people on welfare.

Precisely, which is why it's horseshit.

No one is going to argue against helping people to be capable and independent. No one will say no, don't give people education and prospects but the issue is how you go about that. Cutting funding for all this education, or farming it out to unaccountable private companies and paying people seeking work below poverty benefit isn't how you do it.

Stigmatising the unemployed isn't how you do it. Stigmatising people with disabilities, and forcing people into work they are not capable of doing isn't how you do it. Forcing people to give up socially beneficial voluntary work so that a supermarket can have someone stacking shelves for free isn't how you do it.

You two don't need to convince me, I was just adumbrating the superficial moral case for voting Tory.

And that superficial moral case seems to fall apart when confronted by the most simple challenges.

My throwaway line about right vs left society thinking does bear scrutiny, simply because the ultimate view of those who subscribe to the superficial moral case of the right does reflect their inherent selfishness.

I maintain that morals be damned, however - it's up to people to make up their own minds where they stand, and although I judge them to be selfish arseholes, I can totally understand someone voting to maintain their status in society, and to benefit themselves and their close ones directly, even at the expense of others in that society.

All I crave is honesty about it. Better for society is horseshit. Better for me is accurate.

There was also the #SameOldLabour backfire as well. After recovering their position in the polls, they do seem in danger of losing it again.

Here.