At a local level, I am allowed something in the region of 50 1st class and 100 2nd class stamps for use in my work (cannot be used for electioneering, paid for by the public purse). During the election period all expense incurred contacting the electorate must be within the spending limit, including postage. Anything that has the party ID on it, or any statements designed to promote myself electorally must be included. If a supporter lets me use their office space ( I cannot use my townhall office) I must include a calculation of how much that office space would theoretically have cost me were I to rent it. Any cost above £25 must carry a receipt and any donation above £50 must include full donator details.

The parliamentary levels are much bigger, but MPs operate within tight spending limits on postage and communications as well. Throughout their MPs are allowed to spend a certain amount, claimable as an expense from the public purse, on communications as long as they are not overtly campaign orientated: news letters and the like. During the election period, similar rules apply as to local campaigns though I am unsure of the amount allowed.


There are no risks in debating in such a manner. However, you are dealing with a political system and tools designed to promote calm can just as easily be abused as respected.

Mmm. This is probably a topic you and I should avoid discussing Flaja :P

And if the parent consents, an unborn human being still ends up being murdered.

Why? If an unborn human is not a living being after 1 day or 3 months or 6 months in the womb, is he or she any more a living human being after being in the womb for 1 day less than 9 months? Why give the unborn the benefit of the doubt after 1 day less than 9 months when you won’t give the same benefit of the doubt after 1 second in the womb?

And if the “patient” refuses all other options, an unborn human being still ends up being murdered.

Accusations of lying are issued on a pretty regular basis in American politics.

I am not saying that things like war and the availability of health care are not moral issues, but only fools would equate things like taxation with life and death moral issues like abortion.

That would make it a pretty useless example of how Hillary is "not a moderate" then, don't you think?

How could tools designed to promote calm be abused? Can you give some specific examples?

And surely a politician who is concerned more about political issues than political advancement could engage in passionate debate about critical issues without telling lies or hurling offense insults at their political opponents. The trouble is that very few politicians care more about political issues than they do advancing their political careers.

She is a liberal on this issue because she holds the position that is generally associated with liberals. She associates with liberals on this issue, thus she is not a moderate.

flaja, I'm not interesting in defending those positions on abortion, I'm just presenting the possibility of a moderate position. Thank you, however, for so aptly demonstrating my second point.

Ah, of course. You can't be a moderate unless you agree with the conservative position. You are obviously very well-versed on the concept of spectrums.

As indeed they are here.....just not on the floor of the House :P

No, I cannot give specific examples; however, I can point to a number of areas in which the potential for litigation can have a negative effect. In the medical world, for example, many doctors are unwilling to take risks on behalf of their patients, for fear of litigation. I can think of several politicians, off the top of my head, who would become overly careful in the Commons' debates if the risk of litigation were there.

As a local politician I sometimes have to deal with planning matters. If I am to sit on a planning committee, I am legally obliged to enter that committee with an open mind. Because it is a quasi-judicial process, if I have at any time expressed an opinion on the application being heard, i must declare an interest and leave the room. If I have allowed myself to be lobbied by either party, I must declare an interest and leave the room. This is designed to protect the system from lobbying. The penalties are potentially very damaging: I could be removed from office and barred from standing for a number of years, I could also face a nasty fine. Simple enough right? Except it isn't. It isn't just based on what you say and do, it's based on what you are perceived to have said or done. If there is a potential for the general public to perceive that I have already made up my mind, then I am out of the process. Because of the 'reasonable perception' rule, I, and most councillors I know, are overly careful. This sets us at a distance from our constituents in a very important area. Our planning system is so tied up in such concerns it occasionally grinds to a halt. or produces rogue results.

No, I cannot predict the specifics, but I can tell you the effect on the individual of a fear of litigation: it makes one cautious. It can, if the risk of litigation is high, make one overly-cautious. I do not want my politicians to be overly cautious.

If you want politicians to treat each other with respect.....don't vote for thugs and morons.

How many politicians do you know? The field is huge. In my country, and I suspect this applies to yours as well, the vast majority of politicians are not known beyond the borders of the area they represent. The number of politicians who make it into the public eye in any meaningful way is small compared to the number who do not. There are 646 Members of Parliament in Britain. Out of those there may be 150-200 who are well known to the general public (with most people able to name a handful of those).

The ones who make it into the public eye are the ones who play the political game, succeed in progressing to the top, or vocally rebel. On the basis of their performance, people judge the integrity of the remaining several hundred who do not play the political game, succeed in progressing to the top, or vocally rebel. Some of those will be just as ruthless as the front benchers....but many won't. There are plenty of MPs who do what they do with a public service ethos and no grand ambitions beyond representing their constituents. There are plenty who treat it like an ordinary job: doing what they can to help individuals and groups, attending the debates and voting on important issues, contributing in a meaningful way to society as a part of their work. There are also those who resent the fact they haven't progressed further, treat their job as a vehicle and enjoy the status.

They're just people. If you want to be represented by civil and pleasant people.....then vote for civil and pleasant people. Don't vote for the man you'd feel most comfortable sharing a pint with and then be horrified when he turns the floor into a pub brawl.

So you don’t think abortion is a moral issue rather than just a political one?

You think we can murder people in moderation?

When it comes to life and death, no.

BTW: What is the conservative position on abortion? What do you use as your guide for determining what this conservative position is?

Your use of the term 'murder' in this context is, in itself, profoundly political.

But Dana, she's made up her mind, don't confuse her with facts.:rolleyes: