[im so academic]

Anyone thinks the fake answers were much more better than the real answers?

[i_bring_you_fire]

(Original post by Don John)
Right, because only Labour caused this right? Nothing to do with purposefully flawed mortgage plans by banks? Yeah, I forgot.

Owned.

[x-pixie-lottie-x]

(Original post by DiamondsAreForever)
Cameron is the only guy who has actually answered my question. Surprisingly. Although I don't think he's really considered what I was trying to say, he talks about all those from disadvantaged backgrounds having equal opportunities, but why do none of them realise that many people get no funding from their parents even though they earn lots, therefore get hardly any money? It's a bigger problem than they realise.

as much as i agree with your point that just because parents have money doesnt mean the child gets the support...(off topic slightly but ema gets my back up instantly everyones the same at 16... my friends got ema... they spent it on going shopping/holidays in spain... which i couldnt do because my parents earnt over that amount but earning more doesnt mean you have more money... they couldnt afford to give me £30 a week and bonuses at holidays :| i got £10 a week for lunches, £15 if i got the bus a few times...i went into town with my friends i heard all the "oohh im going to buy that when i get my ema " ggrr... anyway back on topic)...i cant see any other way of doing it... can you think of a reasonable means that would suit all?
the question suggests..:

Then the rest that they need they can supplement from external sources i.e. a job/overdraft/family.

ok... imagine this...i'm doing a hard degree law or medicine or something (they seem a lot of confusing hard work to me..), dont have the time to get a job, i need to spend my time at uni/reading/volunteering or low paid job to get myself into the career im aming for (based on friends experiances)
overdraft... i had no money before going to uni... now i get an even bigger debt! what an insentive to go to uni... (thats whats putting people off already!)
and the family was highlighted before by yourself....... just because family has money doesnt mean they will support them...

so another external source? a logical way around it that would actually work?
x

[emmarainbow]

Q9 -

WHERE'S THE T!!

Damnit.

Then again, during the equality bill last year, on trans stuff someone in the tory benches shouted 'filthy perverts' according to the lib dem mp speaking on it. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true...

Interesting post on the t: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/04/16...he-trans-vote/

[Sweyn Forkbeard]

He did much better than I expected him to. He gave longer responses, clearly disagreed with the argument behind some of the questions (rather than simply trying to win votes by being a bit slippery) and came across as intelligent and committed. He did dodge a couple of questions, however, but that's no different from the other leaders.

I think he did well. I probably won't be voting Tory though.

[gildartz]

completely disagree with his point about the digital economy bill, it's an embarassing piece of legislation proposed by mandelson after having dinner with a figure in the movie industry. The economical benefits will not outweigh the economic costs of implimenting this, not to mention the ethical and social implications.

[munro90]

(Original post by Meadows14)
Gap Yah

My thoughts exactly
Go to Rwandah on this kind of spiritual,cultural,political exchange thing then, like, CHUNDER EVERYWHERE!!

[Kash:)]

I liked what he said for Q2. Didn't really explain HOW it was going to change, but was an okay answer.

[DiamondsAreForever]

(Original post by x-pixie-lottie-x)
as much as i agree with your point that just because parents have money doesnt mean the child gets the support...(off topic slightly but ema gets my back up instantly everyones the same at 16... my friends got ema... they spent it on going shopping/holidays in spain... which i couldnt do because my parents earnt over that amount but earning more doesnt mean you have more money... they couldnt afford to give me £30 a week and bonuses at holidays :| i got £10 a week for lunches, £15 if i got the bus a few times...i went into town with my friends i heard all the "oohh im going to buy that when i get my ema " ggrr... anyway back on topic)...i cant see any other way of doing it... can you think of a reasonable means that would suit all?
the question suggests..:

ok... imagine this...i'm doing a hard degree law or medicine or something (they seem a lot of confusing hard work to me..), dont have the time to get a job, i need to spend my time at uni/reading/volunteering or low paid job to get myself into the career im aming for (based on friends experiances)
overdraft... i had no money before going to uni... now i get an even bigger debt! what an insentive to go to uni... (thats whats putting people off already!)
and the family was highlighted before by yourself....... just because family has money doesnt mean they will support them...

so another external source? a logical way around it that would actually work?
x

Hi

Well my point of making everyone receive the same amount of money, is that so everyone is given an equal footing. Degrees like Medicine and Law can be hard work, but it all depends on the persons ability and method of working, a degree such as say.. English, or Physics can be equally demanding in their own ways. I think if you give everyone an equal amount of money, it means, you live within your means, you pick things like catered/self-catered accommodation, food and how much you want to spend on nights out on how much you value it. If you need more money, then you get a job. 4 hours a week is a small amount of time, and could potentially give you an extra £20 a week, which is enough for a food shop and a couple of drinks. I wouldnt say that a small amount of hours would affect your course, and if you need the money, you need the money. It will also demonstrate you can balance your priorities when it comes to job interviews in the future and whatnot. Or there's always the option of getting jobs in the holidays.

I just think its a fairer way. The government is sort of producing this normal family, a mum and dad who earn an income , with a child going to university, assuming they are able to provide for their child at University. It doesn't account for the person who's mum has just got a new partner and the new partner then feels the obligation to provide for the child, the high income earners who have large outgoings and can't provide for the child going to university, the family with lots of other children to provide for who fall short of their monetary needs etc. What if the person going to Uni depends on their parents money because the student finance doesnt provide anywhere near enough, and then the family temporarily falls out with their child, and refuses to give them money for the period of the fallout? For those months, the person has very little money, they can't claim estrangement from student finance because it hasn't been 3 years or whatever it is, and they are stuck? With a stable amount of money, they would have more than the previous situation.

It seems student finance cater for the average joe, and not all the other problems that people encounter. The average joe appears to be a rarer person than perceived.

Just food for thought

[Schmokie Dragon]

Lolled at his response to the LGBT question. Totally avoided the issue of non-homosexual people such as poly-sexuals and trans people. I loved his "we'll keep civil partnerships" - I bloody well hope so!

Pillock.

[JW92]

A man of little substance.

[Callipygian]

He completely avoided the pensions question x_x

also, lol at the what clubs and socs were you in, conveniantly forgetting to mention one particular club

[QwentyJ]

(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
Lolled at his response to the LGBT question. Totally avoided the issue of non-homosexual people such as poly-sexuals and trans people. I loved his "we'll keep civil partnerships" - I bloody well hope so!

Pillock.

Without whishing this to be a slight oin you Schmokie, because you're a lovely poster, but even answering a question like that, I'd have forgotten about the different types of sexual orientations outside gay, bi and straight. Seemingly, Brown and Clegg forgot to address that particular issue too.

[Schmokie Dragon]

(Original post by QwentyJ)
Without whishing this to be a slight oin you Schmokie, because you're a lovely poster, but even answering a question like that, I'd have forgotten about the different types of sexual orientations outside gay, bi and straight. Seemingly, Brown and Clegg forgot to address that particular issue too.

I can understand someone being asked about gay rights in a vague way and therefore only mentioning gay rights - not amazing but fine.

He was asked about LGBT rights and only mentioned gay rights in his response. That's like being asked about the rights of ethnic minorities and responding that afro-carribeans should be protected in law.

All the answers from all the politicians were pretty crap =P

[QwentyJ]

(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
I can understand someone being asked about gay rights in a vague way and therefore only mentioning gay rights - not amazing but fine.

He was asked about LGBT rights and only mentioned gay rights in his response. That's like being asked about the rights of ethnic minorities and responding that afro-carribeans should be protected in law.

All the answers from all the politicians were pretty crap =P

I take your point.

[sc8880]

His response to number 4 is hilarious! Wonder why its so short? I also wonder why he failed to mention his no 1 hobby...hanging with his Bullingdon boys?

I think he should do us all a favour and fulfull his Gap Yah dream by immigrating to Rwanda.

[meowmeowmutiny]

I thought his responses were well thought out and honest. Seemed far better than the others, who seemed like they were treading around the questions to get votes. I get the feeling there are plenty of people who voted no just because they don't like him. =/

(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
Lolled at his response to the LGBT question. Totally avoided the issue of non-homosexual people such as poly-sexuals and trans people. I loved his "we'll keep civil partnerships" - I bloody well hope so!

Pillock.

I think that's unfair to him. Recognizing civil partnerships between homosexuals in the tax system in the same way marriage between a man and a woman do is something I would have thought would be against the wishes of many of the traditionalist conservatives and some of their core Christian vote.

EDIT: And sorry to go off topic but assuming you know more about the T bit, have they had much in the way of discrimination in the law like LGB or is it just prejudice you want addressed?

[ajp100688]

I thought he came across rather well, not that I ever expected the raving lefties of TSR to give him a chance. Also LGBT rights really is a minor issue in this day and age, the Tories support them and they're not going to return to the days of Section 28. Wasting time on such discussion instead of the major point which is the economy is silly.

[ak56]

I really hope the Conservatives win a majority, if only to **** in the face of these left-wing liberal student scum. I think I'd vote for a party who advocated genocide of these left-wing, pompous pricks.

[wilson_smith]

Dodged a couple of the questions, but pretty much the same / as good as Brown/Clegg. Though his question four reply did make me chuckle.