Unless that new stable government is a Labour government with little or no idea how to run the economy.

Though that said, the Tories are still the only
party with any money, so even in the event of a Cameron resignation (which I agree doesn’t seem warranted just yet, but we have seen how quickly this story can develop!) the most likely result is a Tory majority. Labour tossers should be aware of this before putting tomorrow’s headlines ahead of the big picture. Though leopards don’t change their spots.

Ooohh! A bit of wee came out then!

Coalition is falling apart and a smoke-and-mirrors, sticky-tape and rubber band repair job is failing!

If you jump into bed with corrution, and don’t jump straight back out when you discover it you ARE corrupt.

Also, what a shame that the AV vote was in May and not September!

My point about Dawkins was simply that there is no evidence either way, thus to assert atheism or theism are both empirically inaccurate – the lack of evidence is the point, none can be provided to support the statement.

On David Cameron’s smokescreen: this may be how he’s using it (in which case it will result in reduced happiness if he’s measuring it properly,) but this isn’t a Tory idea it’s a Utilitarian one, and a large part of Mill’s political tradition. Maximising happiness used to be the ultimate goal of Liberals.

Also, I did not state that this was a good idea – I am not a bestiality-supporting Utilitarian! – I said that the quantity to maximise in our calculus should be determined experimentally too- happiness is a strange one to choose, since improving standards of living don’t make people happier (hence growth being adopted). I’d be in favour of something like the human development index, assuming it can be extended to cover future living standards.

From this come our morals, because we cannot simply pluck our morals out of thin air like we do with principal; that is indistinguishable from Religious law.

Please don’t make sweeping generalisations like;
The Dawkins position that God doesn’t exist is just as absurd as the theist position that he or she does.
Without supporting evidence.

And with regards to this;
David Cameron’s recent moves towards measuring happiness rather than growth are moving in a nearly-correct direction.

*omits disparaging remark* It’s just subscribing to a marketing capitalist dream – happiness is a crafted and sold principle in today’s market, and Cameron is using this rhetoric to ‘sell’ political success when other, traditional measures fail. Just as choice is ‘sold’ as an aspiration, when in fact it destroys universiality, happiness as a measure of social success is simply avoiding the human rights question. If everyone is happy, who cares if we stop welfare. That’s extreme, but a happiness measure is simply a smokescreen to justify other actions.

On morality vs religion, or a secularised morality, I am a believer in founding principles, critical interpretation and understanding and learning from mistakes.

Law should be crafted in two forms, one as a basic understanding of right and wrong , the secular morals (preferably by constitution), and one as a form of democratic election that can be manipulated (UK legislature).

If you go back through historic and classical civilisations, what a Christian based society recognise as 10 commandments (or 12 if you are Catholic), is the founding stones of Rome. these stone tablets were held in the public area of the Senate for all citzens to respect. These also apply to the majority of all religions, even the Mayan civilisation had similar guiding principles.

The basis of all 10 commandments, and I use this as a descriptive because I am from a Christian background although I am now an atheist, is theft.

To murder is to take life. To commit adultery is to steal another’s possession (as a spouse was). Using this as a founding principle for all law meets with Mill’s Liberal harm theory, as to steal in any capacity is to cause definable harm.

On a more divurgent thought, something I have always been an advocate of is a secular legislation on morality (per se) to guide a secular society.

When studying classics and history, it is clear from all civilisations that they tend to implode and dissolve into civil war when secularlism becomes rife, therefore the taboo standards of society become stretched and manipulated. The only way to prevent this sort of dissolution occuring, that I can see, is to establish a respect against that ‘theft’ that is integral to all moral laws. This has to be done by a secular body, a government (preferably one removed from archaic traditions of religiously imposed state heads) in order to gain legitimacy.