Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[semi-pro waster]

Yes, but we'd be getting rid of less English MPs as a proportion than Scots or Welsh MPs - I think that was the general gist. Patten was basically having a pop at the re-drawn boundaries also.

By my very rough reckoning there might be up to 6 Scottish MPs lost (~5.2m population) as Scotland is roughly 1/10 the size if we are taking it on a strict population ratio with England (~51m population), 10 MPs lost for Wales (~3m population) and Northern Ireland would remain about the same.

So the remaining 49 or so MPs would have to be removed from the English side which means as a proportion Scotland and England would both be losing about the same amount of their MPs from Westminster. England would lose marginally less as a percentage but it's not much, the real losers in this would look to be the Welsh if it is done pro-rata on population.

I do think some form of electoral reform is necessary but I'm hoping it is well thought out and not some form of just getting rid of the MPs from the smaller nations as if they were unimportant.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Really nothing has changed my mind, I guess I'll stick with the libs. I didn't really think much of them till recently, but I have thought them better than Labour at the least.

Over the next few weeks I'll do a lot more reading up about the three parties, but I'm not a fan of Cameron, and Labour.... well...

 

[Barks]

I find it hilarious that Labour claim the Tories don't know how to manage the economy.

The irrefutable fact is that Labour inherited a strong economy but their criminal profligacy, bureaucracy and incompetence destroyed it. Labour's economic growth was fueled largely by unprecedented increases in borrowing and government spending. The global recession is almost irrelevant because no matter what happened the levels of debt relative to GDP were accelerating out of control.

How anyone can vote for or defend these clowns when it comes to the economy is beyond me.

We now have a situation where the Tories wish to cut spending immediately as to not risk the UK losing it's high credit rating or Labour's idea to worsen the deficit even more so to stimulate demand. The ultimate irony is that Labour have the correct idea based on what we've seen in other economies but if it wasn't for them there wouldn't be such a ridiculous deficit to worsen in the first place.

 

[Mr Jack]

Indeed.

It's disgusting that Scots and Welsh MPs can vote on strictly, and solely, English issues.

No such thing, frankly. Government departments are so interlinked that you can't neatly divide anything off like that, even things like Education and Health. I think a better approach is to reduce the representation of Scotland and Wales (which currently is over-represented).

 

[meghatronic]

No such thing, frankly. Government departments are so interlinked that you can't neatly divide anything off like that, even things like Education and Health. I think a better approach is to reduce the representation of Scotland and Wales (which currently is over-represented).

West Lothian question.

 

[britboy4321]

The irrefutable fact is that Labour inherited a strong economy but their criminal profligacy, bureaucracy and incompetence destroyed it.

I refute that fact.

Therefore, by definition, your sentence is wrong

 

[britboy4321]

The ultimate irony is that Labour have the correct idea based on what we've seen in other economies but if it wasn't for them there wouldn't be such a ridiculous deficit to worsen in the first place.

So, as far as the economy goes, you'll be voting Labour then?

After all, you should vote for who you think is going to give us the best future, not 'revenge voting for the party with the WRONG polict as some kind of punishment to the current government for the past' as that is plain daft, kind of cutting off your nose to spite your face ...

 

[Dolph]

I haven't heard the programme so excuse me if it is an obvious question but even if you take the number of MPs on a strictly pro-rata basis along the lines of population then this 10% cut must include a fair number of English MPs too?

That depends on how you want to answer the west lothian question. Currently, Scottish MP wield a fair influence over laws in parliament that do not affect their constituents, so their influence needs to be reduced, the question is how to do so fairly (assuming we aren't going for the full independence option).

I'd personally go for preventing MPs from voting on matters that are devolved, but there are other ways to redress the balance.

 

[Dolph]

Yes, but we'd be getting rid of less English MPs as a proportion than Scots or Welsh MPs - I think that was the general gist. Patten was basically having a pop at the re-drawn boundaries also.

Patten had a point, given that the boundry redraws made the problem of Labour being overly favoured in proportion to their voteshare worse.

The problem is there are far too many safe seats in the current setup, and several more were created in inner cities during the last redraw. It's one of the arguments why party list PR is better...

 

[semi-pro waster]

That depends on how you want to answer the west lothian question. Currently, Scottish MP wield a fair influence over laws in parliament that do not affect their constituents, so their influence needs to be reduced, the question is how to do so fairly (assuming we aren't going for the full independence option).

I'd personally go for preventing MPs from voting on matters that are devolved, but there are other ways to redress the balance.

I'd prefer for Scotland not to go for full independence either, not because I think the country incapable of managing alone but because I think the UK is better united.

However if there are to be reductions in the number of MPs I would be perfectly happy if the amount of MPs were reduced to be roughly pro-rata in line with populations. I'd also have no issues if MPs were forbidden from voting on devolved issues - ideally we shouldn't need any form of regulation to do this but since parties have used their whips to ensure voting along party lines previously it would seem necessary to have some form of control implemented.

 

[britboy4321]

The main argument against PR is that it creates weak ineffectual government. The second and third place parties (and forth if they need the votes) always just form an alliance within about 1 day of losing, and then can 'beat' the government on votes with regards to everything, as the main government virtually never has an overall majority. Which makes the whole democracy game in the PR country a bit daft, the winners always ending up effectively weakest at actually getting policy through and the losers calling the shots!

There's a reason why they forced it upon Germany after 1945, and just about everywhere else has decided 'no thanks'!

 

[Hatter The Mad]

The main argument against PR is that it creates weak ineffectual government.

Agree. As David Cameron once put it - "Parties go into a
smoke filled room after an election, come out again and regardless of who voted for who, nothing seems to change."

 

[Dolph]

The main argument against PR is that it creates weak ineffectual government. The second and third place parties (and forth if they need the votes) always just form an alliance within about 1 day of losing, and then can 'beat' the government on votes with regards to everything, as the main government virtually never has an overall majority. Which makes the whole democracy game in the PR country a bit daft, the winners always ending up effectively weakest at actually getting policy through and the losers calling the shots!

There's a reason why they forced it upon Germany after 1945, and just about everywhere else has decided 'no thanks'!

I want a strictly limited government And in such an environment, PR makes much more sense, because the ability of governments to make really bad (but often popular) decisions is dramatically curtailed by constitution, giving a much more honest form of government.

I'd also prefer to use Mixed member voting (which maintains a constituency link) rather than other forms of proportional representation. The problem with the current system is we regularly end up with a government that 2/3rds of the country didn't vote for (both Thatcher's and Blair's clearly come under this, it's not an anti-labour thing).

failing that, I'll settle for redoing constituencies so % vote and seats achieved are much more evenly distributed than they are now, probably by creating larger constituences with a better mix of income bracket and class distribution.

 

[Barks]

So, as far as the economy goes, you'll be voting Labour then?

After all, you should vote for who you think is going to give us the best future, not 'revenge voting for the party with the WRONG polict as some kind of punishment to the current government for the past' as that is plain daft, kind of cutting off your nose to spite your face ...

The Tories strategy poses more of a risk but it is necessary to incur that risk. To be fair Labour's strategy also poses the risk of the country losing its credit rating which would be a catastrophe.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

The Tories strategy poses more of a risk but it is necessary to incur that risk. To be fair Labour's strategy also poses the risk of the country losing its credit rating which would be a catastrophe.

How does cutting waste (identified by the government) now put the economic recovery at risk?

Note that waste = money goes in, absolutely nothing comes out.

 

[britboy4321]

How does cutting waste (identified by the government) now put the economic recovery at risk?

Note that waste = money goes in, absolutely nothing comes out.

Absolutely wrong. Economics 101.

Because the people that would have been given that money as wages EVEN IF THEY DID NO WORK AT ALL FOR IT would have spent at least some of it on British businesses (for example, bought a pint with £3.00 of it down the local pub), which would (funny enough) make those businesses lives easier.

Very, very, very simple stuff!

Do you still not understand what 'taking money into and out of the economy' actually means? OMG, you're going to 100% counter-act my vote as well


As I've said many times, if the goverment hired an airballoon and floated over London dropping bags of money out of the side FOR NO SERVICES AT ALL THAT would help the economy even if the government got the money from a loan abroad. People would spend that money, so businesses would find life easier. It would risk inflation of course, but would be putting money into the economy. Get it?

 

[Dolph]

Because the people that would have been given that money as wages would have spent at least some of it on British businesses (for example, bought a pint with £3.00 of it down the local pub), which would (funny enough) make those businesses lives easier.

Very, very, very simple stuff!

Do you still not understand what 'taking money into and out of the economy' actually means? OMG, you're going to 100% counter-act my vote as well Democracy sucks!

Indeed, everyone knows the answer is simply for the government to give out money willy-nilly and everything will be great in the world.

Of course, short term pain will come when the pointless money tap is turned off, that's a big part of the reason why it should never have been turned on in the first place.

When a mistake is made, is a mistake to reverse it, or continue it?

 

[britboy4321]

Indeed, everyone knows the answer is simply for the government to give out money willy-nilly and everything will be great in the world.

Of course, short term pain will come when the pointless money tap is turned off, that's a big part of the reason why it should never have been turned on in the first place.

When a mistake is made, is a mistake to reverse it, or continue it?

We turn off the tap when it won't cause the company to enter a recession or a depression by doing so.

Turning it off now does not equal short term pain - it equals depression or recession or YOU being out of a job, because your customers (some of which are ON your government 'wasters' list) will stop spending their ill-gotten gains in your business.

So you suffer.

Wait until you've got enough 'non-waster' customers to be able to stay afloat.

 

[Dolph]

We turn off the tap when it won't cause the company to enter a recession or a depression by doing so.

Company? We're not talking about a company, you're not allowed to run a company with as much irresponsibility as labour has shown to the country.

Turning it off now does not equal short term pain - it equals depression or recession or YOU being out of a job, because your customers (some of which are ON your government 'wasters' list) will stop spending their ill-gotten gains in your business.

That is short term pain

So you suffer.

Maybe, maybe not.

Wait until you've got enough 'non-waster' customers to be able to stay afloat.

A position for which there is no incentive until the wasters are gone from the market.

All you are confirming is how wrong Labour's economic policy of public sector expansion (1997-2002) followed by public sector expansion funded by increasing debt (2002 onwards) is, and how it needs to be stopped.

How do you propose to deal with the problem, when the recovery is dependant on change?

 

[Slam62]

We turn off the tap when it won't cause the company to enter a recession or a depression by doing so.

Turning it off now does not equal short term pain - it equals depression or recession or YOU being out of a job, because your customers (some of which are ON your government 'wasters' list) will stop spending their ill-gotten gains in your business.

So you suffer.

Wait until you've got enough 'non-waster' customers to be able to stay afloat.

I think this is correct apart from that we don't appear to have much of an economy left to recover. So the whole process will take a very long time , by which time we may have too much debt, which in turn will cause recession.

None of the parties have a plausible plan for the future.