Poll: New poll on who you will vote for?

[Burnsy2023]

I really hope the lib dems don't get in. If they reform parliament like they want to, bringing in proportional representation etc, I believe it will mean weaker governments in the future because the power will be more balanced, making it harder to get things through.

Isn't that a good thing? Anyway, regardless to whether they are weak or not, at least we would have elected them using a system which doesn't screw the majority of voters over.

 

[Burnsy2023]

The real issue was the abuse of the parliament act to force through the hunting bill that made it look bad, the parliament act itself is not a problem, arrogant populist governments that ignore all forms of scientific evidence are. Unfortunately, Labour have threatened repeatedly to use the parliament act to get bad legislation through...

Of course they are populist, the hunting ban wasn't about scientific evidence, it was about what the majority of the population thought was moral and right.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The parliament act, until new Labour, has been used only rarely and for important issues.
Snipped for space

I'm pretty sure we should be agreeing on this point although it doesn't look all that much like it from the way your post was written. I'm in favour of the Parliament Acts continuing to exist as they're important to provide a check on the HoL who were at one point powerful enough to block the legitimate aims of an elected Parliament - however I'm not sure that the balance hasn't swung a bit too far the other way with the HoC using the Act(s) as a stick to beat the HoL with so that is why I'd be prepared to entertain the idea of a codicil to them.

 

[Dolph]

Of course they are populist, the hunting ban wasn't about scientific evidence, it was about what the majority of the population thought was moral and right.

And that is why it was right for the HoL to block it, and wrong to use the parliament act to force it through.

Still, given labour's strongly authoritarian social position, it's hardly surprising.

 

[tbz_ck]

http://www.voterpower.org.uk/ - I'm ****** here.

Same here:

Voter power index for Coventry North East


Voter Power Index
Rank #598 of 650


Voter power in Coventry North East

0.016

Constituency marginality

Ultra safe


In Coventry North East, one person does not really have one vote, they have the equivalent of 0.016 votes.

The power of voters in this constituency is based on the probability of the seat changing hands and its size.
While you might think that every vote counts equally, where you live in the UK has a huge effect on your power to influence the election.


How does Coventry North East compare?

The average UK voter has 16.67x more voting power than voters in Coventry North East.
Average UK voter power

0.253

The average UK voter only has the power of 0.253 votes. This is because most of us live in safe seats, where the outcome is pretty much certain regardless of how we vote.
Coventry North East ranks #598 out of 650 constituencies in the Voter Power Index.

UK constituency marginality

We can be almost certain that 60% of seats will NOT change hands in the general election (very safe or ultra safe seats).

 

[Dolph]

I'm pretty sure we should be agreeing on this point although it doesn't look all that much like it from the way your post was written. I'm in favour of the Parliament Acts continuing to exist as they're important to provide a check on the HoL who were at one point powerful enough to block the legitimate aims of an elected Parliament - however I'm not sure that the balance hasn't swung a bit too far the other way with the HoC using the Act(s) as a stick to beat the HoL with so that is why I'd be prepared to entertain the idea of a codicil to them.

Exactly, there should be an exemption within the parliament act that prevents it being used for laws being passed for popularity driven, rather than factual rights balancing driven, laws.

 

[meghatronic]

[youtbe]gFeVW8Ahsog[/youtube]

What an absolute shyster.

 

[Dolph]

.

Somewhat on topic, you have mail re your request in the previous thread

 

[meghatronic]

Somewhat on topic, you have mail re your request in the previous thread

Aha. Thanking you.

 

[Luseac]

I'd disagree, while the Parliament Acts have allowed some rather dubious legislation to be passed, on balance it is more important that the HoL is not able to completely stymie the HoC as they have done in the past. I don't agree with some of the instances where the Parliament Acts have been used but I think the overall principle is worth more than the occasional misuses although I wouldn't be totally averse to a possible re-write of the conditions under which they can be used.

I suppose it tends how you view things, I tend to view the House of Lords as a check on the Commons rather than vice versa. I also feel that the point of having a second chamber is somewhat nullified when they can merely delay an Act of Parliament from being put before the Queen. Still, I can completely understand the arguments of those who are in favor of the Acts, and from a democratic point of view it is right that the Commons should wield greater power being the elected members, unforuntately my view point stems from a lack of faith in the Commons.

 

[Dolph]

I suppose it tends how you view things, I tend to view the House of Lords as a check on the Commons rather than vice versa. I also feel that the point of having a second chamber is somewhat nullified when they can merely delay an Act of Parliament from being put before the Queen. Still, I can completely understand the arguments of those who are in favor of the Acts, and from a democratic point of view it is right that the Commons should wield greater power being the elected members, unforuntately my view point stems from a lack of faith in the Commons.

I think the key point is that, until Labour, no-one used the parliament act to restrict rights, only to grant them when the lords wanted them to remain restricted.

Labour, with their use of the parliament act for the Euro election changes, and the hunting bill, changed the convention about when the act was used.

 

[Eddietop]

As opposed to the current situation, of things that the current majority party likes getting through easy and the ones they don't not getting through at all?

Yes, I believe a government is stronger when it can react quicker to changing circumstances, for example getting emergency bail outs to the banks during the recent crisis.

Even though it has it's advantages, I think weaker more balanced governments similar to what the French currently have are more harm than good for the country.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I suppose it tends how you view things, I tend to view the House of Lords as a check on the Commons rather than vice versa. I also feel that the point of having a second chamber is somewhat nullified when they can merely delay an Act of Parliament from being put before the Queen. Still, I can completely understand the arguments of those who are in favor of the Acts, and from a democratic point of view it is right that the Commons should wield greater power being the elected members, unforuntately my view point stems from a lack of faith in the Commons.

I also view the HoL as a check on the power of the HoC but without the Parliament Act(s) there have been situations (leading to the aforementioned Acts) whereby they have used their power to halt the legitimate aims of the democratically elected chamber. We do of course need a system of checks and balances, the question is where exactly the level should be reached, I'm not sure that we'll ever get it perfectly right or indeed that such a thing is possible but I think that neither chamber should have an absolutely free hand.

 

[Fusion]

Dolph, following on from a discussion in the previous election thread about Thatcher taking an axe to low productivity, heavily unionised and nationalised industries, I see (as you have stated) that you are of a right wing stance economically. I am interested in your views on on current use of government subsidies paid to businesses which relocate to certain areas (particularly in spots of high unemployment, on brownfield sites etc), and also the eight regional development agencies (QUANGOs) which are setup with the supposed aim of encouraging business to a region, and fostering and supporting it when it is in place (e.g. Yorkshire Forward, East Midlands Development Agency). Would we be better off without all of these?

 

[Dolph]

Dolph, following on from a discussion in the previous election thread about Thatcher taking an axe to low productivity, heavily unionised and nationalised industries, I see (as you have stated) that you are of a right wing stance economically. I am interested in your views on on current use of government subsidies paid to businesses which relocate to certain areas (particularly in spots of high unemployment, on brownfield sites etc), and also the eight regional development agencies (QUANGOs) which are setup with the supposed aim of encouraging business to a region, and fostering and supporting it when it is in place (e.g. Yorkshire Forward, East Midlands Development Agency). Would we be better off without all of these?

I feel in most cases we'd be better off investing in better infrastructure in those areas, rather than bribing companies to move there.

Government intervention rarely produces successful long term changes, and in the case of many of the current areas of high unemployment, they result directly from previous government policies that prevented the market functioning in that area correctly. (for example, the mining areas of the north).

The problem is that most people want 'the government' to do something to help them in the short term, which rarely actually helps in the long term.

 

[Freefaller]

I can sense a coalition government on it's way. Wonder how a lib con coalition would work...

 

[stockhausen]

Dolph ... I see (as you have stated) that you are of a right wing stance economically ...

I don't think it's nice you accusing Dolph of being "right-wing". He is, as the man wth no name would attest, a self-proclaimed anarchist with crazy ideas

 

[Von Smallhausen]

If Cameron was so "One Nation", you would think that he would actively support PR where Governments aren't formed on basis of the support of a minority.

Cameron is a puppet of the Thatcherite anti-society tendency whose only real interest is helping the rich get richer

Vote Lib-Dem - choose Change!

Interesting to see Nick Clegg's eductional background compared to that of David Cameron.

Clegg was educated in South Buckinghamshire at Caldicott School, and later in London at Westminster School.

He spent a gap year as a ski instructor in Austria, and as an office junior in a Helsinki bank, before attending Robinson College, Cambridge. Clegg studied Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge.

In 2008 it was reported that while at university, Clegg had joined the Cambridge University Conservative Association between 1986 and 1987, with contemporary membership records citing an "N Clegg" of Robinson College. (At the time, Clegg was the only person of that name at Robinson.) However, Clegg himself later maintained he had "no recollection of that whatsoever."

We believe you nick .... thousands wouldn't

His father is or was chairman of the United Trust Bank.

Quite a priviledged background one might say.

 

[Narj]

Surely the Lib Dems would be risking public outrage and accusations of betrayal were they to form a coalition with Labour and hence possibly keep Brown in the picture? There would be no definite "change" at all?

 

[robgmun]

Were cameron is going wrong is that he seems to be doing this all alone, we are not seeing enough of William Huge, Kennith Clarke (arguebly one of the most popular tories) and others