no we don't, we need action, not loads more talking about rubbish that is irrelevent.
Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
no we don't, we need action, not loads more talking about rubbish that is irrelevent.
Will of most people? Have you MET some of the benefit claiming Labour supporters? Do you think that they should have the right to impose a socialist government on us?
At least Blair was slightly right of the Labour general view, but Brown is as left and socialist as you get
At least Blair was slightly right of the Labour general view, but Brown is as left and socialist as you get
No I'm saying that under the current system each MP represents the views of each area, thus it balances out with regards to undesirables voting for socialism. If you have PR then suddenly the socialist people, who are often all in certain parts of the country, have a large voice.
Last edited:
I meant to type "debt" rather than "economy". Hence the reference to "the bigger guy" (Japan's economy) having AIDS (bigger debt).
well I don't think you should have a vote, is that ok?
Exactly - seemingly assuming that their darling preferred party would no longer be in power, but ignoring that in a post-PR world the big parties may not even exist, and the free-market libertarians can actually have a party that represents their views in full instead of the compromise of the Tory party which has been far from the forefront when it comes to individuals rights, and the traditionalist 'stop the world I want to get off' can have their own party etc etc.
The thing is, your view can be heard more clearly in a PR system than any other, because it's much more likely you can vote for a party which actually reflects your views rather than choosing one of 3 in a big compromise. The fact that one may find themselves in a tiny, ignored minority on the other hand, is a problem which goes beyond the electoral system
The problem is, without sufficient constitutional protection, the majority will still be able to hold minorities to their opinion through the law. Bring in that change along with PR and I'll be more than happy
Indeed, I just hope the parliamentary lib dems and the membership see it that way as well, especially as there is no offer of PR from Labour, only a vote on AV (which is worse than the current setup).
Edit: Oh, and constitutional guarantee that the leader of the most popular party must be the PM, along with fixed term parliaments to force the parliament to work and ensure that the voice of the people is heard and not ignored by politicians in backroom deals as some are currently advocating.
Did the BNP come higher than 5th in any constituency? Just wondering here, if you could have PR, but exclude parties that don't achieve 4th place or higher in at least one constituency. Of course, if the BNP did come 4th somewhere, we'd have to take off and nuke that constituency from orbit
But they have, they have voted in similar numbers for the tories now as they did for tony in 1997.
Why cant you see this?
With PR labour still wouldnt be able to form a government as they would be the smallest party of the tow and would still have to form a pact with others to get power and if Gordon was the party leader, the lid dems, just like now would still of told them to **** off.
As it stand now, PR would not of made the slightest bit of difference to this situation.
Last edited:
Tax avoidance is quite legal so I'm not sure what the problem is there, do you mean tax evasion?
Question/point. Didn't the Labour party commission a report just after gaining power in '97 on voting reform, with the result that a system of AV would be best? I know the only reason the Labour party proposed the AV was because it would be even more biased in their favour.
EDIT: The Jenkins Commission proposed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_Commission_(UK) (Wikipedia, I know
).I've also just found out that Roy Jenkins was a Labour MP, and a founder of the SDP so one would have grounds to challenge the result.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
You sure that Japan's private debt and public debt is at the same level as ours? Got some figures to back up that claim?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
Did the BNP come higher than 5th in any constituency? Just wondering here, if you could have PR, but exclude parties that don't achieve 4th place or higher in at least one constituency. Of course, if the BNP did come 4th somewhere, we'd have to take off and nuke that constituency from orbit
how democratic of you
oh dear
I do seem to have been slightly wrong,apparantly it's only £15bn.
benefit fraud is only £1bn, it's all peanuts really
No, the jenkins report recommended a system called AV+, which is very similar to MMP, with AV constituency elections with proportional topup (as opposed to MMP which is FPTP constituency elections with proportional topup).
AV+ is not what the labour party are supporting now, they are just going for straight AV.
Did the BNP come higher than 5th in any constituency? Just wondering here, if you could have PR, but exclude parties that don't achieve 4th place or higher in at least one constituency. Of course, if the BNP did come 4th somewhere, we'd have to take off and nuke that constituency from orbit
They were third place in Barking
Source: Mckinsey Institute. Link to the full report below (in PDF). The chart in question is on page 10.
http://www.mckinsey....full_report.pdf
copied from another forum of doomongers
I know, but they are barking
change the law then
Or alternatively you could learn the difference between the two terms. Using an ISA is tax avoidance, for example... Tax avoidance is simply using the taxation system to minimise your tax liability.
