pedg

According to elec reform soc figures are on the lines of: Actual FPTP 307, 258,57,26 predicted AV 281,262,79,28 predicted STV 246,207,162,35 So though not as good for the libdems as STV AV would have given them even more influence than with FPTP.

The thing is the world has changed rather a lot since the 70's. Both Labour, the LibDems and the SNP/Plaid have now got significant experience of running coalition government via the Wales assembly and the Scottish parliament. It is not long the unknown area that such deals were in the 70s.

Only if they can carry the house. i.e. show they can get their queens speech passed. If everyone else gangs up on them and with labour currently in charge they would not even get the chance.

Thing is the SNP are committed to independence but the scottish electorate are not as I believe most recent polls show that most scots do not want full independence. Salmond and Co know this and are trying to play a longer game so a quick referendum on independence with the tories suddenly their friends is unlikely to go their way and they would probably have to wait a long time for another.

That would be the SNP that ruled out working with the tories then?

Clegg: I hope that's not Nigel Farage in that plane up there..

So 'all the experts were against it' actually becomes some officials having misgivings? Its not like Brown was alone as I believe at the time several other countries were selling of their gold reserves.

For those that think PR would line the commons with extremists have look at the following page: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/10/proportional-representation-general-election-2010 Shows that under AV in England there would be only 1 extra non con/lab/lib MP and under STV there would actually be one less (brighton's green). Under AV the SNP would get 1 less and under STV 7 more.

Appears to me the best way for the deal with parties like the BNP, etc, is to let them get elected for a few seats so that people can see them for what they are. Look at that council in London (name escapes me) where last time BNP got some councillors, this election they all went I believe. Plus its questionable if you can extrapolate from the results for FPTP to apply the figures to a PR system as many of the votes for minor parties could well have been protest votes where the people knew their candidate was not going to get elected but wanted to send a message. I would hope that in a PR system where (almost) every vote counts that the electorate would spend more time considering the policies of all parties rather than just plumping for a protest vote for party x.

The price of gold at the time had been going down for quite a while before the decision to sell. At the time he had the choice between holding on to the gold with no indication the value was going to go up or selling it and investing the money raised to earn interest which is something you don't get on a gold bar locked in a vault. Yes in hindsight selling the gold was probably not the best thing to do but that's hindsight for you. Hindsight says that Cameron should have run his election strategy differently, etc, etc. etc. Can you provide links to this 'all the experts advised not to' then???

I suspect the paperwork and the tarriffs charged by europe don't help american companies exporting to europe. Obviously it does not stop them but it could be said that their exports to the EU would be greater if they were inside it not outside. Obviously not going to happen but if we went the other way (inside to outside) then its would be a rash claim that it would not affect our exports to the EU.

But at the moment you can't have one without the (fear) of the other. Should we go to all the other countries in europe and say 'Sorry guys we would like to leave the EU because of our fear of european law makers but can we still have the preferential trading terms, thanks awfully'.

Got a Samsung SM2333HD 23" one recently and good so far. Though mainly been using it as a monitor till it makes its way to its final location when it will be used for AV purposes as well. As built in TV comes with remote which is useful for changing display modes as text mode is a darker but easy to go to full brightness for TV mode. http://www.ebuyer.com/product/179478

Because it would then either not show HD versions of stuff that is on other channels (e.g. Dr Who Confidential on BBC3 and HD) or would have to have HD versions for all its channels. Sky can get away with many HD channels because of the bandwidth on satellite but as its been tricky to squeeze room for a few terrestrial HD channels doubt the other broadcasters would like HD version of BBC1 - 4 taking them all up.

Who the lib-dem's? I did not realise they were in power in the last parliament?

Back to the topic and the Lib-Dem manifesto says: We believe that it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the euro. But Britain should only join when the economic conditions are right, and in the present economic situation, they are not. Britain should join the euro only if that decision were supported by the people of Britain in a referendum.

I think this year it will as the higher the difference between votes cast to seats won the stronger will be the argument to overhaul the election system. Personally I am lucky this year as due to boundary changes I am hopeful for that for first time in about 10 parliamentary elections my vote may actually help elect the person I intend to vote for.

A policy with a hard cap with no ability the adapt to changes in situation is a joke in my books but each to their own. Luckily for me I don't find it quite warm enough to wear my sandals just yet...

One assumes that a lot of this checking is subcontracted to specialist firms. Afterall at the moment how does a business check they are not employing an illegal immigrant? In that case the most it would be would probably be a small increase in the cost of the check. If some one is sacked then its exactly the same as at the moment in that, I believe, they have a period of time in which they can attempt to find further work before they have to leave. Again the only different is that that further work, if they have found it must be approved based on location as well as the current criteria.

But this is what is currently in place at the moment. I.e. at this moment in time businesses are supposed to check they are not employing illegal immigrants. If the businesses don't do the checking who do you think should?

As I added above there has to be an assumption that people will tend to live near where there jobs are. Some may commute but most will try to find places to stay near where their job is based. So you are controlling where they live on a more general level.

The person who is sponsoring them must state where the job is going to be based and would be liable for prosecution if it turned out that the job was not where they initially said so there is a legal encouragement for there to be a job in that location. Anyone employing them elsewhere after that time is supposed to go through checks to make sure they are not employing illegal immigrants so anyone trying to take a job away from their original location will have to pass those checks which, in their case, would be for them to apply to live in the other location. Obviously there will be some people who may dissapear under the radar once they have arrived but the same is true of anyone coming in under the current system. Surely a system that at least initally directs people to where they are most needed is better than a system without any such control? comments about border controls etc just show that you don't understand the situation. This is not about controlling peoples movements around the country on a day to day basis. I think there is a reasonable assumption that if someone has a job in a particular location that they will generally try to find somewhere to live nearby. Obviously they could decide to live a considerable distance away and commute but these will be the exceptions rather than the rule.

Right, back from meeting. The current system as it stands at the moment is that for an immigrant to come in they have to have a job to come to and be sponsored by their prospective employer. Then someone says 'yes you can employ that person' or 'no you can't'. All the Libdem policy is that at the point where they apply they have to identify where in the country the job will be based. So we are just talking exactly the same as the current system with an extra layer on top to make sure any immigrants go to area's of the country where their arrival can be coped with. If that person then wants to move to another job somewhere else in the country they will have to apply in exactly the same way as they did when they originally arrived.

I will explain it to you later. Got to go to a meeting....

I think you need to understand that some of the groups in the new tory ragtag and bobtail group are more extreme than others. Just because of of the groups is not particularly extreme does not automatically exclude the others.