Saintandy666

I still maintain that Gordon Brown did not personally cause most the problems we were in and actually was part of the world solution. It's called capitalism and that means ups and downs, but I think the problem was we didn't regulate the banks enough and that was the entire world's problem. I also think that this recession was part of a natural realignment of the worlds wealth. It's all going east now.

So in your analogy, the child didn't injure himself then? Because if he did injure himself, surely he caused the problems that happened post-injury?

If the Tory leader system was done under First Past the Post, David Davis would be leader right now. This can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2005. But no, the bottom candidate in each round was elimated and then effectively those who voted for Ken Clarke revoted as others probably kept their votes with the same people. So they use a system whereby the bottom candidate is eliminated, then everyone replaces their votes(as effectively happens in AV). Sounds VERY similar to me, with of course slight differences that you can change your first preference between rounds!

Oh yea, I forgot how Gordon Brown caused a world recession. MY BAD.

Well, compared to you I obviously know little. Are you advocating less managers or just better ones?

Correct, and I have been a governor representing young people at my local hospital for about a year now. So yes, I do have some experience in seeing how the NHS works.

Thanks.

Well, in my experience, all the top dogs as in those on the board and so on come across very well and compliment each other. Then again, my local hospital is an extremely good and well run hospital.

Gordon Brown did save the world. He was exactly right in the recession and his plans were copied the world over stopping a recession turning into a depression. Thank **** for Gordon Brown I say.

England is too large and dominant in my opinion for this to work properly. You would need a slice up of England as well in my opinion for it to work sustainably.

I think a lot of the managers in the NHS are extremely good. I say this as a governor at my local hospital and so having witnessed how the whole place is run for the past year.

So under your proposals, would Westminster have control over foreign policy and defence only?

Trust me, you need good managers and enough of them for something the size of the NHS to work efficiently.

It's not a disgrace. It's unfair, yes. But left-wing governments have different priorities and the governments in Wales and Scotland at the moment are left-wing.

I was more talking about the last part of your post. And yes, I do think there is an argument for an English parliament, but I think England comprises too much of the UK for it to be sustainable with the union in the long term. The whole point of devolution is to stop the tyranny of the majority, but then you can easily come back and say is Scotland being devolved equal to the tyranny of the minority; short answer is no, because none of their laws affect us in England. I think a real solution would be probably devolved institutions on a regional basis, so north east, south east etc etc

I don't think that's fair to say. England is a conservative/right wing country. Scotland and Wales are Labour/left wing country. Left wing governments have different priorities.

It's just like the bottom candidate being knocked out and then everyone re-voting for their then favourite candidate and so on and so forth, just like the Tory leadership contest. It means everyone has a say in the real contest and the MP elected has over 50% of the constituency supporting them.

That's a shame for you then. AV isn't perfect, but FPTP is worse for reasons discussed already.

You aren't voting 3 times. If I told you to go to the shop and said get me a mars bar, but if not get me a galaxy. How many chocolate bars do I get?

It only counts once though so I don't really see the issue. Watch this video.

It's not 3 cracks, it's instant run-off voting. Watch what I posted earlier in the thread.

Because it is finding out which candidate has the greatest approval, as opposed to minority approval.

It is literally just transferable votes. It's call instant run-off voting because it is like running the election if the least popular candidates didn't run to find which candidate has the greatest approval. No-one gets to vote 3 times or whatever. Which is the best candidate: One with the greatest plurality of votes, or the one with the greatest approval from voters?

No one gets three votes. AV is not a plural voting system, if you think it is then you have fundamentally misunderstood the way in which it works.

The BNP will not benefit from an AV system. This is widely acknowledged and any suggestion to the contrary is rubbish! Why? Under AV you can not win seats without 50% of the voters giving you their blessing. The BNP at the moment are not in a position where they have ever seen themselves get 50%+ support in a constituency, hence why fascist parties will NOT be benefiting from this and why the BNP are against it. Let's have a look at the parties in the UK which are fully against this change: The Communist Party, the BNP and the Conservatives. They are in good company!