Lord Duckhunter

The Greens fielded only 28 less candidates than the BNP and got approx half the BNP's vote. People always seem to think that the Greens and "good" parties will get proper representation under PR, but in fact the BNP are far more popular. Based on the last election and the European election results UKIP & The BNP are under represented compared to the strength of their vote.

Correct, the lie that the yes people are clinging to was that Davies would have won the leadership. He would not of. Party rules are that the membership decide the leader after they are presented the MP's 2 favourite candidates. Which ever way the 2 candidates were given to them, the result would have been the same. Under FPTP it would have been Davies, Cameron. Under the system that they used it was Cameron, Davies. The membership decide who is leader not the MP's.

Under PR (which most supporters of AV want in the end) the BNP would have the 5th most seats in a uk Parliament, behind UKIP and the big 3.

I understand what you’re saying now. If you reduce the electorate to 198 and discount 198,000 of the votes and then run it as FPTP then Davies would have won. If you did the same with the Labour Party then David Milliband would have won. One of the reasons I am against AV is, if you reduced the vote in Barking to 198 white racists and then ran the election on an AV basis, Nick Griffin would have won the seat.

I still cant understand how you can fail to grasp the facts. Cameron won the only members vote by over 60,000 and only lost the first MP's votes by 33, how on earth would Davies have won one big FPTP election?

There were 198 MP's who voted. There were 198,844 members who voted Cameron won 134,446 of the members votes. How would Davies have won if there was just one big FPTP election, bearing in mind that Davies won just 33 more votes in the first round. Unless you think that MP's alone should elect leaders. In that case Ed should stand aside for David. Let's hope the rest of the voters aren't taken in with these lies as easily as you seem to be.

What on earth are you on about? Please explain how Davies would have won. "replace all the rounds including the membership bit", what does that mean?

Why are people taken in by this lie? Under FPTP both Cameron and Davies would have gone forward to the membership. The membership voted 62% for Cameron.

As a democrat I assume you will accept the outcome of the vote.It will be the opinion of the British people, where it matters, in the ballot box .

Elliot Morley would have won his seat under AV, he won with 53% of the vote.So how on earth is AV going to clean up politics? Why do people on here keep reapting the Yes to AV lie that David Davies would have won the Tory leadership under FPTP? It is not true, Davies and Cameron came first and second and therefore went to the membership. If the Yes to AV people want to clean up politics they should start by not telling lies themselves.

For the last time, the Tory Party does not use AV to elect it’s leader. The Leader is elected by one member one vote from the party members after the MP’s have put forward 2 candidates. The 2 candidates are not elected by the process being proposed now. The reason for the preliminary system they use (which is different from any election system proposed by any party), is because of damaging splits in the past. The party decided to use a complicated system to whittle down candidates to 2, which involves multiple votes by the MP’s. It is because the leader will need the broad support of all MP’s to run the party in Parliament, without that their would be terrible splits and briefing against the leader.The final vote is a run off, one member one vote.

He should go private, he can afford it. The money spent on his op could then be used by the NHS. Bloody annoys me that rich politicans from both parties use the NHS because they feel it's politically right to do so . The more people that go private, the more NHS money for the rest of us.

But Labour dont use AV, PR, FPTP or any sort of vote to decide which candidates go through to their members votes. You just need X amount of nominations. In a parliamentry election the preliminary process is ten parliamentary electors of the constituency put you forward. The preliminary process for the Tory party is decided amongst MP's. The full vote is One member one vote. You can complain about the Tories not using FPTP for their preliminary, but if you do that must surley complain that Labour dont use their favourite voting system during their preliminary process, or indeed their full election (they allow certain members 3 votes,but dont believe that's right in a general election). You have been taken in by the Yes people's lies. Under a preliminary process of FPTP David Davies and David Cameron would have still been the two to go through. David Cameron would still have won,In the One member, one vote election that followed.

Personally I think a Yes vote will harm the chances of full PR even more than a no vote. The big two parties do not want any form of PR. If we get AV, they can turn round and say "you've had your change, we cant keep changing the system every few years".You'll be in the same boat as I feel about the EU. Every time a call for a vote on membership we get "The British people voted for it in the 70's", when in fact the British people voted to stay in something completely different than it has become. The scrap the Tories have thrown the Lib/Dems is all they'll get for generations. Whereas a no vote will mean that percieved injustices will fester and need looking at again. Labour and Tories will not concede any more ground, the message will be the same "you wanted AV, you've got it, we can not keep having votes on it". Now you and me know that AV is about as far from PR as FPTP is, but most of the public are not really interested.All they'll think is we have a fairer system, thats it.

It was exactly that,One member one vote, davies or cameron. There was a process to decide which 2 candidates went through to the full vote by the party members. The candidate with the most votes from the party members, then won the leadership.The yes to AV people are just telling lies when they say that David Davies would have won under FPTP, whichever system they used Cameron and Davies would have gone through to the vote. The membership then had one member one vote(unlike Labours 1 union/party member/MP 3 votes system) and the one with the highest number won.This turned out to be Cameron, are the Yes to AV people seriously saying that the membership would have voted differently had davies and Cameron been presented to them under a different process?

Does Cotterill not realise that they had a policy of quality over quantity, they made the choice to spend the money they had on a few high wage earners, rather than fill the squad.To come on and complain about numbers yet again is a bit rich.

Monday is a must win now, Hudders will be feeling down tonight, lets not give them a lift Monday. They need to go to Brighton not really believing it's going to happen.

The guy on Solent just said that he saw Poyet shake Adkins hand.

Nothing to lose now, lets hope we go flying at them second half.

Harman,Alexander, Hain and Denham all voted in favour of the electrol system used, it is not down to just 3 people, however much you try to pretend it is.

Harriet Harman,Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander, John Denham, Peter Hain, and Hilary Benn. All support AV and we're all advisors to Govt or MP's that voted in favour of the above voting system.Ed Milliband was an advisor to Gordon Brown, these people have been at the heart of Labour for years, the only reason you dont see Brown and Blair spouting their views, is it would damage the yes vote too much.

It's not hypocrisy at all, it is not AV. Is it hypocrisy that a Labour member can get 3 votes in a leadership election, whilst only letting me have one in a general election? Is it hypocrisy that the leadership are campaigning for AV,when they set up the London Mayoral elections, Scottish & Welsh Parliaments under a differant voting system?

To compare a party leadership election to a general election is totally wrong. If you wanted to run general elections on the same basis, than a Labour party member who was also a union member would get 2 votes, if he was an MP as well he'd then get 3.Tory leadership elections rules are delberately written the way they are because of the nature of politics. It protects the party from damaging splits what an incumbent is challanged. A prime example was the Thatcher resignation (although the rules were slightly different, the end result was the same).Thatcher was challanged by Hestletine and won the intial vote, she did not however win by a big enough margin, therefore it went to a second round. The cabinet had all backed Thatcher, but went to her between votes telling her to step down as they would vote for Hestletine in the second round. She had lost the support of the cabinet, but they had shown loyalty (except Hestletine, who therefore lost the election). David Davis had many MP's pledge to vote for him "in the first round", he actually lost votes in the third round of voting when the final 2 would have gone to the members. Had the MP's had one vote only, who knows who they would have voted for. Davies was the favourite and the system allowed people to pledge support for him to his face, to vote for him right up until the final round (therefore honouring that pledge) and then voting for Cameron in the final run off.That is not AV, it was a system to get the top 2 through to the membership, who then had one member one vote.MP's may have voted for Davies to ensure that the party members got to vote between a left and a right candidate. remember in the Labour leadership Dianne Abbot picked up enough nominations on the basis that some MP's who were supporting someone else thought it important that a leftie was on the ballot. You can not demend parties run their elections on the system that they support for general elections, they are 2 different things.The final FPTP membership vote ended with large Cameron majority. You're right,Warsi is not elected, but then neither are Kinnock, Ashdown or Eddie Izzard, but they seem to be having their say.

But AV will not change that. In some cases it is even less proportional than FPTP.In 1954 in Aussie, one of the only Country to use AV, The Labor Party won 50% of the national vote, but did not win enough seats to form the Govt.

At the end of the day, you can always find reasons for matches being tough. Town have daggers on Monday, if that was us we'd be moaning about them being in a relegation dog fight. At the end of the day, this is the best time to play Brighton,Harlepool played today and again on Monday(with a thinner squad than ours) , Plymouth play a local Derby against Exeter the Saturday before we play them. If we dont make it, it'll be down to the start we had, not because Brighton wanted 100 points or Walsall needed a draw to stay up.