Lord Duckhunter

Recently I have heard Peter Hain, Neil Kinnock and Paddy Ashdown all complain about the "unfairness" of FPTP. They claim it is important that there is "fairness" in our electrol system. All 3 backed devolution, what happened to the "fairness" that is so important to them, when they voted for this unfair change? They seem to judge "fairness" on the basis of political gain.

Surely it's relevant to any discussion around "fairness".The yes to AV political supporters seem really keen on "fairness", yet most of them backed devoloution. There approach seems to be "fairness on my terms".

My Mrs is a midwife and for the first time in years, all 3rd year student midwives have been promised a job with her NHS trust.

I would go back to Feb 10th 2010 and give Registrar Christine Derrett one, she would enjoy the action so much that she begs me to nail her again. When I refuse, she takes her bad mood out on the Skates the next day and winds the business up.

That is the whole crux of the issue as far as I'm concerned. It is not proportional and in some cases is less so than FPTP (according to Roy Jenkins). Despite what the yes people say, you can win under AV with less than 50% of the vote. All in all it is a "miserable little compromise" that can be, but sometimes isn't , more proportional than FPTP. If you want the Tories 16.7% of the Scottish vote to be represented in seats, then I assume you think that the BNP should have twice as many seats as the Greens, seeing they polled twice as many votes. To my mind there are two arguements. One, all votes count and the % of MP's reflect those votes, or Two you have the winner of each single constituency sent to Westminster.If you are going to send representives from each part of the Country, then it should be the person who wins the most votes. How on earth can you have a situation where a person comes third,in everyones first preference, but wins the seat. It's not the Xfactor or Britains got Talent.

Sorry, I'm not with you. Are you saying that England should not have devolved powers because it has a right leaning majority?

The West Lothian question is dead and burried, Labour just ploughed ahead regardless of the unfairness. They had to protect their seats from the SNP and New Labour had to have the continued support of Old Labour in Scotland to get elected.They made the correct judgement that the English were just not political enough to bother with protests and complaints. The Unions and lefties who tend to be vocal over political issues stayed silent because the devolution stich up favoured Labour. Had Thatcher devolved power to England and not Scotland, they would have soon started marching and getting on the BBC. The BBC would have a field day with special reports about how people in Scotland and Wales paid for their medicine and the English didn't, how the poor Jock students had to pay a premium for their education but the English didn't. Like happy ****ing idiots us English just sit there and take it. If the Scots and Wales want to govern themselves, let them. They can raise taxes and spend them how they want, let's have a federal constitutional monarchy. Because at the moment we have a half way house which benefits the smaller nations far more than us English.

Spot on, MP's from Scotland and Wales can vote on matters that do not effect their constituents. They can vote in Prescription charge increases in England knowing that it does not effect their voters. Had Maggie Thatcher devolved power to England and allowed English MP's to vote on Scottish measures,which did not effect England, the lefties now shouting about "fairness" would be rioting in the streets of Glasgow.Fairness in the UK should surely start with every Country having the same devolution settlement.

Perhaps some of the Labour supporters could explain why after 13 years when they could have done something about it, they did nothing. They looked at the whole constitution, they changed the Lords, gave devolution to wales and Scotland and yet nothing about “fairer” votes, which seems an important issue to them now. 3 large majorities, yet no mention of “fairer” votes. All of a sudden they lose, and within a few months most of them are banging on about “fairness” and the “unfairness” of FPFT. They’re position seems to be “it was fair when we won, but unfair when we lose”.

But according to Jenkins (an expert on PR), it can be "even less proportional than FPTP"

Surely your "Fair Votes" agenda means constituencies of equal numbers, an English parliament and PR. Not a tinkering around the edges and a system that nobody wants, but pretends they do. It was a scrap the Tories throw the Lib/Dems and Labour are behind it for political purposes. Roy Jenkins spent his whole life fighting for PR and in 1998 he said this "AV on its own suffers from a stark objection. It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional than FPTP"

In other news Peter Risdale has announced he wants to be Chairman of the FA.He Says his experience in saving Leeds would be invaluable when it comes to running English football.

I presume you want this to apply for all elections and that a Govt can't be formed without a party winning 50% of the Country's support.Or is your arguement that a Tory cant win his seat with 49% support, but Labour can form the Govt with 34%.

The pro AV supporters seem very keen on the 50% element in all this. It's not right that people are elected with support of less than 50% of voters. To be consistant I presume that they will also apply this to Parliament. Therefore, if Labour win the most seats but only 49% of the vote, we'll all get to vote again, Or does it only apply after certain results?

If I voted Tory in the same constituency as you , then I have 1 vote "considered" and yet you have 3.Makes a bit of a mockery of one man one vote.

Of course I haven't misunderstood. If nobody gets the required 50% vote, then the worst performing candidates supporters second vote, has exactly the same weight as my first and only vote. Nick Griffin could vote BNP, Monster Raving Loony and then Labour, ensuring the Labour candidates victory.

I never said they would, all I said was that Nick Griffin's second and third choice vote will carry as much weight as a little old ladys. One of the leaflets I got backing AV stated that this system meant that MP's would need to broaden their appeal to attract the 2nd and third votes of all voters. In Burnley the BNP got nearly 10% of the vote, how are the other parties going to reach out and "broaden their appeal" to those voters?

Why should someone's second and third vote carry the same weight as someone's first and only vote, please explain? I was always under the impression it should be One man, one vote, not, some men 3 votes.

Injuries are just one of those things, no point in worrying about what might have been, but a chance for someone to step up to the plate. I liked the look of Guly in the role earlier in the season and if Lambert can reproduce his form of last season this wont be so much of a loss. I've always felt that Lambert and Barnard were too one paced and sides could squeeze us up a bit if the both played in the side. As hard working as Barny is, he hasn't quite got that turn of pace, where as Guly has. Hopefully they'll need to defend slightly deeper allowing Lambert to profit from a bit more space. Connolly is a decent option off the bench if we need a goal. AL is the key, not Barny, if Adam plays the majority of the remaining minutes, we'll go up.If not it'll be close.

A little old lady in Burnley has voted Labour all her life. She goes into the booth on polling day 2015 and puts a 1 by the Labour candidate. A racist moron follows her in and puts a 1 by the BNP candidate. He then puts a 2 by the Monster raving loony party member and a 3 by the local right wing Tory.As Labour fail to get the required 50%, His second and third vote count for exactly the same as the little old ladys first and only vote. The reason he voted for the Tory was the tough stance that the candidate had taken over immigration and the BNP man was impressed with some of his views on that. Thousends of other BNP supporters had also put a 2 or 3 by this candidate and despite losing to the Labour candidate in the intial vote he wins the seat. The local Labour party decide at the next election that they need to broaden their appeal and get more second and third votes. So their prespective candidate starts to toughen his stance on immigration. With FPTP all the idiots, racists and loony's votes are wasted, with AV their second and third choices can carry the same weight as normal decent people's first and only vote, and some people call this fair? There is a lot wrong with our electrol system, from it being weighted in favour of Labour to Scottish and Welsh MP's voting on measures that dont affect their voters. If you want to change the system to PR, then that is a fair and reasonable stance to take. One man one vote, with MP's based on the parties % of the whole vote (I still prefer FPTP, but can see the train of thought being followed by PR supporters), but this is not and never will be a fairer system than FPTP.

Huddersfield's home form is what has cost them, they drew at home to Swindon, drew against a 10 man Orient after being 2 up and drew home to Oldham who were in the middle of an awful run. My mate supports them and is more worried about Brentford and D&R at home, than MK and Brighton away.As we saw on Saturday, sometimes home games get nervy and the team get anxious. He claims they're likely to beat MK,but then draw with D&R particulary if we've lost at Brighton and they are back in second.He thinks if we win Sat, then it's all over for them.

It was his dogma that stopped all of Tony Blairs much needed reforms of Health, Education and more importantly Frank Field's welfare reforms. Only the Labour party could reform the NHS and Blair has admitted he wasn't bold enough.Brown and his cronies dogma meant Labour wasted large majorities and decent ecomonic conditions, because Brown reverted to type. Are you seriously trying to say Brown was a dogmatic CoE, but changed when he became PM. Everything he ever did was for political gain, he was permanently fighting an election, looking for angles to make the Tories look bad. Look at the way he messed up the election that never was. Briefed there was going to be one, because he thought the conditions were favourable, then one George O speech over inheritance tax goes down well and he bottles it. It was Govt by opinion polls, and he'll go down as one of the worst PM's in living memory.

Fitting end. Was the only time I didn't want Saints to score again, nearly started cheering when Chris Marsden's effort was tipped over. It used to said about Ian Botham that he wrote his own headlines, well Matt did that day. He's proberly the only player I've ever seen who could have an injury hit season without a goal, and then pop one in like that in the last few minutes.

You are joking, right? Brown was the most dogma driven PM of modern times. From selling our gold at rock bottom prices to destroying the private sector pension provisions, he was a completely and utterly driven by misguided dogma.

Being strong is not one of the words I would use to describe the last Labour Govt. Tony Blair's reforms were oppossed at every turn by Brown, so much so that he later said he regretted not being bold enough. The excallant Frank Field was thrown to the Wolves over "thinking the unthinkable" regrading welfare reform.All because Blair was weak and the whole Govt was paralysed by the TB/GB leadership farce.