Lord Duckhunter

That's what he told me.

A friend of mine is a press photographer, he told me that Mrs Blair is pretty fit, but photograph's really badly. He said out of all the people he's photographed in his 25 years, her pictures do her the least justice out of anyone he's ever photographed.I cant see it myself, but I've never seen her in the flesh (thank god). As an aside, he also told me that William Hague was a "man's man", who got married for his political career.

I think they'll pay a high electrol price if they give us another prime Minister who did go into the election as leader. Tony Blair promised to serve a full time, whatever you say about leaders, that declaration would have made plenty of floating voters vote Labour, it also took away the Tory's line of Vote Blair, get Brown. Now they're at it again. Whatever the Labour party say, the floating voters will think Brown has gone as part of a grubby deal with the Lib/Dems.The Leadership debates were important because they showed the Leaders under the spotlight and under pressure. To end up with another Prime Minister altogether, though consitutionaly right, is wrong IMHO.

UKIP came 4th in this general election and second in the European Elections. PR will help them establish themselves more, particulary if AV is the prefered reform. Perhaps if the Tory policy on Europe was more in line with their grassroots, then UKIP wouldn't have taken so many votes in the above areas.

If the leaders dont matter, then why have leadership debates? It seems the Labour party spent the whole election bigging up Brown and how HE saved the banks and how HE was the man to "protect the recovery", now it appears the leader doesn't matter. They cant have it both ways.

In all the talk of fairness in the electrol system, do people realise the BNP polled more votes than the greens, but ended up with one less seat. Is anyone argueing that's "unfair", or does fairness only extend to the Lib/Dems? The SNP polled 491,386 and UKIP got 917,832, yet the SNP could prop up a Labour Govt, whilst the UKIP supporters (many more of them) have to lump it. Is that fair? There is only one pure form of PR and that involves Party lists, it's the only way to ensure the seats equal the votes cast. If this is the case then the low populated areas of the Country will be forgotton about. Parties will just taylor their agenda to appeal to the South East and the big urban areas. I do not want my representives decided by grey men in grey suits in darkened back rooms. I want to vote for local candidates who go to Westminster to represent the local people, the party that then has the most of these candidates then forms the Govt. I only want one vote not an "additional" one and I dont want to rank candidates in the order in which I prefer them.

Gordon Brown has never been elected by any English person, MP or otherwise. He is scared of democratic elections.He bottled taking on Blair after John Smith's death, destroyed any opposition in the Labour Party, and delayed going to the Country until as late as possible. He's a typical Scottish Labour member, he thinks he has an automatic right to govern and tell people how to behave.

Correct. What cost the Torys the election was they couldn't take seats off the Lib/Dems. They'll be able to do that now.

Good news for the Tory's. A Lib/Lab pact wont last a year, they haven't got the numbers. To see Scottish MP's propping up Parties that lost seats in the election wont go down well in England.There will be another election within a year.

Shouldn't we ensure that people take some sort of exam before being allowed to vote, because it seems a bit confusing to me. If it's for 10 seats, how do we chuck the Neil Hamilton's out at an election?

So it could happen? Surely we shouldn't be electing MP's on the basis of who we dont want? If you want a constituency based system, then surely the MP should be the person who gets the most votes in that constituency. Surely the only form of pure PR is the seats being divided up into % of the vote. MP's are then selected from party lists. I would rather keep a constituency based system where we can chuck out our Portillo's ,Hamilton's and Smith's. Without constituency based MP's who is going to stick up for the local areas with small populations? Who is going to ask at PMQ's about hospital closures and local issues?

So you want to abolish the Constituency based system as well?

If Party A got 49% Party B 16% Party C 15% Party D 10% Party E 10% Party B could still win, how is that fair?

From what I can make out, as it's very complicated, Someone could be elected without being the first choice of any voter in that area. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

So you will do away with the constituency based system?

You still haven't answered the question, please explain your "fair" system.

Please explain this "fair and democratic" system to me.

I wish people would stop using the general term PR. What type of PR do they want? Do they want pure PR where the % of the vote is equal to the seats you get. In this case it'll see the end of constituency based MP's, with MP's selected from Party lists. You could not kick out Jackie Smith, or Neil Hamilton, there would be no more Portillo moments.Also certain areas of the Country will be under represented, the west country or Scottish Highlands could be forgotton about, as they're votes wont matter. Parties can concentrate their policies to the high population urban areas and big cities. If you want to maintain constituency based MP's then there will always be an element of unfairness in the system. I have an open mind and can be persuaded of a change to the system, however I believe we must have the option of kicking out local MP's and have the option of local independants standing on local issues (I forget his name,but there was an MP elected fighting against closure of his local hospital), we mess with hundreds of years of a constituency based system at our peril.

They got the same vote as Labour in '05, but because the system is biased in Labour's favour, that resulted in a 64 seat Labour majority. Labour lost close to 100 seats, got wiped out in most of the South and yet the Tory's lost

So UKIP "got their vote out" for those elections. How do you explain the Torys topping the poll? The original post was rallying against the Torys extreme views on Europe and yet in the election that puts Europe firmly on the agenda, they top the poll (followed by the withdrawal Party). Perhaps, (and the sandal wearers wont like this), the Tory and UKIP views are in fact Britain's mainstream view on Europe and it's the lefties that are extreme and out of touch.

How do you explain The Torys and UKIP being first and second in the European elcetions then? The one election when Europe is top of the agenda, the EUROPEAN ELECTIONS, Labour and Lib/Dems came 3rd and 4th. The Torys came first, followed by a fringe party who want to withdraw. The fact the pro European loons were completely routed, goes against your theory somewhat.

More people voted for the Torys in England than anyone else. They were the most popular party in England.

Lord Steele was making the point this morning that you can not hold a referendum without putting it through Parliament first. This "Rainbow Coallition" of yours has a very slim majority, as a result of all of them losing seats in the latest election. They will need every Labour MP to vote for PR and there are plenty who oppose it. It will then need to go through the Lords who could block it. The "rainbow coalition" members can not afford another election in 12 weeks as they're all skint. There is no way a new voting system can be cobbled together and agreed in 12 weeks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1654931.ece

If you're on £50,000, you shouldn't get benefits end of. Why should my taxes pay for people who earn good money to have Children. How can Labour slag of the Torys giving married people a tax break and then give people on £50,000 a year benefit because they have loads of children (and I'm speaking as a Father of 4, so have nothing against big families)