badgerx16

But if they cannot be so certain of their electoral base, ( far fewer 'safe' seats, etc ), they will have to pay attention to more of us in determining policy - particularly in the 2nd and subsequent years of an administration when they've run out of headline manifesto commitments.

But there would be a difference because a PR system would prevent a party, blue or red, from gaining an unassailable Parliamentary majority ( 100+ ) with potentially less than 40% of the vote. It's that disproportionate safety in numbers that leads PMs like Thatcher and Blair to think they are invincible.

But that is not how our system works. Firstly because there are the 'safe' seats, whether Tory or Labour it matters not, if you support what is locally the minority party you may as well not bother. You may also get seats where there is the possibility of either of 2 parties getting in, but where voting for any other option is similarly fruitless ( ie voting LD in Southampton ). Thirdly there are the seats that matter - the 'swing' seats that will be contested ( generally ) between Labour and Conservative. It is to tempt the voters in this minority of seats that both parties concentrate their efforts and design their manifestos. The outcome of this is that for almost all General Elections since WW1, the winning party has had less than 50% of the vote, yet both Thatcher and Blair had majorities of over 100. I doubt there has ever been a GE result where 50% of the registered electorate has voted for the winning party - so how does that give us 'what the people of this country want' ?

Betrayal. I also set my screen background to a red rose with a black border - mourning the death of democracy in this country. What we were left with is a centrist mish-mash of policies designed for middle class swing voters in marginal seats.

Indeed, after Bliar's first term I had, for a while, the following as my scrolling screensaver - "New Labour, Tory lite. Different colour, same old sh!te".

One is 'Red Ed' threatening central Government interference in a free market by controlling prices, the other is the Prime Minister acting in the national interest to secure our energy future by controlling prices.

Top post.

'Call me Dave' blaming 'green taxes' is a sop to the nimby readership of the Daily Mail / Express. Renewables will always operate at a disadvantage in the current economic environment as start-up and infrastructure costs penalise development. I find it puzzling that UK Government is talking about cutting this 'taxpayer subsidy' yet our nuclear program is about to get a boost that is almost entirely funded from French and Chinese Government coffers.

He didn't win them for me - never been a member of any political party. Yes I voted Labour in his first win, but voted LibDem subsequently - my vote is always wasted anyway as it's usually a fairly safe Tory seat.

Maggie's bastard offspring in 'Mea Culpa' shock - don't EVER accuse Bliar of being a Labour politician.

JARVIS Cocker probably has quite a bit as well.

"What's the point in being rich, if you don't know what to do with it, 'cause you're so bleeding thick" J Cocker ( "Mishapes" )

I'd be a banker, rake in huge bonuses for gambling with other people's money, and duck out just before the world wide crash.

Two of our four dogs are 'Charlie' and 'George', though the connection wasn't intentional.

Is this still your opinion ?

"As one sided a match as I've seen this season" - 'tater's comments sums it up. Wish J-Rods volley had gone in as the performance deserved more goals and he deserved a second.

I thought I'd posted those comments before !

It's Lee Dixon.

From memory the driving standard is quite poor, and they don't like the Germans. ( Did a walk around Fort St Elmo, which is the main WW2 museum, following directly behind a coach load of Germans - spent about half an hour muttering things like "And vich of zese bombs did you drop ?" and "Is that your crashed stuka ?". )

Of course, we could all be subject to the activities of The Adjustment Bureau, in which case our path through life is set by 'the plan'.

Possibly, but how do you know you would be happier ? Look back at any point in your life, even a relatively minor choice, and consider how the subsequent chain of events might have been affected. For instance, somebody who in reality met their life partner on a bus might with another earlier option, say stopping to buy a newspaper, been sufficiently delayed that they missed that bus, or even got knocked down running to catch it.

Articulate does not equate with correct.

Surely if you were back at a particular historical decision point, you wouldn't be any better informed as the likely outcomes of the various options, so would inevitably chose the same one.

Just wait 'til the next wave of public sector cuts start to bite.

The Institute of Directors' chief economist Graeme Leach said: ............ "However, strong headwinds remain and the annual growth rate year on year is nothing to get too excited about yet. Though inflationary pressures are likely to remain benign, debt and inflation are rising faster than earnings. 'More to be done' "By far the biggest challenges remain on the supply side, not the demand side. Supply side constraints mean that the current growth spurt is unlikely to extend beyond next year. "This stage of our economic recovery is likely to be short and sweet, instead of long and strong."