badgerx16

So, under a 'perfect' PR system, is a party that gains 1.9% of the total vote entitled to 1.9% of the seats, or can we decide they are not if we, ( whoever 'WE' are ), don't approve of their policies ? In terms of the total UK vote, that is more than the SNP, the DUP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens,- all of whom won seats in 2010.

Are you saying that BNP supporters should not be allowed to vote ?

1) If we were having this debate in 1918, how many would be defending the existing 'tried and tested' electoral process against the enfranchisement of the 'monstrous regiment' ? 2) There is nothing in AV to prevent a mainstream party's candidate winning in the 'first round' - all they have to do is win 50% of the vote; however this is something they are currently unable to do. 3) I loved watching the Adam Boulton clip. Warsi is a liability, let's hope they keep her on as long as possible.

Like most humour, some will find it amusing, some will find it offensive, and some will not understand it. Personally I am waiting for the point in the service where the Arch Bishop starts "Will you take this woman...", at which point I expect Phil the Greek to shout out "He already has!".

If you look at the last election and divide the number of MP for each party by the number of votes cast nationally for that party you find that the Tories needed 34995 votes for each House of Commons seat, Labour needed 33345, the LDs needed 119795, and the Greens 285616. ( same source as above ).

There is no MP at Westminster who won 50% of the electoral potential in their constituency at the last election. 433 did not achieve 50% of the votes actually cast, and 53% of the votes cast were for a 'losing' candidate, ( courtesy of the Electoral Reform Society: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/ERS%20General%20election%20facts+figs%20booklet.pdf ).

1) Have you tried checking online for driver updates for your disc controller ? 2) What exactly does show up in Disc Management ?

Heard Trump on the R4 news - "We still have to check it's real, check that everything on it is true. It could be a fake, bits of it could have been altered." As Bugs Bunny would say "What a maroon".

My parents subscribed to 'Soviet Weekly'.

The SECOND 'S' is for 'Sotsialisticheskik' - ( It is, however, the 3rd 'C' in CCCP )

Your 'CONservative' Government INCLUDES the Liberal ( Democrat ) elite !

Now I know that you are not taking this debate seriously

Well, the NO campaign obviously think it's a viable assumption.

That is almost as despicable as the one with the baby on it. The NO campaign cannot sustain a valid argument so resort to Goebbels-esque distortion and misdirection.

Ramsbottom

Sound track to my A level revision.

As a 'leftie', and being capable of independent thought and deduction, it seems to me that the CONservatives do not use AV for their leadership election. This is because between each successive round of voting by which the nominee list is reduced down to the final 2, there is renewed campaigning, ( arm-twisting, bribery, and corruption ), and ALL MPs, not just the supporters of the eliminated candidate, are free to change their votes as they see fit, ( the aforementioned arm-twisting, bribery, and corruption notwithstanding ). Labour DO use AV for their MP 'college' vote, but then spoil things by falling back to the tried and trusted FPTP by way of block voting to elect the "wrong" candidate.

Kwik Fit ?

This, ( and that's exactly what the Tories are relying on ). For the majority of us the referendum date is tied to the local elections, and these have a far poorer turnout than the General Election. For some, eg London, there isn't even the 'pull' of local politics to get the voters energised. The referendum should have been set on it's own exclusive date. It will be interesting to see if the level of participation is higher in the peripheries where they are also having their Assembly polls.

Depends on how complex you want things to be, a good start might be Avidemux : http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/

The UN mandate states : "Protection of civilians 4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council; 5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4" ( http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement ) Nothing about taking overt aggressive action against Gaddafi or any other target not directly threatening civilians. The "British Conservative Government" are pushing things way beyond what they are authorised to do.

It will have bugger all to do with you, so how can you 'take the victory with good grace' ? The whole process is just a sap to the LDs that the Tories have arranged to give the best possible chance of a 'NO' result. If this were a serious referendum STV would be the option, as a far more fair and proportional system, but there's a chance people might actually go for that. As it is the vested interests, within both main parties and their electoral machines, have no desire to risk their safe seats by ditching an electoral system that means they don't have to worry about ever actually attaining a MAJORITY vote.

tiger ( feet )

Proof if proof were needed - the benefits system is too easy to milk.

wings