Wes Tender

I'm beginning to feel a bit optimistic that in this time of economic crisis, steps have been taken to form a bond between two rival parties in the hope that together they can better serve the national interest. There seems to have been a bit of give and take from both sides, some compromise is often a good thing. The Lib/Dems have gained a disproportionate amount of power and influence compared to the number of MPs they have, but undoubtedly they have a reasonable support base in terms of votes cast for them. Naturally both parties are suspicious of the other and at grass roots level, many of them detest each other. But because it appears that the Lib/Dems will have seats around the Cabinet table, they might get to develop a mutual respect for each other debating the issues and policies calmly and in an adult manner, rather than baying at each other in the bear pit that is the House of Commons. I'm almost more comforted by the alliance than if the Conservatives had to go it alone as a minority party and I didn't think that I would have thought that way a month ago.

I've also waited thirteen years for the day to come when we would be freed from a Labour government. Shame they left behind such a mess as usual, but always look on the bright side of life, eh? Things can only get better.

Precisely. So rather a poor comparison by Moonraker to connect with the PR issue. It is a great shame that party politics casts its shadow over our Parliamentary system, because having 650 independents who were elected by the local constituents because of their ability and the respect and trust that they had earned from their local community, would probably be better for the country and for democracy. But it will never come about because of the difficulties associated with how to select the candidates and the cost of the campaign would mean that those with more money individually, or with wealthy backing would have an advantage. But I don't see why there has to be party politics at local level.

Quote Mao Cap: As I said before, the electorate is fed up of promises on referenda which have never been kept. So there is a degree of apathy amongst them on Europe. The presence of UKIP in a General Election is just a waste of a vote and often lets in an MP of a party not supported by that voter for them. Duckhunter and I have not missed the point at all and what you have said is just your opinion, conjecture that has not been put to the test. You have no evidence to support it, either.

Is this populist as in popular with the electorate? Or do you hold them in contempt for voting Brown out?

So we would still have a hung Parliament, but the whole thing would be much more fragmented. Looks a bit like what they have in Italy and instead of stability and a government serving out a term and having time to bring policies to fruition, we'd have an election every other year like them. They often have the Commies holding the balance of power over there.

Well, Scotland is an interesting case, for the simple reason that although part of the United Kingdom, until comparatively recently in their history since the Union, they sent MPs to a central Parliament which was responsible for collecting taxation from the Scots and then distributed towards the fabric of the whole Union, towards where it was felt the need was greatest. They have already derived some considerable benefits from being part of that Union. But the situation changed when the momentum grew towards Scottish Independence and as a sop to them, we allowed them their own Parliament. But the scandalous Mid-Lothian question can do nothing else eventually than to foment resentment that they have representation in our Parliament, but we have none in theirs. Naturally, if Scotland's economy failed, there would increasingly be a feeling that as they have control over much of their economy, that the blame should fall on their shoulders. As for your second paragraph, I disagree with much of it, so excuse me if I don't get what you're trying to say. I don't think that we have much in common with most of our European neighbours at all. Arguably we have more in common with New Zealanders on the opposite side of the World than we do with the French just 22 miles away. I don't even agree that they hold similar views to ours on Health, Education, Defence, society, etc. I've already explained why some voters (most, I'd say) would resent having to pay their taxes towards bailing out some European state, especially when our economy was in such a mess and when they perceive that some of those countries have made tax evasion an artform, or where they have had inefficient industries subsidised by the EU, often at the expense of our industries in those fields.

I couldn't agree more. Let's either dissolve the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and NI Assemblies, or have an English Parliament where they have no representation.

But the officers of a club or society are most often run along the same lines as FPTP. You have elections for the chairman, the treasurer, the secretary, etc and in each case, there might be several candidates, but the one with the most votes is elected to that position. You don't then have nerds moaning that 60% of the members voted for other candidates other than the one selected.

Yes, I would. We have no governance in effect when the Parliament is in recess, so what's a few days delay until this is sorted? After the results of the election were known, Labour effectively no longer had a mandate to govern. But if it has been cleared with the other two parties' financial spokesmen, that is fine.

I'm surprised that you seem unable to grasp the concept. The United States of America is not the same as this ragbag collection of COUNTRIES that make up the European Union. Each of these countries have their own governments and some were republics and others monarchies. The simple answer to your question about Texas, is that the central government would apply aid packages to Texas to assist their local economy. The American taxpayers would feel fine about it, because it is part of the USA. The USA states are not that different to our Counties. If there is an area of the UK suffering from high unemployment, the government gives regional grants to encourage companies to build or expand there and these are paid for by the taxpayer. If you really believe there is ANY parallel between that situation and Europe, you go down in my estimation.

Fair enough.

Did anybody point out to the cretin that without the seats won in Scotland by the Lib/Dems and Labour, the Conservatives would be the Government? A bit of a travesty for England, that, as we have to put up with the bloody Scots in our Parliament, whereas we have no say in theirs

No it does not disenfranchise almost two thirds of the electorate at all. All of those who choose to vote and are eligible, are enfranchised, i.e have the right to vote. You might consider in your opinion that when a party is elected with less than fifty percent of the votes, that a majority of the electorate is represented by an MP who does not reflect their views, but because each party's manifesto contains policy statements on numerous issues, it isn't even the case that is true. More than likely a voter who was being honest about it, would consider that their MP reflected only some of their views. But then again, there are some issues where MPs are allowed a free vote without a Party whip and those views of the local MP might conceivably coincide with some of his electorate who voted for another party. But regardless of whether you believe your MP does not reflect your views, it does not mean that he does not deal with matters involving individual constituents who do not vote for his party, or that he doesn't take up local causes on behalf of his constituents. Whichever voting system that is employed, is likely to have a party in Government which has not received over 50% of the votes and if the percentages of the parties receiving less votes were added together, you could invariably make out the case that more people voted against the governing party than for it.

Don't the United States have one Government nationally, based in Washington? I didn't realise that Texas was a different country with their own Government.

Your sentiments are admirable if they applied to neighbours being a family living next door to you and friend was an actual person that you knew socially. Where it all falls down is where you attempt to call other Countries friends and neighbours. We are bound into this payment to bail out the economies of these other states because the Treaty of Lisbon took away our right of veto. We the voters, were never asked via a referendum whether we wanted to accept this further reduction in our sovereignty. We are not a member of the Euro, having thankfully retained the £. Our economy is a basket case too, thanks to the profligacy of the Labour Party. Why should we bail out other European States who have tied themselves into a straight-jacket that renders them incapable of making adjustments to their individual economies that would avoid them slumping or overheating? Charity begins at home. We are already facing massive tax increases and cuts in services here. Why should we have to increase our taxation further to prop up the Greeks and others because their budget deficit has been caused to a large extent because most Greeks don't pay their taxes properly? And I wonder about the validity of Darling to making these decisions until the situation has been resolved about who is the legitimate Government of the Country.

Can we add another three words to that too? ....as is Labour.

Ah! So you aren't old enough to have experienced the period of Labour misrule before that then. My set of values and ethics were moulded then and some didn't like the medicine we had to take in the eighties to get our bankrupt, overmanned and inefficient economy back on its feet. As they say, what goes around, comes around and undoubtedly you will bleat when the nasty medicine is administered this time around following Labour's latest spell in power.

So what you're saying, is that the European elections are a complete waste of time, as the electorate vote only on National issues, ignoring the purpose of having separate elections to elect their representatives in Europe ? That's an awful indictment of the democratic system, isn't it? And you infer that it is the reasonably bright people who ignore the European issues and vote only on National issues? And furthermore, these reasonably bright people are more interested in wasting their votes to give the sitting Government a good kicking, instead of using them to vote for the party which most represents their views? Why don't we just lance this boil once and for all and have a referendum on Europe, in or out? As you have proven, the democratic process on it is farcical.

Whereas of course, you're an expert on political history and Tory policy? Many on here are very selective about their views on the political landscape of the 80's and I suspect that some have formed opinions about it based on dogma because they were too young to have lived through it. There are a few of us though who have lived through the period of Labour domination in the years leading up to the 80's and also the period of Labour governments afterwards. Why, some of us remember what a disaster the Lib/Lab pact was the first time around. Do you?

You mean you'd be happy. You're really deluding yourself if you believe that the electorate would be happy if Labour were allowed to continue, propped up by the Lib/Dems. Why don't the Lib/Dems ally themselves to the more moderate Labour element of Labour? They can call themselves the even Newer and even more Liberal and Democratic Labour Party. Then all they'd need, was for Clegg to take lessons in grinning inanely at the nearest camera a la Blair, telling the electorate that he's a pretty ordinary sort of guy and they might fool the more gullible voters to go for them the next time around.

So you don't believe that if the people of this country were told that the cost to each and every one of them of being in the EU was £2000 per annum it wouldn't have any affect on their lives if they were given it back, or didn't have to pay it? The problem is that the impression that your average voter does not care too much about it, comes about for the following reasons:- 1) Granted it is not the main issue in a General Election, where the voting public have other priorities. But it is far more relevant in the European Elections, where they have far more clout making a protest vote. But in the run up to the European Elections, the main parties attempt to keep support away from parties like UKIP by making promises they then break. 2) Referenda have been promised on more than one occasion by the parties, but they somehow never come to fruition. The public are just apathetic at them for crying wolf so often and don't believe them any longer. 3) They are told the same sort of lies that are spouted on here as scare tactics, that we would risk losing all of our trade with Europe and somehow not be able to establish trading relationships with others. But of course, the European nations would not wish to discontinue trading with us and we could therefore demand reciprocal trade to the same extent. And I don't think for one minute that he general public just shrug their shoulders at the situation that the European Court of Law takes precedence over the laws passed by our own elected Parliament.

And if anybody cannot understand the analogy, we have been run these past several years in much the same way that Portsmouth Football club have been.

Mine too. It just goes to show, one person's nightmare is another's dream.

No, I did meant Marxists. Not really a very good example to quote Mugabe, was it, solentstars? And so by your definition, Gordon Brown is authoritarian, as he is attempting to cling to power, even accepting the possibility of changing the voting system to achieve it. But then he has changed his mind on the FPTP system all of a sudden, even though Labour had 13 years to do something about it. So as GB's position undermines your example in connection of the FPTP system, it wasn't a particularly good example, was it?