Joensuu

If you'd only read the thread you might get the answer!

There are various different types of PR, each with benefits and disadvantages http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm I'd opt for the 'Single Transferable Vote' method... which would allow people a lot more control over who they want to elect. The obvious downside is that the complex voting slips might result in less votes being eligable (and as a result less votes for the BNP).

Agree, but you need some checks in places to prevent extreme minorities gaining power and running rampage against the will of the people. Personally I think we should have some checks in place enshrined by law to prevent any party in power passing extremely authoritarian laws. Whether left or right, I think the most important thing would be to avoid would be a UK Hitler or Stalin.

I agree with the idea of allowing more strength to the smaller parties, but there should be a mechanism to prevent extremists from taking power (we don't want another 1933). Perhaps partys which try to impose any racist (or other objectionable) policies can be expelled from govenment by the Monarch or by an enforced referendum. We'd need a consitiution, within which all parties are sworn to operate. Also make it law that no government can use the police, armed forces of any equivelent organised group against the will of its own people. Any party doing so is immeadiatey removed from office. That should allow smaller parties in, but help prevent any abuse of office.

Surely T o r y isn't censored is it? (hmmm... on second thoughts)

http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/ Latest running total of polls sees a hung parliament with a Labour majority.

I beg to differ

But the BNP are the the left of the Conservatives Are you a closet communist?

No. I'd have been outraged. (perhaps a little shocked at a government displaying honesty).

Even by your own standards, that's incredibly far from the mark. Yes Saddam was a nasty boy, and yes he murdered many of his own people. But we didn't go their for charitable reasons did we? Otherwise we'd have already gone into Harare, Rangoon and Pyongyang. Good job our invasion preserved so many Iraqi lives eh, we wouldn't have more blood on our hands than Saddam? Terrorists were few and far between in Iraq under Saddam. I'm not sure the same can be said right now. Oh, if you think we left Iraq a better country, think again http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55 Oh, and I wonder how stable this veritable paradise of a country would be if the remaining 110,000 US forces were to withdraw? To summarise, we took over a mess, then procceeded to stir up a religious storm, murdered huge numbers, encouraged terrorism to flourish, fostered some good old anti-West hatred, all the while syphoning off the crude oil. Just wish we had more Liberal Democrats, and less Torys (especially nasty right wing Torys such as Blair).

Had

1) Only 9 million voted for Labour in 2005 - (under 15% of the total population (or about 20-25% of the voting population). It says a lot about our turnouts, when this pitiful number of votes is about 35% of the votes cast. 2) After the war began the number of people supporting the action increased (? nobody knows why, but it has been partially explained by the need to 'back the boys' etc). 3) People don't just vote on single issues. Many voters are so entrenched in a single party that they couldn't consider voting for anyone else. My point still stands, the majority of the country could see the wood for the trees, but the Torys (like Labour) backed the wrong horse.

You've only gone an made me look it up, I was wrong, only 63% opposed the war in March 2003 according to MORI.

Strange how naive the Tory's were in 2003, how could those innocents ever have thought there was something dodgy going on? Strange they couldn't see the wood for the trees and trusted Blair implicitly, when 80% of the public had sussed it out.

Not at all. Whoever wins most seats will have the opportunity to approach Clegg for a deal. It is not hypocritical of him to attempt to form a parliament, especially if he forces the hand of the bigger party into agreeing to introduce PR. I disagree that there is significant bias in the system. The main reason behind this myth is due to a significant reduction in the number of Labour votes polled in safe Labour seats. For example, Liverpool, is still as much a Labour seat as it ever was, but yet between the 1992 election and 2001 the number of Labour votes cast in Liverpool dropped from c. 140,000 to c. 100,000. Did those 40,000 people up sticks and switch party? Or did they realise that their vote didn't matter a jot, as Labour would win the seat comfortably, so there was little point in them leaving the house? Of course if we were to make the votes of the people of Liverpool count again (PR?) the Labour vote would massively increase. In other words, there isn't a bias favouring Labour over the Tories. If each vote counted on a national and not local level there would be a massive increase in the number of votes cast, most of the increased vote would be polled in large Labour strongholds. By and large, dedicated Torys already tend to get themselves to the polling booths. So the increased Tory vote wouldn't be significant. To be fair, both Brown and Cameron backed Iraq. If the Lib Dems wanted to make a point (and cut their own nose off in the process) they could stamp their feet, get to change nothing, and force another election in Aultumn (in which their arrogant refusual of coalition will no doubt lose them votes). As such, if the govenment is hung, Clegg has to back one of the two. The Tory's will bleat about having the majority of the votes (NB, see Liverpool above), but Clegg would be crazy if he went with anyone other than Labour (unless of course Torys hold both the majorty of seats and votes). On this you could be right. Whoever makes up the next government will be in for a tough ride. Few governments gain in popularity, so the Lib Dems would lose much of their edge. However, while they'd loose a bit of the protest vote, they might start to be considered as a real force in Government. It's a tough call, but the Lib Dems could do a lot worse than third place with increased numbers of MPs, in a outright Tory majority.

There you go... thread resolved.

Problem is Dune, Clegg is damned whatever he does. I'd say it's still most likely that the Torys will win outright, and if not, that they will hold both the majorty of seats and votes, in which event Clegg would have to work (or try to work) with Cameron. In the unlikely event that the mandate is split, and Labour have more MPs but fewer votes, Clegg will be in for a rough time whatever he does. In theory he would need to side with Brown, as the current election system is determined by seats. This would also probably be more acceptable to his own party. There would be a minor Tory splutter of 'hypocrite', but it probably won't be taken too seriously. However were he to ignore the number of seats, and side with the number of votes, he'd have to have a very good reason to. The media story would be massive, and he'd need to justify it to the country. If he manages to pull it off convincingly he might just come out of it smelling of roses... but it would be a massive gamble. Additionally, he would probably annoy the majority of his party, setting him up for a rough time. To top it all off the Tory/Lib alliance is likely to be strained, and split, with another election within a couple of years. Lib Dems would be tarnished by the failure, and would probably not poll well. As such I think it's fairly obvious what Clegg will do: Tory's win outright: Nothing, other than offer congratulations to Cameron. Tory's win most seats & votes: Attempt to form a govt with the Torys (probably destined to fail) Tory's win most votes, Lab most seats: Attempt to form a govt with Labour (probably ideal result for the Lib Dems. Brown will need to make huge concessions ot the Lib Dems, because Clegg could (but probably won't) switch to try and work with the Torys. So should Clegg come out an expain it all in this level of detail? No. It's obvious what he will do, and it doesn't really need spelling out. If he talks about it directly he can only lose votes. Are the liberals whiter than white? No, but they are certainly less tarnished than the others. Would sideing with Brown (even if the Torys received more votes) be hypocritical? A little, but not hugely. Clegg is far more likely to be able to get liberal views championed if he sides with Labour. It would certainly be less damaging to do this, than for Clegg to try to form a risky coalition with Cameron.

Mountain, molehill. I personally think Clegg would prefer to be in a coalition with Cameron than with Brown, as he wouldn't be tarnished by association with the waddling failure. Not that being associated with the prancing toff is much better. Recent polls show that the movement towards the Lib Dems is mainly the under 35s and women votes who were previously undecided. These voters have been brought up being told by their peers that the Torys are evil, and by their own experience that Labour are incompetent. These voters actively dislike both the two big parties, and now seem to be opting to back the Lib Dems. The 'vote for Lib Dems is a vote for Brown' catchphrase just won't work - the swing voters don't see much difference between the two big parties. Still it's good to see the Tory's worried enough to start panicing.

In a nutshell, Nick Clegg is a Tory. The liberals aren't the new face of politics, just a heck of a lot more refreshing than the others... The public hasn't really noticed any exposure on this topic, perhaps because it isn't an issue?

Hmm, are you demanding that Peter Robinson MP answers the same question? Personally think your making much of a to do about a nothing... if there is a debated mandate (say Tory's get most votes; Labour get more seats), then the election will be in dispute in much the same way Dubya was tarnished with Florida. The Lib Dems are quite simply keeping their options open, (it's called 'Politics'). In this situation they would be able to increase the benefit to their own voters by playing hardball for liberal agreements from the other two parties. I'd happily have Right wing economics, if they were coupled with investment in environment, scapping ID cards, Vince in no 11 etc, scrapping of many CCTV cameras etc

Do like the way the Daily Heil's highest rated comments are all pro-legalisation; and the lowest rated are anti-drug... Stick that in your crack pipe 4th Viscount Rothermere...

To be fair all three parties are actually right of centre. The biggest difference between them is that Labour and the Torys are more authoritarian than the Lib Dems.

Hmm, of my nominations earlier in the thread, you're right I have nothing personal against McCann, I have bad memories of watching him 'play'. Do I detest him, no. BWP, however, still makes me angry, it was his attitude and off pitch crimes, mixed with his ****y uselessness. The way his association with Saints blackened our name. I genuinely fear I do indeed detest the scrot.

Sorry, but if unsecured football creditors have to be paid 100%, how can other unsecured creditors be paid any less (as legally don't all unsecured creditors have to agree to receive the same x pence in the pound?)

McCann sticks out as particularly useless, albeit in a good team. However, BWP wins easily IMO, arrogant, stealing and selfish, with some raw talent which was completely erroded by having absolutely no workrate.