-Not consistently - as I said, just last month Cameron was on 38 and Brown was on 32.

-Internal strife comes and goes. I have no doubt it'll be yet another failed revolution, if he was going to be toppled it would've happened after the European elections...

-The key changes will be psychological - people will be upbeat about the exit from recession that will have occurred by then, and generally we've been in recovery for the past four or so months.

-National debt? By your judgement of national debt, Japan, Germany, America, all worse than banana republics - Japan have had one of 125% of GDP for years now. Germany and USA are approaching 100%, if not past it by now...we're on about 70%!

-Immigration isn't actually increasing at all, and hasn't since the beginning of the recession. Half the EU influx of 2004 has left by now!

 

Don't get me wrong, Labour are going to lose the next election, but I severely doubt Cameron will manage a majority.

 

You still can't deny that Tories vote is on upward trend and has been on upward trend for the last 2 years.

 

Regarding national debt, no matter who comes into government, your debt is only going to rise.

I was going to make exactly the same points that B.A. made but he said them first so why do I need to repeat them? To satisfy you I will then? :rolleyes:

A minority Government doesn't work and you always get another election a few months after like in 1974. We need a clear Tory working majority to get legislation through to sort out the Labour mess of the last 13 years. If it's a hung parliament you'd have secret meetings and the Lib-Dems blackmailing and trying to get PR which no-one else but them wants, in order to ensure their support.

 

what labour mess over the last 13 years?.... the most stable financial period post war, the lowest interest rates and mortgage rates, the most sustained period of growth, the steady rise in the standard of living...:lol: ...yeah right, if thats a 'mess' then ill be voting for it everytime!

 

ok its gone tits up, but non the less the facts are there.... NO TORY GOVERNMENT has delivered such economic stability.

 

and why you should vote for cameron whos going to shake up the benefits system and put YOU ot of pocket is beyond belief...

and why you should vote for cameron whos going to shake up the benefits system and put YOU ot of pocket is beyond belief...

 

 

He will shake up the system as it's needed but genuinely ill IB claimants like me won't be affected. I'm 1000% sure of that. They'll have to be very careful with depression sufferers or if any commit suicide if forced to look for work when they're unfit, law suits may follow. Those aren't my words but those of one of the mental health charities. :)

He will shake up the system as it's needed but genuinely ill IB claimants like me won't be affected. I'm 1000% sure of that. They'll have to be very careful with depression sufferers or if any commit suicide if forced to look for work when they're unfit, law suits may follow. Those aren't my words but those of one of the mental health charities. :)

 

You would not win any court case though, I am not a doctor so do not have access to your medical records but the fact you can use a PC and use it for long periods to me shows you are more than capable of using one for work purposes so if Cameron made you go out and work you would not stand a chance in any court case, doing computer related work is no more demanding on your health than posting 10 hrs a day on forums

You would not win any court case though, I am not a doctor so do not have access to your medical records but the fact you can use a PC and use it for long periods to me shows you are more than capable of using one for work purposes so if Cameron made you go out and work you would not stand a chance in any court case, doing computer related work is no more demanding on your health than posting 10 hrs a day on forums

 

exactly... i have a very good friend with REAL manic depression... he cant bare to look at a computer screen and would love to get a job because he knows (as does everybody else) that working is good for your mind, body and soul.

 

chris, no one believes you, .... id shop you as soon as look at you, give me the number and ill do it.

You would not win any court case though,

 

 

You obviously didn't read my post carefully B.A. I'd hardly be bothered about winning it if I'd committed suicide though would I? :rolleyes: Wasn't necessarily meaning me but the mental health charities truly feel there's a real possibility of suicides followed by court cases from families if IB is tightened up for people with depression and other mental illnesses. Not sure about Cameron but I wouldn't like to be a PM with that on my conscience.

Edited January 12, 201016 yr by Victor Meldrew

Right to satisfy an above poster and those who say I just do one-line silly posts and can't put forward an argument I'll explain why I'm against PR. It's far far more likely to produce a minority Government and require co-operation between parties as the Lib-Dems would definitely have more seats and the other fringe parties more too. The BNP and Greens would have some seats too. So it's very unlikely any party would ever have an overall majority again. I'm not sure it's even possible under PR. So you'd have different policies coming from all corners of the Commons and deals being done everywhere with the largest party. So unstable uncertain Government just like a hung parliament.

 

So those of you FOR P.R. would you be happy for the B.N.P. to have some seats then? That's one of Cameron's main arguments against it and he named the BNP in a speech. You couldn't pick and choose and say "well the BNP got enough votes to qualify for 50 seats but we won't let them have those seats as we don't like them" :rolleyes:

 

For instance, in New Zealand, following the first election under PR, no party was able to form a government for about 2 months. Finally, in the end, a party with 13% of the vote became the party controlling the government agenda. It became a case of the "tail wagging the dog". Now most people want a return to FPTP but the system will stay as no party wants to risk losing their voice.

 

Our current system may seem unfair to Lib-Dem supporters but that's only because the party can't muster up enough votes to win more seats under the present sytem. "We want the rules changed cos we're not winning the game" Would turkeys like Christmas cancelling? Of course they would!!

Edited January 12, 201016 yr by Victor Meldrew

You obviously didn't read my post carefully B.A. I'd hardly be bothered about winning it if I'd committed suicide though would I? :rolleyes: Wasn't necessarily meaning me but the mental health charities truly feel there's a real possibility of suicides followed by court cases from families if IB is tightened up for people with depression and other mental illnesses. Not sure about Cameron but I wouldn't like to be a PM with that on my conscience.

 

Why would you be suicidal about the idea of doing work ? why would anyone be ?

 

You are hated on BJ, as popular as a turd in a swimming pool yet you have not been driven over the edge by posts or anything like that, despite the fact everyone can't stand you so you can't be that depressed

Right to satisfy an above poster and those who say I just do one-line silly posts and can't put forward an argument I'll explain why I'm against PR. It's far far more likely to produce a minority Government and require co-operation between parties as the Lib-Dems would definitely have more seats and the other fringe parties more too. The BNP and Greens would have some seats too. So it's very unlikely any party would ever have an overall majority again. I'm not sure it's even possible under PR. So you'd have different policies coming from all corners of the Commons and deals being done everywhere with the largest party. So unstable uncertain Government just like a hung parliament.

 

So those of you FOR P.R. would you be happy for the B.N.P. to have some seats then? That's one of Cameron's main arguments against it and he named the BNP in a speech. You couldn't pick and choose and say "well the BNP got enough votes to qualify for 50 seats but we won't let them have those seats as we don't like them" :rolleyes:

 

For instance, in New Zealand, following the first election under PR, no party was able to form a government for about 2 months. Finally, in the end, a party with 13% of the vote became the party controlling the government agenda. It became a case of the "tail wagging the dog". Now most people want a return to FPTP but the system will stay as no party wants to risk losing their voice.

 

Our current system may seem unfair to Lib-Dem supporters but that's only because the party can't muster up enough votes to win more seats under the present sytem. "We want the rules changed cos we're not winning the game" Would turkeys like Christmas cancelling? Of course they would!!

:huh:

 

Do you not read what anyone says? PR WORKS IN SCOTLAND While we have a minority government it is stable and it ensures that one parties agenda is not pushed through and that the laws that pass through parliament are in the best interests of the public.

Right to satisfy an above poster and thoe who say I can't put forward an argument I'll explain why I'm against PR. It's far far more likely to produce a minority Government and require co-operation between parties as the Lib-Dems would definitely have more seats and the other fringe parties more too. The BNP and Greens would have some seats too. So it's very unlikely any party would ever have an overall majority again. I'm not sure it's even possible under PR. So you'd have different policies coming from all corners of the Commons and deals being done everywhere with the largest party. So unstable uncertain Government just like a hung parliament.

 

So those of you FOR P.R. would you be happy for the B.N.P. to have some seats then? That's one of Cameron's main arguments against it and he named the BNP in a speech. You couldn't pick and choose and say "well the BNP got enough votes to qualify for 50 seats but we won't let them have those seats as we don't like them" :rolleyes:

 

For instance, in New Zealand, following the first election under PR, no party was able to form a government for about 2 months. Finally, in the end, a party with 13% of the vote became the party controlling the government agenda. It became a case of the "tail wagging the dog". Now most people want a return to FPTP but the system will stay as no party wants to risk losing their voice.

 

Our current system may seem unfair to Lib-Dem supporters but that's only because the party can't muster up enough votes to win more seats under the present sytem. Would turkeys like Christmas cancelling? Of course they would!!

There are proportional systems which still make a majority government possible. Under the proposals put forward by the Jenkins Commission set up early in Tony Blair's first term, most elections would still produce a majority government, just not the hugely inflated majorities we've seen in four of the last six elections. Under STV (my preferred option), a party would stand a chance of gaining a majority with around 45% of the vote. The one form of PR which would guarantee that there would not be a majority government is the pure PR system used in Israel but nobody is seriously suggesting we adopt that.

 

As for the BNP, they would probably not gain any seats under STV or the Jenkins formula. Only under a form of pure PR would they be likely to get anywhere. There is no chance of them getting sufficient seats to have any power.

 

Your point about the Lib Dems is also invalid. In 1983 they (or the Alliance as it was then) got 24% of the vote, Labour got 25.4%. Labour won 209 seats, the Alliance 23. The reason for the gross disparity was that Labour's support was concentrated in their heartlands whereas Alliance support was more evenly spread. Surely under a fair system, it should be the other way round. In the last election, Lib Dem support was lower than in 1983 but - because the support was more concentrated - they got 62 seats (now up to 63 after a by-election win).

 

The voting system is one (of many) reasons why turnout is now so poor. There are far too many seats where the result is known before a single vote is cast. It's hard to argue against someone who says they aren't going to vote because of that. We have a system of one person, one vote. We need to extend it to one person, one vote, one value.

 

The current system allows a government (in this case one which got just 36% of the vote) to assume that everyone who voted for them agreed with every dot and comma of the manifesto. In reality, not a single voter agreed with everything.

 

:huh:

 

Do you not read what anyone says? PR WORKS IN SCOTLAND While we have a minority government it is stable and it ensures that one parties agenda is not pushed through and that the laws that pass through parliament are in the best interests of the public.

 

 

Yes I read that. It hasn't worked in New Zealand though so it doesn't work everywhere. Just because it worked in Scotland doesn't mean it will necessarily work in the UK.

You would not win any court case though, I am not a doctor so do not have access to your medical records but the fact you can use a PC and use it for long periods to me shows you are more than capable of using one for work purposes so if Cameron made you go out and work you would not stand a chance in any court case, doing computer related work is no more demanding on your health than posting 10 hrs a day on forums

There is a strong suspicion that the rules haven't kept up with technology. It is hard to understand - and, like you, I have no medical qualifications - how someone can be capable of posting on internet forums but could not do a job using a PC from home.

The voting system is one (of many) reasons why turnout is now so poor. There are far too many seats where the result is known before a single vote is cast. It's hard to argue against someone who says they aren't going to vote because of that. We have a system of one person, one vote. We need to extend it to one person, one vote, one value.

 

 

I think that's the only good reason for PR actually. I won't vote in May as here it's rock-solid Labour and no way will anyone other than the Labour guy be elected. Same in Barnsley, my mum says she won't vote as it's a "foregone conclusion" that Labour wins so "what's the point" Does anyone know if PR has been shown to increase turnout in any country where it's been introduced then?

Edited January 12, 201016 yr by Victor Meldrew

Yes I read that. It hasn't worked in New Zealand though so it doesn't work everywhere. Just because it worked in Scotland doesn't mean it will necessarily work in the UK.

Scotland is part of the UK dip$h!t.

 

The likelyhood of it working south of Hadrian's wall is high if it works north of Carlisle.

Scotland is part of the UK dip$h!t.

 

The likelyhood of it working south of Hadrian's wall is high if it works north of Carlisle.

 

 

So why doesn't it work in Canada then? :rolleyes:

I don't agree with pure PR because it would in all likelihood be unworkable in this country. I think I'm right in saying no party has got iver 50% in an election since WW2? And, even though I want a hung parliament for this election coming, I don't think our political system is made to have them ALL the time.

 

What I'd like to see is first-past-the-post retained, but have "supplementary vote" integrated. I.e. everyone gets a first choice and second choice vote; if no party gets over 50% of the vote in one constituency, the second choice votes get added in for the top two. As a Lib Dem supporter, I would like that because it would mean I could help increase their support, while also getting a choice in who wins out of Labour and the Tories.

So why doesn't it work in Canada then? :rolleyes:

Canada isn't part of the UK :rolleyes:

 

It's part of the commonwealth, Canada has far more in common with the United States than it does with the UK. FFS half the population speaks French!

 

Are you really that stupid? Scotland and England are on the same freaking island. There are no border controls to get between the countries, we are considered as a single entity on the world stage much to Salmonds annoyance. Scotland is part of the UNITED KINGDOM.

 

Canada is not. I can't say why it doesn't work in the commonwealth nations of Canada and NZ, but it's working out fine up here. In a country that is damn near identical in terms of culture and the political landscape as England and Wales.

Canada isn't part of the UK :rolleyes:

 

It's part of the commonwealth, Canada has far more in common with the United States than it does with the UK. FFS half the population speaks French!

 

Are you really that stupid? Scotland and England are on the same freaking island. There are no border controls to get between the countries, we are considered as a single entity on the world stage much to Salmonds annoyance. Scotland is part of the UNITED KINGDOM.

 

Canada is not. I can't say why it doesn't work in the commonwealth nations of Canada and NZ, but it's working out fine up here. In a country that is damn near identical in terms of culture and the political landscape as England and Wales.

 

Canada's political/electoral system is modelled in ours, so Chris is actually making a valid point. And let's be honest, considering the Scottish Parliament is still in its early years, it's too early to say it definitely works.

Canada's political/electoral system is modelled in ours, so Chris is actually making a valid point. And let's be honest, considering the Scottish Parliament is still in its early years, it's too early to say it definitely works.

I was meaning on a cultural basis. Canada is very different culturally to us.

 

Yes it's still early years, but nobody is complaining about the way things are done. The most noise in politics north of the border is being made about the SNP's broken election promises.

So why doesn't it work in Canada then? :rolleyes:

It doesn't work because they don't use it. Canada still uses First Past The Post.