2 parties colluding to deny voters a fair democratic voting system, Mugabe would be proud

How many million times have you been asked not to exaggerate? If you are so keen on a a fair, democratic voting system, how come you support first past the post? I don't recall you calling for an elected second chamber either. Besides, not changing the boundaries pales into insignificance behind the way American politicians (of both parties) draw the boundaries to suit their own purposes.

 

The extent to which the boundaries favour Labour is grossly exaggerated by the Tories and their pals in the press. I've started to do some number crunching to provide concrete evidence. However, I can say that, while the seats won by the Tories do have an average number of voters than Labour seats, the higher turnout in Tory seats (specifically safe Tory seats) is at least as big a factor.

 

 

Should the laws be changed? maybe, but they are acting within the law so should not be named and shamed

Well as there's nothing wrong with it - they'd have no objection to being named. If one objects to being named in such matters then one must feel a tad guilty about something.

 

People can avoid their tax as much as they like for all I care - its going on all around. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is stand up on national TV and ask people to dig deep for charity. They can stand on a cold, wet street corner with a tin if they want anything from me - like the Salvation Army lady does in Wigan! But I digress!

How many million times have you been asked not to exaggerate? If you are so keen on a a fair, democratic voting system, how come you support first past the post? I don't recall you calling for an elected second chamber either. Besides, not changing the boundaries pales into insignificance behind the way American politicians (of both parties) draw the boundaries to suit their own purposes.

 

The extent to which the boundaries favour Labour is grossly exaggerated by the Tories and their pals in the press. I've started to do some number crunching to provide concrete evidence. However, I can say that, while the seats won by the Tories do have an average number of voters than Labour seats, the higher turnout in Tory seats (specifically safe Tory seats) is at least as big a factor.

 

I am against an upper house anyways, get rid of the lords altogether, its a place where old farts go to kill time while waiting for god and a means of rewarding party donors, would be more than happy to see whole thing scrapped

 

Clegg was in favour of changing the boundaries, the whole thing was going to to through till he had his hissy fit, lib dems were committed to boundary reform

Well as there's nothing wrong with it - they'd have no objection to being named. If one objects to being named in such matters then one must feel a tad guilty about something.

 

People can avoid their tax as much as they like for all I care - its going on all around. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is stand up on national TV and ask people to dig deep for charity. They can stand on a cold, wet street corner with a tin if they want anything from me - like the Salvation Army lady does in Wigan! But I digress!

 

If their tax affairs are going to be listed so should the affairs of every tax payer as every tax payer is paying the amount legally required by the law so i cant and wont condemn the wealthy for carrying out their legal obligations like every taxpayer does.

 

Tax EVASION (totally illegal) should be dealt with severely

And it is not just the rich who do it too

 

We all pay window cleaners, builders, taxi drivers, plumbers, handymen etc in cash in hand, it is not my business but i bet a good many of them do not declare it all or indeed any to the taxman

Speak for yourself. You may like to collude with tax-dodgers but I don't.

Speak for yourself. You may like to collude with tax-dodgers but I don't.

 

I am not a policeman or a tax inspector, if a tradesman tells me 'can do it for £200 cash' then its not my job to ensure he is declaring it, whether he does or not is a matter for his own conscience/moral code, i would hope he is declaring it but its not my place to ask.

I am against an upper house anyways, get rid of the lords altogether, its a place where old farts go to kill time while waiting for god and a means of rewarding party donors, would be more than happy to see whole thing scrapped

 

Clegg was in favour of changing the boundaries, the whole thing was going to to through till he had his hissy fit, lib dems were committed to boundary reform

He was in favour of reducing the number of MPs as part of a package of reforms which included a second chamber which was predominantly elected. Cameron couldn't deliver on that so Clegg was perfectly entitled to withdraw support for the boundary changes.

 

As long as we have a voting system that allows one party to win a comfortable majority with 36% of the vote then we need another chamber made up in a different way.

I am not a policeman or a tax inspector, if a tradesman tells me 'can do it for £200 cash' then its not my job to ensure he is declaring it, whether he does or not is a matter for his own conscience/moral code, i would hope he is declaring it but its not my place to ask.

You are endorsing tax evasion just as much as you would be assisting a murderer if you supplied them with a gun knowing that they intended to use it to kill someone.

He was in favour of reducing the number of MPs as part of a package of reforms which included a second chamber which was predominantly elected. Cameron couldn't deliver on that so Clegg was perfectly entitled to withdraw support for the boundary changes.

 

As long as we have a voting system that allows one party to win a comfortable majority with 36% of the vote then we need another chamber made up in a different way.

 

I don't think we need a second chamber at all, extra costs and no real purpose, we have a house of commons and that is all we need

 

MPs plus standards watchdog to hold them to account if they get up to anything dodgy

You are endorsing tax evasion just as much as you would be assisting a murderer if you supplied them with a gun knowing that they intended to use it to kill someone.

 

I don't know if they are declaring it for tax, of course they should, but i have no means of knowing plus if i asked them at the time they would likely say yes they are anyways.

 

If i supply someone with a gun i know they are going to use it for illegal reasons, different

If their tax affairs are going to be listed so should the affairs of every tax payer

 

That was what I meant - EVERYONE'S tax receipts should be published for everyone to see. I think they do that in one of the Scandinavian countries.

That was what I meant - EVERYONE'S tax receipts should be published for everyone to see. I think they do that in one of the Scandinavian countries.

 

I would be totally against that tbh

 

It would be used for totally wrong reasons, people snooping on their neighbours to see how much they earn etc, plus potential burglars could check out the affairs of someone who lives in the house they are thinking of robbing, kids could see how much the dads of other kids are earning and bully those kids if their dad earns more etc

 

 

I don't think we need a second chamber at all, extra costs and no real purpose, we have a house of commons and that is all we need

 

MPs plus standards watchdog to hold them to account if they get up to anything dodgy

In recent years the House of Lords has a better record on civil liberties than the Commons.

 

Are you really saying that you think a party elected with 36% of the vote should be able to do whatever they like?

I would be totally against that tbh

 

It would be used for totally wrong reasons, people snooping on their neighbours to see how much they earn etc, plus potential burglars could check out the affairs of someone who lives in the house they are thinking of robbing, kids could see how much the dads of other kids are earning and bully those kids if their dad earns more etc

Because burglars couldn't have a decent guess by looking at the size of the house or the general area.

 

That doesn't mean I support publication of everyone's tax affairs. I don't but your reasoning is just plain daft.

In recent years the House of Lords has a better record on civil liberties than the Commons.

 

Are you really saying that you think a party elected with 36% of the vote should be able to do whatever they like?

 

Whoever has a majority under the first past the post system has a mandate to govern from the British people

 

Has there been any elections in modern history where a party has got 50.1% of the vote?

 

 

Whoever has a majority under the first past the post system has a mandate to govern from the British people

 

Has there been any elections in modern history where a party has got 50.1% of the vote?

The closest a party came was Labour in 1951. However, they lost. The Tories got fewer votes but more seats.

 

Of course, the Lib Dems and Tories between them got comfortably more than 50% at the last election.

Because burglars couldn't have a decent guess by looking at the size of the house or the general area.

 

That doesn't mean I support publication of everyone's tax affairs. I don't but your reasoning is just plain daft.

 

Wrong

 

The headmaster of a local school (£70k a year+) lives in a run down 2 bedroom house that he inherited off his parents, if you saw the house you would assume he was a roadsweeper or something, it is 2 bedrooms and not in a particularly nice area, but he is a well paid head teacher

 

People dont always live in massive houses if they are high earners

The closest a party came was Labour in 1951. However, they lost. The Tories got fewer votes but more seats.

 

Of course, the Lib Dems and Tories between them got comfortably more than 50% at the last election.

 

The current system is not perfect but unless we go to a 2 party system then no one will have the majority of the public on side

 

 

Wrong

 

The headmaster of a local school (£70k a year+) lives in a run down 2 bedroom house that he inherited off his parents, if you saw the house you would assume he was a roadsweeper or something, it is 2 bedrooms and not in a particularly nice area, but he is a well paid head teacher

 

People dont always live in massive houses if they are high earners

So here we go again. You use one single example in the belief that it will invalidate a generalisation. It's a stupid example anyway as it isn't hard to find out who headteachers are.

So here we go again. You use one single example in the belief that it will invalidate a generalisation. It's a stupid example anyway as it isn't hard to find out who headteachers are.

 

Another one then, Bob Crow

 

Earns a 6 figure sum a year but lives on a council estate

 

Not to mention many single people on very good incomes who live in small terraced houses because they dont need anything bigger because it is just them