I'm voting Lib Dem even though I don't even agree with half their policies, whatever it takes to prevent the two arrogant main parties treating power like their god given right, no matter how devoid of substance and integrity they are.
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]I hate Brown too. But I also detest Cameron.
I'm voting Lib Dem even though I don't even agree with half their policies, whatever it takes to prevent the two arrogant main parties treating power like their god given right, no matter how devoid of substance and integrity they are.
Have to agree with you. Because of the system, in the past, voters have been faced with a choice of tweedle dumb or tweedle dumber. It shouldn't be like that. People should be able to vote on local issues, the strength of local candidates and on their individual preferences. Unfortunately the reality is that the national campaigns and the increasingly Presidential nature and media led debates, hijacks to a large extent, the local MP for a local area basis of the current system.
That is why it needs to be changed, and why proportion of the overall vote is imperative to rebalance the system. If not it is just a quirk of where you live as to whether your vote counts.
What has been blown wide open in this campaign thus far is the standard tactic of the major parties in chosing their target seats and focussing most of their resources on those people who happen to live there, hasn't worked. Hence the chopping and changing of messages and direction of resources.
We need a system where not just a narrow group of electors really count. That is why PR is vital. So that all our votes have the same value. If a party gets more than 50% of the vote then they have the democratic mandate. Any other result means that politicians have to find common ground.
This is only the start of democratic renewal. If we have effectively a presidential style election, then there need to be checks and balances built into the system, separating to a great extent, the executive from the legislature. Otherwise you will continue with MPs being forced to whip through laws without the scrutiny they need in a modern democracy.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]
What has been blown wide open in this campaign thus far is the standard tactic of the major parties in chosing their target seats and focussing most of their resources on those people who happen to live there, hasn't worked. Hence the chopping and changing of messages and direction of resources.
bingaddick,
the Lib Dems are well known as the past masters of that strategy. What's more it is also well known that they say one thing in constituencies where they are 2nd to the Tories and the opposite in seats where they are challenging Labour.
By all means vote for the Lib Dems if you like their policies but this holier than thou stuff from Clegg (including on expenses and party funding) really is a tad nauseating.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite] People should be able to vote on local issues, the strength of local candidates and on their individual preferences. Unfortunately the reality is that the national campaigns and the increasingly Presidential nature and media led debates, hijacks to a large extent, the local MP for a local area basis of the current system.
We need a system where not just a narrow group of electors really count. That is why PR is vital. So that all our votes have the same value. If a party gets more than 50% of the vote then they have the democratic mandate. Any other result means that politicians have to find common ground.
One of the big problems with PR is that it tends to umdermine the local constituency connection - how would you reconcile that?
[cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite]
One of the big problems with PR is that it tends to umdermine the local constituency connection - how would you reconcile that?
As stated above I think we need a major overhaul of the system but we will never get the revolution we need for this to occur and PR will not work in the current parliamentary system. The way I see it, the local MP could do the same role if he was effectively a councillor, and doesn't need to be concerned with national issues.
The only argument I can see for keeping the system as it is is for local MPs to act as a control mechanism so as to avoid whoever is elected becoming autocratic.
No idea on what would be better but PR is not the answer.
[cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite]
One of the big problems with PR is that it tends to umdermine the local constituency connection - how would you reconcile that?
No idea on what would be better but PR is not the answer.
Totally agree with that - though probably would be fine for an elected 2nd chamber
1) An elected House of Lords that operates in a similar way to the US Senate, with a representative for each region/county/area
2) Two ballots in each election. One for local MP and one for the party of choice. Half of the MPs elected locally, half through party lists. I think this is called AV+ or something
3) A system like they use for local elections in Scotland and in elections in Australia and Ireland. Multi-seat constituencies with a combination of proportional representation and single transferable vote. They're difficult to count, but very easy to cast a vote - just rate the candidates from 1 down to as far as you want to go. End up with local MPs that are elected reasonably proportionally
A combination of 1 and 3 would be my preferred option. I really don't like the idea of party lists.
"Bigoted woman". I think Gordy's just had his Kinnock-moment (except that the Welsh Windbag was about 40 points higher in the opinion polls at the time!)
[cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite]"Bigoted woman". I think Gordy's just had his Kinnock-moment (except that the Welsh Windbag was about 40 points higher in the opinion polls at the time!)
Is he talking about Harriett Harman and her prejudice against men again?
[cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite]"Bigoted woman". I think Gordy's just had his Kinnock-moment (except that the Welsh Windbag was about 40 points higher in the opinion polls at the time!)
Was the line "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..." that shows how phony it all is. Cameron and Clegg needn't bother turning up tomorrow night with brown already alienating the norvern working class like that!
I would welcome all 3 of IA's ideas. Personally the party I would like to see at a local level aren't the same as those who I want to run the country. No way will Cameron go along with number 1!
Whenever anyone (not just Gordy) apologises these days it is always: "I apologise IF what I said caused offence...." There's no IF about it Gordy, of course it caused bloomin' offence.
Sorry to rub it in lads.
Love the way Gordon is blaming the media for listening making him wear a microphone and his aides for allowing him to meet the public, sums him up really.
The only way Labour can turn this around is to play on the fact that it was a Rupert Murdoch microphone and that Sky have chosen to broadcast a private conversation. Once he was in the car Sky had no right (I don't think any way) to broadcast a private conversation. They have got to try and portray Brown as the victim of Rupert Murdoch's multi national media corporation and its incessant attacks on the Labour party.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]has anyone actually seen the interview, was she bigoted or not?
I have just seen it. She was making her points very stongly but politely and they parted on good terms. I just cannot understand why he should have those thoughts never mind express them to someone in the car.
I don't think the spin doctors will be able to get Labour out of this. This is the most stupid gaff I have ever seen in an election campaign.
once you were sure you weren't going to get a majority or ever improve on it, why would you cling on anyway, however its amazing that Lab could still get the most seats. Hung parliament and the deficit, who the eff would want to be in power anyway, I'd take the pension and save my blood pressure, thanks!
she mentioned "all these eastern europeans coming over here". Nothing bad, but technically she is bigoted. Can't really be saying that kind of thing about the public though.
Ironically he came across really well with it, and dealt with it well. And it was a private conversation that has been broadcast, although never good looking two-faced...
[quote][cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]has anyone actually seen the interview, was she bigoted or not?[/quote]
Comment in question
Gillian Duffy: You can’t say anything about the immigrants because you’re saying that you’re... but all these eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from?
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]The multi-seat constituency has long been my preferred option.
EG Bromley and Bexley is one 6 seat constituency. All voters have 6 votes and they can be allocated to any 6 candidates.
Could be 6 tories or 6 labour or could be 4 tories plus one vote for the good lib-dem councillor and 1 for the Charlton supporting Labourite.
Most likely most seats would go to the tories as now but maybe or or two would be lib-dem or tory.
You still have a local MP, in fact you have 6 to choose from.
Yep, mine as well.
With the old patterns of social interaction becoming more virtual than actual much of the time due to the kind of life we all lead now, MPs can be in touch with their constituents much more simply than in the past.
Peanuts, I hear this mantra all the time about Lib Dem skulldugery and then the attack of the "nauseating"
holier then thou put down. Frankly of course they are not whiter than white but take it from me, it has been incredibly hard to elect a third party MP against the back drop of "the wasted vote" argument", the actions of vested interests, be it money, be it Union representation, or be it bias in the press.
Two wrongs don't make a right but if you think that the two other main parties do not get up to their own tricks, you really should get out more.
There is a three horse race at the moment yet in the last week, the Tories received £2M + of funding, Labour received £1M + of funding and the Lib Dems received £120K which was £100K up on the previous week.
In light of this and accepting the Lib Dems will try to make the most of situations north and south, frankly they have very little to apologise for given how vast the resources and how big the advantages are of the two other main parties.
One final thing I would say is, that supporters of the two other main parties attack the Lib Dems for supporting PR because they say it is just them trying to change the system to their advantage. That, I am afraid is completely wrong. We support PR because we believe that it will benefit the country and lead to greater engagement in the political process and that ultimately its about fairness and votes counting equally. If you don't believe me, look at what happened in the Scottish Parliament. The greatest beneficiaries politically have been the Tories, who were wiped out on first past the post, and the SNP who could never make the break through because of the way their vote was spread around equally.
There was a feature on the Scottish Parliament (yes Daggs/GH I know they have their own and we don't and that is wrong I agree) and their hung parliament.
Seems it works fine and seems to put some checks and balances into decision making.
As for Gordon I think he should just go for it. Say "Sod all this profiling bollax, the economy is shot and I'm not going win so I'm going tell you all the dirty secrets".
Wouldn't get him any votes but it would be fun to hear.
Comments
I'm voting Lib Dem even though I don't even agree with half their policies, whatever it takes to prevent the two arrogant main parties treating power like their god given right, no matter how devoid of substance and integrity they are.
Have to agree with you. Because of the system, in the past, voters have been faced with a choice of tweedle dumb or tweedle dumber. It shouldn't be like that. People should be able to vote on local issues, the strength of local candidates and on their individual preferences. Unfortunately the reality is that the national campaigns and the increasingly Presidential nature and media led debates, hijacks to a large extent, the local MP for a local area basis of the current system.
That is why it needs to be changed, and why proportion of the overall vote is imperative to rebalance the system. If not it is just a quirk of where you live as to whether your vote counts.
What has been blown wide open in this campaign thus far is the standard tactic of the major parties in chosing their target seats and focussing most of their resources on those people who happen to live there, hasn't worked. Hence the chopping and changing of messages and direction of resources.
We need a system where not just a narrow group of electors really count. That is why PR is vital. So that all our votes have the same value. If a party gets more than 50% of the vote then they have the democratic mandate. Any other result means that politicians have to find common ground.
This is only the start of democratic renewal. If we have effectively a presidential style election, then there need to be checks and balances built into the system, separating to a great extent, the executive from the legislature. Otherwise you will continue with MPs being forced to whip through laws without the scrutiny they need in a modern democracy.
bingaddick,
the Lib Dems are well known as the past masters of that strategy. What's more it is also well known that they say one thing in constituencies where they are 2nd to the Tories and the opposite in seats where they are challenging Labour.
By all means vote for the Lib Dems if you like their policies but this holier than thou stuff from Clegg (including on expenses and party funding) really is a tad nauseating.
One of the big problems with PR is that it tends to umdermine the local constituency connection - how would you reconcile that?
As stated above I think we need a major overhaul of the system but we will never get the revolution we need for this to occur and PR will not work in the current parliamentary system. The way I see it, the local MP could do the same role if he was effectively a councillor, and doesn't need to be concerned with national issues.
The only argument I can see for keeping the system as it is is for local MPs to act as a control mechanism so as to avoid whoever is elected becoming autocratic.
No idea on what would be better but PR is not the answer.
Totally agree with that - though probably would be fine for an elected 2nd chamber
1) An elected House of Lords that operates in a similar way to the US Senate, with a representative for each region/county/area
2) Two ballots in each election. One for local MP and one for the party of choice. Half of the MPs elected locally, half through party lists. I think this is called AV+ or something
3) A system like they use for local elections in Scotland and in elections in Australia and Ireland. Multi-seat constituencies with a combination of proportional representation and single transferable vote. They're difficult to count, but very easy to cast a vote - just rate the candidates from 1 down to as far as you want to go. End up with local MPs that are elected reasonably proportionally
A combination of 1 and 3 would be my preferred option. I really don't like the idea of party lists.
Is he talking about Harriett Harman and her prejudice against men again?
:-)
Was the line "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..." that shows how phony it all is. Cameron and Clegg needn't bother turning up tomorrow night with brown already alienating the norvern working class like that!
EG Bromley and Bexley is one 6 seat constituency. All voters have 6 votes and they can be allocated to any 6 candidates.
Could be 6 tories or 6 labour or could be 4 tories plus one vote for the good lib-dem councillor and 1 for the Charlton supporting Labourite.
Most likely most seats would go to the tories as now but maybe or or two would be lib-dem or tory.
You still have a local MP, in fact you have 6 to choose from.
Sorry to rub it in lads.
The only way Labour can turn this around is to play on the fact that it was a Rupert Murdoch microphone and that Sky have chosen to broadcast a private conversation. Once he was in the car Sky had no right (I don't think any way) to broadcast a private conversation. They have got to try and portray Brown as the victim of Rupert Murdoch's multi national media corporation and its incessant attacks on the Labour party.
Where is Alastair Campbell when you need him?
I have just seen it. She was making her points very stongly but politely and they parted on good terms. I just cannot understand why he should have those thoughts never mind express them to someone in the car.
I don't think the spin doctors will be able to get Labour out of this. This is the most stupid gaff I have ever seen in an election campaign.
Ironically he came across really well with it, and dealt with it well. And it was a private conversation that has been broadcast, although never good looking two-faced...
Comment in question
Gillian Duffy: You can’t say anything about the immigrants because you’re saying that you’re... but all these eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from?
(from http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/2010/04/28/gordon-brown-bigoted-woman-the-transcript-91466-26336255/ )
Wouldnt say it was bigoted, bigoted is a very strong word
Yep, mine as well.
With the old patterns of social interaction becoming more virtual than actual much of the time due to the kind of life we all lead now, MPs can be in touch with their constituents much more simply than in the past.
Peanuts, I hear this mantra all the time about Lib Dem skulldugery and then the attack of the "nauseating"
holier then thou put down. Frankly of course they are not whiter than white but take it from me, it has been incredibly hard to elect a third party MP against the back drop of "the wasted vote" argument", the actions of vested interests, be it money, be it Union representation, or be it bias in the press.
Two wrongs don't make a right but if you think that the two other main parties do not get up to their own tricks, you really should get out more.
There is a three horse race at the moment yet in the last week, the Tories received £2M + of funding, Labour received £1M + of funding and the Lib Dems received £120K which was £100K up on the previous week.
In light of this and accepting the Lib Dems will try to make the most of situations north and south, frankly they have very little to apologise for given how vast the resources and how big the advantages are of the two other main parties.
One final thing I would say is, that supporters of the two other main parties attack the Lib Dems for supporting PR because they say it is just them trying to change the system to their advantage. That, I am afraid is completely wrong. We support PR because we believe that it will benefit the country and lead to greater engagement in the political process and that ultimately its about fairness and votes counting equally. If you don't believe me, look at what happened in the Scottish Parliament. The greatest beneficiaries politically have been the Tories, who were wiped out on first past the post, and the SNP who could never make the break through because of the way their vote was spread around equally.
Seems it works fine and seems to put some checks and balances into decision making.
As for Gordon I think he should just go for it. Say "Sod all this profiling bollax, the economy is shot and I'm not going win so I'm going tell you all the dirty secrets".
Wouldn't get him any votes but it would be fun to hear.
Don't think that and didn't say it