Lord Duckhunter

Nick Clegg ordered his MP's to abstain in the Tory amendment to the ratification.This amendment called for a referendum, and was defeated by 63 votes.29 brave Labour rebels voted to honour their manifesto pledge and 13 Lib/Dems defied their leader and voted to honour their's.

Their 2005 manifesto gave a commitment to a referendum on the constituation, but they went back on it.

The problem with pure PR is it gives smaller parties a bigger say than their vote deserves. You could end up with UKIP having 3 seats, but those 3 seats giving the Tories the balance of power. This means that the UKIP MP's decide who the British Prime Minister is despite having a very low % of the vote. Cast your mind back to the Ulster peace process that started under the Major Govt. Imagine if the Major Govt were part of a coalition that included the Unionists, or they needed the Unionists to stay in power. You have to have a constituency based system so that all the people of these islands get representation. If it was just the popular vote, then the party that could concentrate on the South east/London area, to the detriment of others. Even in America Presidents are elected not by the popular vote, but by an electoral collage. Surely the simplest thing in the world would be for the candidate that gains over 50% of the vote wins, but the founding fathers made sure that the smaller states had representation. Our Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the most seats, not the party that gains the most votes. The debates have skewed our system somewhat and people are starting to think along the lines of "I'll vote for Clegg/Brown/Cameron, instead of voting for a local MP. Pure PR means parties get a say in who is your representative, no kicking Portillo out in '97 or Jackie Smith this time over her expanses, no Martin Bell kicking out Neil Hamilton. Say what you want about the Tories, but they've always been consistent about this, even in their dark years where Hague and Howard were getting an electoral kicking, they never critised the system. Gordon Brown can see power ebbing away, so despite having 13 years to do so, is now talking about electoral reform. Talk about a cynical move, that tells you all you need to know about the modern Labour Party. The other parties are always going to go for reform, it's the only way the BNP, UKIP or the Greens will get seats. I can see the need for electoral reform as the Country seems to be crying out for it, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any reform must be constituency based and not based on Party Lists. Personally the AV system seems best for me, it would mean that candidates are sent to Westminster with more than 50% of their constituents voting for them. The whole electoral reform debate should take place involving all aspects of the way we're governed, not just one. The House of Lords, Monarchy, and devolution for England should all be looked out. It's one thing for Alex Salmond to go on about the unfairness of the electoral system, whilst he can vote on things that affect me, but my MP can't vote on things that affect his constituents. Fairness should not just be about what's fair for your party, but what's fair for the whole UK.

Didn't seem "inbuilt" when they went back on their word over the Constitiuation.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Does that include the person with the biggest "heriditary advantage" in the Country, the Queen? If so, maybe some good may come out of PR.

I dont even care too much about the UK, the sooner the rest of them leave us English to run our own Country the better.

We have the poor, the rich and people in the middle. In my opinion only the poor should get WFTC. It's basically welfare and yet you can be a 40% tax payer and still claim Child Benefit and WFTC. How can that be right? As for your tax post and your table of European taxes, you seem to be basing our "about average" standing on the 3 categorys. One of which is maximum tax rate. can I remind you this is going up from 40%, to 50%. Does that still makes us "about average"? We have one of the highest fuel duties and yet our roads are a disgrace, why is that? If more tax was the answer to everything then Labours 33% basic rate of 1979, would have brought more money in than Thatcher's cuts.

The French people are generally lefties, and pretty militant ones at that. We have leftie tax rates, without the decent services that they have .

When I was a teenager I lost a pretty decent job for lying on my CV. My Dad's mate had made up a load of exam passes on his CV years ago, and had got away with it. He went on to be a very successful businessman. I had English Language O level, but not Maths. I lied on my CV saying I had maths as well. I was offered the job subject to providing my certificates. My old man went through the roof, which I found a bit strange because I only did it because his mate had done it ok. I employ people now and only check the last few years, so my advise would be very accurate for the past 10 years, but further back than that it's not so important.

I did like their slogan "British jobs for British workers", That was their slogan, wasn't it?

Do you pay for prescriptions? What's the difference? The French are a bunch of Lefties and yet they pay to see a Doctor, and claim a % back later. There is no great difference in the quality of care between private and public hospitals in France and there is not necessarily any great difference in price. Being treated in private clinics in France does not mean avoiding waiting lists for the simple reason that, with a few specific exceptions, waiting lists such as those in the UK do not exist. And going private does not mean you will have to foot the entire bill. Unlike in the UK in France treatment, whether private or public, is not free at the point of delivery. Even if you subscribe to the Sécurité sociale, on seeing a doctor you first pay the full bill and are then reimbursed at a later date (about 10 days). Generally speaking, Sécurité sociale refunds 70 per cent of the cost of a visit to a a GP or family doctor and most specialistes. If those bunch of militant lefties dont mind paying for a decent health service, why cant we?

The massive waste in public spending should be addressed before they take any more money out of the hard working tax payer's pockets. Stop WFTC for middle earners Stop Child Benefit for Middle and High earners. Charge people who can afford it £5 to see the Doctor Stop wasting our money on Govt information and advertisments. There is a perfectly valid arguement for reducing tax rates to stimulate the economy, but the lefties and the BBC (like with the immigration issue) closed it down. "How many nurses will you get rid of with the X amount you're taking out of the economy with this tax break" is the line every time. If you let the people keep more of their money through tax cuts, the people will start to spend more.This in turn will mean that the areas that they spend more in, whether it be pubs, restraunts, shops, Supermarkets, travel agents, or whatever, need to take on more people because of the increased demend.More goods are bought and therefore more need manufacturing. The people taken on due to the increased demend, pay tax and also start to spend more of their money than before, and this circle goes on and on, up and up. It is a fact that more money was going into the public revenue after Mrs Thatcher brought the basic rate of tax down from Labours 33% basic rate. Why was that? Because tax cuts work in the way described above. The lefties answer to any economic problem is tax rises, yet every Labour Govt ends up running out of money.

I dont think they were taking the Mick, I think they were being serious. Look at how uncomfortable Brown was.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8641849.stm

I've just seen it on the news, if you thought Nick Griffin's St George was weird yesterday, then what was that? "The Wonder of you" sung by Elvis with Mrs Brown joining in. What was it he said, "If you want someone serious, I'm your Man". What would Harold Wilson, Kier Hardie and Nye Bevin make of that Elvis nonsense? I'm starting to come to the opinion that Alister Campbell and Mandy want to humilate Brown, as pay back for his treatment of Blair. What other reason was there for that? Perhaps I've got a "Suspious mind", but if Brown continues like this, he's going to come "way down" on polling day.

In the light of their new approach to Politics, perhaps the Lib/dems would answer the questions, rather than throw abuse. I thought they were above that sort of thing. Whilst on the subject of St Nick Clegg's clean up campaign, whens he going to pay back the £2.4million of stolen money from Michael Brown, they've kept?

Spot on. There are so many unanswered questions that the Sandal wearers refuse to answer. How long will thet get to come forward for the amnesty, because surely they wont know which areas need some "regional immigration" and which dont until they see where the amnesty lot are? Clegg tried to push Cameron on the number that he would cap immigration at, so surely Clegg should answer which regions can take immigrants and how many. How long can they work in an "allowed immigration" area before they can branch out into another area, or are they stuck there for life.I can see 60 years from now, "Grandpa, how come you lived on the Isle of Wight all your life? " "You'ld better ask that nice Mr Clegg". Are the wives and Chidren allowed into these controlled immigration areas only? Once the children are of working age, can they move or do they have to stay put?

Clegg attacked Cameron's policy of setting a cap on immigration, perhaps one of his many supporters could explain the difference between that, and no immigration in some areas and a cap in others?

Clegg said they had to live where local services could take them. How do you enforce this? How can we stop them commuting from areas that have too much immigration, where Clegg doesn't allow any more immigration, to a job in areas where they can work. The job permit part I understand, but how do you enforce where they live? What is the difference between the Tory policy (attacked by Clegg) of a certain number in the UK, and Clegg's of a certain number in certain areas?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure Mr Clegg said yesterday they have to live in areas where the local services and schools can take them. How are they going to enforce this? For example a Doc from India can only work in the UK as a Doc, say in a NHS hospital in my home town of Poole, because there is a shortage. Poole's local services and schools can cope with his family. What if he wants to live in Ealing with his Dad from India's schoolboy friend who moved here years ago, and commute to Poole. The Ealing schools and local services are over run and if he wanted to work in Ealing, would not be able to do so. How do the Lib/Dems stop him living in Ealing, but working in Poole. Are there going to be Border Police on the Train to waterloo, will he have to report to Poole police station weekly,or will the border police call at his given address in Poole to check he's still there. The Lib/Dems are against ID cards for immigrants, so how can we check where he's living? What happens when his children become 16, are they automatically allowed to work in Ealing or are they restricted to Poole? If he has 6 children and they want to live in an already saturated immigrant area, surely they are going to compound the problem. Nick Clegg attacked Cameron for setting a limit/number on Immigration, but surely he's done the same only regionally. Once Poole reaches it's limit, no more immigration, Cameron's saying once the UK reaches it's limit, no more immigration , what's the difference?

I'm still waiting for the sandal brigade to explain the "regional immigration policy". They seem to be ducking the issue.

So is that the Lib/Dems plan. Come forward for the amnesty, and we'll deport you? I think Mr Griffin might go for that one. None of the sandal wearers have answered the question. If they can prove they've been here for 10 years and have real evidence, why cant the Lib/Dems track them down and chuck them out?

I was being serious.

What evidence? His pay slips? Council tax bill? Knowing the Labour Govt, he'd proberly be able to provide his benefits book. If he can provide evidence, then he can be found and chucked out. I have some knowledge of living illigally having done so in the past. For 4 years, I worked in the US and met countless others doing the same. Believe me, there would have been no trace of me, and no way I could prove I'd been living there for 4 years.I paid no tax, had a dodgy driving licence, paid my rent in cash with a false name, and generally went about my daily life leaving no trace. I even got fined $96 for disorderly intoxication and still left no trace.