Lord Duckhunter

So it could happen? Surely we shouldn't be electing MP's on the basis of who we dont want? If you want a constituency based system, then surely the MP should be the person who gets the most votes in that constituency. Surely the only form of pure PR is the seats being divided up into % of the vote. MP's are then selected from party lists. I would rather keep a constituency based system where we can chuck out our Portillo's ,Hamilton's and Smith's. Without constituency based MP's who is going to stick up for the local areas with small populations? Who is going to ask at PMQ's about hospital closures and local issues?

So you want to abolish the Constituency based system as well?

If Party A got 49% Party B 16% Party C 15% Party D 10% Party E 10% Party B could still win, how is that fair?

From what I can make out, as it's very complicated, Someone could be elected without being the first choice of any voter in that area. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

So you will do away with the constituency based system?

You still haven't answered the question, please explain your "fair" system.

Please explain this "fair and democratic" system to me.

I wish people would stop using the general term PR. What type of PR do they want? Do they want pure PR where the % of the vote is equal to the seats you get. In this case it'll see the end of constituency based MP's, with MP's selected from Party lists. You could not kick out Jackie Smith, or Neil Hamilton, there would be no more Portillo moments.Also certain areas of the Country will be under represented, the west country or Scottish Highlands could be forgotton about, as they're votes wont matter. Parties can concentrate their policies to the high population urban areas and big cities. If you want to maintain constituency based MP's then there will always be an element of unfairness in the system. I have an open mind and can be persuaded of a change to the system, however I believe we must have the option of kicking out local MP's and have the option of local independants standing on local issues (I forget his name,but there was an MP elected fighting against closure of his local hospital), we mess with hundreds of years of a constituency based system at our peril.

They got the same vote as Labour in '05, but because the system is biased in Labour's favour, that resulted in a 64 seat Labour majority. Labour lost close to 100 seats, got wiped out in most of the South and yet the Tory's lost

So UKIP "got their vote out" for those elections. How do you explain the Torys topping the poll? The original post was rallying against the Torys extreme views on Europe and yet in the election that puts Europe firmly on the agenda, they top the poll (followed by the withdrawal Party). Perhaps, (and the sandal wearers wont like this), the Tory and UKIP views are in fact Britain's mainstream view on Europe and it's the lefties that are extreme and out of touch.

How do you explain The Torys and UKIP being first and second in the European elcetions then? The one election when Europe is top of the agenda, the EUROPEAN ELECTIONS, Labour and Lib/Dems came 3rd and 4th. The Torys came first, followed by a fringe party who want to withdraw. The fact the pro European loons were completely routed, goes against your theory somewhat.

More people voted for the Torys in England than anyone else. They were the most popular party in England.

Lord Steele was making the point this morning that you can not hold a referendum without putting it through Parliament first. This "Rainbow Coallition" of yours has a very slim majority, as a result of all of them losing seats in the latest election. They will need every Labour MP to vote for PR and there are plenty who oppose it. It will then need to go through the Lords who could block it. The "rainbow coalition" members can not afford another election in 12 weeks as they're all skint. There is no way a new voting system can be cobbled together and agreed in 12 weeks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1654931.ece

If you're on £50,000, you shouldn't get benefits end of. Why should my taxes pay for people who earn good money to have Children. How can Labour slag of the Torys giving married people a tax break and then give people on £50,000 a year benefit because they have loads of children (and I'm speaking as a Father of 4, so have nothing against big families)

The Labour party will never have a female leader. Can you see the Brothers voting for one? They have a very old fashioned approach to female's despite appearing to welcome them. Look at Brown's attitude towards "that women" Gillian Duffy, and Caroline Flint's resignation because she was just eye candy. They put the all women candidates up, to appear "right on", but would not let one anywhere near the leadership.There's a few old leftie hags like Beckett about (who are given Deputy Leader's jobs), but it's a male dominated party, who would never elect a women.

Only the labour party can tax someone at 40% as opposed to the basic rate, and then give them benefits. It is their cack handed way of nannying us all. It's quite simple, if someone requires help/benefits, they shouldn't be on the highest rate of tax.

Correct, and dont forget Ed Balls and Harriot Harman, class warriors who also attended fee paying schools. The problem with Labour is the double standards. They send their own children to private schools whilst playing the class warriors. Look at that great leftie Diane Abbot, opposed to private schools and yet sends her offspring to one. Who came from a normal middle class family and went on to become Prime Minister, a certain Mrs M Thatcher a grocer's daughter. To all the right on lefties in the Labour party, when are you going to have a female leader, the dinosaur's in the Tory party did it a generation ago? Surely Maggie ticks all their boxes, female and not posh. It's about time Labour moved into the new century and gave a woman a chance.

Haven't voted yet, polling station is next door to a pub,so Will tell Mrs Duck I'm off to vote, and maybe get a swift couple in while she's watching Eastenders.Haven't decided whether UKIP or Torys. Tory majority of 6,000 last time, but a combined Lib/Dem, Labour vote can reign that back, so I might have to forsake UKIP and go Tory.

Let's hope he's ok, we need more people in politics like Nigel. Top, top man.

The lefties wont go out in the rain as it ruins their sandals.

Todays Labour party ar a far cry from the 1970's and 80's and that is because of the Torys. Time and time again the public rejected their core socialist beliefs, so they changed them. To get elected they had to turn to a man who sounded like a Tory, with policies that could appeal to many of the Tory wets. It's telling that once they return to an old Labour figure and engage in a bit of the old class warfare and tax the rich, they're heading for another election defeat. Yet again the Torys will have to come in and clear up Labour's mess.

I'm sure you dont want a history lesson on the Callaghan govt. All Labour Govt's put tax up and run out of money, and this one was no different.

I am old enough to remember what the last labour Govt did to this Country, and of course we all know what this one did.

I thought John Major was leader. The Torys turned against Maggie. Hezza, Ken Clarke, Chris Pattern and the other wet's in the Tory Party caused the massive defeat, their obsession with the ERM as a forerunner of the Euro was a diaster.