Falling in Love...

[MOBIUS]

I am the very epitome of moderation, which is why I'm always surprised that more people don't realise that.

Actually, I thought your comments were a bit strange at the time, but now they make perfect sense if you were trolling...

[MikeH]

Well...

I do think UKIP are extremist nutcases.
I do prefer Alternative Vote to full PR, 'cause of the reasons I mentioned about voting for an individual rather than a party list.

But I don't think extremist nutcases should be excluded from parliament just because one disagrees with their beliefs. Or that the system should be designed to exclude them. That bit was meant as a joke but when C0ckney took it seriously I decided to run with it.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Full PR is the best, AV is better than first past the post.

Full PR makes democracy work better as the politicans can change quicker, and they keep each other on their toes more. While the stability seems like a price to pay, that is minor inconvenience, as the people get more influence over the politics, and the centre of the population is easier to find. In UK due to the current system you are lucky to have a three party group due to historical developments, and not a full duopoly. It is a lot harder for lobbyists and powerful influence brokers to control a PR based democracy than the more "stable" systems.

[C0ckney]

oh yeah that old chesnut. saying it was all just a joke when your fascist tendencies are exposed eh mike...

[MOBIUS]

I know, I was shocked...

[Cort Haus]

A good piece by Simon Jenkins in The Guardian

When the ship sinks, the elite grab all the lifeboats

Gilded professionals mobilise friends in the media to lobby against cuts – if only the poor could do the same

[MOBIUS]

Is this about the utter hypocrisy of the top 10% earners suddenly up in arms because they're getting THEIR child benefits cut - oh the horror!

Not to mention the fact that it's the Daily HateMail that's leading the charge! Oh the ****ing hypocrisy of it all makes my blood boil!

I bet only a week ago they were all tittering away at the thought of the unwashed lazy feckless dole-scum poor losing their benefits - and quite right too!

C*nts!

[C0ckney]

1. AV will give you a voice in Parliament even if you vote for a minor party. Your preference will flow to the person you judge next best. In this way, political parties will be forced to seek common ground shared by the electorate as a whole in an effort to win office by way of support of the entire electorate.

it's not much of a voice if the minor party that a lot of people vote for doesn't get any seats!

2. The region-based system of parliamentary representation is perfectly sound and is an improvement over the system of proportional representation. It creates a system of direct accountability to the public rather than accountability to the party. You must, as a member, always be seen to be acting in the interests of your locality, or you will be voted out of office. Equally party wheeling and dealing by you, as a member, will lead the local electorate to kick you out. You simply will not win. You win office not just on the basis of party political deals but on your own abilities, and your ability to win the confidence of the electorate.

In a national system you may win office partly because of these qualities but those who do win office are more likely to be mere party hacks, with all the corruption entailed. There is also a tendency to sacrifice to a greater degree the national interest will in favour of minority interests in such a system, merely in an effort to win minority support.

i'm sorry but this is just guff really. under FPTP we have this so called 'local accountability' but in practice it means little. hacks and apparatciks are simply parachuted into safe seats. there are seats in this country where devil himself would win a handsome majority if he was wearing a red or blue rosette.

as i said before, the problem is that in the UK that the number of seats given to each party does not reflect well the number of votes that each party gets. that is the reason that people are arguing for electoral reform in the first place. my point is that the change being proposed will not remedy this defect in a satisfactory way, and, in certain circumstances, may even make it worse. i'm certainly interested in hearing about other types of electoral reform, but only if they address the major problem.

[OzzyKP]

Is this about the utter hypocrisy of the top 10% earners suddenly up in arms because they're getting THEIR child benefits cut - oh the horror!

Not to mention the fact that it's the Daily HateMail that's leading the charge! Oh the ****ing hypocrisy of it all makes my blood boil!

I bet only a week ago they were all tittering away at the thought of the unwashed lazy feckless dole-scum poor losing their benefits - and quite right too!

C*nts!

Well hopefully the government gets some respect for cutting everyone. If the rich and the poor are both complaining, then it seems like they are being pretty fair about it.

[Zevico]

It is fascinating to see so many wishing to go backward to a place from whence De Gaulle went forward.

[JackRudd]

Alternative Vote isn't particularly great, although I certainly prefer it to the Plurality voting system we currently have. I'd prefer Approval Voting; it does the same job of minimizing the spoiler problem, while not being subject to the voting paradoxes that plague Alternative Vote.

[Imran Siddiqui]

AV > PR. PR is just a ****ing mess, gives the smaller parties far more power than their votes would suggest, merely because they'd have to be courted to make a majority.

[MikeH]

^ That.

[Dauphin]

Is this about the utter hypocrisy of the top 10% earners suddenly up in arms because they're getting THEIR child benefits cut - oh the horror!

Not to mention the fact that it's the Daily HateMail that's leading the charge! Oh the ****ing hypocrisy of it all makes my blood boil!

I bet only a week ago they were all tittering away at the thought of the unwashed lazy feckless dole-scum poor losing their benefits - and quite right too!

C*nts!

Most top rate tax payers I know think its a good idea. I don't think there is much of a movement here, loud voices maybe, but not a following.

[MikeH]

Is this about the utter hypocrisy of the top 10% earners suddenly up in arms because they're getting THEIR child benefits cut - oh the horror!

Not to mention the fact that it's the Daily HateMail that's leading the charge! Oh the ****ing hypocrisy of it all makes my blood boil!

I bet only a week ago they were all tittering away at the thought of the unwashed lazy feckless dole-scum poor losing their benefits - and quite right too!

C*nts!

I think the protests are based around the unfairness of this:

Family with 1 income above 44k - Lose child benefit
Family with 2 incomes of combined 86k (43k each) - Keep child benefit

The fact that Child benefit currently goes direct to the mother is also very important. And the administration of means testing is likely to remove a lot of the savings.

I'm fully behind means testing it, but that method is retarded.