Stand Correctedā¦
He still has never been in power. Neither has UKIP. And it may be interesting to see what they would attack first?
Anyway, Iām all for UKIP, Farage is one of the funniest people Iāve EVER met in my lifeā¦ Had lunch with him at college, and then he gave a talk to the college afterwards. It lasted about half an hour and for 90% of the time we were in stitches 
So is there any subtle difference between AV and Proprtional Representation, or are the principles exactly the same ?
Thereās a stark difference in the fact that AV isnāt proportional and Proportional Rep. is
Would be happy to discuss sometime itās all very very long and boringā¦ welcome to part of my life 
Because I havenāt had time really to look into it, I was under the impression that we were voting either for First Past the Post (majoritarian) or a PR based model (similar to the way we vote for the European Parliament.) But the more I look into it it seems that AV is actually far more similar to the First Past the Post than it is to PR.
So am now re thinking my whole vote.
Itās by far a better voting system than FPTPā¦ It means you never really waste a voteā¦ you can have a second, and even a third choice. It also means that one wont get into power without MORE than 50% of the vote in that constituency, whereas right now they can get in with sometimes perhaps 30% of 20% of the votesā¦ which surely is unfair???
Kaos, really didnāt want to get drawn into this, but youāre talking bollocks. Apart from the wars and global economic meltdown, the Labour party spent all the money that had been accumulated since they were in power in the '70s, then borrowed more. They put up every tax under the sun and swore that they werenāt. They increased immigration massively, to the point where the ānativeā population donāt really know who they are any more. They we every bit as the previous Conservative regime, taking money for peerages, taking money from Eccelstone to pay off the Labour Party debt, taking money from the anti hunt lobby in return for laws. Tony Blair was the first serving PM in history to be interviewed by the Police about his role n cash for peerages. Heās likely to be slammed by the Iraq inquiry for āmisleadingā or lying if you will, to Parliament.
Instead of making serious attempts to improve job prospects in the North, they just employing armies of civil servants and increasing the size of councils just to maximise the share of the labour vote. They changed voting boundaries to ensure that Labour politicians had more chance of being elected.
The general population will not be worse off under this administration if they have proper jobs that create wealth for them and their families. This government has already increased tax breaks for investors in businesses. This will encourage people to invest in small enterprises, which will employ more people and grow the economy. Where I work, a lot of the outsourced staff from Asia are going home: local British people are being employed instead, which will increase tax revenues, take more young people out of unemployment and give them a real future.
Instead of swallowing the left-wing diatribe and trying to change the world, look at economics and apply some common sense.
Simples.
This is why I gave this argument a swerve and chose not to argue against it, way to complicated and not gonna change anybodies opinions at all, moreover we all come across as way to opinionated when we try to argue it and there is no sure-fire solution or answer to the problems we face, regardless of which edge of the sword you are on.
Please argue this on a different topic, Iām sure the OP dgafā¦
Lets have a look at your complaint.
They spent money. They improved Health, improved education, reduced crimeā¦and what you been tricked into believing you can do this at no extra cost?
Do you forget that the phrase āstealth taxā was invented when the Tories were in power? Low and behold a political party that doesnāt want to tell you upfront about taxesā¦and what a shock that they donāt, since your main complaint is that they spent your moneyā¦regardless of the outcome of that expenditure.
They no more āincreasedā immigration then any other Government would have increased immigration, the VAST majority of our immigration currently comes from three sources, Family, Asylum and the EU.
All of which the Conservatives will do nothing about, their hands are tied on Asylum and the EU because of international treaties we have signed, and they are not going to deport children while their parents are legally in this country. This ignores illegal immigration, as by its very definitionā¦it is illegal and therefore the state does not condone it and you cannot complain that the Labour Party increased illegal immigration.
I am not defending the Labour party as if they were Angels, I HATED Blair, he is as right-wing as Cameron is and I hate him just as much as I have that moon faced idiot, but to pretend that the Labour party didnāt do good things is just plain silly AND to claim that we need the Conservatives to put right the country is little more then a joke.
If they have proper jobs? What nonsense is that? What does this even mean?
The VAST majority of people in this country are in the lower echelons of earning power, that donāt have āproperā jobs that make their family wealth, but instead just do the menial, boring, tedious, poorly paid jobs, that help run this entire society and are barely keeping their head above water or worse still, are burdened by crippling debts.
How are they going to be better off under the Conservatives?
They simply will not be better off, they will just be cannon fodder for those with wealth to make more wealthā¦just as they were under the Labour Party btw.
There is one reason why they will be better off and that is because the Conservatives have a greater sense of financial responsibility. Its all very well improving hospitals and schools, anyone can do that with a blank cheque but it has to be paid for. The sums of money that Brown and Blair saddled future generations with in their off balance sheet PFI debt splurge is truly shocking which is why the contracts are being revisited. And thats not forgetting that Brown left the UK with the largest structural deficit of any G7 country - unforgivable from the man who gave us his Golden Rule and no more boom or bust.
The point is that if you have to print money to cover the shortfall, and printing money generates inflation and inflation destroys living standards. If you are wealthy it is easy to hedge this with Gold or some other investment. If you work in lower paid employment then your living standards will suffer disproportionately. With inflation running at whatever it is, it is equivalent to a basic rate tax increase of above this, it is a stealth stealth tax.
We definitely need an LB Brainās trustā¦
Kaos with the legal stuff, TimR with the horticultural stuff, Me with the boring stuff, Waspie with the leatherās stuff, etc etc etc the list goes on 
But this debate is never gonna be solved. Start a new thread
Really, the spending on the schools and the hospitals and social housing was just so much that it spiralled our country into massive debt?
Really?
Cost of the Banking Crisis: Ā£1 trillion
UK National Debt: Ā£970bn
Err so technically, without bailing out the banks, we would have Ā£30bn in the bank?
Tell me again how the schools programme, and the hospital programme, and the renewal of social housing has put us in the red, cause i am just not convinced.
lolā¦vote for labourā¦;).
ohh and dont forget mr Brownā¦
smiled.
No need to start a new thread! just keep on topic!
you guys could debate on party policies / promises and historic mistakes made by government but i started this tread just to learn about the pros and cons about AV. So people like Hels and I can make desicion
I do know that with the current system my vote is worth 0.07 of a vote!! cant remebere where i found that out! but i think (think being the operative word) that Av would make my vote count for more. I am however worried that av will let the silly parties come to power who when in that position would not have a clue what to do!
But if itās what āthe peopleā wantā¦
canāt argue with democracy Sir!
Exactly.
People you must remember that for the āsillyā parties to come into power that they would need nearly half of the electorate to vote for them, do you honestly believe tens of millions of people will all of a sudden start voting for UKIP and the BNP?
You forget, the BNP are against AV because they fear they will lose votes and proportion. Please do not be put off by Baroness Warsiās ridiculous rhetoric.
That is true, but to put it another way i am worried that there are many thick and easily influenced people in England who will follow a facist party or generally uncapable party because it is the current trend.I am leaning back towards yes to AV now. I mean steven Fry cant be wrong! can he!?
You are correct, that for many people, their votes are worth less than others under the current system therefore leading to a loss in interest in voting and also tactical voting - hardly a democracy!
With AV this is greatly reduced therefore improving the strength of your vote.
i dont get itā¦because your so used to the main 3 parties you lot would say no to AV and not let someone else have a crack at it?..i think people are sheep here in the UKā¦gutless sheep who dont like to be out of their comfort zonesā¦
you know what?..i do hope the smaller parties get a good crack at itā¦they cant fcuk up my country anymore than the w@ankers are doing already.
smiled.
HERE HERE! Well said Shane.
When u gonna get into politics and be PM?! eh!?
It basically boils down to two groups;
Those scared by claims that the smaller extremist parties will get more power, which is in fact a complete fallacy.
Those who seek revenge on the Lib Dems and blindly vote No despite this ultimately reducing their own power over future Government.
Unfortunately most people do not see the bigger picture and therefore as mentioned earlier, are happy to be led astray by the āMediaā. To think that papers such as The Sun, The Mirror and The Daily Mail hold so much sway with large majority of people is quite simply terrifying.
I agree with smiled that an increase in minority parties will help move the larger ones into action over policy; there will be much less resting about their laurels.
AV can only be a good thing - at least until PRā¦
