[Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition

[slowcoach]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Well, we have the following showrooms in Leeds
Bentley
Rolls Royce
Aston Martin
Ferrari
Maserati
Porsche

(as well as the standard BMW, Mercedes, Audi, et al)

Anyhoo, under the cash laundering rules, do you actually believe that a garage would accept a couple of hundred thousand pounds in cash for a car?

So I really don't understand your point

You amaze me, in all my life I have never seen an advertisement that made me want to go and shop in Leeds, in the past I have been persuaded to shop in Sheffield and other places in Yorkshire but Leeds was a place I skirted on route to shop somewhere else, Leeds never came across as a shopping venue to me for some reason, weird.

It's nice to know that a Northerner could buy a new prestige car whilst keeping the money “Up North� even though I think that buying an expensive car is like having your hat nailed on, the word “Victim� comes to mind.

Personally I am more than satisfied with my 'Local Link' taxi service, 6.30AM – 10PM six days a week, 2½ miles 80p one way or £1.20p return, more suiting to my nature of being a tight old git.

---------- Post added at 07:35 ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Actually it's the lack of open spaces and being able to find somewhere nice and quiet where you aren't having your ears ripped off by someone's stereo,BBQ party,mowing the lawn,car exhaust fumes

Some days it's hard to breathe round here or even think.At least oop north you have some terrific open spaces where you can get away from everyone...

Time was when people could work all week and then get away from it all by going out on Sunday for a drive over the 'Tops', but these days, despite many families having two or three cars, the running costs together with their other debts conspire to make the use of the car limited to travelling to and from work. All very sad really.

[punky]

Clegg is still going on about the constituency boundaries to change to equal sizes so its obviously something that will happen.

Are they going to make them smaller or bigger?

I can't see how anyone but Labour will win out of this. Or if that is supposed to be the point.

I.e. if they make the boundaries bigger than the inner cities will bleed into the suburbs. I have that problem now. I'm in a safe Tory seat because we are mostly Tories and vote that way. However my council district includes 2 major inner city areas with very high multi-cultural populations. So my council is always Labour.

Or if the boundaries are made smaller then this will mean much more seats in the inner cities which again will give Labour a bigger advantage in the cities.

I don't see what's wrong with grouping people with similar attritubutes and outlooks rather than size.

[Ignitionnet]

Changing them to equal sizes. There's also the plan to reduce Parliament from 650 to 500 MPs.

So to answer your question if adjusted to 500 MPs across the UK constituencies will be required to get bigger.

Gerrymandering constituencies to group people with similar attributes and outlooks together kinda makes elections pointless, don't you think?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Changing them to equal sizes. There's also the plan to reduce Parliament from 650 to 500 MPs.

So to answer your question if adjusted to 500 MPs across the UK constituencies will be required to get bigger.

Gerrymandering constituencies to group people with similar attributes and outlooks together kinda makes elections pointless, don't you think?

Agree. This is what makes voting pretty pointless for most of the UK as they live in "safe" Tory or Labour seats.

[Chrysalis]

is a shame its AV thats proposed instead of AV+ or STV, as the latter 2 would have been real reform scrapping safe seats.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

It's a start.

carp dahn sarf!

Nah, there's no carp down here anymore - all those E. European migrants have eaten them....

[punky]

Originally Posted by Angua

Agree. This is what makes voting pretty pointless for most of the UK as they live in "safe" Tory or Labour seats.

That's the point. People that live together share the same backgrounds and same concerns do vote for the same people. When the majority of people agree on something it makes the seat safe.

If you draw a big circle around south Manchester including Longsight, Fallowfield and Moss Side to the north and then Prestbury and Wilmslow to the south, who is going to win? The inner cities will always outnumber the suburbs and the countryside.

Or in the south, should Tower Hamlets and Chigwell really be run by the same MP?

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Changing them to equal sizes. There's also the plan to reduce Parliament from 650 to 500 MPs.

So to answer your question if adjusted to 500 MPs across the UK constituencies will be required to get bigger.

Gerrymandering constituencies to group people with similar attributes and outlooks together kinda makes elections pointless, don't you think?

If your argument holds water then why not elect a group of MPs for "the south"?

The people in the cities have different concerns than people in the country and visa versa. Its ridiculous to think someone that lives and works several miles and social classes away from an electorate that will be able to represent them.

Originally Posted by punky

That's the point. People that live together share the same backgrounds and same concerns do vote for the same people. When the majority of people agree on something it makes the seat safe.

If you draw a big circle around south Manchester including Longsight, Fallowfield and Moss Side to the north and then Prestbury and Wilmslow to the south, who is going to win? The inner cities will always outnumber the suburbs and the countryside.

Or in the south, should Tower Hamlets and Chigwell really be run by the same MP?[COLOR="Silver"]

But the boundaries are arbitrary, and they continue to be redrawn. It's not about any demographics of an area being met. We end up with cases like Oxford which, as a whole, voted Liberal Democrat but the boundaries are drawn in such a way that their vote was spread across the three constituencies and they won not a single seat. Constant gerrymandering by the leading parties is not democratic.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by punky

That's the point. People that live together share the same backgrounds and same concerns do vote for the same people. When the majority of people agree on something it makes the seat safe.

If you draw a big circle around south Manchester including Longsight, Fallowfield and Moss Side to the north and then Prestbury and Wilmslow to the south, who is going to win? The inner cities will always outnumber the suburbs and the countryside.

Or in the south, should Tower Hamlets and Chigwell really be run by the same MP?

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------



If your argument holds water then why not elect a group of MPs for "the south"?

The people in the cities have different concerns than people in the country and visa versa. Its ridiculous to think someone that lives and works several miles and social classes away from an electorate that will be able to represent them.

This would need a version of PR which neither the Tories or Labour would consider. Why is it with huge swathes of countryside does Scotland not manage to have more than 1 Tory MP? Surely they have similar views as those in the shires

Safe seats do not equal good government as MPs in safe seats can pretty much do as they please, knowing full well as long as their local political group keeps them as their candidate they have a job for life.

[punky]

But the boundaries are arbitrary

Boundaries aren't arbitary. They are split along geographic and demographic lines. That is as good as any as it takes into account class differences as well as others like employment, housing etc.

Originally Posted by Angua

This would need a version of PR which neither the Tories or Labour would consider. Why is it with huge swathes of countryside does Scotland not manage to have more than 1 Tory MP? Surely they have similar views as those in the shires

Because they are Scottish and not English? Scottish people tend not to vote Tory at all. Which is my point. Why enlarge the Scottish border towns to include Englist border towns?

Safe seats do not equal good government as MPs in safe seats can pretty much do as they please, knowing full well as long as their local political group keeps them as their candidate they have a job for life.

Noone puts a gun to anyone's head when they vote. Seats are 'safe' because the majority of people share the same outlook and vote the same way each time. Why enforce different candidates on to an electorate that doesn't want them?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by punky

Clegg is still going on about the constituency boundaries to change to equal sizes so its obviously something that will happen.

Are they going to make them smaller or bigger?

I can't see how anyone but Labour will win out of this. Or if that is supposed to be the point.

Equalising the constituencies was actually a Tory idea, designed AFAIK to counter the current alleged bias in favour of Labour.

---------- Post added at 17:19 ---------- Previous post was at 17:08 ----------

Originally Posted by Angua

This would need a version of PR which neither the Tories or Labour would consider. Why is it with huge swathes of countryside does Scotland not manage to have more than 1 Tory MP? Surely they have similar views as those in the shires

Originally Posted by punky

Because they are Scottish and not English? Scottish people tend not to vote Tory at all.

Scottish vote share / MPs for the 2010 GE:

Tories - 16.7% / 1 MP (out of 59 seats)

Lib Dems - 18.9% / 11 MPs (out of 59 seats)


It's not that people in Scotland don't vote Tory, it's that they're more spread out, so FPTP means their votes don't particularly count.

Using PR for Westminster elections would actually help the Tories in Scotland, as they'd actually get more than just the one MP.

[The only reason the Tories have 16 MSPs in Holyrood is because elections for the Scottish Parliament use the Additional Member System (AMS)... if it used FPTP the Scottish Tories would be screwed, just are they are for Westminster]

[Angua]

Originally Posted by punky

Boundaries aren't arbitary. They are split along geographic and demographic lines. That is as good as any as it takes into account class differences as well as others like employment, housing etc.



Because they are Scottish and not English? Scottish people tend not to vote Tory at all. Which is my point. Why enlarge the Scottish border towns to include Englist border towns?


Noone puts a gun to anyone's head when they vote. Seats are 'safe' because the majority of people share the same outlook and vote the same way each time. Why enforce different candidates on to an electorate that doesn't want them?

They are safe because of blind party loyalty which bears no relation to the MPs ability. There are those in an area who might like to vote for a different person - even someone from the same political party. However because they have no control over who their local like minded political grouping choose as a candidate they are stuck with someone they don't want because the alternative political groups suit them even less.

We have local councillors who get voted in ONLY because they are Tories. Most people are unaware it is one of the other Tory councillors in the ward who actually does ALL the work.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Not noticed this being posted yet...

The Telegraph has obtained a late draft of The Queen's Speech...

Queen's speech revealed: David Cameron's 500 day programme to change Britain

Originally Posted by Telegraph

A late draft of the Queen’s Speech, obtained by this newspaper, reveals that the Government will spell out an ambitious programme of at least 21 Bills to be introduced in the next 18 months.

Within days, the coalition Government intends to bring in key school reforms and scrap plans for ID cards.

A radical programme of political reform will get under way in the following weeks.

The speech has “freedom, fairness and responsibility� as its main themes and contains many key policies demanded by the Liberal Democrats as the price for their entry into the coalition government.

The measures to be announced within weeks could include a Parliamentary Reform Bill as well as Nick Clegg’s long-cherished “Great Repeals Bill�, containing measures which he has said would represent the biggest constitutional shake-up in 200 years. These plans are likely to alarm many Tory MPs and activists.

Five of the Bills will be led by the Treasury under George Osborne, reaffirming the Tory Chancellor’s primacy over Vince Cable, the Lib-Dem Business Secretary, whose department is almost absent from the draft list.

(snip)

Full list -

The Queen's Speech: Bill by Bill

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by punky

Boundaries aren't arbitary. They are split along geographic and demographic lines. That is as good as any as it takes into account class differences as well as others like employment, housing etc.

They are?

Any kind of evidence for the demographic lines? As I understand it the boundaries are there in a loose attempt to create equal population constituencies according to the 2001 census. Demographic isn't likely to have anything to do with it, if it were we'd be attached to Richmond not Twickenham here.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

In my case, my house is worth considerably more than my cousin's (she lives on the border of North Wales), despite my cousin's being considerably larger.

So Stuart what your saying is that, "your considerably richer than your cousin"...aka Harry Enfield.

http://www.richstudent.com/harry-enf...cher-than-you/