The HRA was brought in to do exactly the opposite. Too many cases were being taken to the ECHR to overturn a British decision (and mostly under the 1990s Conservative government...), so the principles Cod'ead listed were brought fully into British law in 1998 to enable British courts to consider them and make decisions. Hopefully this would (and probably did) save the exchequer a few pennies by avoiding government lawyers having to schlepp over to Strasbourg to defend a case when it could more easily be done here.

If the HRA is repealed (unless we also decide to withdraw from the convention and join Kazakhstan and Belarus outside it), all that will happen is that millions of £ of public money will be spent defending HR cases outside the UK. It's a knee jerk policy in response to successful applications by people the government don't like, and those applications are based largely on crappy decision making by the government's own staff in the first place.

We do have a "proud and well earned history of justice and ... human rights". Let's not ditch it for the sake of a political soundbite and media crying.

Yep. Our courts can decide these cases and either losing party can ultimately go to the ECJ. In practice there's little point as a group of senior judges has already considered your case and rejected it so you may as well accept the decision. Repealing the HRA will mean that every case can now go there.

Mind you, with all the restrictions to legal aid introduced by that clown Graying and no doubt to be exacerbated by that bigger clown Gove, who the hell would be able to afford to take any cases to our Supreme Court, let alone the ECJ?

What do you mean "the 82nd best UKIP candidate"? I assume you are talking about some sort of list based system where parties MP's are chosen in order of preference from a list drawn up by the parties. If so what makes you think the person at the top of the list isn't the worst candidate of the lot? The fact Farage would be top of the UKIP list rather proves the point.

Also if a party is under-represented compared to it share of the vote, how do you know parliament isn't missing out in the services of some very capable people?

At the moment we have safe seats which are just as bad as list system and require just as much patronage to secure one as getting your name high up on a parties list. Portillo and Balls moments are rare and so the idea FPTP delivers quality compared to a list system doesn't stand up. Safe seats deliver MP's like Grant Schnaps (AKA Mr Green) and Rees-Mogg. With a list idiots like that might find themselves at the foot of it so rather than a list system delivering poor MP's it could do the opposite.

Arguing against PR because the electorate is going to vote in 78 kipper MP's is complete non-starter whether you use a pure list based system, STV, AV or AV-plus. It is just anti-democratic.

In any case just because the kippers got 12% of the vote under FPTP doesn't mean that is how things would have turned out under a PR system. Quite often you see stats published that say "If the electorate vote as they did in 2015 then under PR the seats won would be....". It's total rubbish because under PR you wouldn't get tactical voting.

As to think an MP has to his constituency is this really so strong? I'd never heard of our ex-Tory MP Stephen Mosley (I think he came from outside Cheshire) before he was the candidate in 2010.

I think some people are getting a bit carried away with thinking the Tories can just push through whatever they want now that they have a majority.

But in a way their position is actually weaker now than in 2010-2015.
The Tory-Lib Dem government had a majority of 33.
The new Tory government has a majority of just 6.

The Lib Dems jumped in with the Tories so willingly that there was never a chance of them bringing down a major Tory proposal, as they'd all been agreed to in the formation of the Coalition and the Lib Dems were determined to not be the ones who broke up the Coalition.

With the Lib Dems licking their wounds and the SNP very anti-Tory, there's probably a much higher chance of a controversial Tory proposal being beaten.

Actually, most people when asked about why they voted Tory said that they didn't feel that Milliband was Prime Minister material and/or they were frightened of the SNP. Even so, Labour's share of the vote actually increased slightly. Practically nobody mentioned the factors you list.

It's also worth remembering that the majority of UK voters were happy to vote for a party other than the Tories. They may have a narrow majority of MPs thanks to our crackpot electoral system but they command the support of a minority of the population.

Labour lost the election by sitting on their hands for 4 years waiting for the wheels to come off the Coalition, then panicking and producing an ill-thought-out and uninspiring campaign that failed to present a compelling alternative to the status quo.

Most right-wingers have a weak grasp of the realities of Parliament. And of pretty much everything else for that matter.

The Conservatives have an overall majority of 6 but an effective one of perhaps 15 when you count the Nth Ireland abstainers. On some Bills they will gain the support of other minor parties and so they will push through the difficult stuff early doors while their back-benchers are still onside.

The Tories were supported in coalition but in many respects were a hindrance in that they prevented the Tories fulfilling their full manifesto. This time they are free to try for the full monty. If some Bills get voted down they will just move on.

You think it's possible to lower the quality of our MPs?

How cute.

You really are clueless.

The economically illiterate tories like yourself refer to the "deficit" in pounds and pence as if the international bond market keep tabs on it with a calculator.

1) The budget deficit has been reduced with the aid of printed money of £375B by the Bank of England who have bought these bonds and artificially suppressed interest rates to reduce the deficit whilst this capital finds itself misallocated in the service sector to give a temporary impression that all is well when it is not.

2) The budget deficit is the numerator where as the debt to GDP ratio is the denominator and this trend has continued to worsen EVERY year under this government.

3) One of the biggest indicators that the foreign bond market look at is the current account deficit which has exploded under Cameron and Osborne.

There are already fund managers with short positions against UK Government bonds and the currency because they know that once the bond market starts shifting, then this country gets wiped out.

You really are out of your debt so I'd just give up if I was you.

I hope your right and boundary change is one of them.

Every single Tory MP will vote for the boundary changes, even if they have to be wheeled in on their death beds

It will then be defeated in the House of Lords

It will then be voted through again by every Tory MP.

I thought the Torys got 331 seats

That would give them a majority of 12 on the 326 majority point add on the 4 Senn Fein members who do not attend . DUP have 8 and will vote with the Tories as will the one UKIP
Tories 331
DUP 8
ukip 1

TOTAL 340

Labour 232
SNP 56
LIBS 8
WELSH 3
GREENS 1
SDLP 3
OTHERS 3

TOTAL 306


four SF do not count

Anything with Europe in it will trip up the Tories as they are split wide open and they will struggle with the Europe poll. The Tories would need to lose around 16 seats to be close to losing power, a'int going to happen in the length of a parliament so lets get used to it.

Couldn't the point about the majority of people not voting for the Tories also be said for almost every government elected in the UK since the end of rotten boroughs? IIRC Thatcher and co never got close to an actual majority of votes, but stayed in power for quite some time.

I still like PR in principle, but having seen minority/coalition governments I tend to shy away from them, and they're an almost inevitable outcome of PR.

The current account deficit as a % of GDP has been higher and we managed to survive that.

You seem to place a lot of store by the actions of a few fund managers who will be gambling a very small element of their portfolio.

One thing to consider is how safe is UK debt compared to other countries and whilst ever it seen as secure there will always be a market at affordable rates for the government

The Governor of the BoE's comments came after the General Election. Could have done UKIP and Labour a favour by speaking out earlier!

It won't matter what party is in government in terms of the economy when the US $ collapses in the next couple of years according to people like Peter Schiff, and Mike Malloney, we'll all be pretty fecked.

You mean we all ready aren't?

The whole idea of REPRESENTATION is an anachronism dating back centuries. It necessitates a class of people who once served a critical function in society which is now REDUNDANT in the 21st century. Think about it: back in days of yore when a trip down to London and back took the best part of a week on horseback one needed an individual to REPRESENT your interests along with the butcher's, the baker's and the candlestick maker's from the village.

But this is the [iinformation age[/i. An age of [iinstantaneous communication[/i. There is no longer any NEED to keep financing the upkeep of these charlatans and crooks in parliament.

In any case, the idea that some politician can represent YOUR INTERESTS along with your neighbour's, the shopkeeper's across the road, the single mother's three streets away, the pensioner's in sheltered accommodation along with BAE systems on the outskirts of town is PATENTLY ABSURD.

I've long advocated a simple challenge which could be undertaken each election: At the polling station you are given a sheet of triplicate paper containing an empty pie chart. On that chart you draw in lines to represent how you would like to see your taxes spent. Say 25% on education, 25% on the NHS, 18% on pensions etc. etc.). Once finished you tear off your copy, another copy goes to your MP and another copy goes for the record.

Once voting is over the recorded copies are tallied up to find out what the final results were for the district and they are published. So the next time you're scheduled to meet your MP you compare your own sheet and the district's with his voting patterns in parliament so that you may ask him: [uPRECISELY WHOSE INTERESTS ARE YOU REPRESENTING?[/u Who'd bet against some wildly divergent figures?

Given that it's now possible for nearly every individual to access the Internet in some way (broadband, telephone, cellular etc.) it should be no challenge whatsoever to set up a secure system of electronic polling. A person could, say, return home from work one evening and spend an hour or so browsing a list of upcoming issues which he or she feels are important. Supplementary information including a summary of the problem, arguments on both sides, proposals for improvements, costings etc. could be downloaded in PDF form. Discussion of the question could take place on a forum not much different than this. Then when the deadline for voting arrives he or she simply casts her ballot and exits the software.

Once the ballot is cast and the winning proposal is known it would then be the responsibility of the civil service to execute the will of the people.

Now, I'm not saying for one moment that there wouldn't be tremendous challenges (organisational, procedural, infrastructure etc.). But given the intelligence, ingenuity and expertise which exists in this country I'm certain it's doable.

After all, not only is this a far more democratic system (truly representational democracy) it completely does away with a corrupt, venal and decadent class of politicians which has singularly failed the people of this country for over a century.

So who comes up with 'the issues'? And you'd be happy with a country that has the death penalty (just time the 'vote' just after a particularly nasty child murder for example)? Speaking of which, how long before paedophiles were executed? How would funding be decided within a sphere - e.g. health? I'd bet hardly anyone who hasn't either been affected or knows someone who has been affected would think of putting much money into mental health for example, let alone understand how best to use those funds. Etc etc.

The problems with the sort of model you suggest would be far, far worse than what we have now. Just check any theme trending on social media to see how mob rule by the masses would work in reality.

The only way that could happen is to have the 'bureacracy' actively engage in setting policy directions - i.e. you'd have a completely unelected elite running the country in no time at all.

This is not true at all. Yes, a proportion of the electorate revert to such form. A very large one, too. But do YOU revert to mob behaviour at the first site of a paedophile story in the local paper? I know I don't. I know my friends don't.

I leave you to figure out why this is the case (clue: it's NOT the one which states you're so much smarter than they are).





I really don't see how this is a problem which can't be overcome.

It's an interesting idea. It would force people become more informed on the issues that they're voting on, and would do away with a media industry that is no longer fit for purpose.

I'd need more details though, for example, whom would appoint and run the civil service? How would be be represented in the European Parliament, the UN etc? Would they have to adopt the same method?

Give me a chance ... I've only just finished sketching it out on the back of a fag packet!

Seriously, it would need a lot of thinking through. But it's not impossible. The important thing is there'd have to be a robust series of checks and balances. With enough smart people working on the task I'm sure we could accomplish something.

To be honest I'm open to ideas. We [uneed[/u new ideas today. The current system is just so hopelessly broken it's no longer funny.

Did you write Ed Balls' economic manifesto as well?



But on the whole I'd agree with you, and I'd argue the problem doesn't just stop with our political system. There needs to be a shift in our paradigm regarding our politics, economy, and how we view the world in general. We seem to be collectively confined by the same dogma we have been for 200 years, and we wonder why so much of the world seems broken.

Good ideas, but I'll advocate once more with feeling, the very first, and possibly only thing that needs to happen with the current method of parliament is to remove the whips.

You can still keep your party's, MP's of a similar persuasion would still be able to gather and discuss issues and present a party manifesto to the public at election times and to their members every working day, but they would have to properly think policies through and convince 51% of 650 MP's (or wherever you place your majority vote) that their policies should be enacted or put into law.

There wouldn't be as much emphasis then on the party in majority because their majority could be lost, or it could be improved at every policy change, everything would depend on their ability to convince enough MP's to individually vote without pressure and retribution from within their own party, in fact I'd go a little further and suggest that any party pressure behind closed doors is made an illegal act as coercion or bribery is, and make the coerciee criminally responsible.

We'd end up with 650 representatives who can vote according to their personal beliefs, or according to their constituents desires and at that point we, the electorate, suddenly become players in the democracy for if a national or local policy grabs our attention then we can easily contact our representative to express our views, its very easy to do this now via the one system of email they all use and this could very simply include spot polls for opinions - it must also be possible given parliaments diary to publish in advance what debates and votes are due in the next month given that that is how parliament works anyway.

In our constituency we have an MP who is prepared to campaign on issues and has voted against his party on 10% of all votes in the last term, is very contactable and publishes his diary of activities every day - we're almost there with him - time to spread it out a bit further afield.

Get rid of the whips, thats all we need.