who would i vote for

[pauld]

No it is true, but its also true that (for example) the Southeast of England is disproportionately a net contributor to UK govt income compared to the rest of the England, never mind the UK as a whole. That's how taxation works - everyone pays into the pot and the govt spends the money where its needed (or pisses it up against a wall, depending on your point of view)

[Doore]

So you're saying after the winning party is announced, we vote on who should be PM?

No. You elect a constituency MP.  The party that has the majority forms a government.  The membership of that political party will have already elected a leader.  That person becomes PM.  You do not vote on who becomes Prime Minister.

[Talk Talk]

No. You elect a constituency MP.  The party that has the majority forms a government.  The membership of that political party will have already elected a leader.  That person becomes PM.  You do not vote on who becomes Prime Minister.

Naat. The queen appoints the Prime Monster.

Not that she has ever used her powers of discretion, the useless bitch. She has consistently failed her country, abdicated her national responsibilities and should be hung for treason.

[pauld]

*BUMP* Terry Marsh, is standing in Basildon, ideal candidate for the disillusioned:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8639348.stm

[Plumstead Red]

I was 31% Lib Dem, 28% Labour, 26% Tory and 15% Green.

I'm voting Tory though because I think the NI increase should be delayed for a year in order to allow companies to start employing more people. A stronger private economy should create more revenue to support the public sector. I don't want a hung parliament, and I want my MP to be local and to already know the parts of the town that make up the constituency.

Lib Dems have got some good ideas though on taking the first £10,000 earned out of the tax system, scrapping Trident and breaking up the retail, high street banks from the speculating, casino banks, thus preventing what happened in 2008 from happening again (hopefully). 

[Phil_S]

On the face of it the lib dems policies look pretty seductive. They are however made with the full knowledge that they would never have to put them into action. Some are staright out of the monster raving looney school of politics.
An Amnesty for illegal immigrants is a prime example. As for Trident Nick Clegg was arguing that we needed to keep it in his leadership battle. The cost of £100 Billion is a lot, but is over 25 years. Thats 4 billion a year which although it's a lot of money is small beer when compared to the borrowing figures Gordon Brown has created.

[Mexicano Rojo]

[Ralphy]

No. You elect a constituency MP.  The party that has the majority forms a government.  The membership of that political party will have already elected a leader.  That person becomes PM.  You do not vote on who becomes Prime Minister.

I know that.

I was refering to someone else who said we should change the election system.

[jimmy_onions]

I have already voted (by post, Swindon North), had to vote for parliamentary candidates and also local government.

Seeing as we are on the subject, could someone who has a grasp of all this local politics, please explain where the rights and responsibilites of each lie, do their jobs crossover at all?  And also, how much country wide political views filter into decision making process at local level? e.g. do tory local coucillors always tow the party line or is it much more whatever is best for the region.
Cheers (if you are still awake).

[Reg Smeeton]

I have already voted (by post, Swindon North), had to vote for parliamentary candidates and also local government.

Seeing as we are on the subject, could someone who has a grasp of all this local politics, please explain where the rights and responsibilites of each lie, do their jobs crossover at all?  And also, how much country wide political views filter into decision making process at local level? e.g. do tory local coucillors always tow the party line or is it much more whatever is best for the region.
Cheers (if you are still awake).

Local autonomy over such things as local fund raising, and what to spend money on, were put through the mincer by the Thatcherite governments of the 80's....so for example in the 70's SBC could choose to lend STFC money for the then new North Stand, after Thatcher not possible.

In reality SBC has little room for doing anything outside of Whitehall interference.

Labour came in and devolved some powers to Scotland and Wales, and set up unelected regional government, with the intention of elected regional assemblies, as a counter to the argument as to why it's good enough for the Taffs and Sweaties, but not us. The trial run for this was in the NE, as it was felt, the Geordies might like this sort of thing, but a referendum produced a resounding no vote for elected regional assemblies, so the idea was dropped.

The SW region, of which we are part, had powers over such issues as strategic planning, therefore SBC even if minded could not have blocked the Front Garden.  This layer of government has now been abolished and powers returned to Whitehall.

The Cornish however are quite keen on getting an elected assembly.

There's a lot of other boring shit to do with Unitary authorities and County Councils, but I can't be arsed to type anymore.

[Lumps]

An Amnesty for illegal immigrants is a prime example. As for Trident Nick Clegg was arguing that we needed to keep it in his leadership battle.

I wouldn't worry about that one, the proof required to qualify for this is so impossible to achieve I can't see it having any impact.

How would someone who has lived without any official presence in the country "prove" they had committed no offences for 15 years for example? I'd be hard pushed to do that and I've got the advantage of an official identity.

[Spy]

How would someone who has lived without any official presence in the country "prove" they had committed no offences for 15 years for example? I'd be hard pushed to do that and I've got the advantage of an official identity.

Well obviously you can't prove you haven't commited any offences. You just have to not have any convictions.

If you haven't got any convictions they wouldn't say "give us more proof you haven't commited any crimes for which you were never caught"!!!

[nevillew]

If you haven't got any convictions they wouldn't say "give us more proof you haven't commited any crimes for which you were never caught"!!!

High negativity count there - what exactly do you mean ?

[Spy]

High negativity count there - what exactly do you mean ?

Yeah that didn't read well.

Basically I meant if that law came in...

Immigrants won't have to prove they haven't commited crimes. If they have no convictions that's what counts.

[Lumps]

Yeah that didn't read well.

Basically I meant if that law came in...

Immigrants won't have to prove they haven't commited crimes. If they have no convictions that's what counts.

And when you've lived in the country illegally, so don't have an official identity, how exactly do you do that?

What evidence exactly arfe you expected to produce?