no change there then.....

 True!

Cologne 1
I don't think it makes much difference, all it might achieveis  to have a hung parliament every time there is an election. To make things fairer, it might be an idea to change the boundaries to make them something resembling equality.Just a thought.

---

This is what the Tories intend to do.  However, the problem with it is that is if you're going to match constituent populations more exactly, it will involve redrawing boundaries that ignore long standing geographical barriers (such as rivers) and traditional county boundaries that people are familiar with and understand. 

It will lead to odd shaped constituencies and there is a massive scope for gerrymandering.  Because of the redrawing of boundaries on an unprecedented scale, the government are to restrict the appeals process.  So I can't help being cynical that this will be gerrymandering by the Tories on a massive scale.  Anyway, it's a bit of a myth that constituencies are vastly different sizes and the glaring examples of a small constituencies is ironically, a Lib Dem Scottish island seat (sorry can't recall the name) that is exempt, anyway.

A minority government has no mandate to mess around with the constituencies in such a manner - considering they're already introducing fixed term parliaments, possibly AV as well and having packed the House of Lords with Tories and Lib Dems.

my constituency is a bit spread out - skegness all the way down to and passed boston, (30 miles approx)  going inland as well, it covers three "areas"  town/seaside/very rural each with very different needs it is also very strange (not unlike some of its inhabitants)  in that one side of the road is in the constituency and the other side a different one!  the boudary has been changed before and is rumoured to be changing again

There is one thing which strikes me most about the AV / FPTP referendum.

It is arousing such passions, strong debates, intense feelings.

Sometimes one side is accused of lying or, at least misinterpretation.

Obviously very many people believe this to be a majorly important political debate.

It is proving to be a subject of great importance, and deserves much more than being regarded as a passing appeaser.

 

Oddly the royal wedding, with its snub of Labour by what I consider the Tories and the Tory monarchy has convinced me that anything must be done to reduce the Tories from gaining office and majorities. 

 

If the Tories can pack the House of Lords with their own (on a scale that dwarfs Labour's changes), gerrymander the constituencies and snub the Labour party with the aid of our so-called above politics monarchy, it convinces me that it's better to give Cleggy his little victory than have the arrogant and corrupt Bullingdon born-to-rule clowns running this country.

 

 

The Lib Dems are so desperate to get this through that they sent out cards, claiming that AV would prevent MP expense fraud, make MPs work harder, would prevent MPs having jobs for life. Tory Victories apparently would be less likely, and one might add up to two and a half inches to One's penis. None of it adds up! For the same reason Labour victories would be less likely too. The only reason the Lib Dems want it is because it would give 'em more power. The dafter end of the Labour Party are snuggling up 'cos they fancy future coalitions with Clegg's dead loss mates.

Something causing such great passion should have been debated in great depth many years ago. Then on-going.

It is a major event in the course of our politics.

I can remember a young John Cleese mentioning it in every single PPB! It seemed as ludicrous then as it does now. No-one took it seriously enough to debate it. Alas! Cameron decided to go in cahoots with Clegg and obviously promised him a vote, in lieu Clegg having any genuine participation in government.

Erm there was no snub of labour it was a private wedding the only reason Margaret thatcher was invited was she is a member of the order of the garter. (as is John Major) Additionally John Major is Williams god father. All 24 members of the order were invited

 

Why on earth should Tony Blair and Gordon Brown expect a invitation when not only are they not members of the order they were not even on good terms with the palace when they were in power. I didn't receive a invite either did I get snubbed.

 

The monachy is not linked in any way to the torries Tony Blair in particular resented the monachy there is no reason why either him or Gordon Brown  should have been invited to a private wedding.

Funny 'private wedding' when a public/bank holiday is announced to celebrate it and the PM encourages street parties for it!  Funny private wedding when roads in the centre of London are closed off and protesters are moved on.  Private wedding, don't make me laugh!  The Tory Royals are taking us all for mugs.

 

If you've been on the wedding forums, you'll know that the Knights of the Garter excuse is simply rubbish as Heath and Callaghan weren't even in the Knights of the Garter in 1981 for Diana and Charles' wedding, the claim doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.  Suffice to say, it was a snub to the office of PM and to millions of Labour voters.

 

Why on Earth should Thatcher who didn't invite the Queen to the Falkland's liberation parade and refered to herself using the the so-called 'Royal we'?

 

The Tory Monarchy most definitely IS linked to the Tories now.  As they have just proven in the most blatant manner.

 

 

Has Ed Milliband been thrown out of our party? He was there.

You're defending the indefensible Garage Joe.  Yes, Ed was there, but even Cameron and his Tory mates in royalty couldn't get away with that one!

Perhaps Prince William didn't want Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at his wedding because he didn't think it was appropropriate for two men with so much blood on their hands to be present at their marriage celebration?

It's because of the current system so many people in my constituency don't vote. Labour have such a huge majority any vote other than for Labour is seen as a waste of time and effort. 

 

AV is not PR - the Tories only agreed to a referendum on AV because they thought it stood more chance of failing. Which is what they want.  The trouble is if we end up voting to stay with FPTP it might be seen as a consensus that the voting public actually LIKE FPTP.

 

The thing is people assume coalitions are less favourable to government by a single party. Maybe I'm a little more relaxed about it as we have experience of coalitions (Labour and Plaid) and PR here in Wales.

And yet Thatcher and Major were invited? They were both involved in wars too.

Indeed! One wonders what the Tories have against Ghadaffi, his kids, and, his grandkids in particular!

Whilst I was totally against the Falklands war, it wasn't a sustained illegal occupation of another country in which countless thousands of innocent civilians were killed, as has been the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Is it not the case that John Major was invited because he was apointed as William's guardian after his mother was killed?  

I feel if peeps don't go out to put merely a cross then they will not go out to vote for  first second third etc - cos it requires much more thought and effort and is a pain

i say leave it as it it is - simples

i feel it was justified adequately why Blair and Brown didn't attend but to me it was the one 'blot on the landscape' which just flawed the wedding a bit -  adequate explanations doesn't mean it was right  - Blair - as much as i didn't like him- should have gone because he guided the royal family through the muddle and problems caused by Diana's popularity - and did a good job + coined the phrase  the peoples princess

A nice speculative theory to excuse royalty until you consider that the Royals and the Armed Forces are joined at the hip and that Prince Harry actually served in Iraq, enlisting long after the 'dodgy dossier' became discredited.

 

Finally, don't you think that such a stance would be the very height hypocrisy considering the Prince of Bahrain, who's got plenty of blood on his hands, was invited.  Likewise, a goon of Mugabe. 

Bahrain! Yes! I was going to make that point. The Guardian cartoonists had a field day with that! (Arab looking wedding guest splattered with blood)

It was a private wedding every single person that was there in the church was there by invite the presence on Heath and Callaghan at Diana and Charles' wedding has nothing to do with anything. There are only 24 members of the knights of the garter. The couple were free to invite or not invite who they like. For example the local barman and the local butcher from Kate's home were invited and probably attended. 

 

This was not the wedding of the immediate hair to the throne either so the protocols are not as strict. Why on earth should they be forced to invite anyone to the wedding. Tony Blair in particular showed as much contempt for the palace as he could get away with. I wouldn't want either of them at my wedding and I am not a tory.

One assumes that the royal family had a guest list and that HMG had a guest list too!

No, it was the case that Brown and Blair were excluded because they weren't Knights of the Garter.  However, in 1981 Callaghan or Heath weren't Knights of the Garter.  Callaghan in 1987 and Heath in 1991. Both were invited to the 1981 wedding.

 

Major being their guardian is neither here nor there.  After all, Thatcher isn't anyone's guardian, and she was invited. 

 

I appreciate that people are falling over themselves to be apologists for the royals because they are fond of them.  But the elephant in the room is that the decision was political.

 

I wouldn't like to say for sure if William didn't want Blair or Brown, but that list would have been seen by Cameron's lot. 

 

The chief defence of the royals as an institution is that they are supposed to be 'above' party politics. 

 

That defence has proven to be rubbish. 

The govenment didn't have a guest list as it wasn't a full state occassion like the 1981 wedding of charles and diana (charles is immediate heir to the throne) it was a matter for the royals to sort out.

FGS...Politics.....If we hav'nt got this country and its priorities right by now......what chance do we have.......

The government didn't have a say in who went yes they saw the list but what did you expect cameron to do insist that blair and brown be invited against the will of William and/or Kate.

(yes let's get President Murdoch in forthwith!) I've been pussyfooting about 'cos I don't like asking direct questions. However one of the faux pieces of reasoning is that AV will make a Tory government less likely. Can someone explain how this will not apply to Labour too? I put it to you that this daft system would only benefit the LibDems.

 

You'd think the crown with have some sort of Privy Bogkeeper to keep abreast of that kind of lapse. 

Give the man a medal you have hit the nail right on the head. Lib dems will end up being the ones that are involved in every coalition and they will happen MUCH more regular.

 

 

As has been proven with coalitions you get back room deals and abandoned manifestos with the excuse we would have done that but we had to form a coalition. Just hope the students remember who wants it.

It wasn't a private wedding in any way at all.  A bank holiday called, roads closed off, the world's press and TV in attendance.  Come off it!  That's just pathetic.

 

Why was there a bank holiday called?  Why the roads closed off?  Why the TV? Why the endless comparisons to Charles and Di?

 

The wedding was a state occasion on par with Charles' wedding. 

 

Put it this way, if the occasion was private why was there the need to invite Mugabe's goon and the Sultan of Bahrain - who's killing his own people?  If so, I really don't think much of the scum company the Royals keep as their dearest friends.

 

You really can't have it both ways.  So which is it? 

• Protocol - So why not Brown and Blair?
• Friends and associates - the tax payer funding the royals to rub shoulders with some of the the world's most murdererous regimes?

Or is it 'just enough' protocol to invite foreign murderers but 'not enough' protocol to consider the two most recent living PMs - who happen to be both - coincidently, be in the same party?

 

Royalists will just clutch at any straw, no matter how pathetic to justify this totally political decision.

Yes (if we're still on topic )

We had a riot.  Made the American news channels and everything.  If that's not a state occasion I don't know what the f*ck is! 

Anyway, can someone please laugh at my hirsute royal bum joke.  It's hilarious, honest.

Mass debating, talking round in circles.........a vote is a vote....We can all look forward to being disappointed by our vote ......such is life....We are not voting for a God..

The tax payer funds our government to rub shoulders with, sell arms and torture implements, to murderous regimes, kidnap innocent people, and all sorts of other unsavoury deals.

Falklands, 1st Gulf War?

it's too clever, do it again with a picture of a cat, we'd get that.