Do I  get more than one vote for AV?

I should read the whole thread. Sorry for repeating other's posts.

Labour introduced tuition fees and the Tories raised them yet the Libdems got the blame! What a perfect system we have ATM..

No and you don't get more than one vote with AV either

Inside the church was private. It was classified a semi state occasion (hence the tv coverage and bank holiday) but the service was private.  Simply put the palace decided to invite a representative of countries we had diplomatic relations with. The Sultan of Bahrain did not attend he declined the invitation to prevent any problems. Libya's ambassador had his invite withdraw. Blair and brown are not ambassadors of any country with which we have diplomatic relations. So were not covered by that protocol. The protocols that were used (everything the royals do has them) were not as strict as they were for Charles and Di 

You do if you vote for a unpopular party as you get to pick another when the one you picked is eliminated but pick one that has support and you only get one

Actually, speaking as a German who doesn't conciously remember politics before the age of about 6, Germany has had coalitions with the Liberals for decades and it appears to work very well. I always prayed for a coalition here because the power that the likes of Thatcher had, was no good for the country and needed a stem. The heads of Cameron and Clegg are obviously too big individually for it to work in Britain which is a big disappointment.

*deletes joke meant entirely in humour but probably not taken in that way*

Let's have it and I'll decide.

Personally I don't think even having this coalition was in our best intrests. The way I saw it the conservitives won but not with enough to form a majority govenment so should have had to form a minoritry govenment and convince enough MP's from other partys that there ideas were good on a case by case basis if they couldn't do this time for another election. But if there ideas were good enough why wouldn't they be able to convince enough others of that to get things though.

Back room deals don't do anyone any good. As no voter gets what they want.

It's still only one vote as your first won't count

If that seems unfair for the folks who vote for the two party state, well that's just tough shite

Yes, I expect both Prince William and Cameron to be professional in accordance with their position and not behave like spoilt spiteful, brats with no respect for the office of PM and protocol of the country.. 

It's to be expected of Cameron because he's a spiteful, petty chancer who seems to think the whole country shares the opinions of foaming mouthed Daily Mail readers.

They are supposed to behave in accordance with their position.  Neither has shown themselves to be fit for the office they hold. 

That said, I don't think the Queen would have showed this level of appalling, partisan judgement.

As for Prince William not wanting Blair, it's all speculation.  Where does that leave Brown?  What's he supposed to have done?  Thatcher had a fractious relationship with the Queen but she still got an invite. 

Perhaps William should look a bit closer to home? After all, it was HIS DAD that did the dirty on his mum.  It was his family in-laws who wanted to freeze his mum out and HAVE frozen Fergie out. 

Talk about misdirected anger!  It's not as if Tony slept with Diana or Cherie shagged Charles, is it?

Tony is certainly many things but on the occasion of Diana's death he really got the vindictive, callous royals off the hook and ensured William's mum got the send off that was appropriate.  If he 'hates' Blair for that, then he's a bit of a dick.

But it already has been counted and did count so it is more than one vote. How is it fair some have more votes than others simpley because they pick unpopular parties like the BNP

Unless of course it is a cat.

Are you familiar with Westminster politics? 

Power corrupts Coln and the absolute power that the Tories and socialists have enjoyed in this country has led to more backroom deals than one can imagine (usually with lobbyist) and manifestos aren't worth the paper they are written on what ever the electoral system (I'd like manifestos to be legally binding and then we might get some reality politics )

All protocols for a semi-state occasion were followed there is no protocol that says ex PM's should be invited. It has nothing to do with Cameron. Why B+B were not invited is simpley because they were not wanted there why is anyones guess but it was not a snub to labour. Following the protocols in force their invitation was not required. But I don't think they were forgot it is quite possible either william or kate didn't want them there for whatever reason.

Wouldn't that be the best, they'd all get scared to death to go in with the meaningless promises.

Yes very much so and they would rather do back room deals any day of the week. That said having to convince others might make them work harder and if they came up with good ideas discussed in parliament publicly and didn't get the backing on them, for petty reasons. It would force a election and the people would decide on them. If the ideas were actually good they should then get their majority. If not we have another chance to pick another government

What you get is an unofficial coalition - or series of fluctuating coalitions.  Back room deals as you say.  What you get is what we have now in a slightly more febrile atmosphere and a whole heap of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, going on.  Only behind closed doors.

What you do not get is straight forward policy by merit.

Even the forcing of another election would be done with arranged deals in place.

I'm surprised at your naivety.

Come on Joss Stone, the Beckhams plus assorted scum of the world?

The fact is, the Prince of Bahrain WAS invited, as was Mugabe's respresentative. 

You don't know what the protocol is anymore than I do, all you're saying is that what happened 'is the protocol'.  Yet the protocol is distinctly different to Charles and Diana's wedding.  A so-called protocol that says invite tin pot entertainers but not ex-PMs.  The protocol is defined by whatever those who made it up this time wanted it to be.

You're arguing is that protocol can be just made up as you go along and modified on a whim as seen fit on an event by event basis. That's not protocol that's BS.

It's the equivalent of having an election and saying,

King: The Tories have won the June 25th 2015 election!

People: but they got less seats

King: Yes but that's allowed in June elections

People: but it didn't apply in the last June election

KIng: Yes but that was in an even year

People: Yes but it didn't apply in the last odd year in June

KIng: Yes, but it would have if there that election was held after the 20th of the month

People: but it was on 29th

King: but was it new moon?

People: No, I don't think so

King: well then, there you have it, that's the protocol, it only applies on or after the 20th June in an odd year when there's a new moon!

Though any system where the people at least feel that they have the power is good

Funny how politicians don't get this and spend minutes worrying about voter apathy

*Wonders why an AV debate is being muddied with talk of an irrelevant wedding*

Correction: the coalition of Tories and Lib Dems raised them.

But Labour lost much of the student vote because they introduced tuition fees. They broke that promise and suffered for it up to and including the last election.

The Lib Dems then promised to vote against tuition fees, and gained votes from ex-Labour voters, but then voted for a hike in tuition fees.  They broke that promise and are currently suffering for it.

Surely you don't expect students to ignore Lib Dems breaking their promises on student fees while perpetually blaming Labour for breaking theirs?

Back room deals happen in politics anyway.  Under FPTP, parties have to be broad churches to catch enough of the electorate, which leads to factionalism and inter party rivalry as seen with Thatcherites v Wets and Blairites v Brownites.  PMs on shaky grounds often do backroom deals with a section of their party to avoid leadership challenges.

The Libdems voted against the raise in tuition fees and that is all the pledge was about!

We've never had socialists in government.  We've had Labour gov'ts, but they're a long way from being socialists.

Very true

I know.  It was the idea that, if the ideas are good they'll get through, that tickled me.  It's hardly real politic and was slightly taken aback someone with a seeming working knowledge of the corridors of power would suggest it.

Yes, which senior Lib Dems voted for the fees hike. 

You can't expect voters to endlessly punish Labour when the Lib Dems are up to their necks in the biggest hike in student fees ever.

Personally, I'm in favour of fees, I don't see any reason university education should be free. It's just the current fees go way beyond what is fair and appropriate for students to pay.

absolutely. 

Lol

I was trying to be diplomatic. If you prefer I'll use Tory-lite in future

went past the may day march today, seems like there's only a handful of flag waving communists left in the land. looked smart though.

And his mother certainly got her own back on Charles, didn't she?  With quite a variety of men.   As far as I know, there has never been any suggestion that Charles was unfaithful with anyone else other than Camilla. 

I see what you mean Antiope!  We only have to look at our own workplaces where things that seem painfully obvious and sensible to some never get taken up because of office politics and conflicting agendas. 

Chuck in a load of egos, lobbying, careerists and it's like magnifying typical office politics a thousandfold.

she's a whole lotta woman. proper courtesan blood running through the filly's veins. phwoar.

Probably true but it would be worse than a official coalition how exactly  each policy would have to be debated in parliament in more detail because it wouldn't be as simple as it is now as more people would be involved unless a party leader with enough MP's decided to back that policy. There is no such thing as straight forward politics however it would enable MP's to only go with what they thought they should.

Sometimes MP's of one party would back the policy sometimes it would be others and sometimes no one would. Now we have two men both scared of losing power so both doing some of what the other says and forcing their party to vote yes to it.

I never said deals wouldn't take place or that it would be easy but it would be better to have all party leaders at the table for the prospective deal than just two. As it is now clegg and Cameron are holding each other other a barrel. What possible reason is ther to prevent the other party's getting in on any agreements why is it only the lib dems get to negotiate the deals. Surely Labour could offer something and in some cases give a better deal than the lib dems 

Maybe, maybe not, "the first cut is the deepest" and all that!

Infidelity is not necessarily a numbers game. 

So perhaps William secretly hates his mum and regards her as a slut who Tony Blair shouldn't have taken upon himself to champion?  Certainly possible!

Perhaps he regards Charles as the innocent party driven to infidelity by a flaky clothes horse wife? Again, certainly possible!

Either way, it's pretty petty to hold grudges with Tony, whose actions diffused a huge amount of public antipathy towards the monarchy and its behaviour at the time.

Many would say that Tony never did anything that wasn't in Tony's interests, well maybe so, but whatever his motives, he really did get the monarchy out of a tight spot.