So basically we don't know if they were invited or not?

He didn't inherit the position at all. 

 

Any Labour MP could have stood against him.  David Miliband almost stood against Gordon.  The fact that they didn't was because there was a consensus within the Labour Party for Gordon Brown to become its leader.

 

Personally, I'd have preferred a contest over a coronation, and I thought Gordon Brown didn't have the right attributes to be PM. 

 

Under our system, Gordon Brown was OUR Prime Minister just as under our system the Queen is OUR Queen and Monarch. 

 

You may disagree with the system but you can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you respect and recognise.

Royal commentator Robert Jobson said: “This isn’t a political decision. It’s the fact that Prince William is not necessarily senior enough to have all those dignitaries there. And actually they want to make this a family occasion too and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown aren’t seen as family.”

Mr Bean obviously is seen as family; he will be there in the form of actor Rowan Atkinson, along with the footballer David Beckham and the postman, publican and butcher from Kate Middleton’s home village.

Former Conservative leaders Sir John Major and Baroness Thatcher have also been invited

It was always known he would take the office once Tony stepped down that was never in any doubt. Indeed he had got impatient that tony was taking his time It was incredibly suspicious that Miliband was going to stand then didn't. Had he been warned off maybe, I don't know. Yes he was our PM but there was no leadership election in fact the only people who did vote for him were 24,278 of the voters in kirkcaldy and cowdenbeath. AV would not have changed a thing though turn out was 41,796

 

As for "You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you respect and recognise." I can't pick and choose what parts I recognise as it is all valid but I most certainly can choose what parts I respect.

We don't have a constitution per se.

not in a single doument like america does it is much more complicated than that

The British Constitution comes from a variety of sources. The main ones are:

Statutes such as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701.
Laws and Customs of Parliament; political conventions
Case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law
Constitutional experts who have written on the subject such as Walter Bagehot and A.V Dicey.

There are two basic principles to the British Constitution

The Rule of Law & The Supremacy of Parliament however with the ECHR taking on parliament the supremacy may be about to be tested. Assuming the govenment is willing to go head to head with ECHR 

That sounds pretty straightforward.

It's totally irrelevant!  Cameron is the PM but the Tories didn't have enough MPs to form a government.  Cameron ISN'T THE ELECTED PRIME MINISTER. I'm sure you would argue that he is the elected PM, but the fact that the Tories didn't have enough MPs to form a government.  Cameron is the unelected PM! 

 

Gordon Brown  was a leader of a party with a Parliamentary majority, which in my view, puts him one up on Cameron, who's party doesn't even have a parliamentary majority.

 

Seems to me, like so many others, that your defence of this decision is a partisan dislike of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

 

I've read the Sun and Daily Mail forums on this and it boils down to "We hate Labour - Gordon and Tony are shit, they destroyed the country and don't deserve to be invited".

 

That's just partisan rubbish.

 

From my point of view, I hate the Tories every bit as much as those Daily Mail and Sun readers hate Labour.  I regard Thatcher as every bit of the vandal of this country as those who foam at the mouth in the Daily Mail over Labour.  Cameron is no different.

 

However, the difference between them/you and me, is I'm not so blinkered as to try and justify gross partisan behaviour of the royals by my own hatred.  The fact is millions of people voted Labour and Gordon Brown and Tony Blair both served as PM. 

 

Blair and Brown deserved better - as did our democracy than a disrespectful snub by our arrogant Tory royals.

 

I don't understand what you mean when you say you can choose what parts you respect.

 

What does that mean?  What you respect and don't respect is irrelevant to the constitution and the way the royals and Tories conduct themselves.

Bangs head against wall I don't hate either tony or Gordon. Tony at least did some good for the country Gordon messed everything up but all this is irrelevant anyway.

 

The fact is for a semi state occasion (which it was weather you like it or not) there is no reason of protocol to invite ex PM's so it is left up to William and Kate if they want to invite them, for whatever reason they did not invite them. It was their wedding. Elton John was a close friend of Diana's so no doubt got close to William though her. John major is William's guardian as well as a member of the order of the garter. Margaret Thacher is in the order of the garter. 

 

As for David Beckham he worked closely with William trying to bring the world cup to this country they became friends of course he will invite his wife as well.  

 

You are blinkered by your own (self admitted)  hated for the conservatives and enraged that the only living labour PM's (which presumably is who you back) did not qualify for a diplomatic invite though the protocol in place or were close enough to William to be given a personal invite. You seem to have taken it quite personally. If you could see things without hate getting in the way you would see there is NO reason why they should have got a invite 

 

 

Ed Milliband was there he is labour so how it it a snub to labour the leaders from the main three parties were there. Had they wished to snub labour he would not have got a invite. At the end of the day it was their wedding and could invite or not invite who they liked

Yes, it's is like banging your head against the wall.

 

You don't call bank holidays for 'semi-state' occasions!

 

The excuse used was Knights of the Garter.  That was blatant rubbish for the reasons I've mentioned.  Let me repeat this again.  Callaghan AND Heath were not knights of the garter in 1981. What you're now doing is moving the goal posts because the excuse given has been knocked down. John Major's invite was a red herring, the fact is, Thatcher was invited.

 

The fact is, the royals broke with protocol, in not inviting Brown and Blair.  It was an unprecedented and calculated snub by Cameron and the Royals to Labour and it ill befits the office they hold.  The Tory establishment sticking its two fingers up at the left.

 

Ed was there, but even the Tory Royals and Cameron wouldn't have pushed their luck that far. 

 

I was very disappointed that Ed sucked up to the establishment by not raising this.  Ed is fast becoming a waste of space.  He needs to up his game, he's ineffective against Cameron.

Forgive me.

Sorry to mention this, but the thread does seem to have drifted away from the original theme - the pros and cons of voting systems. 

 

It's the naysayers trying to muddy the arguement

 

 

I do not see why Callaghan and Heath not being knights of the garter in 1981 is relevant ignoring the fact that that was a full state occasion no one said only knights of the garter could not  be invited.  Their invitation in 81 is irrelevant. There were over 1000 people at the wedding on Friday 24 were members of the order of the garter.They did not limit the guest to members of the order.

 

Ed was there and did not raise this as he understands it. Believe me if the royals did wish to snub labour he would not have got a invite and there is NOTHING anyone in the government or in parliament could have done about it.

 

Why don't you call bank holidays for semi state occasions? Where are these rules?Go on give me a reason.  Protocol was not broke and was followed as applicable for semi-state occasions.Saying it is a fact it was broke does not make it so.

You right we have drifted to the lack of a invite for blair and brown to the royal wedding.

 

But getting back on topic I will vote No as AV will just put the libreals in a position of being a minority coalition partner forever as well as mean some people had there vote counted more than once. 1 person 1 vote.

Sod that.  1 person - me, 35 million votes.  Then you can all do what you're told.

Back on topic

 

I shall be voting yes because a no vote will put back electoral reform for years and dump the rubbish FPTP.

 

My temptation to give Clegg an electoral kick in has subsided somewhat.

 

The Tories and Labour have formed gov'ts on little more than 40% of the vote and sometimes even less.  The Tory and some Labour attitude that 'it isn't broke' belies the fact that millions of people never get the party they vote for and often over 60% of votes cast in a constituency are just wasted.  FPTP is reasonably ok in two party politics but the more the vote gets shared, the more disproportionate the outcome becomes.  I'm no fan of UKIP but it can't be right that over 1 million people voted UKIP yet they have no MPs at all. 

 

AV is a poor system and saying "it's a step in the right direction" is almost giving it more credit than it deserves.  It will keep electoral reform alive and hopefully be a stopgap to a more proportional and fairer system.

That is optimistic at best voting yes for a system you think is poor in the hope we will get a vote in the future for a system you might like. Sounds like wishful thinking. Wouldn't it be better to vote for whichever system you prefer. Chances are whichever system gets picked we won't be picking another one  for a long time to come.

My idea's the best.

Everybody's vote will be counted the same number of times. That number will depend on how many 'rounds' there are.

 

It is just that you are saying in one go who you will vote for in each round, rather than having a series of separate elections.

 

E.G.

Supposing it went to three rounds and your first choice candidate was in all three rounds.

Unless something very strange were to happen, you would be voting for the same candidate in all three rounds if you had to go and vote each time.

 

With AV, by saying who your first choice candidate is, you are effectively saying "I will vote for this person in each round that he is still in.

 

Then by indicating, at the same single visit to the polling station, who your 2nd, 3rd etc, choices are you are indicating who you would vote for if your preferred candidate was not available, without having to go back to the polling station and physically vote again.

 

Round 1: You vote for candidate A and the guy down the road votes for candidate B,

no-one wind and candidate F is eliminated.

 

Round 2: You vote for candidate A and the guy down the road votes for candidate B,

again no-one wins, but this time candidate B is eliminated.

 

Round 3: You vote for candidate A and the Guy down the road votes for a candidate other than B (and F of course). This time somebody wins and it's all over, but you have both had three votes. It's just that you voted for the same candidate each time whereas the guy down the road voted for 'B' only twice and had to vote for someone else for his third vote.

 

The way they are proposing to conduct the voting is to drag you to the polling station only once, but have you state your preference for each round in a way that will show what you'd prefer,no matter how many rounds there were.

 

However, I understand that you can indicate as many or as few preferences as you like.

Well that is one of the best explanations I have seen. But will they give you a mark to indicate you are not voting for a candidate or will they expect you to trust that there will be no dodgy filling in of unmarked boxes.

 

Also when it gets down to candidate A with 49%  and B with 51% if you go one more round candidate B will have 100% of the vote. The system does distort how many actually wanted that MP and more people could have wanted another winner out of the bunch that stood. People will vote for who they want as first choice and fill the others in as a after thought

Under the current system, we only put one cross and have to trust that our ballot paper will not be fiddled with, so there's no difference there.

 

At the point where candidate B has 51% the 'rounds' will stop.

 

AV is not saying that the winner is who everyone wants, but that it is less likely to produce an MP or councillor that very few wanted, which is what can (and often does) happen under the present system.  Take a seat that has 5 candidates. If any one candidate gets more than 20% of the vote, then they are likely to have won, so you are now being represented by someone who wasn't wanted by the vast majority - no excuses. The majority who DIDN'T vote for that candidate might not even have wanted them under any circumstances, but they have no choice.

 

Now under AV that candidate(A) might get the biggest % after the first round, but as it wasn't 51%we go for a second round where most of the votes will be the same except that the 2nd choices of the voters who originally voted for the candidate who is now eliminated are added to the mix. This of course could still leave candidate A with the most votes, but if we presume the above scenario where most of those who DON'T want candidate A are now voting there 2nd choice then it is less likely that candidate A will still be ahead and therefor, following it through, less likely to be the eventual winner.

 

There are a myriad of possibilities, but in general, seats that are contested by a greater number of candidates are less likely to be represented by someone who was voted for by only a small minority of voters.

 

As for 'filling the rest in as an afterthough', that's true enough and I'm sure some will especially as it will (if it was done 100% correctly) take greater thought as its not just a case of deciding who you like best and disregarding the rest, but ordering them all against each other, but it's amazing what people can get used to.

Hope channel 5 don't opt for the 'have to think to hard vote'...... 

Well I have listened to all the arguments , but I am still voting yes to AV on Thursday

As my old Mum would say........there is the Avs and the Av nots.....

Very true Syd

Addendum.

 

If there are any candidates you are averse to, then don't give them a preference. As this will avoid giving them your vote should it ever come to it.

 

Addendum. (2) Save time by not voting it in.

Is there a box for "dont know" ?

There might be 2 or 3 of them, in order of preference like

 squiggle

 If there is Skylark then I am sure a lot of people will be voting for it

AV is a poor system, but it's a minor improvement on FPTP and may set in place an agenda for full PR. General election results do need to be more proportional to the parties' share of the vote.  I don't believe that the seats allocated should necessarily be proportional and sitting in the middle as the Lib Dems have, does mean you're more often than not going to be the second choice.

 

However, FPTP delivers a Parliament that is in no way proportional.  The Lib Dems and UKIP are right to feel that their share isn't reflected in seats. AV will go some way to a more proportional allocation of seats.  Had we had AV for the last election, The Lib Dems would have been in a stronger position to dictate terms and not have let their voters down so much - in theory at least.

 

AV will help this along the way

 

Sorted !

Your foolish AV system doesn't take account of the 30-35% of people who don't vote. Why should these millions of people have MPs of different parties imposed upon them?

Huh?  If they don't vote, any MP that represents them is going to be from a 'different' party.  If they don't vote, they've only got themselves to blame if they don't like their representative MP.

  That's the same under FPTP. I really don't get what you mean.

Under ANY system a non-voter' will have a representative imposed upon them.

 A non-voter will be represented by whoever was elected by those who DID vote. The voting system is irrelevant in this case because the non-voter DIDN'T vote.

 

By chance, the person elected might be the person the non-voter would have voted for HAD THEY VOTED, but you can't count on it.

 

And even if they had voted, there's no guarantee that their candidate would have been elected - as is the case in any election under ANY electoral system.

If people don't vote then they have no right to complain about what MP they get...

I demand the right to complain about my MP, whether I voted for them or not!