to think that St Vince Cable's halo has slipped..

[MulledWineandGingerbread]

.. and that he couldn't make a decision to save his life. First he'll vote for the tuition fee increase, then abstain, then for, then still might abstain...

He's making himself (and his party) look ridiculous.

If it goes tits up for the LD's at the next election and Clegg looks like he will lose his seat I suspect he will cross the floor to the Tories "Dave" will find him a nice safe Tory seat for services rendered

I agree newwave and I think David laws will too

I think some of you are being a bit thick.

The Tories hate the Lib Dem's. The election ended up with a hung parliament, and there was no way the Tories were going to get in bed with Labour. Let's face it, the other choices were hardly overwhelming.

What really makes me laugh about the Lib Dem's is their passion for the Alternative Vote, or PR as we used to call it.

With PR, you will almost always get a hung parliament .. and yet they moan that they can't do what they want because ... it's a hung parliament.

Thick twunts.

Imo, it's not so much slipped as become a noose.But that could just be wishful thinking on my part.

(Disclaimer: As an (ex, obv) bleeding heart liberal, I want to point out that the noose would only be metaphorical. I wouldn't want any actual harm to be done. But I would like to give Clegg a chinese burn at the very least.)

Desi, AV is not PR far from it in fact.

I thought they were different too. But then I concluded I must just be thick.

I know that, Newwave, but I did politics at school in the late 70's, and the Liberals were banging on about PR in those days.

The AV is a shift, but the end game is the same.

Positions of power for those who wouldn't ordinarily get it under the insanely sensible FPTP system.

AV isn't a form of PR but it is a better electoral system than FPTP IMO

Desi FPTP is hardly sensible, I live in the leafy home counties and my (anyone but the Tories) vote means diddly squat.

The elections are decided by about 60 seats in most others the result is a foregone conclusion.

It is only fair parties have seat in the same proportion as the vote.

But it will invariably end in a hung parliament, whether it's PR or AV. Funny that PR has dropped off the agenda. It's a variation on the same theme.

Nations need strong governments with a mandate. You don't have to like them, but at least you know where you stand for 4 to 8 years.

Having said that, I'm a typical Tory who believes in the laissez faire attitude to big government.

I do believe that communities should be given more powers to run their own show. Less government, and more power to the little people.

Okay, let's talk through FPTP.

The person who gets the most votes wins.

And your problem is?

FPTP gives a disproportionate amount of power to partys though. The way that the Labour Party was able to impose its will on us despite only recieving around 35% of the votes was ridiculous. FPTP also gives constituencies where your vote is irrelevant as the result is a foregone conclusion so it disenfranchises some people from voting as there no point as you can't change anything

My problem is:

The party with say 20% of the vote does not get half the seats of a party with 40% of the vote THAT is what is wrong with FPTP.

I understand both of those arguments, and I agree that it's a fine line in aesthetic thinking, but the simple fact is that the country is divided into constituencies, and the only fair way to appoint a political party is to go with the candidate with the most votes.

The alternative is a dog's breakfast. The whole concept is a product of 60s thinking, whereby everyone should be a winner, when in fact, they're not.

One thing I would go with, however, is that constituencies should be evenly divided by population. Stringent lines should be drawn, therefore cutting in half a whole community who might historically vote for a particular party. Set the cat amongst the pigeons, and see which candidate with the most charisma and the best message wins.

The argument that you can't shift the Tories in some constituencies works even more so in favour of the Labour party.

If you believe in democracy then you cannot support FPTP it is after all anti-democratic.

PR would have stopped the evil of Thatcher for a start

Proles PR seems to work for Germany. All systems have problems but our ends up with elective dictatorships, "Dave" and Gideon do not have the permission of the majority of voters permision to shit on the least well off

To be fair the current Government is the first Government in years that has more than 50% of the vote

He he I'm just glad to see the coalition in some trouble-it really shouldn't have lasted so long.
I pray for the day they have to call another general election.

As I understand it you give the Free Democrats the Foreign Office and carry on :o

If the LD's had some balls it would be a more moderate government but you do have a point I must admit.

The Tories now have a political figleaf and are going to destroy the NHS and the welfare state which has ALWAYS been their ambition.

FPTP produces results that don't reflect the wishes of the electorate. Some parties get far more more seats than their level of support suggests they should ie Conservative/Labour whilst others get less or none at all ie Lib Dems,UKIP,BNP,Greens

Regarding the current Government making cuts in spending isn't ideological its being driven by events cuts would have happened irrespective of the Government or the electoral system used to elect them

The two Coalition parties had more than 50% of the vote, but I doubt you could say that 50% of people voted for the policies the Coalition is imposing on us now. At least half of LD voters thought they were voting for a radical, progressive alternative, not for the extremely right wing policies we're getting now.