Please go away Labour. Sorry is simply not good enough for millions of people now, when we see what we have been left with.
Bit like what they inherited from cons then .
Labour turned country right round . Don't let the global crash fool you
Please go away Labour. Sorry is simply not good enough for millions of people now, when we see what we have been left with.
Why isn't Darren allowed to be partisan?...... this is a free open board, we are all allowed to be partisan, his views don't affect what I post, and I am sure they dont affect the majority on here either.
Bit like what they inherited from cons then .
Labour turned country right round . Don't let the global crash fool you
I suppose the glib answer is that if his views coincided with mine then I wouldn't have a problem either.
There's a little more to it than that though isn't there? NSC has grown considerably from it's early days and whilst it obviously doesn't rank alongside the internet heavyweights, it's now a touch more than a cottage industry. As costs have increased so advertising has played it's inevitable part and like it or not they 'as rules; we've been warned on a number of occasions about profanity, pornography and libel. As the board has grown so has the need for the kind of "net neutrality" with which advertisers and litigators are comfortable. An apparently partisan proprietor (on whichever topic) may perhaps feel a little uncomfortable to some?
I suppose a parallel could also be drawn between the growth of NSC and our move from Withdean to Falmer, with larger aspirations comes greater awareness, acceptance and embracing of the rules by which the big boys play. Many hark back to the good old days; well, they ain't a comin' back.
I suppose the glib answer is that if his views coincided with mine then I wouldn't have a problem either.
There's a little more to it than that though isn't there? NSC has grown considerably from it's early days and whilst it obviously doesn't rank alongside the internet heavyweights, it's now a touch more than a cottage industry. As costs have increased so advertising has played it's inevitable part and like it or not they 'as rules; we've been warned on a number of occasions about profanity, pornography and libel. As the board has grown so has the need for the kind of "net neutrality" with which advertisers and litigators are comfortable. An apparently partisan proprietor (on whichever topic) may perhaps feel a little uncomfortable to some?
I suppose a parallel could also be drawn between the growth of NSC and our move from Withdean to Falmer, with larger aspirations comes greater awareness, acceptance and embracing of the rules by which the big boys play. Many hark back to the good old days; well, they ain't a comin' back.
Each to their own I guess.Actually she is quite hot in a weird way
Bit like what they inherited from cons then .
Labour turned country right round . Don't let the global crash fool you
Each to their own I guess.
Is there a PR system which is properly proportional, maintains the local/constituency connection, and doesn't involve party lists of cronies and toadies?
If there was, I would be inclined to agree with you.
I know of one.
Care to enlighten us?
Yikes - I better stop promoting the Albion over Crystal Palace, cider over lager, vegetarianism over being a carnivore and running over cycling.
There is no one who is advertising on NSC directly. The ads you see are via the Google AdWords programme and each of them pay about 1/100th of a penny, give or take. There is no one who can influence the financial viability of NSC based on anything political that I post.
I'm a user of NSC in the same way as you and the other 20,000 or so others who have taken the time to register and post. In some regards I guess I try to lead by example, by not posting the sort of content that we prefer not to see, but that has never extended to political discussion which always has been, and likely always will be, fair game for debate.
Well? I would seriously be interested in an answer to this one.
Well? I would seriously be interested in an answer to this one.
The pundits have called it based on their expectations (ie, Ed didn't do as badly as they thought he would) and the people have called it on how they did, with no starting point.quite an interesting consensus is emerging that the pundits called it for Miliband, but the people thought Cameron done better.
The representatives that enter parliament as a result of vote percentages (as opposed to having received a "direct mandate" from the first vote) come off the parties' candidate lists. Each party has a list for each state.
FAIL.
Bit like what they inherited from cons then .
Labour turned country right round . Don't let the global crash fool you
1979 and 2010. Both times Labour leave behind a complete reain wreck. The country is better off without their incompetence. Of course its a bew guard so thry might pull it off but i suspect we will spiral fairly quickly into over taxation, over spending and business bashing. Until they mess up again and get kicked out again.
Says something of how bad the Tories are if they can't get a majority in 2010 if there was such a mess caused by Labour
Fair enough, I guess you didn't see the debate then as you have nothing constructive to offer
"The first vote allows voters to choose their candidate of choice in their district. Every candidate who wins in one of the country's 299 districts -- based on voters' first votes -- automatically gets a seat in parliament. This means that every district sends a lawmaker to Berlin"
This is the local candidate bit.
The second vote is pure PR.
As I say you cannot have pure PR and constituency MPs. It's one, the other or a mix like Germany.