Um "with no real power" how are they going to do this "time could be given to redrafting bad laws, or removing a ton of crapola from the statute books".?

Sorry I love the dream but truly can't see it happening. ( sadly ) they'll sit there with fingers up their arses and prevaricate and work on new ways to fiddle more money out of the populace for them selves, as usual .

Heh, probably. Then again the breather will do the whole country good.

Thats true.

I think the view that a coalition would be a bad thing is ridiculous. I'd rather things like the NHS data base, ID cards and Iraq Wars had been/would be held up and debated before being rushed into.

Tories can take a jump. Aligned with right wingers in Europe and want everyone to have "choice" in everything. No. I want to choose my Government who then provide services that are of equally good standard everywhere. If we end up choosing and doing everything there would be nothing for the MPs to do at all apart from claiming expenses.

Labour are a nonsense as well, any party that gets in for 3 terms ends up being the same but I reel in horror thinking back to the Tories run in Government. Society was fecked, crime was high and there were full on riots.

A coalition would be a good pause for thought about our whole system, if nothing else.

So lets have the lib dem's get in and feck everything up. Different parties same feck.

Choice is not what the public really want. When I was at school there was one school and that was it. As long as our nearest school or hospital is good that is all most of us want. If you want more go private and pay for it yourself.


Labour have moved to the right to such an extent the Tories are being forced into BNP and UKIP territory. Labour do not represent the working man or woman any longer. They need to a kick up the backside to make them do things for the poor rather than ignore them.


If they just review legislation for a couple of years and just reform voting and parliament then I think that would be a good thing.

I was thinking that if we had mandatory voting with a none of the above option, though with a sting. If the numbers of none of the above hits a certain percentage there will be a mandatory bye election where by the candidate has one chance to get the numbers of those voting for parties up. If the votes for parties remains low he/she will have to stand down having another bye election at the end of a further year and will be ineligible to stand for 5 years. This will mean that parties will have the chance of losing majorities if there are enough bye elections.

Also a complete ban of non locals standing for elections. You must have lived in the constituency for six months prior to the election to be eligible. That will stop party favourites being parachuted into a safe seat. and mean that the candidate has a home in the area.

That's kinda what I'm getting at, will the Lib Dems jump on that sort of bandwagon just/to try and remain relevant? I can't see it...

This will be their best chance in a century, so I guess that they will be more populist than push for the extremes to win favour with the Daily Mail.