I hope your right and boundary change is one of them.

Every single Tory MP will vote for the boundary changes, even if they have to be wheeled in on their death beds

It will then be defeated in the House of Lords

It will then be voted through again by every Tory MP.

I thought the Torys got 331 seats

That would give them a majority of 12 on the 326 majority point add on the 4 Senn Fein members who do not attend . DUP have 8 and will vote with the Tories as will the one UKIP
Tories 331
DUP 8
ukip 1

TOTAL 340

Labour 232
SNP 56
LIBS 8
WELSH 3
GREENS 1
SDLP 3
OTHERS 3

TOTAL 306


four SF do not count

Anything with Europe in it will trip up the Tories as they are split wide open and they will struggle with the Europe poll. The Tories would need to lose around 16 seats to be close to losing power, a'int going to happen in the length of a parliament so lets get used to it.

Couldn't the point about the majority of people not voting for the Tories also be said for almost every government elected in the UK since the end of rotten boroughs? IIRC Thatcher and co never got close to an actual majority of votes, but stayed in power for quite some time.

I still like PR in principle, but having seen minority/coalition governments I tend to shy away from them, and they're an almost inevitable outcome of PR.

The current account deficit as a % of GDP has been higher and we managed to survive that.

You seem to place a lot of store by the actions of a few fund managers who will be gambling a very small element of their portfolio.

One thing to consider is how safe is UK debt compared to other countries and whilst ever it seen as secure there will always be a market at affordable rates for the government

The Governor of the BoE's comments came after the General Election. Could have done UKIP and Labour a favour by speaking out earlier!

It won't matter what party is in government in terms of the economy when the US $ collapses in the next couple of years according to people like Peter Schiff, and Mike Malloney, we'll all be pretty fecked.

You mean we all ready aren't?

The whole idea of REPRESENTATION is an anachronism dating back centuries. It necessitates a class of people who once served a critical function in society which is now REDUNDANT in the 21st century. Think about itinformation age[/i. An age of [iinstantaneous communication[/i. There is no longer any NEED to keep financing the upkeep of these charlatans and crooks in parliament.

In any case, the idea that some politician can represent YOUR INTERESTS along with your neighbour's, the shopkeeper's across the road, the single mother's three streets away, the pensioner's in sheltered accommodation along with BAE systems on the outskirts of town is PATENTLY ABSURD.

I've long advocated a simple challenge which could be undertaken each electionPRECISELY WHOSE INTERESTS ARE YOU REPRESENTING? Who'd bet against some wildly divergent figures?

Given that it's now possible for nearly every individual to access the Internet in some way (broadband, telephone, cellular etc.) it should be no challenge whatsoever to set up a secure system of electronic polling. A person could, say, return home from work one evening and spend an hour or so browsing a list of upcoming issues which he or she feels are important. Supplementary information including a summary of the problem, arguments on both sides, proposals for improvements, costings etc. could be downloaded in PDF form. Discussion of the question could take place on a forum not much different than this. Then when the deadline for voting arrives he or she simply casts her ballot and exits the software.

Once the ballot is cast and the winning proposal is known it would then be the responsibility of the civil service to execute the will of the people.

Now, I'm not saying for one moment that there wouldn't be tremendous challenges (organisational, procedural, infrastructure etc.). But given the intelligence, ingenuity and expertise which exists in this country I'm certain it's doable.

After all, not only is this a far more democratic system (truly representational democracy) it completely does away with a corrupt, venal and decadent class of politicians which has singularly failed the people of this country for over a century.

So who comes up with 'the issues'? And you'd be happy with a country that has the death penalty (just time the 'vote' just after a particularly nasty child murder for example)? Speaking of which, how long before paedophiles were executed? How would funding be decided within a sphere - e.g. health? I'd bet hardly anyone who hasn't either been affected or knows someone who has been affected would think of putting much money into mental health for example, let alone understand how best to use those funds. Etc etc.

The problems with the sort of model you suggest would be far, far worse than what we have now. Just check any theme trending on social media to see how mob rule by the masses would work in reality.

The only way that could happen is to have the 'bureacracy' actively engage in setting policy directions - i.e. you'd have a completely unelected elite running the country in no time at all.

This is not true at all. Yes, a proportion of the electorate revert to such form. A very large one, too. But do YOU revert to mob behaviour at the first site of a paedophile story in the local paper? I know I don't. I know my friends don't.

I leave you to figure out why this is the case (clue

I really don't see how this is a problem which can't be overcome.

It's an interesting idea. It would force people become more informed on the issues that they're voting on, and would do away with a media industry that is no longer fit for purpose.

I'd need more details though, for example, whom would appoint and run the civil service? How would be be represented in the European Parliament, the UN etc? Would they have to adopt the same method?

Give me a chance ... I've only just finished sketching it out on the back of a fag packet! need new ideas today. The current system is just so hopelessly broken it's no longer funny.

Did you write Ed Balls' economic manifesto as well?

But on the whole I'd agree with you, and I'd argue the problem doesn't just stop with our political system. There needs to be a shift in our paradigm regarding our politics, economy, and how we view the world in general. We seem to be collectively confined by the same dogma we have been for 200 years, and we wonder why so much of the world seems broken.