Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/30/government-refuses-to-release-details-of-studies-into-economic-impact-of-brexit

Government refuses to release details of studies into economic impact of Brexit

Department for Exiting the EU refuses to respond to Labour MP’s request to see work on 58 sectors of the economy, saying it needs a ‘safe space’ for negotiations

The Brexit department has refused to release key details about the 58 secret studies into how leaving the EU will impact the economy, saying officials need to make policy in a “safe space”.

Seema Malhotra, a Labour MP on the Brexit committee, had asked to know the scope, terms of reference and state of completion of the work on 58 sectors of the economy, but the department refused to release the details under freedom of information laws.

Now everyone is getting on the ‘safe space’ wagon

More allegations, this time aimed at labour.

 Tamereth wrote:
Reading that list I just hear Paul Whitehouse saying "what me, with my reputation"

Men are perverts. In other news the sky is blue today. Are these the type of people we want in charge of the country, probably not. But when in modern times were politicians considered to be upstanding members of the community or role models?

I think perhaps it is the potential willingness to abuse a position of authority, by some on the list, that could be the issue, rather than the perversions. Frankly I don't give a monkeys if someone gets off on men wearing women's perfume, that's kind of irrelevant to their job, but if they were taking advantage of their position to get someone to do something disagreeable, or to conceal their misdemeanours, that's a bit different.

Old Spice was originally intended for women. It got popular for men because it was included in care packages for WW2 US servicemen.

But yeah, it's completely irrelevant to much of modern society what body parts you like to insert into someone else's body parts, providing your partner agreed from a position of equality.

The fundamentai problem is powerful people taking advantage of less powerful people.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/30/government-refuses-to-release-details-of-studies-into-economic-impact-of-brexit

Government refuses to release details of studies into economic impact of Brexit

Department for Exiting the EU refuses to respond to Labour MP’s request to see work on 58 sectors of the economy, saying it needs a ‘safe space’ for negotiations

The Brexit department has refused to release key details about the 58 secret studies into how leaving the EU will impact the economy, saying officials need to make policy in a “safe space”.

Seema Malhotra, a Labour MP on the Brexit committee, had asked to know the scope, terms of reference and state of completion of the work on 58 sectors of the economy, but the department refused to release the details under freedom of information laws.

I think we can work on the principle that the reason they don't release this is because they know just how much bad news is in there and it would be a disaster politically if they released it. As such they are hiding behind the negotiations phase and hope we all quietly forget about it afterwards (though of course we'll be in the mess then anyway). I don't why they bother though. The EU will have told us what David Davis's position is before he even knows it himself (whilst desperately trying to find out what Czechoslovakia want from the negotiations! ).

It would be an interesting court case if someone took them to court over whether they have to release it under the FOI act. If only I was a multimillionaire.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Reading that list I just hear Paul Whitehouse saying "what me, with my reputation"

Men are perverts. In other news the sky is blue today. Are these the type of people we want in charge of the country, probably not. But when in modern times were politicians considered to be upstanding members of the community or role models?

I think perhaps it is the potential willingness to abuse a position of authority, by some on the list, that could be the issue, rather than the perversions. Frankly I don't give a monkeys if someone gets off on men wearing women's perfume, that's kind of irrelevant to their job, but if they were taking advantage of their position to get someone to do something disagreeable, or to conceal their misdemeanours, that's a bit different.

Agreed. The problem is that it appears that men in positions of power let that power go to their head and think they can get away with things (it appears less apparent in women but not completely). That then leads them to exploit people that want to get on in the world and to an extent are vulnerable to manipulation.

Some of the items are like whatever, if you want to be pee'd on by three guys that is up to you. On the other hand things like getting someone pregnant and then forcing them to have an abortion, if true, should be instant dismissal, do not pass go, do not collect £200, go straight to jail.

 r_squared wrote:
... Frankly I don't give a monkeys if someone gets off on men wearing women's perfume ...

Yeah I've heard of that -

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Old Spice was originally intended for women. It got popular for men because it was included in care packages for WW2 US servicemen.

But yeah, it's completely irrelevant to much of modern society what body parts you like to insert into someone else's body parts, providing your partner agreed from a position of equality.

The fundamentai problem is powerful people taking advantage of less powerful people.

Well it appears that May was warned three times that whips were using knowledge of indiscretions to 'exploit' people to vote in a certain way. A specific question asked in PMQs directly to the PM by Lisa Nandy. May's response "er, um, err, err, I'll look into it, oh and it was Labour that got us into this mess anyway"

You can see one of the questions asked here (12:51):-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-41804082

In other news the reasons for not having a new referendum are now getting more desperate. IDS is now on records stating that we shouldn't have one because...

"Imagine the hate-filled campaign that would divide this country. I do not think that is a price worth paying." and

"It would be the most divisive event in this country since the arguments over Irish home rule at least, to try and go back over this issue,"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41829714

Of course we are already divided on the issue and has already increased hate filled aggression against people (immigrants, Gina Miller etc) but then I suppose he doesn't count any of these things arising from the original vote because he got what he wanted...

Would a second referendum be binding? The first wasn't, but it precipitated Brexit anyway.

How would it be worded? I don't think the country knows what it wants. Is there a simple majority for leaving the EU and staying in the EEA? That's what Simon Jenkins wants Remainers to sign up to. It would be a second best choice to staying but it was ruled out months ago by May. Would the question be Remain versus Leave again?

I don't know why May doesn't release the reports. Perhaps they are pretty negative, and she doesn't want the Brexiteers in the Tory Party to have an excuse for back-stabbing her. It's hard to see why she would not release them if they are positive. As it stands, Brexit is owned by the Tories. if it's a disaster they are the ones we will all blame.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would a second referendum be binding? The first wasn't, but it precipitated Brexit anyway.

How would it be worded? I don't think the country knows what it wants. Is there a simple majority for leaving the EU and staying in the EEA? That's what Simon Jenkins wants Remainers to sign up to. It would be a second best choice to staying but it was ruled out months ago by May. Would the question be Remain versus Leave again?

I don't know why May doesn't release the reports. Perhaps they are pretty negative, and she doesn't want the Brexiteers in the Tory Party to have an excuse for back-stabbing her. It's hard to see why she would not release them if they are positive. As it stands, Brexit is owned by the Tories. if it's a disaster they are the ones we will all blame.

For sure, the referendum wasn't legally binding, but the act of parliament that activated A50 definitely was legally binding.

I said at the time that Remain supporters crowing over Gina Millar's courtroom victory better be careful what they wish for, because once Parliament gives the government the green light, the government has a hell of a lot of leeway in these things, and there is historical precedent for this going back to 1815's Congress of Vienna.

Remain supporters wanted the rulebook to be adhered too. They may have got it flung back at them.

As for Simon Jenkins, I pretty sure he wanted us in the Euro, so from my viewpoint, I wouldn't put much stock in what he says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/30/government-refuses-to-release-details-of-studies-into-economic-impact-of-brexit

Government refuses to release details of studies into economic impact of Brexit

Department for Exiting the EU refuses to respond to Labour MP’s request to see work on 58 sectors of the economy, saying it needs a ‘safe space’ for negotiations

The Brexit department has refused to release key details about the 58 secret studies into how leaving the EU will impact the economy, saying officials need to make policy in a “safe space”.

Seema Malhotra, a Labour MP on the Brexit committee, had asked to know the scope, terms of reference and state of completion of the work on 58 sectors of the economy, but the department refused to release the details under freedom of information laws.

These papers will get released...in 30 years time

I'm not sure what you mean by an act of parliament being legally binding. It is legally binding up to the point that another act of parliament makes it no longer legally binding.

Thus, it's perfectly reasonable that another referendum on the topic of EU membership would be as effective as the previous one, depending on the behind the scenes manoeuvring within the Conservative Party.

Let's remember that the reason for the earlier referendum was that Cameron thought he would win, silence the Tory "Bastards", squash UKIP, and reign supreme over a re-unified Conservative movement. But it all went wrong.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would a second referendum be binding? The first wasn't, but it precipitated Brexit anyway.

How would it be worded? I don't think the country knows what it wants. Is there a simple majority for leaving the EU and staying in the EEA? That's what Simon Jenkins wants Remainers to sign up to. It would be a second best choice to staying but it was ruled out months ago by May. Would the question be Remain versus Leave again?

I think what is more interesting is why it has come up. Although there are a few that have mooted in public another referendum (Green's and LDs etc) there hasn't been a lot of other public debate. However as we know politicians like to go public on a private debate to try and shut things down. The question is then is there a growing private debate in parliament that there should be a second vote? Is this voice getting louder and hence IDS statement?

I don't know why May doesn't release the reports. Perhaps they are pretty negative, and she doesn't want the Brexiteers in the Tory Party to have an excuse for back-stabbing her. It's hard to see why she would not release them if they are positive. As it stands, Brexit is owned by the Tories. if it's a disaster they are the ones we will all blame.

I think we can probably conclude that they are negative. If they were all rosy then they would probably release them to try and grind the Remain argument into the dust. That they don't would imply that they show significant risks for the economy almost everywhere. That would pretty much damn the current government. The clamour for a rethink would become very loud but they would lose all support from defecting UKIP supporters (by no longer being newUKIP). Trying to bury them is perhaps the best way they can find to try and stop everything hitting the fan. However she is actually stuck. She has already said that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. If that really is the case then there is actually no harm in releasing the information because it actually strengthens her position because she has a position which she can point to and say "look if it gets worse than this we might as well go no deal". That they don't indicates just how bad things are.

Even Davis is now admitting that whatever the deal is made the EU will be the better off of the two parties and separately it is looking unlikely that current free trade deals we have by being in the EU will be lost on day one of leaving. To note that is with 65 countries (bizarrely of course they just want to copy the existing deals which makes you wonder why we are leaving?).

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-trade-negotiations-liam-fox_uk_59f9d788e4b0d1cf6e91e4da?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

However Davis does still want a "deep and meaningful relationship" with the EU. Given the current scandal in the UK parliament I would advise the EU to stay well away from such things...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I said at the time that Remain supporters crowing over Gina Millar's courtroom victory better be careful what they wish for, because once Parliament gives the government the green light, the government has a hell of a lot of leeway in these things, and there is historical precedent for this going back to 1815's Congress of Vienna.

Those of us who supported the Millar case (even if we don't support her politics) are still crowing about the case. It was an absolutely essential case that crushed the Prime Minister's attempt to illegally extend her power.

The consequences to the Brexit issue are neither here nor there. The importance for democracy was paramount.

The motion, calling on the government "to end the public sector pay cap for the armed forces and give armed forces personnel a fair pay rise" is agreed without a vote.

Hooray!

The motion is not binding on the government, so ministers do not have to take action in response to it.

covenant-my-arse

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would a second referendum be binding? The first wasn't, but it precipitated Brexit anyway.

How would it be worded? I don't think the country knows what it wants. Is there a simple majority for leaving the EU and staying in the EEA? That's what Simon Jenkins wants Remainers to sign up to. It would be a second best choice to staying but it was ruled out months ago by May. Would the question be Remain versus Leave again?

I think what is more interesting is why it has come up. Although there are a few that have mooted in public another referendum (Green's and LDs etc) there hasn't been a lot of other public debate. However as we know politicians like to go public on a private debate to try and shut things down. The question is then is there a growing private debate in parliament that there should be a second vote? Is this voice getting louder and hence IDS statement?

I don't know why May doesn't release the reports. Perhaps they are pretty negative, and she doesn't want the Brexiteers in the Tory Party to have an excuse for back-stabbing her. It's hard to see why she would not release them if they are positive. As it stands, Brexit is owned by the Tories. if it's a disaster they are the ones we will all blame.

I think we can probably conclude that they are negative. If they were all rosy then they would probably release them to try and grind the Remain argument into the dust. That they don't would imply that they show significant risks for the economy almost everywhere. That would pretty much damn the current government. The clamour for a rethink would become very loud but they would lose all support from defecting UKIP supporters (by no longer being newUKIP). Trying to bury them is perhaps the best way they can find to try and stop everything hitting the fan. However she is actually stuck. She has already said that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. If that really is the case then there is actually no harm in releasing the information because it actually strengthens her position because she has a position which she can point to and say "look if it gets worse than this we might as well go no deal". That they don't indicates just how bad things are.

Even Davis is now admitting that whatever the deal is made the EU will be the better off of the two parties and separately it is looking unlikely that current free trade deals we have by being in the EU will be lost on day one of leaving. To note that is with 65 countries (bizarrely of course they just want to copy the existing deals which makes you wonder why we are leaving?).

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-trade-negotiations-liam-fox_uk_59f9d788e4b0d1cf6e91e4da?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

However Davis does still want a "deep and meaningful relationship" with the EU. Given the current scandal in the UK parliament I would advise the EU to stay well away from such things...

Leaving in name only.....
Only the British at this time could come up with such a genius masterplan. 'Foolproof I tells ya'.

I think its pretty obvious that the Eu bloc would be better off after a divorce than the UK. I had hoped for more from our 'team'. I actually kick myself for naivety of thought when I assumed that there could be a national effort at negotiating a settlement rather than the tribal politics which are yet again making mugs of us on the world stage.

Although I do not see a need to release all the information I think both sides should start being more transparent on their objectives for negotiation. Nebulous ideals and lofty goals are fine but there have to some points which the Eu and UK agree on which can be settled in public. We have agreed with each other on some goods on quotas, with the WTO notified.

Looks like Fallon just resigned over "past behaviour". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41838682 I wonder how many scalps from all sides this story is going to claim.

 Henry wrote:

The motion, calling on the government "to end the public sector pay cap for the armed forces and give armed forces personnel a fair pay rise" is agreed without a vote.

Hooray!

The motion is not binding on the government, so ministers do not have to take action in response to it.

covenant-my-arse

This has been done or a number of votes now. Rather than debate and make a meaningful approach to any UK political issue they are taking the approach of abstaining from anything that could be embarrassing or reveal splits. They are now making 3 line whips on MPs just to abstain.

It is a complete farce and making Theresa May is making a complete mockery of our democratic system. We are in a position where an opposition member has to put forward an argument for such things as Universal credit just so they can vote on it. On top of the railroading of ensuring that the Tories always get a majority on any important committee (where traditionally it sits as per the ratio of MPs by party) and the Brexit bill which effectively allows government to make changes to most legislation 'because of Wrexit' shows just how little May and current Tories actually think of democracy.

This Tory even had the gall to worry about a tyrannical rule by a minority Labour government when the reality it is the Tories we should be worried about right now, not Labour.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/tory-mp-warns-conservative-government-leading-uk-towards-tyranny/ar-AAtIuvf

Just don't vote Tories, this all should show you why.

Have any of these allegations of sexual misconduct actually been proven yet?

Seems like Presumption of Innocence is a forgotten concept nowadays...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Have any of these allegations of sexual misconduct actually been proven yet?

Seems like Presumption of Innocence is a forgotten concept nowadays...

As reds8n posted on the last page, a number of them are pretty well known and have been addressed in the past. A lot of them are little more than muck raking and gossip, and actually have no charge to account for. Litigiously, it's a lot easier to say that somebody has done something that isn't illegal than it is to accuse them of something that is. They may not have done anything illegal but some of their actions can viewed as seedy. Presumption of innocence only applies in court (under the UN's Universal Decleration of Human Rights, article 11, as I have just learned).

Another day, another debacle for the government. Here we are in the middle of crucial Brexit negotiations, and the government is plunged into another crisis because a married man couldn't keep his hands to himself.

I really despair at the idiots and fools that run this country. If we ever needed a modern day Cromwell to sweep these away, now is the time. I would not trust them to find their rears with a map and compass!

The Tories think they're born to rule. Born to rule? Don't make me laugh.

I've just finished reading about 1941 and the North Africa campaign. The British Army is in urgent need of reinforcements, so Churchill takes the gamble of rushing a convoy past Gibraltar so it'll reach Alexandria quicker than the Cape route.

The man was that nervous about U-Boat attacks and German bombing agains the convoy, that he barely slept or ate for two days and by all accounts nearly chewed his fingernails to the bone.

Compare that sacrifice and dedication to duty to the in this day and age, and I wonder what the feth happened to this nation? Forget Brexit here, why are our leaders no better than a bucket of horsegak?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Compare that sacrifice and dedication to duty to the in this day and age, and I wonder what the feth happened to this nation? Forget Brexit here, why are our leaders no better than a bucket of horsegak?

The uncharitable answer would be that they're representative of your populace as a whole. I'd instead argue that First Past the Post is slowly strangling your democracy; you can't exactly vote Labour out of office if you hate the Tories even more.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Compare that sacrifice and dedication to duty to the in this day and age, and I wonder what the feth happened to this nation? Forget Brexit here, why are our leaders no better than a bucket of horsegak?

The uncharitable answer would be that they're representative of your populace as a whole. I'd instead argue that First Past the Post is slowly strangling your democracy; you can't exactly vote Labour out of office if you hate the Tories even more.

The system is not the issue here. You look at some of the great British Prime Ministers of history: Pitt the Elder, Pitt the Younger, Disraeli, Gladstone, LLoyd George, Churchill, Atlee, even Harold Wilson whom I rate, and they were all elected under First Past the Post.

Had Pitt the Elder not taken ill, he would probably have been PM for longer, and there's a good chance the American revolution may not have happened. He was sympathetic to the colonists.

The quality of leader this nation used to produce is something we used to take for granted.

So did Anthony Eden and Neville Chamberlain. ?

Fallon didn't quit because of a hand on a knee 15 years ago. There's more to this than meets the eye, and he's jumped before he was pushed. A whole can of worms is ready to be opened this week, and every party will have a gak storm heading their way. What a mess


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whatwhat wrote:
So did Anthony Eden and Neville Chamberlain. ?

Eden was a very good foreign sec. was one of the few to speak out against appeasement, and the Suez debacle, and Eisenhower's intervention, is something that Ike admitted years later to being a mistake. Ike regretted not supporting the British over Suez.

As for Chamberlain, people forget how popular appeasement actually was. The Battle of The Somme was only 22 years previously, and the scars were still there in Britain.

And at any rate, who could he turn to? The Soviet Union was feared and despised. Italy was fascist, France was a mess in the 1930s, and the USA (which Chamberlain didn't rate anyway) was isolationist.

Britain was keen on peace in Europe, as its global Empire faced numerous problems: The Arab revolt in the Middle East, Italian intrigue in The Med and Africa, trouble in India, and a major military construction project in Singapore and Hong Kong with new defences, so an eye had to be kept on Japan.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...As for Chamberlain, people forget how popular appeasement actually was. The Battle of The Somme was only 22 years previously, and the scars were still there in Britain.

And at any rate, who could he turn to? The Soviet Union was feared and despised. Italy was fascist, France was a mess in the 1930s, and the USA (which Chamberlain didn't rate anyway) was isolationist.

Britain was keen on peace in Europe, as its global Empire faced numerous problems: The Arab revolt in the Middle East, Italian intrigue in The Med and Africa, trouble in India, and a major military construction project in Singapore and Hong Kong with new defences, so an eye had to be kept on Japan.

It does kind of put our current political situation into perspective, knowing the genuine and real threats faced by the Nation back then.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/im-too-dirty-to-be-a-minister-but-just-dirty-enough-to-be-an-mp-says-fallon-20171102138412

SIR Michael Fallon has confirmed that his sexual transgressions make him unfit to be defence minister but, luckily, still fine to be a Tory MP. 
Fallon has resigned from the cabinet to avoid it being besmirched by allegations of sexual misconduct, but confirmed that the wider group of Conservatives in parliament can be proud to have him.

He said: “As we all know, groping and other univited sexual advances were acceptable in the 1970s and also enjoyed a retro resurgence during the period 2002-2007.
“And while my enthusiastic, envelope-pushing activities in that area mean I can no longer serve in the cabinet alongside pure souls like Boris Johnson and Liam Fox, it in no way disqualifies me from the Commons.
“By good fortune, my misbehaviour falls into that exact grey area between ‘falling on my sword as a distraction’ and ‘losing our tiny parliamentary majority’.
“I remain proud to serve the people of Sevenoaks. I warn them not to get too close.”

This is satirical (in case it isn't clear) but like all the best satire makes a very good point - how come Fallon has to resign as a Minister, but not a MP?

Ruth Davidson getting wired in about how political 'locker room culture' needs to stop. I imagine she's forgotten about when she was telling jokes about Stephen Crabbe sexting young women last year.

Honestly, why are politicians such imbeciles when it comes to contradicting things they've said and done publicly? It's like Sarwar insisting he never shared a platform with Tories during the independence campaign when there are thousands of photographs of him doing just that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Compare that sacrifice and dedication to duty to the in this day and age, and I wonder what the feth happened to this nation? Forget Brexit here, why are our leaders no better than a bucket of horsegak?

The uncharitable answer would be that they're representative of your populace as a whole. I'd instead argue that First Past the Post is slowly strangling your democracy; you can't exactly vote Labour out of office if you hate the Tories even more.

Yes, and no.

FPTP isn't great, but it's worked OK so far.

My main beef with it is that it creates the possibility of 'safe seats'. Such things strike me as anathema to democracy. Because no matter what your party does, you can rest on a certain level of support because reasons.

Move to PR, and we might see the populace more engaged with the whole process. That can only be a good thing.

Honestly, on a day that I'm more grumpy than usual I'd consider FPTP pseudo-democratic at best, since the system can mean that a person's vote is literally worthless. In a proportional system a party with 46% of the vote would get very close to 46% of the seats in Parliament; in FPTP you can have a "majority" through winning 36% of the vote. It's a system that is anathema to majoritarian rule. The value of your vote should not be dependent on what party all your neighbours voted for.

The entire foundation for democracy as a legitimate system of governance is that it has the support of the populace it governs and that everyone's vote is worth the same. A system that lets someone become President of the United States when someone else got more votes, for instance, is absolutely insane from my point of view because it effectively disenfranchises voters, undermining the entire system's legitimacy in the process.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The Tories think they're born to rule. Born to rule? Don't make me laugh.

And yet the only known outcome of Brexit is that the Tories can run with less oversight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So this dirty dossier, that is claimed to be a list of transgressions to be aware of, but is more likely used for blackmail, is public. So that now means that the Tory party method for controlling a huge number of it's MP's is now invalid. That's just going to cause even more fractions.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Yes, and no.

FPTP isn't great, but it's worked OK so far.

My main beef with it is that it creates the possibility of 'safe seats'. Such things strike me as anathema to democracy. Because no matter what your party does, you can rest on a certain level of support because reasons.

Move to PR, and we might see the populace more engaged with the whole process. That can only be a good thing.

FPTP only works when you have two parties. Generally in such circumstances you do get a number of MPs that is proportional to the vote (although you still have the issue of wasted votes). As soon as you have more than two parties that's when FPTP fails. The smaller third parties will generally not draw equally from the two largest so it can end up draining support on one side more than another. That then gives the other side an easy win even if there actual vote goes down. It's a bad system in todays politics with multiple parties. Additionally in these circumstances the current government can also start redrawing boundaries to facilitate them getting more seats with less votes....cough...Tories...cough.

The demand is getting louder to change the system and I think it will happen eventually because of greater awareness how poor the system is. However unsurprisingly the Tories resist such changes as it will likely lead to them never getting power again as left and centre left wing ideology in this country is more predominant, it is just split across multiple ideals whereas apart from UKIP Tories don't really have another comparison party to draw votes away from them (because lets face it only 30% of the population actually like right wing politics).

It would be interesting though if they changed the system to allow you to vote once in whatever region you wanted. That would then give those with the wasted vote a chance to vote where it did matter. Of course it would probably turn out like a badly worked GW global campaign!!