When the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois in Canada tried to suggest a coalition to oust the minority Conservative administration the public backlash was immense. They cannot get PR through in time for the next election, so the electorate will punish them for it when the next General Election occurs within 12 months.

I think it's more of an indictment of the personnel rather than the technology. There will always be ways for the perverted to satisfy themselves.

Immigration has been a problem for years, why is number one for them now? We have fought campaigns on tough immigration for years, this is showing something new, not the same old same old that tarred us so heavily in 2005. The number of those switching from Labour to BNP will be far less than Labour supporters coming to us for the reasons set above. BNP are a protest vote, not a policy vote. That requires an entirely different strategy than this one; this campaign is focussed on people who want their vote to actually count for something.

This is reasons to vote Tory if you haven't voted Tory before. The Conservatives have long been known to be the toughest on immigration of the 2 1/2 main parties. Do you know of someone who has voted for Labour or the Lib Dems because the Conservatives are soft on immigration?

The link between ruling on a case in a jury and scrutinising legislation is somewhat tenuous. A jury is under obligation to disregard any personal prejudices and focus solely on the facts presented to them when they pass judgement, if a juror cannot they cannot serve. But political opinions are bound to affect which "experts" are called, which advocate the "citizens chamber" prefers, and in the end which way the vote goes. It also makes elected politicians even more like lawyers, and furthermore copies two aspects of Westminster that are most derided; firstly, standing committees of the Commons I have not heard an academic arguement in favour of keeping them as opposed to handing their jobs to select committees for the expertise they hold. Secondly, this proposal is essentially government by focus group, codified into our constitution. However, the randomness principle I believe does have some merit, but more to use it as a way to add a degree of deligitmacy to the Upper Chamber. Essentially, a set number of seats are assigned to the Upper Chamber, say 500, and then the electoral register is divided at random between each seat, so each Lord has an equal number of random citizens voting for them. The candidates do not know who their voters are, which will aid in taking party politics out of the equation, and will encourage those with expertise to seek election on that basis. The chamber then becomes a scrutinising and reviewing chamber only, elected by the people, but with no possible threat to the commons, since it lacks the legitimacy of being elected to represent either a set constituency of voters, a distinct political party or a policy platform. Obviously there would need to be a lot more to this proposal to make it really work, which I can share if anyone wants to find out more, but I think it shows how randomisation can be used to select the Upper Chamber and imbue it with the characteristics we believe it should hold.

I always thought the SDP were the lefties in that coalition. The remaining Liberal rump are actually Eurosceptic

I think it's pretty clear. A lion in front of a rising sun

How long does a planning permit usually take? The ability to pay for prioritisation is already being used elsewhere in government, and as long as the timeframe is not muh longer I'm sure you could do the same. I needed a Criminal Records Check before I applied for a Canadian Working Visa, and you could pay 10 quid for a 3 month wait, 35 for 2 weeks or around 70 for 3 days.

I became conservative aged 9 on the basis of education policy, before the 1997 election. My local secondary schools were poor to say the least, and after my sister got an assisted place to go to private school, that was the plan for me as well. Then Labour came along and scrapped assisted places, making my chance at getting the best education possible that much harder. My mother was then working two jobs, and through her own hard efforts, she somehowfound the means to pay for me to go to a great school, as well as using the Right-To-Buy scheme to get out of the council housing system. That experience forms the core of my beliefs now

I've never trusted ComRes

Do not confuse libertarianism for anarchism. Seems to be what Boy George is doing

From what the Government have come out with in opposition, the Right-To-Move has left Labour thinking "Shit, why didn't we think of that?"

This meeting has been a long-time coming

did somebody write "not in my name" next to that picture of a banker's effigy? What I found from dealing with Trots at the University of Manchester is that they are all mouth and no trousers.

My apologies then Mr Carswell, I will seek it out before passing further comment.

It is easy to criticise, but harder to actually make something better. If Mr Carswell is so disillusioned with the seat of democracy, he should spend his time contributing to the debate on how to actually improve the House, and maybe even try and do some good, rather than thinking up ways around the Q,X and Z problem that all alphabet lists have to get around.

Opinicus That fact remains that because of strong party discipline and our party based government, the House of Commons will never be able to provide sufficient scrutiny of the Government, unless you want to change that system too. In any account, the British system is so strong for it's strength in depth of scrutiny; removing a vital layer will mean government by popular whim as opposed to good representative government. Let me be clear, I do not support prime ministerial patronage to the Upper House. I detailed in depth early on in this thread my own proposal for the House of Lords. In short, it is directly elected but has a different, more restricted, mandate than that issued to the House of Commons, and it's members will be a different kind of representative.

Unicameralism is not an option. The only major world nation to have a unicameral legislature is.... China, and we know how representative they are. Among the others are Cuba, Iraq, East Timor, Sri Lanka and the Vatican. A bicameral legislature is essential for good government and proper scrutiny in as large a country as ours where representation is more important; you need to have a check on the uncontrolled populism and majority rule of the House of Commons

Graeme, "I don't see any way of electing the second chamber that would not put it into conflict with the Commons. Wishing this weren't so would do nothing to avoid the impasse." I see this as possible. You take away the best parts of HoC representation i.e. the direct link to a constituency and the constant renewal through re-election, thus making Lords less "legitimate" than the Commons and unable to challenge it on that grounds. See my proposal above for more details on how I can see this being achieved

Cleethorpe Rock wrote: - Independent from the whips and parties - Consist of high achievers from business, the Armed Forces, Science, Medicine, charities, public service, voluntary sector. - Long terms of office - No possibility of re-election/serve one term only These terms suggested I agree with. The trouble of no salary returns us to a Victorian situation where only the rich can sit in the Lords. A constitutionally enshrined veto as opposed to equal voting power is a step too far and a bit of a sledgehammer when the chamber is non-party political. The desire for it not to be a retirement home should be defended if the chamber is elected; only those who have done well should be elected. Furthermore, Lords should be banned from taking political office once their term has ended. That stops it being a breeding ground too. I see the House of Lords as the revising chamber; it's main function is the scrutiny of legislation and Governmental actions (ministers should be allowed to speak in the Lords to defend goverment actions/bills). It needs to be linked to the people, but not behoven to them. Lords need to be more trustees or free agents than delegates. I believe this electoral procedure would enshrine that: -Citizens apply for a specific Lords seat; preferabley they would be national seats rather than constituency i.e. just be numbered 1 to 350 or however many there are. Applicants can only be candidates for one seat at a time. - each Lord seat is randomly assigned 100,000 or however many electors who vote by AV. Each elector receives 1 piece of literature from each candidate, perhaps use internet fora/question times to question candidates. No other literature is allowed, or even possible since the candidates don't know who their electors are - Lords serve VERY long terms without chance for re-election, or even for life whilst in good health and behaviour. There would be a recall function for Lords not serving the people well enough; it would be large enough threshold so it couldn't be a party political tactic and would require grassroots citizen action.

Improving microcosmic representation should be down to political parties and no-one else.

The right thing to do, but could also be seen as a shrewd political move

One of the worst of a very bad bunch Good riddance

Teach science in science class, and teach religion in religious studies. Simple really.

Sharing the proceeds of growth when there is some seems only sensible to me. As we enter a different economic climate, it is only sensible again to change our methods. But when we get the economy back on track, Osborne's economic plans in a growth economy will keep it that way.