What would the labour equivalent be? Labour leaders on the picket lines in hobnail boots?

And the Lib Dems morris dancing around a may pole?

Mind you, I suppose he’s lot more credible as a Patron Saint than St George.

I don’t know anything about St Andrew, so I’ll have to save that for another rant, along with my thesis ‘The historical evidence for William Wallace being Gay’ (a compliation that is actually quite plausible, but which, for reasons you might understand, would nonetheless be best submitted as anonymously as possible)

On the contrary, a hung parliament and subsequent coalition might actually mean the majority of the electorate get their views enacted, at least to some degree. Normally it’s the minority who get that privilege. 36% in 2005.

Why should it be down to Clegg to declare in advance what he will do if the voters decide on a hung parliament? Has Gordon Brown set out what he will do in the various permutations of a hung parliament, or Cameron?

You accuse the Lib Dems of being undemocratic, but are happy to be part of a Government that was elected by only 35% of those who voted. If that isn’t undemocratic, what is?

You claim to dislike hung parliaments because ‘That’s the essence of PR: let the little people have their vote, then ignore what they say and start bartering away the very policies they voted for behind closed doors and without reference to them.’ Yet isn’t this EXACTLY how Government is done at the moment. Did you ‘consult the people’ before bartering away your pledge not to introduce tuition fees behind closed doors? Do Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling hold their arguments about the budget out in the open? Of course they don’t.

However I would venture to guess that the London parties may just have taken a wee peek north of the border and realised that minority government is perfectly feasible and that it is not actually necessary to go into a coalition provided you can get support on an issue by issue basis.

Fair play to Old Holborn for not letting apathy get in the way (looking in the mirror here) and wanting to change things for the better (as he sees it).

To try to change the system for the good of all rather than play the game to feather your own nest takes courage and many MPs could learn a lot from his example. Ideally the system should be changed from within, but sometimes the rot is so severe that it must be cut out.

As Thomas Jefferson said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

While I have no wish for bloodshed, some prison time for those who initially go against the system (sorry OH, you’re a martyr) and any MPs who vote to further their own agenda rather than the good of their constituents would appear to be needed to keep everyone in line.

Being given the choice between milk or cream in your coffee when you’re lactose intolerant is not really much of a choice, is it?

Maybe Michael Ritter was too pessimistic, could it really be worse than the petty back-biting and infighting we see, or the greed and self-righteous behaviour of some MPs? Most of the Commons debates would not look out of place in a school playground.

Could the unwashed masses really make worse decisions than making cartoon images illegal, making text illegal, allowing councils and TFL to have access to our homes and bank records in the name of anti-terrorism, spending billions on IT systems that fail to deliver?

Probably, but it would be a great experiment and probably less expensive than Labour’s wars and banking mess.

We now have Mps in the Dock and hundreds of MPs “spending more time with their families” come May 6th.

Er, how, exactly? No offence, but how many people outside a very narrow spectrum of the blogosphere have even heard of you or your various and amusing attempts to “subvert” the state?

I can also do more damage to the state (and yes, that is my aim) by standing outide pi**sing in.

Funnily enough, The BBC seems to think that stupid voters shouldn’t be allowed to vote anyway. It would certainly explain Labour’s education policy.

DM Andy has hit the nail on the head. Completely agree.

What’s different about the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill is that the Tories official position is to support the bill. What happened on Friday contradicts that. So it’s right to ask the question as to what the Conservative policy on vulture funds is.

If the MP concerned is against the bill then that’s fine, he’s elected as an MP to make decisions like that. But for an MP to derail a bill under a cloak of secrecy just makes him look like a gutless coward. Is he ashamed? Does he not want his constituents to know what he believes in?

That’s very gracious of your “leader”, but I’m afraid that’s a decision Clegg will not be in a position to take. It would be up to the main opposition party (either Labour or Conservative) to decide whether it wants to force the minority government into a pact with the Liberals or (as happened last time) to allow the government to govern on its own for a while. The LibDems will learn of that decision in the same way as everyone else in the country – through the media.

I know to a member of the Labour party this may come as quite a shock, but we Lib Dems actually have a say in what we do, it’s called democracy and we kind of like it (a bit more than either of the other two parties)… I can tell you one thing I will not stand by and allow my party to side with the horribly illiberal Labour party nor the horribly vacuous Tories, so no I can’t see a formal siding with either Labour or the Conservatives and I believe that you know this in your heart, you’re just playing on peoples worst fears for your own political gain and it is pathetic.

Might I remind you that Labour currently govern with a substantial majority having gained only 35.3% of the votes cast at the last election.

You never know, maybe the Libs will gain enough seats that they need not be in a coalition with either of the centre right parties. I think I’d prefer a hung parliament though (or a hanged one if I’m feeling malevolent towards MPs…)

As I understand it, the Tory front bench said they wanted the bill to pass but clearly didn’t get their MPs (or, worse still, their whips) behind this.

The way the three MPs got into a huddle so no-one could tell which of them actually said “Object” was pretty shabby. Dave should sack the whips.

I think this has got exactly the press coverage it has deserved so far and it does not bode well for how the Tories would actually behave in Government, should they win the election.

For me, another example that, for all the chatter, they really are still the same old Tories.

You might say that is deceptive and wrong. Maybe so, but it is no more wrong than Gordon Brown lying to the electorate about the true state of the economy. Or Labour refusing to provide any information on where the cuts Gordon Brown now accepts are necessary, will be made.

One of the reasons voters are so cynical about politics is because we know the 3 main parties are not to be trusted and we know we are being lied to. Thanks to Gordon Brown, we also know that anything ‘promised’ in a Manifesto is worth diddly-squat after the election. Because if it doesn’t suit the PM, he will just renege on the promise. Nice one, that – builds trust (not).

I am left bewildered by the continual demands of Ms Robina Quershi, PAiH, to end forceable deportations of asylum seekers and refugees.

Would Ms Quershi please inform of her alternative to forceable deportations – what method can be adopted to deport failed asylum seekers and refugees if they refuse to leave Britain?

C’mon Robina, please, please, tell us.

No, no, you introduced economic migrants into the debate (Thursday 11 March 2010 at 2:14 pm).

Strange you are not aware of the asylum seeking cases I quoted, nor the fact that asylum seekers’ utility bills are paid by the taxpayer but you make yourself aware of the so-called hardships of the asylum seekers. And you are at odds with yourself when you inform, “you wont find many” (economic migrants) “in Glasgow” and later post “I don’t know how many economic migrants there are in Glasgow”.

And you get it wrong again: “Almost the only economic migrants who are on the record are the stinking rich ones in the City (actually most of them are in the West End, but you know whom I mean)” – no, I don’t know whom you mean.

My comment on “The pensioners getting income benefit having earned it over a lifetime” was not made in argument against asylum seekers working – my reference to pensioners was made in answer to half benefits for asylum seekers – check back.

Our courts do make legal decisions on the claims of asylum refugee, Civil Servants may make initial decisions, asylum seekers / refugees then have recourse to legal representation for appeals through the courts.

So easy for you, a decision is made, and you refuse to accept it, you claim it’s “flawed”. Should we have a situation whereby when our own people are found guilty, they / we claim the decision is flawed, the “criminal” refuses to accept the decision, refuses to go to prison, court says OK, away back to your house. ’Course not, but that’s what’s happening with asylum seekers and refugees.

Will we decide which laws to obey and which to ignore? Should we change our laws to suit Ms Robina Qureshi and yourself because both of you and the failed asylum seekers and refugees do not agree with the law – the verdict. If so, which laws will we choose to ignore and which laws will we choose to obey? There lies anarchy, the loudest shouter, the hardest puncher, dictates the laws. Or perhaps the BNP will prove to be the safety valve for those millions of us who continually witness the failure of our government(s) to return asylum seekers and refugees who have failed in their claims to stay in Britain.

John, it’s been enjoyable “debating” with you, all good things must come to an end, no one else is reading us, this part of the blog has moved on, and so must I.

Good luck.