Debate Feedback 29th October 2007

The debate was simple, like in all parties there was a split of opinion, these views are summerised below.

Arguements for
1. All votes in this system count.
2. Every party has an opportunity to be represented providing they have sufficient number of votes.
3. With no overall majority likely no single policy can be passed with out scrutinization from all members and therefore only sensible policies are passed.

Arguements against
1. Many people like to know who they have voted for it is very difficult to determine who is your MP in this system.
2. A majority allow the government to govern and carry out what they want to do.

My opinion
All minority parties do explore this avenue because this system gives them an opportunatey to be heard not all agree with it but they think they should try it to gain some element of power.
I do like the idea as everyone is forced to try and work the problems out and extremest are more likely to fail in their lust for power.
If you get an egos like Tony Blair George Bush and Hitler leading a party it would be more likely that they couldn’t pursue vengence on behalf of dad. And why did Tony want War so much was it because he thought J. M. and M. T. did well out of it he thought he could?
I am aware many committees sit and talk and resolve nothing but is this not better than the evil pursuit for personal gain?
So to conclude I am narrowly for it.
So what is your opinion on the subject Joe public?

By Trevor Cooper

Sorry unable to attend similar debate in Minster ,Tuesday, due to flu bug if anyone who attended has anything to add please comment.