[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Gayle

I think you've made the argument against your own argument there - because an MP could say that they were trying to achieve the end result of their manifesto whichever way they voted so they could buddy up with other people anyway.

For instance, their manifesto says that they will want to support more people going to college - a bill is presented that says that by law parents have to take out a covenant at birth. They could either vote for it or against it under the new freedom voting that you're introducing. An MP could argue that voting against the bill meant that students would take out their own funding and make them responsible for their own education. See what I mean, they could argue either way that it supported their manifesto so that would give them freedom to buddy up with any other MP.

Your contrived example is flawed Gayle.

Supporting more people going to college doesn’t mean that the MP would have to agree with whatever method is dreamed up to make it happen. Thus voting against a proposal to make parents take out a covenant is not going against the MP’s manifesto.

Now what about the other points? Or is it ‘cherry picking’ time?

However I was naïve enough to hope that responders to entwisi’s original post at http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/accyweb-elections-37647.html would enter into the spirit of it and come up with their own ideas rather than picking holes in other people’s. After all that was the object of the exercise proposed by entwisi – for forum members to present their own manifestos. I just modified it to limit it to one subject in a manifesto.

What would be your vision on Parliamentary reform?

It is all too easy to destroy but not so easy to create. To construct you need the intelligence that is greater than that of an amoeba. Present company excepted, but how many amoebas have we on this forum?