<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Surrey Heath Conservatives</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:57:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The brochures on the Alternative Vote by Turk</title>
		<link>http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=233#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>Turk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:57:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=233#comment-13</guid>
		<description>Son of a gun, this is so hlefpul!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Son of a gun, this is so hlefpul!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Project Umubano 2011 has launched by Patty</title>
		<link>http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=315#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>Patty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=315#comment-12</guid>
		<description>This piece was cogent, well-wrttien, and pithy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This piece was cogent, well-wrttien, and pithy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The brochures on the Alternative Vote by Dolly</title>
		<link>http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=233#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Dolly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=233#comment-11</guid>
		<description>Keep it coming, wrietrs, this is good stuff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keep it coming, wrietrs, this is good stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The brochures on the Alternative Vote by Lily</title>
		<link>http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=233#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>Lily</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 06:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=233#comment-10</guid>
		<description>Toucdohwn! That&#039;s a really cool way of putting it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Toucdohwn! That&#8217;s a really cool way of putting it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Welcome to the New Surrey Heath Conservatives Site by Matty</title>
		<link>http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=1#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>Matty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 21:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=1#comment-8</guid>
		<description>Finally! This is just what I was loonkig for.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Finally! This is just what I was loonkig for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The brochures on the Alternative Vote by SH_cons_admin</title>
		<link>http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=233#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>SH_cons_admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=233#comment-4</guid>
		<description>Dave:

We have briefly edited your comment to take out  the raving part, because you make some good points.  We are not a raving site, and are not required by anyone to publish any of the comments that are made.  So, we would first of all like to thank you for your comments.  I am assuming that the poll you are speaking of is the one on the following link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.channel4.com/news/tories-have-nothing-to-fear-from-av&quot; target=&quot;blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.channel4.com/news/tories-have-nothing-to-fear-from-av&lt;/a&gt;.  

Second, it is worth noting that the vote for AV is based on the concept, as a referendum, passing by &quot;First Past The Post&quot;.  Lest we all forget, the Lib Dems are asking us to support a system that, were it to win, would be won by the very system that they want to abolish.  So, they have not told us how they would want to have all referendums in future address by the electorate.  In this case, the vote for AV is binary: either yes or no.  However, what if a referendum in future were put to the voters that had 3 or 4 possible outcomes?  Should we do that by AV?  And then if we take that down to a local level, how do counties decide where to put a stop sign, by AV?  So, this then begs the question of where it all stops?

It all sounds good at one level, but this is a snowball that once it were to get rolling down hill might never end.  In the end we ask the only relevant question: does it give us better government?  AV gives us more government, and there is little argument to be made as to whether the last 15 years of more government has given us better government. No one would argue that there has been any redeeming value of the stunning increase to the size of our government over the last 15 years.  We have incurred a shocking level of debt, according to the Office National Statistics (http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/), the Net debt was £2,252.1 billion at the 27th March 2011.  You have to ask yourself, if after borrowing 2.2 Trillion Pounds: do we have better jobs, do we have a better control over immigration, are we happier, are there fewer divorces, are we safer, do we have a better educational system, do we have better functioning government???  We Conservatives are simple people, more government is not better government...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave:</p>
<p>We have briefly edited your comment to take out  the raving part, because you make some good points.  We are not a raving site, and are not required by anyone to publish any of the comments that are made.  So, we would first of all like to thank you for your comments.  I am assuming that the poll you are speaking of is the one on the following link: <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/tories-have-nothing-to-fear-from-av" target="blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.channel4.com/news/tories-have-nothing-to-fear-from-av</a>.  </p>
<p>Second, it is worth noting that the vote for AV is based on the concept, as a referendum, passing by &#8220;First Past The Post&#8221;.  Lest we all forget, the Lib Dems are asking us to support a system that, were it to win, would be won by the very system that they want to abolish.  So, they have not told us how they would want to have all referendums in future address by the electorate.  In this case, the vote for AV is binary: either yes or no.  However, what if a referendum in future were put to the voters that had 3 or 4 possible outcomes?  Should we do that by AV?  And then if we take that down to a local level, how do counties decide where to put a stop sign, by AV?  So, this then begs the question of where it all stops?</p>
<p>It all sounds good at one level, but this is a snowball that once it were to get rolling down hill might never end.  In the end we ask the only relevant question: does it give us better government?  AV gives us more government, and there is little argument to be made as to whether the last 15 years of more government has given us better government. No one would argue that there has been any redeeming value of the stunning increase to the size of our government over the last 15 years.  We have incurred a shocking level of debt, according to the Office National Statistics (<a href="http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/" rel="nofollow">http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/</a>), the Net debt was £2,252.1 billion at the 27th March 2011.  You have to ask yourself, if after borrowing 2.2 Trillion Pounds: do we have better jobs, do we have a better control over immigration, are we happier, are there fewer divorces, are we safer, do we have a better educational system, do we have better functioning government???  We Conservatives are simple people, more government is not better government&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The brochures on the Alternative Vote by dave clarke</title>
		<link>http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=233#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>dave clarke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk/?p=233#comment-3</guid>
		<description>I am interseted in getting involved in politics. First past the post is no fairer as a tiny overall percentage can still give a win, disenfranchising the majority of voters whose votes don&#039;t count, but i accept that is my opinion. But that&#039;s the crux of it, it&#039;s my opinion, i don&#039;t like being preached to about another opinion i hold to be false ... i think the conservatives should be brave enough to let the adults (the voting adults) decide and not try to preach and risk alienation too. After the last couple of years in UK politics, i think a change like this could really re-ignite the peoples interest in politics, as it has re-ignited mine. I also find it ammusing, that if you read the polls AV would in all likelehood increase the conservatives party vote, so it seems a bit batty to try and argue against it, as blogged on the New Statesmen website by George Eaton on the 8th of April 2011:

&quot;it&#039;s worth watching to see how Labour activists respond to a new YouGov poll for Channel 4 News showing that their party would suffer the most from a switch to AV. Under FPTP, based on current voting intentions, Labour would win 355 seats, the Tories would win 255 and the Lib Dems would win just 16 – a Labour majority of 60. But under AV, Labour would win 342 (-13), the Tories would win 255 (unchanged) and the Lib Dems would win 29 (+13), resulting in a significantly reduced Labour majority of 34.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am interseted in getting involved in politics. First past the post is no fairer as a tiny overall percentage can still give a win, disenfranchising the majority of voters whose votes don&#8217;t count, but i accept that is my opinion. But that&#8217;s the crux of it, it&#8217;s my opinion, i don&#8217;t like being preached to about another opinion i hold to be false &#8230; i think the conservatives should be brave enough to let the adults (the voting adults) decide and not try to preach and risk alienation too. After the last couple of years in UK politics, i think a change like this could really re-ignite the peoples interest in politics, as it has re-ignited mine. I also find it ammusing, that if you read the polls AV would in all likelehood increase the conservatives party vote, so it seems a bit batty to try and argue against it, as blogged on the New Statesmen website by George Eaton on the 8th of April 2011:</p>
<p>&#8220;it&#8217;s worth watching to see how Labour activists respond to a new YouGov poll for Channel 4 News showing that their party would suffer the most from a switch to AV. Under FPTP, based on current voting intentions, Labour would win 355 seats, the Tories would win 255 and the Lib Dems would win just 16 – a Labour majority of 60. But under AV, Labour would win 342 (-13), the Tories would win 255 (unchanged) and the Lib Dems would win 29 (+13), resulting in a significantly reduced Labour majority of 34.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic
Database Caching using disk: basic

Served from: www.surreyheathconservatives.co.uk @ 2012-05-19 23:38:25 -->
