The referendum on voting reform

[srebbe64]

Was thinking about this. As part of the Lib Dem's coalition agreement they have negotiated a referendum to scrap 'first past the post' and are proposing some sort of PR system - I honestly don't know the detail yet and doubtless someone on here will be able fill in the details. The upshot is 'we' the electorate will be asked to vote 'yes' or 'no' on this issue fairly soon.

Anyway, some sort of PR system will inevitably result in a virtually permanent form of coalition whereby everyone has to work in partnership with political opponents. This, of course, will be interesting and I guess the Lib Dems need to persuade the electorate that such a system will work in practise. It is, therefore, interesting that it's the Lib Dem's who seem to be attacking the Tories in the current coalition. Now I'm thinking, if you can't work in a coalition now then why the heck should we vote for PR which requires a little more tolerance and partnership on a permanent basis. I didn't think that turkeys voted for Christmas but it seems on this occasion they do???

[Engineer1]

Don't forget how you ask the question influences the answer and if they have any sense they will ask it in such a way they get the answer they want.

[davepoth]

The way things are going I'd be surprised if the Lib Dems even exist as a party after the next election.

[thinfourth2]

If we get AV it means those with a few braincells get more then 1 vote

In my case first vote would be UKIP
Second vote another minority party
Third vote that will actually get counted maybe one of the big 3 (no not red tie)

[JagLover]

thinfourth2 said:

If we get AV it means those with a few braincells get more then 1 vote

In my case first vote would be UKIP
Second vote another minority party
Third vote that will actually get counted maybe one of the big 3 (no not red tie)

True enough

Despite the fact it would tend to favour Labour I am not opposed to AV for the same reason (as long as it is combined with equal sized constituencies to minimise the Labour advantage).

First vote could be for a truly libertarian and right wing party and only then second preference going to the Tories.

[Derek Smith]

srebbe64 said:

Was thinking about this. As part of the Lib Dem's coalition agreement they have negotiated a referendum to scrap 'first past the post' and are proposing some sort of PR system - I honestly don't know the detail yet and doubtless someone on here will be able fill in the details. The upshot is 'we' the electorate will be asked to vote 'yes' or 'no' on this issue fairly soon.

Anyway, some sort of PR system will inevitably result in a virtually permanent form of coalition whereby everyone has to work in partnership with political opponents. This, of course, will be interesting and I guess the Lib Dems need to persuade the electorate that such a system will work in practise. It is, therefore, interesting that it's the Lib Dem's who seem to be attacking the Tories in the current coalition. Now I'm thinking, if you can't work in a coalition now then why the heck should we vote for PR which requires a little more tolerance and partnership on a permanent basis. I didn't think that turkeys voted for Christmas but it seems on this occasion they do???

In practice we always have coalition governments. Look at Blair's government. He was well right of centre yet in 'his' party' there were a few who might even be described as a bit left. Mind you, not in the cabinet. Thatcher, despite being regarded as right wing, in some ways kept her loopy right under control. Or rather, she just ignored them as she did everyone else.

Every party is a mix. What normally happens is that you see one party on the hustings and then, once they are voted in, the internal organisation changes and the parliamentary party goes right or left, or more accurantly just changes its intent depending on who was voted in and what advisors say. There is little doubt that Labour moved according to the whim of Mandelson. So New labour was a coalition of those who supported him and those who, for whatever reasons, thought him a slimy, dishonest, nasty, corrupt politician. But we, the voters could do little to change the direction of the party.

If you were in charge of a minority party and being courted by New Labour I feel sure that you, like me, would make just the one non-negotiable demand. That's one point in favour of AV.

I feel disenfranchised. Politics seems to have reached a plateau where it has started to become unfit for purpose. I've never been one to suggest that change for no reason is good but I have to say that I want more say in the way things are done in my country and I'm not getting enough at the moment.

If we do get AV then it won't be long before we get a coalition gov of Labour and Tories.

That might be fun.

Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 23 December 19:17

[Funkateer]

It's got to be worth a punt. I've had enough of this 'first past the post' system thanks to 13 years of the last shower. Also the government could represent 100% (or close to that) of the vote, rather than the 30-odd percent that any one party needs get into power.

It does sound better to me in theory, whether it will pan out like that, is another matter of course!

Politicians of all parties would have to learn to work together, they manage it in Germany. Perhaps an incentive would be to shoot any that don't.

[singlecoil]

It's about time we had a modern voting system, and politicians in this country learned to live with it. The rest of us have to pursue most joint projects by getting a consensus, and it's about time governments started working this way (which they already are due to the current alliance).