91Èȱ¬

Michael - that all assumes the Coalition will survive the bloodbath of May's elections. Expect a coup against Clegg and the Coalition's demise.

Cameron granted equal billing to Clegg because the coalition deal had already been drafted. He wanted Clegg as a back up. He will push for Lords reform trying to seal a generation of Tory-led coalition government with LibDem. If Tories get overall majority he wins, but also if hung parliament he wins. Miliband trying to play same game by backing AV and not being villain. Very political but not very democratic ( for public that is )

The likely minimising of the Crossbenchers is probably the main reason why I oppose a fully elected House of Lords...

That 20% should be the cross benchers and shouldn't include any of the old guard hereditaries who are pretty much the direct descendants of the old Norman robber barons. I oppose 100% elections since that would remove the non-partisan nature of the cross-bench. Let the rest of them fight it out. One thing not mentioned was the Parliament Act, unless that is going to be repealed any post elected Lords political obstructionism will be overcome in the usual way. Let the reforms commence, I for one, long to see the back of criminal and unsackable peers.

vote NO and Clegg is history....

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW

When some celebrity MP sticks their head above the rim, and comes over all dedicated and honourable, gaining kudos, one is sometimes moved to contact them - democratically.

However, our Mendacious Puppets have a little homespun convention: IF YOU ARE NOT A CONSTITUENT, YOU CAN WHISTLE. (You know how to whistle - don't you?)

It gets better. The Lords are put forward as the place to go if YOUR member won't or isn't functioning.



However, if they don't like the look of the issue, THEY DON'T REPLY EITHER.

Westminster regards us with contempt - jointly and severally.

That's democracy folks.

DONKEY FOUND DEAD BETWEEN TO PILES

I cannot bring myself to vote NO, as it is being backed by the most vile, negative campaigning since the last vile negative campaign - with Vilemeister Dave falsely smiling down as usual.

I cannot bring myself to vote YES as it is: HERE'S A REFERENDUM - NOW WILL YOU SHUT UP. Dave only let Nick have it, in the certainty it would fail. And the pathetic suggestion it will lead on to PR or Nirvana is - well - pathetic.

Will there be an ABSTAIN option?

Democracy isn't working.

Barrie vote NO you know it makes sense....don't give horrid Nick a place to hide....

A fascinating post Michael. Enjoyed that. However, I would point out that the LibDems are 10% in the polls! So they are not guaranteed to have much of a role in the upper house even if elected under PR! My personal view has always been that the LibDems would not gain significantly more seats under a PR system than First Past the Past simply because I think the Greens vote would rise (taking away votes from the LibDems) and I also see under PR the long-term emergence of a Libertarian/small state eurosceptic party which would prove attractive to some LibDem voters..... Interesting times

MINISTRY OF FUNNY WALKS (#8)

Watching Dave closely, I think Nick has already found a hiding (to nothing) place.

Agree May will see Coalition falling apart as LibDems are more than decimated and I'll bet AV is rejected too as the votes they need to win will be cast against Clegg's duplicity, so exit stage left any LibDem hope of electoral reform for a generation.

Full PR for the second chamber is a MUCH more interesting discussion and a proposition I'd probably support, with some caveats.

Firstly a floor on % vote support to keep the Nazis etc. out of Parliament, secondly this might well prompt a complete realignment splitting the "broad churches" of left & right, plus allowing voting Green to count for something - UKIP would take the right-wing Tories away with them, plus a new grouping to the left of Labour would emerge and the centre could well fragment into 2,3 or even 4 groups - the fear is of religious based parties gaining traction.

That doesn't sound like a LibDem balance-of-power left-right split to me - it would more likely result in a much more fluid situation with the Right having to buy off UKIP and the left making common cause with the Greens, whilst the Centre floundered around in wishy-washy compromise politics that has bedevilled us with the main parties courting 250 voters in "Middle England" to win FPTP seats in the Commons, all trying to be even more centrist than each other.

We also need to disestablish the church of England and end the hard wired link between government and religion once and for all.

Anyway, why virtually no politics blogging these days?

Crick's missives seem to be the only ones for a week on the Beeb..

WHY DOES COUNTRY-MANAGEMENT NEED PARTIES AND CHAMBERS? (#11)

Other major enterprises are not run this way.

And isn't it time to maximise contentment above domination - in various forms?

Might the two be connected? I think so; but am I making myself clear?

SPOILPARTYGAMES

"A bigger Lib Dem consolation prize if AV lost"

What? Clegg out on his ear. Now that would be a prize worth winning, especially for all the real LibDems who will take an electoral kicking up and down the country on May 5th.

The biggest irony would be a win for AV at the same time as LibDem voting share potentially down to single figures.

The Lib-Dems on the ground are already in revolt or voting with their feet. No amount of voting reform will help the party as it now is. Even under PR, parties can disappear: look at what's happening to the Free-Democrats in Germany.

I will vote YES in June, because I live in a constituency (Carmarthen West and South Pembs) where there is usually a three or even four cornered fight. In 2005 the winner only got 30% of the vote. Voting decisions are often based on second guessing as to who the current top two are. Candidates do not campaign positively, but try to blackmail us into voting for X as the only way to keep Y out. If they then become the largest minority, they suggest of course that they have a mandate. AV will put an end to that nonsense and make it possible to vote positively and logical to have the possibility of recall ballots to keep incumbents on their toes.

As for the second chamber, if we have a regional STV system, with say three to four member constituencies, then it would take power away from party machines and enable independents to get elected if they had enough support. We need to abolish the term "Lord", to reinforce the idea that these people are our servants and not our masters. Perhaps they should have an innocuous title like "State Councilor".

If AV goes down the pan, and we get another party with absolute power on 35% of the vote, I will no longer accept the legitimacy of the government, and will be prepared to resist by all means necessary.

BTW I also think the present incumbent should be the last Windsor Head of State. I would prefer a British title for her successor rather than "President". How does "Protector" (of the new "Commonwealth of Britain") sound?

And for those who think that nothing will ever get better:

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" - Terry Pratchett's 'Death' in 'The Hogfather'

'11. At 17:48pm 13th Apr 2011, richard bunning

Anyway, why virtually no politics blogging these days?

Crick's missives seem to be the only ones for a week on the Beeb..'

Well, there's holidays. Lots of those. Then there's watertight oversight. Broadcast only doesn't suffer from that problem of course. And if it did, there's always early closing.

Also, I'm not terribly sure even what does scrape out really counts as billed.

You'd probably get more politics, and certainly more attribution to what is usually just rampant gossip, in OK! magazine.

I will vote YES because the current system is excluding so many voters from the process: vote YES not because it may give Lib Dems more seats, but because AV is a start in making the system fairer and more democratic. Those who vote NO seem to me to be doing so entirely out of self interest "I think we'll lose seats, so regardless of whether it is fairer or not, I will think of any argument to give me more chance of power." I believe the advent of more diversity in politics is the imperative for a fairer system. People expect to have more of a say in this on-line world and reforming the voting system is one way to start. Of course the Lib Dems may benefit, but the clue is in the name of the party and its fundamental values.

The proposed AV v FPTP UK Referendum consists of a contrived, fabricated and simplistic bipolar choice of only two inadequate options set against unfit UK Electoral Law, unfit UK Electoral Registers and unfit UK Election Returning Officer negligible powers of cross-constituency scrutiny. Election Returning Officers will be unable to guarantee 'One Person-One Vote' nor to sign off ANY part of such a referendum as 'true', 'democratic', 'free' or 'fair'.

Here are fundamental AV v FPTP BOGUS REFERENDUM flaws:

1. UK Electoral Law - NOT 'fit for purpose'.
2. UK Electoral Registers - NOT 'fit for purpose'.
3. UK CERO powers - NOT 'fit for purpose'.

A UK REFERENDUM MUST, ON PRINCIPLE, BE GUARANTEED TO BE VERIFIABLY AND GENUINELY 'ONE PERSON-ONE VOTE'.

IF THIS AV v FPTP BOGUS REFERENDUM IS ATTEMPTED IT WILL NOT BE.

BOGUS UK ELECTORAL REGISTERS = BOGUS REFERENDUM:

/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/second_home_voters_1.html
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/secret_ballots_and_second_home.html
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/worried_about_second_home_vote.html
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/kevins_too_busy_to_probe_secon.html
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/game_on.html
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/a_letter_to_the_chief.html

/blogs/grahamsmith/2011/04/some_second_home_voters_purged.html

In the face of such corrupt and non-democratic electoral foundations, these may be the only rational responses to the RUBBISH REFERENDUM:

BOYCOTT THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CONSERVATIVE PARTY CAMERON CLEGG COALITION BOGUS AV v FPTP REFERENDUM.

OR

SPOIL YOUR BALLOT PAPER WITH A SUITABLY CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE BOGUS AV v FPTP UK REFERENDUM - A LIBDEMCON COALITION CON.

NOTE: ALL SPOILED BALLOT PAPERS HAVE TO BE RECORDED AND NUMBERS PUBLISHED.

ANYONE WHO VALUES GENUINE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND WISHES TO SEE GENUINE 'ONE PERSON-ONE VOTE' DEMOCRACY IN THE UK WILL NOT ENDORSE THIS ABSURD, INFANTILE, UNSOUND, NON-CREDIBLE, SHALLOW, RESTRICTED AND INSULTING BOGUS REFERENDUM WITH THEIR VALUABLE VOTE.

CONSIDER THIS:
IF THE NUMBER OF SPOILED BALLOT PAPERS EXCEEDS THE 'YES's, THE 'NO's or BOTH - WHAT NEXT?

By the way, why haven't THOSE FACTS OF FLAWED ELECTORAL CONDITIONS been raised by the Newsnight team when questioning politicians on the subject ?
Isn't it high time you all do?