Cabinet will discuss electoral reform today

If MP's won't follow their Whips how do you enforce manifestoes, how do you have a say unless you are an MP yourself.

I doubt the Whips have the power people think they have rather I think it's anger at the behaviour at opposition MP's that drives MP's through their respective lobbies.

Couldn't we have a vote at the GE of what type of vote we want - FPTP, AV, AV+, PR (which is different). Otherwisw it is mostly about splitting the Tories or about preparint the way for a hung Parliament, which was why we supported PR in 97. There was near civil war in my local party when some dared to hope we could win more than the 50 key seats but with only the key seats we might well have needed the libdems.

If you move to a system of PR you are saying you don't need so much the people you'll need to get reelected if you end up with fptp, so that's a disencentive to reform. Yet they all voted for 42 days when they must have known that GB couldn't have got it through the Lords.

Can I suggest a proxy system. Elect your MP on an AV basis (which, unlike the French system, means that each MP has the support of half the constitiuency, but could be called the least worse system) but have another Party vote. Votes for each party are then split between their MP's elected by the AV system. They swipe a card through at each vote and the votes are counted up electronically. Or you could have one vote in Parliament for every so many electoral votes. If you can't get someone into Parliament on the AV system all your votes at the Party stage don't count. Combines both PR and the constitiuency system.

Alex - are you having dinner again?

Anyway - try again.

I'm all for electoral reform (changing the Lords would be my priority) however this is not the time and Labour is not the party that should be pressing for it. This is because, contrary to the general belief, Labour will seen to be chasing power rather than actually wanting reform.

The fact they couldn't decide last night is a good indication that many within the party feel the same.

Not really, more that its an issue which genuinely splits the party and always has been

Richard - my experience is as described with respect to AV+. It works well and gives us, the voter, a great deal of control over what happens in Holyrood.

For instance my constituency MSP is a Tory (currently Alex Fergusson the presiding officer) but the list MSP's are SNP. Alex Fergusson was re-elected because he was a good constituency MSP and not because he was a Tory, the SNP MSP second, Alisdair Morgan, in the constituency vote is one of the list MSP's - he is also very effective and works with Alex for the benefit of the constituency.

The reality of AV+ is that the MSP's have to work together for the benefit of their constituents. While at Holyrood the impact of the system means that the yah-boo politics of Westminster just does not work and the parties that try it are exposed as empty.

Ultimately - even in a situation where the SNP are a minority government - opposing for the sake of opposing does not work because the impact of opposing a bill which has popular public support, such as the public smoking ban, will back fire against you. The Scottish experience of AV+ is one where sensible consensus rules and the voter's wishes are important.

Hi Alex, and sorry to interrupt, but just seen BBC report on Hoon's appearance at the Chilcot enquiry.Heading is something like "Iraq War was not inevitable."

Richard Blogger:

AV+ has worked well in Scotland for everyone but Labour. That's it! I think the same system would work well in England and stick with my point that the UK is now a defacto federation and this year's Westminster GE will only reflect the wishes of the voters of England, as it always does.

The Holyrood Libdem / Labour coalition prior to 2007 could have done much more but for Labour at Westminster indifference and fell apart because of the infighting as to which part was responsible for the good ideas they put in place. They self destructed and Labour in Scotland then committed suicide as it was slavishly seen to follow Gordon Brown's agenda for his Scottish fiefdom which was anti everything and anything the SNP said. A dangerous misreading of his countrymen and women who understood it for what it was, an attempt to belittle the devolution process out of fear for Labour at Westminster's failing to address Scotland's real needs.

The result was the SNP had the bigger percentage of the vote and AV+ delivered then one seat more over the rest of the parties. The Unionist Parties in Westminster made clear that there would be no coalition and that because of this the SNP would be out of power within a year. The reality of opinion polls and the one attempt by Labour in Scotland to do this (by trying to bring down the SNP by preventing the Scottish budget from going ahead) is it is political suicide - the next election for the EU saw the SNP vote share go ahead of Labour by nearly 8%.

AV+ has put the voters in control in Scotland and the voters are getting clever at making it work in their own best interests. Now Richard what you have got to persuade me is that my English cousins are not as astute as the Scots because that is the only real argument against AV+.

Peter, my point is that you refuse to argue the benefits or not about PR or any form of PR (where I think you probably could make a good contribution). Instead you have to litter your responses with how gret the SNP uis, and how bad Labour is in Scotland.

As you may have guessed I am in England and frankly I have as much interest in Holyrood as I have in Manchester City Council: neither affects me.

Hi Dylan

I am not a tory but a supporter of fptp, If a mp/or challenger cannot make there case and convince enough voters to vote for them , then that democarcy.

Danny

I am amazed that Tory opinion is so keen on maintaining FPTP as it is a system weighted so heavily against them, as even a 10% lead in the polls cannot guarantee an outright victory. In seats where there is a significant UKIP vote, and it is estimated that UKIP denied a Tory victory by splitting the centre-right vote in as many as 25 seats in 2005, AV would very much be to their advantage.

The name of the game here is 'ambush the Tories', that is the complete focus of this excuse of a Labour Government. I also don't believe there will be any discussion!

Bald men fighting over a comb?

There is no better system than First Past the Post. End of story.

I'm a wee bit confused here.

If Westminster thinks that AV plus proportional representation is OK for NI, Wales and Scotland - why is it not good enough for England? That's not got to do with perceived vested interest by current MP's; is it?

The electoral reform the UK actually needs is a wake up to the fact devolution is here to stay and effectively the UK is now a federal state with power, 'primus interpares' and control leaking daily from Westminster, by default.

The PLP knows the impact of any form of proportional representation - even AV will leak power from the PLP. Many marginals where the Libdem vote keeps the Conservative at bay will see them in greater difficulty and the same is true for the Conservatives in the converse situation. The PLP takes one look at what has happened at Holyrood, for instance, and immediately gets the terrors because AV removed their Scottish hegemony, exposed their hands in each other pockets approach, institutional corruption when carving up councils and has left the party in Scotland in disarray and denial. The big idea of Labour at Westminster running a Scottish fiefdom via a supine Labour Party at Holyrood has failed - it seems the Scots can think for themselves.

Sorry Alex, this is an idea whose time is now passed, left behind by the rapid evolution of devolution. The Westminster result this year will reflect the view of England alone, to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Peter, can you start again, and tell us whether you think that AV+ would be the right thing or not for Westminster elections?

At the moment there is no English parliament (I am in favour of there being one) so the discussions *cannot* be about PR for England. take off your SNP rose-tinted glasses once in a while and actually address the topic.

"Cabinet will discuss electoral reform today" What, it has taken then 13 years to get round to this?

It speaks volumes to the fact that the Cabinet are now more interested in laying mines for the income Tory government than dealing with more pressing issues.

Yes, going for AV is a way of avoiding real progressive change in our voting system, which can only come with proportional representation. And no, PR doesn't have to mean the constituency link would be broken, as the Jenkins proposals (AV +) prove.

The only thing that Brown and Straw are thinking about is how to embarass the Tories, not how to make our voting system fairer. Yes they indeed left it very late, and wouldn't be thinking about it at all if the polls weren't against them.

At least there is now some acknowledgment that FPTP is an unacceptable voting method. But just as with MPs expenses, leaving it to the politicians themselves to decide what form of change shoud be put to the voters on how they should be elected is not the way to do it.

All MPs and the Government should be supporting the Constitutional Convention Bill:
http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=2033

This would make sure that there can be a proper consultation about what kind of voting reform should be put to the people.
And would tick the box about labour being in favour of change.

The question is not, should there be a referendum, but how to involve the public is deciding what the referendum question should be. Means and end, folks, means and end.... if you know what I mean .....

Hi Labourlist

Also , It doesnt matter what system we have if we have career mps that follow the whips , the desire for party discpline over what voters wanted have moved the plp further away from the people who sent them there.

Danny

Actually, Danny, a proportionate voting system would make MPs more sensitive to their voters and less sensitive to their Whips. Surely that cannot be the reason Brown and Straw don't want it, can it? Or can it?

If having the support of 50% of voters is important, why not have 2 round voting as in France where unless one candidate gets over 50% of the vote in the first round the top two candidates go through to a second round a couple of weeks later. That ensures that whoever wins gets the active vote for at least 50% of the votes cast.

I just hope that the cabinet agree to press ahead with the enabling legislation for a referendum. I believe that the opposition expressed within the PLP can be attributed to self-motivated vested interest.... but in practice AV is a progressive reform of FPTP and nothing to be afraid of. AV would retain single member constituencies but would ensure that no vote is wasted and that each and every MP has the confidence of 50% of the electorate.

I'm in favour of electoral reform: but don't *tell* us what reform should be, *ask* us! I would like the referendum question to be 'Is electoral reform necessary or should we retain the current system?'. This would give electoral reform legitimacy (if a majority wants it!) while giving time to discuss and explore the best way forward rather than rushing into it and foisting another Brown cock-up upon us.

Hi Labourlist

I forgot to add didnt someone once say "Its the econmey stupid"


Danny

Ps i am not calling anyone on Labourlist stupid

Clinton said it, and he was right. Clinton cut the US deficit (as Brown did for most years after 1997), yet as soon as Bush got in he made a huge tax cut and raised the deficit constantly during his time. The point is clear: focus on the economy, not on making tax cuts. What we will see from Cameron will be a Bush-like economy, not a Clinton-like economy.

@ Richard Blogger --- and ... Labour can cut the deficit by up to £30bn before the election by selling off the 'good bank' of Northern Rock (£20bn, to the Australian National Bank or Virgin) and income of an estimated £3-6bn from the supertax on bank bonuses, and any other sundry income from the banking sector - and strongly inform the electorate about it.

@Dave Postles

I think that you are confusing Northern Rock's deposit base with its share capital, and therefore overestimating the sale proceeds by an order of magnitude.

Hi Labourlist

I really dont understand this , We had 13 years to houner our pledge on a referendum on voting reform , why all of a sudden is it so important? , There are more pressing issues that the cabnat should be discussing , Like how much each department is going to cut , what policys will be sheveld (id cards?) , Bringing up voting redorm is like they are trying to fight the 97 elecyion again?

Danny