Who should make the concessions to appease the AV rebels? Cameron or Clegg?

Sunder Katwala

I don't myself think Cameron will take the advice, because he will fear not having Tory support without this very odd hybrid where almost nobody genuinely supports all of what the government proposes.

However, Labour would have to support a separate AV Bill of that kind, so the referendum would happen.

If he doesn't, Labour should seek to propose that separate AV referendum bill, to be clear about the basis of its opposition to the current hybrid Bill
http://www.nextleft.org/2010/07/labour-should-support-av-while-opposing.html

davidk

Cleggover can take his AV and shove it. Talk about the tail wagging the dog...again.

Bravo the rebels sticking out against this Liberal railroading.

oldtimer

The amendment makes perfectly reasonable points about the need to separate the referendum from other elections, and the need for a minimum turnout to justify a change of this significance. The coalition would be stupid to ignore them.

It will be instructive to observe if it accepts the principles or just resorts to politicking.

Mycroft

Why on earth don't they just detach the AV from the boundary changes, and then Labour won't oppose it; this has not been well handled.

strapworld

Strange is it not. Here we have a country almost bankrupt. The tories, especially, making a great song and dance about how bad Labour have been with the nation's finances (especially Redwood) and now want to spend untold millions on a special day for a referendum on AV.

This is a ridiculous and rather petulant response. Dressed up as being democratic. They lost their argument yesterday when the head of the Electoral Commission saw no problem with it being held on the same day as elections for councils and the scottish and welsh governments.

I want honesty in politics. This is not about democracy. It is about more people actually participating in a referendum than this lot of malcontents want.

They do not believe the electorate will be able to manage. It shows that this crowd of conservatives have absolutely no regard for the people. So the people should have no regard for them- come the election.

Petulant. Childish. Arrogant. Condescending and typical of old tories. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

I shall certainly vote for AV now.

Mr Dark

Actually the list is more interesting for who hasn't signed it eg Julian Brasier, John Hayes etc, together with the inability of the right-wing dining groups to attract many of the new members. Not much for Dave to worry about here.

Daphne Millar

Both bits of the the Bill are objectionable and should be stopped. AV is a truly terrible idea, producing the candidate who is the Lowest Common Denominator. And the stuff about equal constituencies has been wrongly handled. It is absolutely right to have constituencies of roughly the same size. But the proposals are an example of another worrying sign of the way this government wants to seize power to itself while pretending to give it to the people. It is wrong that any government minister should have direct impact on a matter of electoral law. It is wrong to abolish independent examination.
The Bill is a crude effort to give political advantage to the two parties in government and that is something new and wrong.
And if the Liberals feel offended by not getting a referendum they are welcome to force and election and see just how far 14% of the vote gets them.

Maureice Gosfield

@Strapworld

Spot on.

TGF UKIP

Now if the question had been phrased "Who will make the concessions" we would all instantly have known the answer.

David Blackburn

Sunder Katwala,

Agreed, which is why I think Clegg will end up conceding, which probably won't do him any him - all that matters in the immediate term is that he gets the referendum. Once again tjough, Labour has played a blinder.

TGF UKIP

Makes me wonder what sort of person the head of the Electoral Commission might be. Perhaps, just perhaps, the sort who might quite like the idea of soggy "progressives" being in permanent power?

David Lindsay

Don't they want a provincial, rural, protectionist, church-based, conservative, mind-our-own-business party to be able to survive and thrive apart from the metropolitan, urban, capitalist, secular, libertarian, make-the-world-anew party? Or have they managed to convince themselves that the latter is the Tory position? Of course, it is no such thing.

denis cooper

1. Setting aside my habitual modesty, I claim some priority for objecting to the referendum being held on the same day as elections, @ 10:13 am on July 2nd just after the news appeared on this blog ...

"... because with two campaigns running in parallel up to the same polling day the result of the referendum may be influenced by whatever happens in the election campaign, just as much as by whatever happens in the referendum campaign - which would partially defeat the object of holding a separate referendum on a specific issue.

And isn't it also true that not every voter in the country will be invited to cast a ballot in an election next May 5th?"

I stick by that objection, and believe that the referendum should be deferred until October.

2. I don't agree that there should be any minimum turnout for the result to be valid. It's far more important that there should be a proper - truthful and impartial, and therefore non-partisan - public information campaign based on concrete proposals and explaining how the new system would work if it came into effect, and an extended non-party cross-party public debate, without the waters being muddied by a simultaneous party political election debate.

Then people in general will have had ample opportunity to become sufficiently well-informed about the issue, and they can either vote or not vote as they see fit, and the non-opinions of those who still choose not to vote need not, and indeed in this case should not, be taken into account. The rule is simple: if you don't fully understand what is being proposed and you're not sure whether you want the change, then vote against it.

3. I've never understood why all these disparate "reforms" are being lumped together in one Bill. For example, whether or not constituency electorates were equalised the same constituencies would be used under either FPTP or AV, and there being no significant coupling between the two matters there is no reason why they should be dealt with through the same Bill.

John Findlater

Regarding the huge costs of holding elections referenda etc,,its about time the voting process was brought into the 21st century and people given the opprtunity to vote online.

The whole palaver of registration, the snail pace of postal voting, getting election cards via snail mail etc belongs in another bygone age.
Why not allow people to go online to their local council and register to vote online.
I already go online to the local through a username and password to carry out other business so why don,t they allow people to register online and vote online.
If they want more people to register to vote, why not give a council tax reduction every time you use the online process to vote.
It would also be very beneficial for expats and/or those people who work overseas on ships, oilrigs etc because you can leave for a 4 week tour on a rig it means you are unable to vote if the election is called a week later.
The reason for this is because you cannot orginise a postal vote out with the 3 week election period.

I know this off thread however the vast expense of elections needs to be addressed and reduced through 21st century solutions.

TrevorsDen

Labour - they are voting against it? Should we be surprised? Nothing clever. They do not want to see the boundaries changed; but that is surely easy to resolve, its not part of the referendum, the govt can produce a separate bill and indeed guillotine it for good measure.

The idea of it being a problem on the same day as the local elections is just rubbish. No issue at all there.

I am pretty right wing, but I am coming round to the idea of AV, my main problem is its complex compared to a simple X. But it presents an ideal platform for the coalition to fight the next election. No wonder labour are shit-scared.

yank

"3. I've never understood why all these disparate "reforms" are being lumped together in one Bill."

.

.

I suspect your government is miming another recent American invention, Mr. Cooper.

Our political class has recently decided that legislation must be "comprehensive"... that is to say... the political class must build in all of their thought... and carefully sculpt the outcome... rather than approach the public with discrete policy... to be addressed discretely and in full light.

Our betters cover all possible outcomes forever. And obviously, only they would know how to do so, don'chyaknow.

It's all one big mish mash. Just shut up and obey, proles. These 2,700 pages are what you're getting, whether you like it or not. And your bureaucratic overlords will write the other scads of pages to execute those 2,700... so get used to it.

So we have "comprehensive" health care, and "comprehensive" omnibus spending bills, and soon to come, "comprehensive" immigration and "comprehensive" global warming nonsense.

We are now rebelling against this "comprehensive" approach. So should you.

Fergus Pickering

abour has played a blinder, Mr Blackburn? What on earth do you mean? What have they done which advances their cause? Do you suppose that a bill to equalize constituencies will NOT go through? Making two bills is more expensive, that is all. So Labour have forced the government to spend more money. Is that the blinder to which you refer?

TGF UKIP

Well said yank!

AndyLeeds

Labour make you want to puke. There is no interlectual reason why seats should not be of a similar size. The only reason the Labour Party is against this is because a lot of Labour seats are smaller, giving it a huge advantage - gerrymandering indeed.

As to AV why should people who vote for unpopular candidates be allowed to vote twice ? If you want an MP elected with 50% + of the electrorate we should have run off elections a week later where everyone gets another vote. That would be democracy.

denis cooper

I saw Hain and Hughes "debating" this on Newsnight, and they were both talking such rubbish that it left me feeling quite depressed at the abysmal quality of our politicians.

@ AndyLeeds - each elector is allowed to cast the same number of ballots, one. The ballot paper of an elector who puts a leading candidate first is counted again in subsequent rounds, just like the ballot paper of an elector who puts a less popular candidate first and a leading candidate second.