House of Lords in stalemate over voting reform

"Labour says the bill is so rushed it will leave 3.5 million off the electoral register. They insist that if the government separates the two pieces of legislation, then legislation paving the way for a referendum on the alternative vote system would go ahead."


"The Labour party's commitment to cleaning up politics, to political reform, is a complete and utter farce."
Nick Clegg is showing himself to be a wanker and the very worst of politics by constantly using emotive and provocative language rather than reasoned debate.


"Sources were not ruling out that a guillotine motion could be used in the Lords. Though this would be unprecedented, coalition peers already deployed the highly rare procedure on the first all night sitting by moving a similar sort of motion - a closure motion.
A guillotine sees a government stipulate in advance of how long parliamentarians debate an issue the time by which it needs to be resolved. This has never been done in the Lords."
So the coalition government is willing to stop the debate and force its legislation through. That's a bit bad really. If ever anything in modern times showed the need for reform of the Lords it's this. The Lords exists to be a check on and balance against government, but with a majority in the Lords the coalition has unchecked power, which they are enjoying and showing what they think of those who stand against them.

I myself am in favour of AV on the Roy Jenkins model. The closer the coalitions AV proposals are to the AV+ that Jenkins came up with the more I support it. The other part of the proposals about constituency sizes I will not support (not that it matters what I think or support)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/18/house-of-lords-voting-reform/print

BBC News - Q&A: Calls to change the UK election voting system‏

Voting reform.

I personally favour the Alternative Vote system because
1) I think maintaining the geographical link between constituency voters and elected representative is key to the way our parliament works. That's why I disagree with the Single Transferable Vote - that link is broken.

2) AV allows a candidate to get 50% of the vote, and that's key for me too. I think we should either go with the French system where if no-one gets 50% they should have another go, or take the second (or even more) preferences and stack those up. Now I personally would go with second only because

3) it's relatively simple. I remember at school my teacher talking about the various systems. One where voters are allowed to rank all of the candidates gives those who vote of one of the leading 2 one vote, while someone who ranks every single candidate can have numerous votes. This was tackled by the first vote counting as one, while the second would be a fraction of one, the third a bit less and so on. so I'd rather there was a 1st preference which could be for the winner or a smaller party, then a second preference for a major player. Maybe a third, maybe not. We have three major parties, so voters should probably get the chance to rank those three if they so choose.

Simple? Hardly

49.77% of the vote, 100% of the seats

On May 6th the voters on Lincolnshire cast their votes. Here is the combined results for the seven constituencies.
Con 174,729 49.77%
LD 70,827 20.17%
Lab 68,043 19.38%
UKIP 16,346 4.66%
BNP 13,614 3.88%
Linc Ind 5,311 1.51%
Eng Dem 1,121 0.32%
Green 724 0.21%
Ind 393 0.11%

Yet under FPTP the Conservatives managed to obtain all seven seats.


is not so good

Tories could win the vote, but lose election

It shows we need a new voting system, I favour Gordy's list preference.
It's not fair to those who vote if the country votes for a Tory government only to get another Labour one. It would be outright stupidity to vote Tory, especially with Ozzy in charge of the economy, but people have that right and should not be denied it by odd and out-dated mathematics

Why bother voting?‏

Listening to a thing on the radio last night before watching the snooker (amazing) about voting.

Most people were talking about why so few people vote, but one bloke was saying that British elections are decided by about 4% of the electorate give safe seats/marginals and all that. his was asking not why so few people voted, but why so many did.



One thing I thought was a shame was that voting is/was seen as a civic duty rather than something that really matters and makes a difference. I personally think the party of government makes a significant difference to the country and one I like to put my pennies in about, but there you go.





Well done Mark Selby, that was some amazing snooker last night, I even missed Match Of The Day to watch.