The Labour Government is leading the country on the 'big ideas' that will be a cornerstone of the next Labour Manifesto and the General Election.
The outcome of the vote tonight on Voting Reform will be crucial, because irrelevent of which party wins power in three months time, constitutional change is needed to rebalance and focus politics to win back public support.
The Tory pledge to reduce the number of MPs does not fundamentally change the system. Making constituencies larger and less focused on the 'local' does not change the flaw in our democracy, that it does not represent the views of people fairly.
The Labour Government has pledged that it is time to consider the 'big idea' of Alternative Voting for future general elections.
The Conservative leader has dismissed the drive to AV as a 'fiddle' and a 'cynical attempt to save his own skin' and Tory surrogates have been spread far and wide to suggest that the voters do not care for electoral reform.
Comments on the doorstep from this blogger indicate that whilst many voters do not understand the differences in voting methods, many would want to see a fairer and more transparent system, where the 'smaller' parties can be given a chance and where people can vote for something other then the big three. They are unhappy with the status quo, and a knee jerk response by Cameron to cut the number of MPs [and those rebel MPs who disagree with him in the process] is not the [only] answer. They want real change.
It is also a tad ironic for Cameron to attack AV, because he benefited from a preferential voting system, a variation on AV, for his candidate and election for Conservative Party leader.
Mischievously, Michael Crick has blogged on this and has looked up the voting figures for the Conservative leadership election last time round, in 2005. The results are below:
David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38
If the Conservatives had used "first past the post" in 2005, then David Davis would have won.
The outcome of the vote tonight on Voting Reform will be crucial, because irrelevent of which party wins power in three months time, constitutional change is needed to rebalance and focus politics to win back public support.
The Tory pledge to reduce the number of MPs does not fundamentally change the system. Making constituencies larger and less focused on the 'local' does not change the flaw in our democracy, that it does not represent the views of people fairly.
The Labour Government has pledged that it is time to consider the 'big idea' of Alternative Voting for future general elections.
The Conservative leader has dismissed the drive to AV as a 'fiddle' and a 'cynical attempt to save his own skin' and Tory surrogates have been spread far and wide to suggest that the voters do not care for electoral reform.
Comments on the doorstep from this blogger indicate that whilst many voters do not understand the differences in voting methods, many would want to see a fairer and more transparent system, where the 'smaller' parties can be given a chance and where people can vote for something other then the big three. They are unhappy with the status quo, and a knee jerk response by Cameron to cut the number of MPs [and those rebel MPs who disagree with him in the process] is not the [only] answer. They want real change.
It is also a tad ironic for Cameron to attack AV, because he benefited from a preferential voting system, a variation on AV, for his candidate and election for Conservative Party leader.
Mischievously, Michael Crick has blogged on this and has looked up the voting figures for the Conservative leadership election last time round, in 2005. The results are below:
David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38
If the Conservatives had used "first past the post" in 2005, then David Davis would have won.
Cameron is being two-faced over AV. He knows that the public want real reform of Parliament and that his policies are merely painting over the cracks.
Posts
And Davis remains on their backbenches . . .
ReplyDeleteChameleon's plaint that the Home Secretary portfolio would have been unattended for 3 weeks which Davis sought the endorsement of his constituency for his "Liberty, my Liberties!" piffle was as incredible as it could be.
So he chose Grieve, whom he shifted when Murdoch's people made clear that was one of the changes they required for a guarantee of their public support. (Whenceforth the whole shebang has slid inexorably towards the urinoire)