« The problems of a hung parliament | Main | Mirror, mirror on the recycling heap... »
September 18, 2006
Meanwhile...
Nick Clegg "argues that the Lib Dems shouldn’t bang on so loudly about electoral reform being a condition for support in a hung parliament."
Jackie Ashley doesn't know, given that they've gone quiet on electoral reform, Europe etc. what the Lib Dems stand for at all.
Peter Hain reiterates his desire for AV.
Second, we need to deepen democracy, including empowering local government, democratic reform of the House of Lords, and electoral reform - not proportional representation, but the alternative vote which maintains the single-member constituencies voters want and the accountability that goes with them.
[did he mean to say 'which maintains us in power a bit longer'?]
And Paddy Ashdown fails to be drawn on who the Lib Dems should back if they find themselves in a bargaining position after the next election. He says it depends on who is Labour leader, which is probably just a fudge.
Posted by pauldavies on September 18, 2006
Comments
I can't say that I've noticed the LibDems "banging on" about electoral reform. this is precisely what they should be doing.
Here - in case any one is interested - is a copy of an e-mail I have sent to Jackie Ashley:-
'Dear Ms Ashley
"They no longer sound particularly excited about electoral reform"
How right! Coming out and declaring unequivocally that they still wanted electoral reform, and indeed making it clear that the introduction of a PR system would be a condition for forming a coalition after the next election, would be the one thing that would really brighten things up.
But it is hard to escape the conclusion that they are still hoping, forlornly, to form a government on their own, and have their very own electoral dictatorship under FPTP. They would then, like Labour in 1997, forget all about electoral reform.
I am reminded once again of Jenkins's prescient comment in his 1998 report: that if Labour did actually introduce electoral reform "they would have the unique distinction of having broken the spell under which parties when they want reform do not have the power; and when they have the power they do not want reform". MP's in general are much more concerned with what they perceive as their own vested interests (wrongly as could well be demonstrated to Labour at the next election) than with democracy; and they are not readily going to change the system under which they were elected.
So we are back again to the need for a deafening public outcry against the present absurd system. But this of course needs a public that can SEE that there is anything wrong with FPTP. WHICH MEANS PUBLIC EDUCATION WHICH, for the reasons I have mentioned before, IS COMPLETELY LACKING
An extension in the role of the Electoral Commission as has been suggested by myself, and others, in submissions to the Committee for Standards in Public Life (who are currently examining the functions of the Electoral Commission) would certainly help, but here again, is unlikely to come about.
Best wishes,'
(I am wondering if there is any point in bothering to comment in the blog: nobody ever seems to read the comments - any more than they seem to be interested in the Forum. I notice that under one important subject head the last comment was on 23 May!
Posted by: Joe Patterson at September 18, 2006 03:43 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
