Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Good stuff, you little red devils, you.
Good news, huh?
they're genuinely divided. Most of the new cadre are in support of it but http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/25/labour-voting-reform-referendum-beckett. I watched a debate in the Lords about it yesterday and the Labour benches seems pretty opposed. A lot of pretty convincing people in the Yes side: Stephen Twigg - http://www.nextleft.org/2010/09/twigg-plp-will-campaign-for-av.html who I think will be successful in winning over undecided Labour MPs. Much of the difficulty is going to be distancing ourselves from the Lib Dems and not missing out on a opportunity to slag them off. Hence "Labour YES!" and not just "YES!"
Personally, I don't care that much. I certainly don't want PR so will probably vote yes to AV to shut everyone up.
(I do want to see PR in an elected House of Lords)
Come one, come all.
"Ed Miliband has thrown his weight, along with at least eight members of his shadow Cabinet, to support a change in the voting system next May. "
Ed Miliband, Alan Johnson, Peter Hain, Sadiq Khan, Hilary Benn, Tessa Jowell, Liam Byrne, John Denham, Peter Hain and Douglas Alexander say yes.
David Blunkett, Lord John Reid, Lord Falconer, Lord John Prescott, with Margaret Beckett say no.
I know who I'd put money on as likely to have sway.
>"don't want PR so will probably vote yes to AV"
Could you clarify on that one? Are you saying you don't want STV? I find it a little ironic that you support "PR" for the Lords who, themselves ((judging by the best list the Labour No people can muster), seem to be against it for the Commons.
We need a majoritarian House of Commons and AV would provide for that.
Why is that ironic? It makes perfect sense. Vote out all the old dinosaurs. There's a good reason why the house of commons needs to be majoritarian. I find it hard to justify a disproportionate Lords. It's an undemocratic and moribund house.
And you (i.e. one of the 'commoners') are pro AV for the Lords.
Not megalolz, but it raised a chuckle. Which is admittedly pretty lame.
You say that the HoC needs to be majoritarian. I need more persuasion/explanation.
I'm pro-PR for the Lords. AV is not PR as I'm sure you know.
This is not at all incompatible or inconsistent. The houses are different and can be elected by different systems. I don't know why you think the opinion of someone like John Reid should have any bearing at all on mine...
is that we draw our prime minister and most of his/her cabinet from it.
I'm not sure what bearing that has. Not being difficult, I'm genuinely not sure if I follow (I think i might, but would rather be sure).
You could always answer this:
"The difference though is that the poll tax was fair, voting against tuition fee rises is not." @
YOU DON'T ANSWER MY CALLS.
YOU NEVER BRING ME FLOWERS ANYMORE.
YOU HAVEN'T COMPLIMENTED ME ON MY NEW HAIRDO.
they seemed quite happy with FPTP when it was them winning.
and believe it or not: many existing Labour MPs weren't MPs in all previous parliaments of the past 13 years - including OUR NEW LEADER.
Anyways, read my post above re how imporant electoral reform is to me, "Personally, I don't care that much."
I'm not willing to speculate on what Ed definitely would have done in a given situation because I don't have epistemic access to the relevant information. I'm also not willing to accept the Lib Dems are the only reason this is "an 'issue' in the first place."
I know you won't want to accept it but just because this hasn't been a Labour election pledge doesn't mean there isn't a long-standing appetite for it within sections of the Labour party. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/robin-cook-labour-voters-should-support-pr-to-put-power-in-the-hands-of-the-many-not-the-few-497118.html
The Lib Dems lie to the electorate anyway so really, who cares?
What are we saying yes to?
This is so patronising it's creeping into the realm of satire.
but it makes no difference.
What a shame that labour missed the opportunity to introduce it, still they didnt have much of a chance seeing as they had such a short spell in power
It's funny how 13 short years can simply fly by in the blink of an eye.
They managed to squeeze a war or two in and save a few foxes though, so full credit to 'em for making the most of the scant resources available.
when you have a really slim majority in the House of Commons.