Metropol

As ever, the Guardian comes in handy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... ction-2010

George Osborne now promises a referendum on AV. Too little, too late.

It would benefit the Tories the most in Scotland and Wales,

WillPS wrote:George Osborne now promises a referendum on AV. Too little, too late.

Seems like a good offer to me. The Labour party can't deliver PR anymore than the Tories can. There are a significant proportion of Labour MP's who are deeply opposed to the idea. I doubt they could get it through a vote. It's right the people should decide on such a significant move.

If they don't accept we end up with a 'losers coalition' propped up by the nationalist parties. Seems like a volatile combination to me.

Could be enough to sweep the Tories into power next time around.

A losers coalition that represents more than half of the electorate; significantly more than any government (in recent times at least).

Labour offer a bill on AV straight away and a referendum on PR.

The Conservatives are offering a referendum on AV.

Labour is offering a private bill on AV without a referendum.

Which is more democratic?

Chie wrote:The Conservatives are offering a referendum on AV.

Labour is offering a private bill on AV without a referendum.

Which is more democratic?

Dunno Chie - Your party was the one that promised a referendum on the European Treaty in its latter form rather than its earlier form and then reneged on it.

Chie wrote:The Conservatives are offering a referendum on AV.

Labour is offering a private bill on AV without a referendum.

Which is more democratic?

One party offers a referendum on a system that is marginally fairer than the present system (perpetuating the undemocratic system as far as possible).

The other party promises that straight away with a referendum to create a system which would eliminate wasted votes and safe seats - the two most undemocratic facets of our electoral system.

We don't have the word democrats in our name, Alexia.

It's interesting, because parliament voted to hold a referendum on AV before the election. Now Labour would rather impose it on the people for the sake of clinging on to power in the short-term.

MPs have backed government plans to hold a UK-wide referendum on changing the voting system next year.

Voters would be asked if they wanted to keep "first past the post" or switch to the "alternative vote", which ranks candidates in order of preference.

A Liberal Democrat amendment to hold a referendum earlier and on a different voting system - the single transferable vote - was defeated by 476 votes to 69.

You know as well as anybody else that PR or any form of electoral reform will reduce the Conservative's chance of ever getting a majority again, because it would affect their 'safe seats'. And rightly so, any party which depends on its thick roots is clearly long in the tooth and stifling democracy.

Not at all. It's a stable body to run a country by. Simple straightforward competition, if some votes as a result are wasted so be it. It's like the gerrymandering of the education system to ensure nobody fails. If you can't convince more people to vote for you than the winner, tough luck try a different argument, you might win next time.