2018 Review - will it pass through Parliament?

[timrollpickering]

Jun 2, 2018 0:03:54 GMT andrew111 said:

I could not raise any enthusiasm to campaign for AV, because it was not PR at all.

However I did assume that the advantages over FPTP were so obvious that no-one would find any coherent arguments against it. I was not ready for the vested-interest led campaign of outrageous lies and calumnies against AV led by the two main Parties and their dogs in the Press. It really should have prepared us for the next UK referendum - lies win if repeated often enough...

But having Clegg lead the campaign was the kiss of death, just as Cameron and Osborne were the kiss of death for Remain

I think you've just demonstrated why the campaign lost so spectacularly and you can see similar attitudes on Lib Dem Voice when discussing an AV referendum (both Brown's attempt and the coalition one) in 2010. Too many assume that existing political structures are the way they are purely because of vested interests and if only they could get a direct vote to the people then the vote itself is a formality because it's so "obvious" that the alternative is better.

But the alternative is not in place and the electorate is sceptical. Anyone can shout "Democracy!" but that isn't a magic wand to victory. Look for example at elected mayors. The yes campaign was dominated by the sort of people who were used to seeing automatic agreement at dinner parties and failed to realise they had to proactively argue the case. They also failed to spot that to most of the public this was entirely a detail question about which set of politicians do what, not a revolution to sweep away the political order.

[timrollpickering]

Jun 1, 2018 16:21:04 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

"This baby needs a monitor not a new voting system," will haunt me for the rest of my days.

I think it only fair to put the originator's response:

labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/05/03/the-av-referendum-result/

The AV referendum result

by Dan Hodges

The No campaign has won. On Thursday, the bid to change Britain's voting system will be swept aside on a tidal wave of apathy. Babies, soldiers and policeman will sleep safely in the their beds once more.

To those Yes supporters lunging towards your keyboards, save your energy. Your moral outrage at the nature of the No campaign is wasted on me.

You wanted this stupid referendum. You were the ones convinced a grateful nation would make a small change and usher in a big difference. That sweeping away our venal, corrupt Parliamentary system would be as easy as one, two, three.

You blew it.

There's nothing I'd like better than to claim it was Hodge's killer baby adverts wot won it. But I wouldn't be able to maintain that façade for long.

It wasn't the adverts. Or the "Tory millions". Or the right-wing press.

The No campaign didn't win the referendum. The Yes campaign lost it.

It didn't begin to make a case. Not even close. In fact, it couldn't manage to get as far as putting on its wig and gown.

Anyone wondering why need look no further than this month's Progress editorial. Under the headline, "The No campaign has failed to make a positive case to Labour supporters", it reads,

"A referendum on an issue as complex as changing the electoral system places a special responsibility on the main protagonists to ensure the debate which is conducted is honest and open. Sadly, the No campaign have singularly failed to discharge this responsibility".

No. The responsibility on the main protagonists was to win the campaign. This was a vote on how we elect our government, not a civics lecture.

If there was an abdication of responsibility, it was from those who forgot that when people propose a change to the status quo, especially a fundamental constitutional change, the emphasis rests with them to make their argument. That's why in many cases constitutional reform requires a two thirds majority, or a turn-out threshold. [Myth] Except in this instance, because, though outraged at MPs being elected by thirty per cent of the vote, the Yes camp was perfectly happy to see our entire electoral system reconstructed on the votes of three men and a dog.

Yes supporters began the referendum with the belief that just offering people something new would be enough. Newness always prevails. Then, when they realised that wasn't working, they decided to try to turn it into a referendum on the first past the post system, rather than AV. Duck houses and moats were the key to victory. When that failed they just lost their heads, and got Chris Huhne to run around shouting "liar, liar, pants on fire".

At no stage did the actually try to sell AV, the system, on its own merits. Their messages were exclusively defensive, "It's not complicated", "It's not like first past the post", "it's not really a big deal".

In fairness, trying to sell it hard probably wouldn't have got them very far either. That's because there was one significant weakness with AV. Nobody actually wanted it.

This obscure fact will be lost over the next week as the handbrake is slammed on, and the car thrown into reverse. Those who once condemned the No camp for insulting the intelligence of the British electorate will instead be roaming the air waves bemoaning that electorate's capacity to be duped. The voices that at the outset hailed the entire exercise as a means of bringing the people closer to the politicians will be raised in fury at a further staining of our politics.

Please spare us the hand wringing. When are the liberal intelligentsia going to recognize that just because they want something, and don't get it, it doesn't mean they were cheated out of it.

It would also help if they realised that pinning on a badge that says "progressive" does not automatically place you outside the political elite and make you a people's champion. At least not in the eyes of the people.

The most ridiculous part of this morning's Today interview with Nick Clegg was when he tried to claim that those opposing change were lickspittles of the British establishment, while he and his band of heroic rebels were the modern equivalent of the liberators of the Bastille.

Who does Nick Clegg think he is? Literally. The bloke was born in a place called Chalfont St Giles. He was educated at Westminster and Cambridge. His dad is chairman of a bank. His paternal grandmother was Kira von Engelhardt, daughter of an Imperial Russian baron. He served at the European Commission, then as an MEP, then an MP. He's currently Lord president of the council and deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom. Just how much deeper into the bowels of the establishment can one man penetrate?

The voters aren't stupid. The Yes campaign was at least right about that. And they're wary of politicians. Yes were right about that too. So when someone like Nick Clegg turns up on their doorstep and says, "I know you don't like people like me. But trust me. I've got just the thing to change all that", you'd better be damn sure they're buying what you're selling.

And he wasn't. An extra copper down your street. A fiver off your weekly shopping bill. A hundred off your council tax. OK let's talk. A new voting system? He may as well have been selling chocolate fireguards. AV wasn't a challenge to the political elite. It was their creation.

Because here's the rub. There is no progressive majority. It doesn't exist.

There's potentially a Labour majority. Fingers crossed we'll see some evidence of that tomorrow. But the progressive's cause is not the people's cause. At least not yet.

In this election people were presented with change, or more of the same. They said more of the same please. They were asked if they would like fairer votes. They said no thanks. They were told "Yes we can". Their response was "I'm afraid you can't".

It's not because they are irrevocably opposed to the progressive case. It's just that they're not engaged with it. And the reason they're not engaged with it is because the people trying to explain it to them are talking in a language they don't understand.

Trying to sell progressive politics via an AV referendum is like trying to get someone to join a book club by handing them a copy of War and Peace. It is not in any way relevant, or accessible or enticing. The Yes campaign were effectively trying to force feed people the new politics. No wonder they were told to bugger off.

But the mistake will be compounded. As sure as night follows day. No lessons will be learnt. No souls genuinely searched.

Instead the moral outrage will pour forth. The baby posters will be waved like bloodied shrouds. And Nick Clegg will take off his progressive badge and settle back around the cabinet table to plan the next round of cuts.

You had your chance. You blew it. Don't go crying about me.

Dan Hodges is contributing editor of Labour Uncut.

[Adam in Stroud]

Jun 2, 2018 7:20:11 GMT timrollpickering said:

Jun 2, 2018 0:03:54 GMT andrew111 said:

I could not raise any enthusiasm to campaign for AV, because it was not PR at all.

However I did assume that the advantages over FPTP were so obvious that no-one would find any coherent arguments against it. I was not ready for the vested-interest led campaign of outrageous lies and calumnies against AV led by the two main Parties and their dogs in the Press. It really should have prepared us for the next UK referendum - lies win if repeated often enough...

But having Clegg lead the campaign was the kiss of death, just as Cameron and Osborne were the kiss of death for Remain

I think you've just demonstrated why the campaign lost so spectacularly and you can see similar attitudes on Lib Dem Voice when discussing an AV referendum (both Brown's attempt and the coalition one) in 2010. Too many assume that existing political structures are the way they are purely because of vested interests and if only they could get a direct vote to the people then the vote itself is a formality because it's so "obvious" that the alternative is better.

But the alternative is not in place and the electorate is sceptical. Anyone can shout "Democracy!" but that isn't a magic wand to victory. Look for example at elected mayors. The yes campaign was dominated by the sort of people who were used to seeing automatic agreement at dinner parties and failed to realise they had to proactively argue the case. They also failed to spot that to most of the public this was entirely a detail question about which set of politicians do what, not a revolution to sweep away the political order.

This is very sound.

I find FPTP frustrating for all sorts of reason, but none of that matters a damn if you don't have an idea of how your replacement would work, how it would be better in ways that matter to non-politicians, and how to retain the good features of the existing system. There are plenty of non-FPTP systems out there, advocates of change really need to look at one that works and then sell it to the public - e.g. "here's New Zealand, this is why it's better than what we have, let's do that."

[The Bishop]

Jun 1, 2018 16:21:04 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

"This baby needs a monitor not a new voting system," will haunt me for the rest of my days.

I do believe that a certain DPJ Hodges had a major role in that.

EDIT: just seen the above post!

[carlton43]

Jun 2, 2018 7:35:55 GMT timrollpickering said:

Jun 1, 2018 16:21:04 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

"This baby needs a monitor not a new voting system," will haunt me for the rest of my days.

I think it only fair to put the originator's response:

labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/05/03/the-av-referendum-result/

The AV referendum result

by Dan Hodges

The No campaign has won. On Thursday, the bid to change Britain's voting system will be swept aside on a tidal wave of apathy. Babies, soldiers and policeman will sleep safely in the their beds once more.

To those Yes supporters lunging towards your keyboards, save your energy. Your moral outrage at the nature of the No campaign is wasted on me.

You wanted this stupid referendum. You were the ones convinced a grateful nation would make a small change and usher in a big difference. That sweeping away our venal, corrupt Parliamentary system would be as easy as one, two, three.

You blew it.

There's nothing I'd like better than to claim it was Hodge's killer baby adverts wot won it. But I wouldn't be able to maintain that façade for long.

It wasn't the adverts. Or the "Tory millions". Or the right-wing press.

The No campaign didn't win the referendum. The Yes campaign lost it.

It didn't begin to make a case. Not even close. In fact, it couldn't manage to get as far as putting on its wig and gown.

Anyone wondering why need look no further than this month's Progress editorial. Under the headline, "The No campaign has failed to make a positive case to Labour supporters", it reads,

"A referendum on an issue as complex as changing the electoral system places a special responsibility on the main protagonists to ensure the debate which is conducted is honest and open. Sadly, the No campaign have singularly failed to discharge this responsibility".

No. The responsibility on the main protagonists was to win the campaign. This was a vote on how we elect our government, not a civics lecture.

If there was an abdication of responsibility, it was from those who forgot that when people propose a change to the status quo, especially a fundamental constitutional change, the emphasis rests with them to make their argument. That's why in many cases constitutional reform requires a two thirds majority, or a turn-out threshold. [Myth] Except in this instance, because, though outraged at MPs being elected by thirty per cent of the vote, the Yes camp was perfectly happy to see our entire electoral system reconstructed on the votes of three men and a dog.

Yes supporters began the referendum with the belief that just offering people something new would be enough. Newness always prevails. Then, when they realised that wasn't working, they decided to try to turn it into a referendum on the first past the post system, rather than AV. Duck houses and moats were the key to victory. When that failed they just lost their heads, and got Chris Huhne to run around shouting "liar, liar, pants on fire".

At no stage did the actually try to sell AV, the system, on its own merits. Their messages were exclusively defensive, "It's not complicated", "It's not like first past the post", "it's not really a big deal".

In fairness, trying to sell it hard probably wouldn't have got them very far either. That's because there was one significant weakness with AV. Nobody actually wanted it.

This obscure fact will be lost over the next week as the handbrake is slammed on, and the car thrown into reverse. Those who once condemned the No camp for insulting the intelligence of the British electorate will instead be roaming the air waves bemoaning that electorate's capacity to be duped. The voices that at the outset hailed the entire exercise as a means of bringing the people closer to the politicians will be raised in fury at a further staining of our politics.

Please spare us the hand wringing. When are the liberal intelligentsia going to recognize that just because they want something, and don't get it, it doesn't mean they were cheated out of it.

It would also help if they realised that pinning on a badge that says "progressive" does not automatically place you outside the political elite and make you a people's champion. At least not in the eyes of the people.

The most ridiculous part of this morning's Today interview with Nick Clegg was when he tried to claim that those opposing change were lickspittles of the British establishment, while he and his band of heroic rebels were the modern equivalent of the liberators of the Bastille.

Who does Nick Clegg think he is? Literally. The bloke was born in a place called Chalfont St Giles. He was educated at Westminster and Cambridge. His dad is chairman of a bank. His paternal grandmother was Kira von Engelhardt, daughter of an Imperial Russian baron. He served at the European Commission, then as an MEP, then an MP. He's currently Lord president of the council and deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom. Just how much deeper into the bowels of the establishment can one man penetrate?

The voters aren't stupid. The Yes campaign was at least right about that. And they're wary of politicians. Yes were right about that too. So when someone like Nick Clegg turns up on their doorstep and says, "I know you don't like people like me. But trust me. I've got just the thing to change all that", you'd better be damn sure they're buying what you're selling.

And he wasn't. An extra copper down your street. A fiver off your weekly shopping bill. A hundred off your council tax. OK let's talk. A new voting system? He may as well have been selling chocolate fireguards. AV wasn't a challenge to the political elite. It was their creation.

Because here's the rub. There is no progressive majority. It doesn't exist.

There's potentially a Labour majority. Fingers crossed we'll see some evidence of that tomorrow. But the progressive's cause is not the people's cause. At least not yet.

In this election people were presented with change, or more of the same. They said more of the same please. They were asked if they would like fairer votes. They said no thanks. They were told "Yes we can". Their response was "I'm afraid you can't".

It's not because they are irrevocably opposed to the progressive case. It's just that they're not engaged with it. And the reason they're not engaged with it is because the people trying to explain it to them are talking in a language they don't understand.

Trying to sell progressive politics via an AV referendum is like trying to get someone to join a book club by handing them a copy of War and Peace. It is not in any way relevant, or accessible or enticing. The Yes campaign were effectively trying to force feed people the new politics. No wonder they were told to bugger off.

But the mistake will be compounded. As sure as night follows day. No lessons will be learnt. No souls genuinely searched.

Instead the moral outrage will pour forth. The baby posters will be waved like bloodied shrouds. And Nick Clegg will take off his progressive badge and settle back around the cabinet table to plan the next round of cuts.

You had your chance. You blew it. Don't go crying about me.

Dan Hodges is contributing editor of Labour Uncut.

Brilliant piece of jouralism.  I do like and respect Dan Hodges. 

Just another case of the completely out-of-touch in-crowd assuming everyone would like something because they all did themselves.  No need to explain and to win support just try trashing FPTP and offering the obvious solution! 

Then they did it again with the EU. 

Terminally stupid.....Or what?

[J.G.Harston]

Jun 2, 2018 7:35:55 GMT timrollpickering said:

When are the liberal intelligentsia going to recognize that just because they want something, and don't get it, it doesn't mean they were cheated out of it.

That bit needs to be painted in six-foot capital letters.

[catking]

No.

[andrew111]

Sept 11, 2018 9:10:35 GMT catking said:

No.

Admirably concise bumping up of the correct thread!

[ricmk]

Reopening this thread at my peril, but.....

There's a lot of talk of an upcoming general election as a way out of the current Brexit mess. If it happens, clearly no chance of getting the boundaries through in time so it'll be on the old boundaries. But what happens to the recommendations then? Can they be laid in a new parliament and enacted when they get round to it? Or do they automatically expire with a new parliament? And presumably the (ill-advised) requirement to review every 5 years remains in place, and isn't affected by general elections every other year?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jan 19, 2019 20:19:23 GMT ricmk said:

Reopening this thread at my peril, but.....

There's a lot of talk of an upcoming general election as a way out of the current Brexit mess. If it happens, clearly no chance of getting the boundaries through in time so it'll be on the old boundaries. But what happens to the recommendations then? Can they be laid in a new parliament and enacted when they get round to it? Or do they automatically expire with a new parliament? And presumably the (ill-advised) requirement to review every 5 years remains in place, and isn't affected by general elections every other year?

The new boundaries are still there as proposals, and could be brought in at any time provided the government can win a majority for them. It doesn't matter whether that's done in this Parliament or a new one, but if delayed then it would mean they would be somewhat old when they came in.

[La Fontaine]

My first impression of the Tory defections is that they may well kill off the review, as they will wish to defend their seats (assuming they do) on the same boundaries.

[piperdave]

Jan 19, 2019 22:51:36 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Jan 19, 2019 21:19:54 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

The new boundaries are still there as proposals, and could be brought in at any time provided the government can win a majority for them. It doesn't matter whether that's done in this Parliament or a new one, but if delayed then it would mean they would be somewhat old when they came in.

If not accepted/passed, those boundaries fought in 2022 would be somewhat old!

The Scottish constituencies would almost have the key to the door, based on the enumeration date for the last review. Ignoring the island and two largest Highland constituencies in area, the variance between largest and smallest has almost exactly doubled between the Fifth Review recommendations and December 2017. In the same period, three constituencies have grown by over 8,000 electors and four have shrunk by more than 10,000 electors. We need a review that actually goes through!

[curiousliberal]

Feb 21, 2019 15:23:15 GMT La Fontaine said:

My first impression of the Tory defections is that they may well kill off the review, as they will wish to defend their seats (assuming they do) on the same boundaries.

The review was dead the moment May failed to achieve a majority greater than Cameron’s last.

[greenhert]

This is generally just a formality, though. Besides, other countries with Boundary Commissions (e.g. Canada, Australia) generally need to get similar recommendations approved by their legislatures.

[maxque]

Feb 22, 2019 23:12:53 GMT greenhert said:

This is generally just a formality, though. Besides, other countries with Boundary Commissions (e.g. Canada, Australia) generally need to get similar recommendations approved by their legislatures.

Canada doesn't (but most provinces do), through there is a step with is 100% about MP objections.

[The Bishop]

Feb 22, 2019 22:07:22 GMT Andrew_S said:

Feb 22, 2019 21:56:11 GMT curiousliberal said:

The review was dead the moment May failed to achieve a majority greater than Cameron’s last.

It'll be a disgrace if the next election is fought on boundaries 22 years out of date in terms of when the electorates were originally set. When was the last time boundaries were that old? 1945 possibly.

IIRC the boundary changes before the 1955(?) GE were less sweeping than usual, meaning that by 1970 some were very out of date indeed.

[ColinJ]

Feb 22, 2019 22:07:22 GMT Andrew_S said:

Feb 22, 2019 21:56:11 GMT curiousliberal said:

The review was dead the moment May failed to achieve a majority greater than Cameron’s last.

It'll be a disgrace if the next election is fought on boundaries 22 years out of date in terms of when the electorates were originally set. When was the last time boundaries were that old? 1945 possibly.

It'd be a bigger disgrace if the next election were fought on boundaries that only gave us 600 MPs. Better to wait for a more sensible boundaries that would naturally flow from a review allowing 650 MPs and a permitted electoral deviation of, say, +/- 7.5%.

[mondialito]

Feb 23, 2019 11:12:33 GMT ColinJ said:

Feb 22, 2019 22:07:22 GMT Andrew_S said:

It'll be a disgrace if the next election is fought on boundaries 22 years out of date in terms of when the electorates were originally set. When was the last time boundaries were that old? 1945 possibly.

It'd be a bigger disgrace if the next election were fought on boundaries that only gave us 600 MPs. Better to wait for a more sensible boundaries that would naturally flow from a review allowing 650 MPs and a permitted electoral deviation of, say, +/- 7.5%.

That's where the problem lies. I think even the 5% deviation would be more readily accepted if the cut in numbers wasn't there, another rash pledge by Dave that has caused more harm than good.

[AdminSTB]

Feb 23, 2019 10:48:21 GMT The Bishop said:

Feb 22, 2019 22:07:22 GMT Andrew_S said:

It'll be a disgrace if the next election is fought on boundaries 22 years out of date in terms of when the electorates were originally set. When was the last time boundaries were that old? 1945 possibly.

IIRC the boundary changes before the 1955(?) GE were less sweeping than usual, meaning that by 1970 some were very out of date indeed.

It amused me, when watching coverage of the 1970 election, how they described Billericay as the largest constituency in the country in such a matter of fact way without batting an eyelid over it. Imagine getting over 40,000 votes and still losing.

[iainbhx]

Feb 23, 2019 10:48:21 GMT The Bishop said:

Feb 22, 2019 22:07:22 GMT Andrew_S said:

It'll be a disgrace if the next election is fought on boundaries 22 years out of date in terms of when the electorates were originally set. When was the last time boundaries were that old? 1945 possibly.

IIRC the boundary changes before the 1955(?) GE were less sweeping than usual, meaning that by 1970 some were very out of date indeed.

That's because the review implemented in 1950 was fairly sweeping and so there was less need for change.

1945, if I remember correctly, was not a full review just a division of some of the overly large seats - most of which were over 100,000.

I seem to remember about the same time that the Perry Barr ward of Birmingham had an electorate of over 40,000.