And that’s still no reason to wriggle – presentational values are fine and necessary in politics, whereas public relations are the antithesis of good politics as they are divorced from substance.

If Cameron is in the slighest bit genuine, then he is genuinely wrong.

And that is no qualification for leadership.

Laurence, please can you remind us what the Cleggster’s reaction was when you said you quite liked David Cameron…
he didn’t perchance intimate that you’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for the shiny PR bait?

Or is there something else happening?

Despite Liberal Democrats’ longstanding commitment to the STV system of election for all elections, we supported the AV Top-up (AV+) system proposed by Jenkins. We have also argued consistently that the second chamber should be elected on a markedly different basis to the House of Commons. Our most recent policy statement proposes STV for the second chamber. This leaves the party room to consider an alternative to the STV system for the House of Commons, provided what is arrived at sits satisfactorily with our key principles that voting systems should be both preferential and proportional.

So it looks like we had a little wobble. Still, glad we snapped out of it!

Two responses. 1) all parties already get internal strive over candidate selection, and the occasional defection happens as well, but it’s hidden.

2) The existing 2.5 party system exists because of the current voting system, FPTP essentially forces broad church coalitions of not necessarily coherent interest groups. Change the voting system and eventually the parties would coalesce into different groupings. Would take time, but I’m a democrat first, I have no problem with different parties forming if that’s what people vote for.

Sure, some of the strive would be personality politics only, but scratch the surface of any fairly succesful local govt party and you get that all the time anyway.

At least under STV it’s open and people are campaigning openly on their merits—as the Wiki article says, STV encourages positive campaigning on your merits, not negative stuff, for the most part.

(also? it’s been party policy since the Liberal party was last in Govt—the bill got blocked in the House of Lords. Completely independently it’s also the favoured system of the Electoral Reform Society)

It wasn’t really discussed because it is an issue that was resolved within the party years ago. There are a few mavericks out there who object to STV but they are few and far between.

“Have you read this?”

From time to time, yes. No-one is suggesting STV is the best system from a contolling party elite’s point of view. That’s kind of the point. Also, the stuff about tactical voting with STV brings new meaning to the word obscurationist.

“Also, did the subject of the Monarchy never come up?”

Yes it did, and we decided not to touch that particular third rail. But it is an issue that would have to be addressed as part of a constitutional convention so republicans who want to make their case can do so then. One step at a time though, eh?

No, hang on, hang on. “First round the post”… there’s the germ of an idea there…

Laurence Boyce against internal party strife? Who says irony is dead?

Your “core vote” will turnout to get the others out or keep them out, it’s the centre ground that matters. If you believe (and that push poll census question indicates) that most people are soft religious, you cant afford to piss of someone who is otherwise a potential voter but won’t support an atheist.

When you can win or lose by 12 votes (as Adrian did in 1997 in Torbay), any single vote makes the difference, so you don’t piss people off.

Under multi-member STV, it’s to your advantage to mobilise a core and appeal for a positive vote in your favour not a negative vote against the others.

Thus Parlt is more representative because, for example, the party can put up an atheist and a believer and let supporters choose—in addition, while every vote counts, it’s positive votes an dpreferences that matter so one alienated believer is less of an issue.

I hope that makes sense, I’ve written it up much better before somewhere, I’ll try to find the link when I’ve time.

Yes of course. Sorry. I get so confused.

You’ll have many more out atheists under STV.

That honestly wasn’t my main consideration, but why so?

“Europe (which I guess is what we’ve got)”

unfortunately not, we’ve got list PR for Europe, a system I think is worse than FPTP.

“I like to keep tabs on my MP, but I don’t have time to keep tabs on six. ”

Fair enough, but I think you’re slightly wrong—I keep track of a number of MPs fairly easily (my current, my two former, Dorries, etc. Baker isn’t yours, is he?

Besides, you’re more likely to track the ones you put top of your priority list, as they in theory should represent you much better.

One clear point? You’ll have many more out atheists under STV, you can withdraw any “all-X-shortlist” ideas and the house immediately becomes more representative.

But that’s really a discussion that’d need a much fuller post—I may get back in the mood to writing such things at some point. Possibly.

I’d be fine with this scheme for Europe (which I guess is what we’ve got) and the House of Lords. But not for Westminster. I like to keep tabs on my MP, but I don’t have time to keep tabs on six. With or without a proper job.