No, Nick ! I don't agree with you.

Liberal democrats have always called for parliamentary reform. Now we're in government, what's the score ?
1. Electoral reform: AV lost, PR forgotten
2. House of Lords reform: unlikely to overcome opposition of Tory, Labour and half of LD peers.
3. Err, that's it.

The price for this immense cock-up is a reduction in parliamentary constituencies accompanied by a massive redrawing of boundaries which will focus chiefly on size and ignore any idea of community, cost the Liberal Democrats 14 seats and provide regular opportunities for gerrymandering every few years. Meanwhile the UK's bloated executive will remain the same size and the whips will dominate the House of Commons even more.

Arrow's impossibility theorem

A little maths to lighten the gloom.

How strange that the Tories and Labour NOs did not quote Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which proves mathematically that no voting system can meet three criteria of fairness (see extract above).

No, I don't understand it either.

Never confuse Labour with a progressive party !

This is the proud boast of the Labour NO to AV campaign. So we know that their manifesto promise was a lie. So we know that they prefer the system that has put Tories in power for generations. So we know that their commitment to democracy is threadbare. So we know that they are happy to see 1.6% of the electorate (less than 500,000 voters) decide who governs Britain. So we know that they don't care that MPs are elected by a minority.

NEVER CONFUSE LABOUR WITH A PROGRESSIVE PARTY, NEVER AGAIN !

Yes or no ? Is that democracy ?

The BBC has this graphic for its summing up of the arguments on the AV Referendum. Clearly the pencil has more than two faces but only two are available to the voter - yes or no. The graphic so neatly sums up the problem with First Past the Post that I'm surprised the Director-General Mark Thomson didn't ban it as the BBC banned the use of the word "Reform".

Caroline Lucas was of course right in seeking to amend the referendum into a preferendum with a choice of voting systems. She was wrong to blame Liberal Democrat MPs for not supporting her, as she know that the combined weight of the Tory and Labour dinosaurs would not have permitted such a choice to the electorate. LibDem MPs were confined to the AV option by the coalition agreement. Could we have got more from the Tories ? I wonder. What about Labour ? With the exception of Ed Miliband (who gave a remarkably honest interview to the trivial, point-scoring, ever interrupting Humphries this morning) and a few other Labour politicians, the Labour Party has once again shown itself dishonest and opportunistic. Blair's first broken promise was his refusal to put the Jenkins Commission's report to a referendum. Now many Labour politicians led by the despicable Reid, Prescott, Blunkett and Beckett are campaigning against AV, which they promised in their own General Election manifesto. Make no mistake. If the answer tomorrow is "NO" they will bear the blame as much as any self-seeking Tory.

The conclusion: you can't trust politicians to set the rules by which we are governed. The UK needs a Constitutional Convention, just as the Scots had before.

Today programme avoids the dread word "Reform"

Fascinating to listen to the Today programme presenters dancing carefully around the banned word Reform as they discussed the referendum on AV this morning.

Interesting also to hear William Hague's defence of First Past the Post. Responding to the point that 2/3 of MPs were not elected by a majority of their constituents, he commented that many were elected by just under 50%. Shall we then apply this startling approach to legislation and allow Bills to be passed by just under 50% of MPs voting ?

Call Labour's bluff - split the bill !

The opportunistic self-serving hypocrites who lead the Parliamentary Labour Party are going to vote against a referendum on AV despite their own commitment to the idea a few weeks ago. The arch-hypocrite (and sadly typical ex-NUS President) Jack Straw explains that the bill also provides for redrawing boundaries and reducing the number of constituencies. Of course the real motive is to join with Tory anti-referendum backwoodsmen rebels and defeat the government. So, the obvious solution - split the bill in two. Will Labour have the unashamed gall to vote against a bill only for a referendum on AV ? I doubt it, but if they did we would see their essential and deep-seated conservatism revealed. Simples !