Cameron will be forced into an immediate legislation for a referendum into Proportional Representation within 3 months in order to get a LibDem pact; plus Cable, not Osborne, as Chancellor. If he doesn't agree, Labour may do so with the added removal of Brown and replacement by Milliband or Johnson (or, hysterically, Mandelson) as PM.

I suspect that the Lib Dem/Con agreement will amount to nothing in the end. There is too much in the Conservative manifesto which is very far from the Lib Dems.

I think there will be a Conservative minority government and that within a year Cameron will call a new election to get a majority, and will.

But I hope I am wrong.

by the way, when I say I hope I'm wrong I mean that I hope the Tories don't go on to get a majority.

I doubt that. If there is any move to consider any change to the electoral system there would first be a commission set up, with the possibility of a referendum if the subsequent report is deemed to make that appropriate. Don't forget there isn't just one alternative voting system - there are many. There isn't even just one form of PR. So you can't just vote to change before every system has been considered bu the civil service, with all the pros and cons examined, and then the findings explained to the public. The way the topic is being discussed at present is like something from out of a kids' comic.

I'm all for pr but what do others think and do you reckon it will pass at a referendum?

The main party pushing for PR in the general election got less than a quarter of the vote. I have no objection to a referendum, but I doubt that the country would vote in favour of PR. There is very little enthusiasm for it in the UK.

The other point to acknowledge is that, even after all of the above, the likelihood is that any changes would first be put on trial at local level before implementing for a General Election. That's been the procedure since the late 19th century. So you'd be looking at a long process.

Prunella Minge wrote:
The other point to acknowledge is that, even after all of the above, the likelihood is that any changes would first be put on trial at local level before implementing for a General Election.

PR has been the form of election in Northern Ireland for some time.

THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Scotland should have a Parliament
Wales should have a Parliament
NI should have a Parliament
England should have a Parliament

then each Parliament should have representatives at Westminster based on their VOTE not seats.

The PM would be chosen from the BIGGEST party in the Westminster Parliament which would number less than 100 representatives of the four national parliaments.

This would be a fair way to represent each view.

AT the moment ENGLAND has no representation. England is TORY and is over 50% blue. Yet we have NO representation. Scotland - Wales already have LABOUR governments - and we are being HELD TO RANSOM by the current BROWN Government ( who do not represent ENGLAND at all )

PR or not PR is NOT the question.

ENGLISH PARLIAMENT FOR THE ENGLISH is what the PEOPLE WANT.

In The Know wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
The other point to acknowledge is that, even after all of the above, the likelihood is that any changes would first be put on trial at local level before implementing for a General Election.

PR has been the form of election in Northern Ireland for some time.

Northern Ireland is an exceptional case. There was no way they could have a working Parliament (assembly) after decades of violent conflict without a lot of compromise. For them it was PR and power sharing or nothing. That said, the Westminster seats in Northern Ireland are still chosen by the standard 'first past the post' system.

I am really perplexed why Britons don't want pr and indeed, preferential voting as in Oz where you get to put from NO 1, 2 3,etc in order of your preference so basically the entire country really gets the government they want, for good or bad.

Plus with voting being compulsorary virtually everyone of voting age turns up so the country has had one of the most stable democracys on the planet.

but what a hoot if it was Mandelson !

And something nobody has suggested - perhaps the best solution of all - a coalition of all three parties?

In The Know wrote:

PR has been the form of election in Northern Ireland for some time.[/quote]

I'm well aware of that. Once again, can I just remind people that there are several extant variations on the process known very loosely as 'PR,' and all of them, along with possible new variations, would have to be discussed and assessed by a properly appointed commission, and then plans would have to be developed to implement any one type in case a referendum recommended a change. What is painfully clear so far is that many members of the public don't actually know that much about the range of alternative voting systems, so a clear and comprehensive comparative guide is pretty urgent.

JK2006 wrote:
And something nobody has suggested - perhaps the best solution of all - a coalition of all three parties?

I did think it was odd that the commentators were fixating on 1974 and ignoring the case of 1931 and the formation, in a time of acute economic crisis, of a National Government of all the parties. Surely even more pertinent, potentially, than 74...

P.S. More on the voting reform obfuscation: Paddy Ashdown said on the Marr show that this election shows that the first past the post system 'doesn't even guarantee a strong majority Government'. Well, that's just as misleading - knowingly misleading - as Thatcher in her pomp (or Blair in his) claiming that it DOES do that. And it's just as misleading as those who try to dismiss any of the other voring systems by singling out those specific elections when there was chaos. We will get NOWHERE if this kind of silly misrepresentation - by either side - goes unchallenged. No system 'guarantees' satisfactory results. Each one has its own strengths and weaknesses. People like Ashdown do their cause no good at all.

Mandelson would have to give up his Peerage and stand for election as an MP before he could be PM.

So, I suspect that will never happen.

JK2006 wrote:
And something nobody has suggested - perhaps the best solution of all - a coalition of all three parties?

That has been suggested a few times, JK. Though probably not on this board. Such a government would be so divided that it would likely crumble within a month.

Prunella Minge wrote:
Paddy Ashdown said on the Marr show that this election shows that the first past the post system 'doesn't even guarantee a strong majority Government'. Well, that's just as misleading - knowingly misleading - as Thatcher in her pomp (or Blair in his) claiming that it DOES do that. And it's just as misleading as those who try to dismiss any of the other voring systems by singling out those specific elections when there was chaos. We will get NOWHERE if this kind of silly misrepresentation - by either side - goes unchallenged. No system 'guarantees' satisfactory results. Each one has its own strengths and weaknesses. People like Ashdown do their cause no good at all.

Pru, I think you're being a bit unfair to Ashdown. He says that First Past The Post doesn't guarantee a strong majority government- that's all he's saying and it's true. He's not saying it never gives a strong majority government, as it quite often does.

david wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
Paddy Ashdown said on the Marr show that this election shows that the first past the post system 'doesn't even guarantee a strong majority Government'. Well, that's just as misleading - knowingly misleading - as Thatcher in her pomp (or Blair in his) claiming that it DOES do that. And it's just as misleading as those who try to dismiss any of the other voring systems by singling out those specific elections when there was chaos. We will get NOWHERE if this kind of silly misrepresentation - by either side - goes unchallenged. No system 'guarantees' satisfactory results. Each one has its own strengths and weaknesses. People like Ashdown do their cause no good at all.

Pru, I think you're being a bit unfair to Ashdown. He says that First Past The Post doesn't guarantee a strong majority government- that's all he's saying and it's true. He's not saying it never gives a strong majority government, as it quite often does.

No, David. That wasn't my point. My point was that's the same kind of lazy argument that ANTI-PR, or alternatives, make. (e.g. 'PR elections sometimes lead to 'fair' but unworkable coalitions': I mean: hello?! So what?) Ashdown clearly WAS trying to use that fact as an attack on the system, whereas in fact it was a banal observation about a particular result.

Pru, my reading of Ashdown's comments was that it was a reaction to the scaremongering in the press about how awful hung parliaments/coalitions/PR are. He was just saying, 'well First Past The Post isn't perfect either in that respect.'

at least that was my reading of what was said.

JK2006 wrote:
And something nobody has suggested - perhaps the best solution of all - a coalition of all three parties?

In Brown's speech on Friday, he said he was happy to speak to the other leaders, and if takls between Clegg and Cameron broke down he would want to speak to Mr Clegg. In fact, he would have been better placed if he had said he would be happy to speak to either - or both.

He can suggest a vote on PR, but Labour MPs are more anti-PR than Conservative. If it went to a members vote, PR would be rejected. So, why not promise an MP's vote?