"However, I will say this: I think it would be beautifully ironic if the deepest change we end up with out of leaving the European Union is a more continental way of doing politics."
Another possible reform vector into that direction could be a more federal form of union.
Also quite ironic if that were to happen given how much Brexiters detest the concept of balanced power sharing
Also remember that in thr USA it isn't the president that has say over trade deals, they are approved by congress. So even if trump wins (pause for shudder) he still wouldn't be able to magically approve a deal.
On a separate note the UK trade deal with Canada is the one agreed to with the EU, so happened so fast BECAUSE of us in Canada wanting a deal with thr EU, no matter what Brexiteers think in terms of the Anglosohere.
The point about the AV referendum is that AV is easily argued against for a Parliamentary election. The Tories portrayed referendum as being about PR and argue that as it was lost PR is a dead issue for a generation.
The false argument used, that second place wins, was specious but hard to counter. Proportionality, whichever system is used, is much less easy to put a false argument against since it is self evidently fair.
Thus I don't think the failure of that rather pointless referendum, a choice between a bad system and a potentially worse system, works against the idea of a referendum on adopting the principle of PR for elections.
Yes, which with hindsight proves that the Liberals were unwise to agree to this watered down version of PR in order to set up the coalition government of Cameron and Clegg.
Yes. My argument is that Clegg should have refused to enter the coalition government on those terms. For me, the hindsight view is that what did happen, with the referendum on AV, it allowed Tories to argue, as they do with the Scottish Independence vote, that you've had your vote on PR and the electorate rejected it. Which is indeed how things have happened. PR is only back on the agenda now because of Brexit and widespread dissatisfaction with how the governments have gone since the Coalition government. Had the Lib Dems not entered government in that wholehearted way, but made the argument for proper PR, there likely wouldn't have been any kind of referendum on AV, and there would have been a higher profile on the arguments around PR because the Lib Dems would have been making the case for why fair votes was a deal-breaker for them.
That's my kind of alternative history take on where that could have gone. Plus, the Lib Dems being more semi-detached in the 2010 government would probably have led to less of a reaction from former Lib Dem voters who were angry at them for being so closely tied in with the Cameron government.
Yes of course, he should have refused to join Cameron, especially with his stated position on the deficit before the election, which was much more like Darling's plan and not the Osborne austerity. He effectively enabled that.
Having joined the coalition pushing electoral reform in some form must have seemed like a win, but it has actually set the argument back at least ten years. Then there was student fees. Now he's working at Meta. What a c*nt.
Have a look at the Australian arrangements.
Preferential voting for single member electorates in the lower house, nearly always producies stable governments.
The Senate has multi member, proportional voting in State electorates.
Both allow new political parties to emerge and sometimes grow, e.g. the Greens.
Governments rarely have an absolute majority in the Senate. They must negotiate to get legislation passed, deterring Winner Takes All politics.
"However, I will say this: I think it would be beautifully ironic if the deepest change we end up with out of leaving the European Union is a more continental way of doing politics."
Another possible reform vector into that direction could be a more federal form of union.
Also quite ironic if that were to happen given how much Brexiters detest the concept of balanced power sharing
Great post as always Nick.
Also remember that in thr USA it isn't the president that has say over trade deals, they are approved by congress. So even if trump wins (pause for shudder) he still wouldn't be able to magically approve a deal.
On a separate note the UK trade deal with Canada is the one agreed to with the EU, so happened so fast BECAUSE of us in Canada wanting a deal with thr EU, no matter what Brexiteers think in terms of the Anglosohere.
Jake Davis
The point about the AV referendum is that AV is easily argued against for a Parliamentary election. The Tories portrayed referendum as being about PR and argue that as it was lost PR is a dead issue for a generation.
The false argument used, that second place wins, was specious but hard to counter. Proportionality, whichever system is used, is much less easy to put a false argument against since it is self evidently fair.
Thus I don't think the failure of that rather pointless referendum, a choice between a bad system and a potentially worse system, works against the idea of a referendum on adopting the principle of PR for elections.
Yes, which with hindsight proves that the Liberals were unwise to agree to this watered down version of PR in order to set up the coalition government of Cameron and Clegg.
I don't think the LibDems had a choice. AV was all that was on offer.
AV isn't any kind of PR. At best it was a step down the road of electoral reform.
Yes. My argument is that Clegg should have refused to enter the coalition government on those terms. For me, the hindsight view is that what did happen, with the referendum on AV, it allowed Tories to argue, as they do with the Scottish Independence vote, that you've had your vote on PR and the electorate rejected it. Which is indeed how things have happened. PR is only back on the agenda now because of Brexit and widespread dissatisfaction with how the governments have gone since the Coalition government. Had the Lib Dems not entered government in that wholehearted way, but made the argument for proper PR, there likely wouldn't have been any kind of referendum on AV, and there would have been a higher profile on the arguments around PR because the Lib Dems would have been making the case for why fair votes was a deal-breaker for them.
That's my kind of alternative history take on where that could have gone. Plus, the Lib Dems being more semi-detached in the 2010 government would probably have led to less of a reaction from former Lib Dem voters who were angry at them for being so closely tied in with the Cameron government.
Yes of course, he should have refused to join Cameron, especially with his stated position on the deficit before the election, which was much more like Darling's plan and not the Osborne austerity. He effectively enabled that.
Having joined the coalition pushing electoral reform in some form must have seemed like a win, but it has actually set the argument back at least ten years. Then there was student fees. Now he's working at Meta. What a c*nt.