▲ 40 ▼ Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge (www.bbc.co.uk) submitted 2 years ago by i_am_not_a_robot@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk 61 comments fedilink hide all child comments Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
[–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) There was never a need for a referendum, Parliament has the absolute authority to change how its elections are run. They should have insisted it was part of the coalition agreement, but didn't. Like student loans, it was ultimately less important than being in power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) So the minority party, should have forced through a major constitutional change, which voters hadn’t voted for - in the name of democracy? And the idea of the referendum was bad. Interesting take. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Well when you put it that way.... The reality though is that both Labour and the LibDems had electoral reform in their manifestos - see Labour's 2010 manifesto here, page 92 - and as their votes combined were more than the Tories (approx 15 million, versus 10) you could argue that clearly that was the will of the people, and it should have at least been subject to a vote in the Commons. Now that obviously didn't happen, and I'm not even saying it would be a successful option in negotiation, but what did happen was that the LibDems thought - and Clegg has said this himself - that having governmental stability was more important. Even if that meant passing a lot of pretty nasty shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago you could argue that clearly that was the will of the people, and it should have at least been subject to a vote in the Commons. In my opinion The LD clearly thought it was the will of the people and persuaded the Tories to run the referendum to prove this and give the change political legitimacy permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) So the minority party, should have forced through a major constitutional change, which voters hadn’t voted for - in the name of democracy? And the idea of the referendum was bad. Interesting take. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Well when you put it that way.... The reality though is that both Labour and the LibDems had electoral reform in their manifestos - see Labour's 2010 manifesto here, page 92 - and as their votes combined were more than the Tories (approx 15 million, versus 10) you could argue that clearly that was the will of the people, and it should have at least been subject to a vote in the Commons. Now that obviously didn't happen, and I'm not even saying it would be a successful option in negotiation, but what did happen was that the LibDems thought - and Clegg has said this himself - that having governmental stability was more important. Even if that meant passing a lot of pretty nasty shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago you could argue that clearly that was the will of the people, and it should have at least been subject to a vote in the Commons. In my opinion The LD clearly thought it was the will of the people and persuaded the Tories to run the referendum to prove this and give the change political legitimacy permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Well when you put it that way.... The reality though is that both Labour and the LibDems had electoral reform in their manifestos - see Labour's 2010 manifesto here, page 92 - and as their votes combined were more than the Tories (approx 15 million, versus 10) you could argue that clearly that was the will of the people, and it should have at least been subject to a vote in the Commons. Now that obviously didn't happen, and I'm not even saying it would be a successful option in negotiation, but what did happen was that the LibDems thought - and Clegg has said this himself - that having governmental stability was more important. Even if that meant passing a lot of pretty nasty shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago you could argue that clearly that was the will of the people, and it should have at least been subject to a vote in the Commons. In my opinion The LD clearly thought it was the will of the people and persuaded the Tories to run the referendum to prove this and give the change political legitimacy permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago you could argue that clearly that was the will of the people, and it should have at least been subject to a vote in the Commons. In my opinion The LD clearly thought it was the will of the people and persuaded the Tories to run the referendum to prove this and give the change political legitimacy permalink fedilink source parent