Cialis Soft Tabs Info Where Can I Buy Cialis Online Chologuard Hills Pharmacy D Buy Celebrex Online Canada Clarinex 5mg Uses

Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum


9:20 am - September 3rd 2010

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

The Green MP Caroline Lucas is planning to table an amendment to rewrite the referendum question on AV next year, so it includes a “wider range of voting systems”.

In an article for the New Statesman this week she says we will be offered the “choice” between “two flavours of vanilla” – FPTP or the Alternative Vote.

Real reform is not on the agenda, she adds.

That’s why, as MPs start the second reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill on 6 September, I am tabling an amendment that would rewrite the referendum question to allow people to choose from a wider range of voting systems, including properly proportional options such as the additional member system (used in elections for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Assembly) and the single transferable vote (used in Northern Ireland).

As the Labour leadership battle narrows in favour of the Miliband brothers, I challenge them, even at this late stage, to support my amendment, to demonstrate their commitment to both pluralism and democracy.

Lucas also calls on the party to move beyond narrow tribalism and embrace true pluralism.

At recent Compass conferences, I have discussed the need for a more progressive, pluralist politics, based not on Blair’s suffocating “big tent”, but on a campsite of different parties and movements, sharing common values but maintaining their own identities. Labour could play an important part in that progressive alliance, but only if it can leave behind its arrogant belief in its own exclusive role. Is there no candidate willing to lead the party in that direction?

We will soon find out.

More also by Guy Aitchison at OurKingdom

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


OMG, shock horror!

Politician advocates electoral system that allows her party to get people elected!

Film at 11

The question is – would putting PR and AV on the same ballot sheet split the vote?

@2 – who prefers AV over both a PR system and FPTP?

Wouldn’t offering multiple options just guarantee there was no majority for anything? Which would suit the first-past-the-post supporters (yes, that includes me), who would certainly have the largest share of the vote and would be able to claim legitimacy from it.

Incidentally, ‘two flavours of vanilla’ is redolent of fetish usage of vanilla for normal sex. It kind of ignores the fact though that vanilla is still about the most popular flavour of icecream, and is in fact a very nice flavour. Just because it is familiar, it is not wrong.

5. Sunder Katwala

I welcome Lucas’ engagement with Labour party debates, as she rightly notes this affects the broader climate for progressives across parties. And it is legitimate for Lucas to advocate a PR referendum – but as a test of pluralism this is simply a gesture and a rather unconvincing one at that.

Even if Lucas and every Labour MP were to vote for such an approach, it would not have the votes to carry. In fact, that would largely turn out as a political stunt to embarass the LibDems since they could not vote for it without breaching the Coalition Agreement, despite their own support for PR. (Now, that might rather appeal to Labour tribalists who don’t support PR as a clever somewhat wrecking tactic, but it would actually be perhaps less sensible as a pluralist strategy).

As a strategy for the AV referendum, a preferendum with multiple options it would probably make a campaign more difficult and the victory of first-past-the-post more likely. It is a real gift to a status quo, vote No campaign in my view. (It might be that Lucas thinks that would help the long-term cause of PR but most electoral reformers probably don’t agree with that).

So the pluralist challenge for Caroline Lucas is whether she is going to strongly back the Yes campaign, which is seen as positive by most-longstanding pro-PR voices across various campaigns or parties, or continue to argue after the next few weeks over the Bill that there is nothing much at stake, so that through to next May her primary point is that it doesn’t really matter if its not PR.

A Labour leader who said they thought AV was better than FPTP but also preferred AV+ to FPTP and was willing to support campaigns to get either or both would be taking a more pluralist position.

@2: Well, clearly there’d have to be a pre-referendum referendum on which voting system to use for the referendum.

Someone – I forget who – commented on one of the earlier LC threads that you could do a referendum between FPTP, AV, AMS and AV+ by using two two-option questions, one to set the constituency voting system and one to determine if there were regional top-up seats. That’s probably the one way to introduce a PR option to the referendum that doesn’t guarantee that FPTP wins on incumbent bonus.

I agree with other posters above that her approach is unlikely to work. Once the LD’s “settled” for what the Tories were prepared to offer in the referendum, rather than a truly proportional system, ther eis little point splitting the vote: that only plays into the hands of those in favour of the status quo.

8. Sunder Katwala

@3 – who prefers AV over both a PR system and FPTP?

About a quarter of the electorate, it appears, when youGov asked this a year ago

34% backed proportional representation, 25% backed first past the post, and 25% backed the alternative vote
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/19/poll-electoral-reform-gordon-brown

@Andrew and Watchman:

I suspect Caroline would be arguing in favour of listing preferences in the referenda (given the problems she has with FPTP) which system do you prefer the most – list in order of preference. It would be interesting to see a clarification from her.

The trouble is the history of referenda in this country has been of straight Yes/No options.

It’s clever politics. In particular – it puts the Lib Dem MPs on the spot. Hands up for Lib Dems who do not believe in STV…?

If you are going to put a choice of different “new” voting systems to the electorate though, how do you do it? Do you have two referendums, the first asking a straight do you want to a) stick with FPTP or b) change to a new system, and then assuming a majority people vote for b) hold a second referendum to decide between differing systems?

Or do you offer a choice betwwen (say) 3 options, FPTP, AV and STV and declare the one with the biggest % support the winner?

11. Sunder Katwala

Simon@9

“It’s clever politics. In particular – it puts the Lib Dem MPs on the spot. Hands up for Lib Dems who do not believe in STV…?”

– well, yes, that’s party tactics; it isn’t pluralism

Greens don’t believe in STV. They think we can bolt on a closed party list system, like that used in the Euro elections, onto existing FPTP. Greens have already come out against the referendum, lining up with Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, and other right-wing climate change-denying loons. Hope they’re proud of themselves for once again splitting the left with their holier-than-thou irrelevant nonsense!

For the interest of readers who feel they want to catch up on the complexities of electoral reform options, this was the report of the “Independent Commission on the Voting System” – the so-called Jenkins Commission – as published in 1998:
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/contents.htm

This was the BBC digest of that report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/the_jenkins_report/203948.stm

And this the HoC Library brief of December 1998 for MPs on Voting Systems:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-112.pdf

This was the assessment of the Electoral Reform Society on the Alternative Reform Plus (AV+) electoral system advocated by the Jenkins Commission:
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=56

“Greens have already come out against the referendum, lining up with Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, ”

Really?

Disgraceful.

@Blanco. You’re incorrect. Whilst the Greens have traditionally been in favour of AMS, they’re debating AV a week on Saturday, in the afternoon at their conference here in Birmingham.

I suggest you wait until after the Greens conference to see what they’ve got to say on the issue.

16. margin4error

sunder

Have you not missed the point somewhat?

Yes this would be a stung to embarrass the Lib Dems – but it would embarrass them because the Tories would whip them against voting for Proportional Representation – which shows how weak a deal they have ended up with.

Frankly that’s an embarrasement worth inflicting.

17. margin4error

blanco

splitting the left? How are they splitting the left?

Labour have not come out with a policy on the referendum and there is no concensus among labour supporters about it, or much interest in it.

Meanwhile the Greens now have come out with a policy and that is entirely fair – given that greens see no value in a weak pretence of reform in place of a chance to promote PR.

That isn’t splitting the left. It is leading the left.

This looks to me like a lot of excitement over nothing, such an amendment was always likely to be put anyway & would be massively defeated as most MPs will oppose it . You could have a free vote & it would still be massively defeated.

19. margin4error

Paul barker

The ambitious amendment would be to replace AV with PR. That would trigger some lib dems to defy cameron and vote in favour.

Simon @9,

I don’t think you can legitimately claim a majority on a referndum with alternative voting, especially if the voting system does not allow for that at the moment. Apart from anything else, a confused referendum (and I have seen my wife, who has a science degree, confused by the voting system in a European election, so this is not speculation – confusion happens) would not be ideal, and certainly would not establish legitimacy.

The Greens have NOT gone against AV yet.

Sunder also makes a very convincing argument above…

22. Peter Barber

Re. comment #1:

And Labour and the Conservatives aren’t clinging on to FPTP for precisely that reason?

Quite apart from the fact that proportional representation is *fair*, and therefore a far better starting point for a Parliament that is responsive to the will of the people, the difference between Caroline and most Labour or Conservative MPs is that she is trying to ensure that a referendum on voting reform actually offers a meaningful choice. The determined refusal of Labour and the Tories to even include PR as an option on the ballot paper makes it *look* as if they are trying to ensure that the status quo which gives them their undeserved electoral advantage is maintained, whatever the outcome.

23. Guy Aitchison

I don’t think Sunder is right to dismiss this as a mere “gesture”. Just because the Lib Dems are trapped by the Coalition Agreement from making the case for PR, it doesn’t mean that other parties should be too. I would have been disappointed had Lucas not done something like this, to be honest, because it’s important that pro-PR voices let it be known that there are other better systems and that we are being denied a proper choice. The Lib Dems and the official Yes campaign may not like it and they will almost certainly do their best to ignore it to avoid confusing the issue, but that doesn’t mean that we all have to. I agree that if/when this amendment effort fails Lucas and the Greens should come behind AV and that too is an important test of *her* reformist credentials, but it’s right that there are politicians in Parliament pushing for a fair choice.

24. Sunder Katwala

Guy

Sure. It is legitimate for Lucas to pursue a PR referendum, while at the same time knowing she does not have Parliamentary support to get one, just as it is for you to support it as an agenda and profile-raising issue, again in the knowledge that it won’t succeed.

What I was sceptical about is making this the core test of Labour pluralism. (If the next Labour leader were to support her on this, that could be driven more by opportunism than pluralism; whereas a longer-term push to a Labour leader/shadow Cabinet/party to have an open mind about PR or AV+ beyond AV could more plausibly be couched in those terms of a pluralist test).

And it seems we can agree that with, the challenge is made in terms of pluralism, there is a good case for saying that would then be badly flunked if (in the event that this amendment does not succeed), the Greens were to depart company from the vast majority of long-standing electoral reform groups and campaigns by supporting the No campaign. I hope they don’t do that. My own view is that doing so would undermine Lucas’ useful “campsite” model of pluralism – and undermine her long-term credentials as a parliamentary champion of either PR or pluralism.

25. Guy Aitchison

I see that Tom Harris – for whom principles always seem to count less than schadenfraude – is wetting his pants with excitement at this…

http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2010/09/03/the-new-politics-part-22/

26. Guy Aitchison

Sunder, it’s true that Labour backing for the Lucas amendment may look more than a tad opportunistic given all the candidates are only recently on record as opposed to PR, but it’s possible to be opportunistic and right at the same time and once Labour had supported a PR referendum it would be very difficult for them to then row back from it (with the caveat that this is what it did in fact do after 97!). One could even imagine the next leader saying “As a supporter of AV/fptp I don’t think PR is the best system myself, but I support the right of the public to make up their own minds”. That almost certainly won’t happen of course, but I welcome the fact they are being challenged to do so. If Lucas called for a longer-term debate on the merits of AV+ versus AV within the Labour party it would have no impact – the amendment is the best tool she has to force the issue.

@20 Watchman.

I agree it would be open to interpretation – and would need some education and clear instructions that all sides agree on. This is probably why we’ve stuck to Yes/No questions when it comes to referenda on major constitutional issues.

The trouble is, referenda are like electoral systems – there’s no one that’s perfect 😉

Snazzy. Of course, the coalition agreement /doesn’t/ say “Lib Dems will vote against any motion to put PR onto the referendum”… just that they’ll be whipped to support a simple majority on the AV.

A clever lawyer could argue that voting for PR wouldn’t be violating the coalition agreement in word, although it’s obviously against the spirit…

Should be fun to watch, anyway.

29. Stuart White

Sunder @ 12: I’m not sure I get what you mean when you say that ‘it isn’t pluralism’ on Lucas’s part to put the Lib Dems in a spot.

I agree that it isn’t, in itself, expressive of ‘pluralism’. But nor do I think it inconsistent with pluralism. Pluralism doesn’t rule out playing the proverbial hardball with other parties, even those you think you might one day form a coalition with!

30. Sunder Katwala

Stuart

You are right, in principle. But I suppose the thrust of my comment is a hunch that the particular manouvere is driven as much – or perhaps more – by partisan “claim mantle of pluralism” than broader “advance cause of electoral reform”

I think it would be a poor demonstration of pluralism for the Green Party leader to (i) advocate a PR referendum, (ii) campaign for a no vote in the AV one, against the considered views of most pro-PR voices.

One can make a coherent case for that from some perspectives, but she will have pitched her tent in the anti-progressive campsite.

@6

This is exactly what happened in New Zealand. There was a first question on whether to replace FPTP. 85% of people said yes. Then there was a second question (in the same referendum) asking which system (if any) should replace FPTP (and FPTP supporters could vote in this question too if they liked). The four choices were AMS (known as MMP over there), Supplementary Member (which is similar to AMS except much less proportional because the allocation of list seats doesn’t take into account the seats already won in the FPTP section), STV, and AV. For this, AMS (which had been recommended by a commission set up by a previous government) got 70% of the vote, STV 16%, AV 7% STV 6%.

The following year, a further, binding referendum was held (1993) on whether to switch to AMS. It passed with 53% support.

Next year, they’re having a further referendum, with two questions, whether to keep MMP, and if not, which of the four systems (FPTP, SM, STV, AV) to change it to. I’m not sure why – presumably because of the vested interests that had more power under the old system?

(Correction: STV got 18%, SM 6%. The AMS and AV figures were correct, at least.)

Tim Worstall: OMG, shock horror!

Politician advocates electoral system that allows her party to get people elected!

Film at 11

Most of the time Worstall – you only churn out quotes for their own sake don’t you? Without even thinking for a second. If it were Labour making the case for sticking with FPTP because it helps them – you’d have no trouble repeating those exact same lines. In fact, you probably did somewhere.

Also – this would also help the fruitloops you used to work for – UKIP. Remember them?

@5 Sunder Kalwala: In fact, that would largely turn out as a political stunt to embarass the LibDems since they could not vote for it without breaching the Coalition Agreement

Dunno about that. The actual text of the agreement says: “We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote”, so while it does prevent a PR option in the same question, it doesn’t preclude separate questions being asked, such as:

“should constitunencies become multi-member?” which would lead to STV or SNTV, bepending on whether the AV question passed.

Or “should there be top-up seats as well as consituncy seat?”, which if passed would lead to AMS, AV+. SNTV+ or STV+.

@ sunder et al.
the amendment’s likely failure speaks volumes, not only of Labour’s, but of most MPs’ lack of any principles, pluralist or otherwise.
MPs should be voting for full choice, whether or not they favour PR, as a demonstration of the fact that they trust the people to choose the best system for their representation – I think that’s what we call democracy.
After all, even Labour’s most tribalist believe there should be a Tory on the ballot at constituency elections, despite not wanting a Tory victory.
Sunder’s main objection is that it is unlikely to pass – ie, MPs shouldn’t vote for something because it is unlikely to get enough votes for MPs!?
All talk of how to manipulate the right of the people to be represented in order to embaras this or that party is gag-inducing. it shows just why we need a full constitutional process in the hands of the public, not MPs who in effect want to write the terms of their own employment – as the expenses scandal made clear.
there are innumerable ways to get round concerns of splitting the vote, as NZ showed.

36. Sunder Katwala

djms

You argument suggests that “democracy” = “how much we decide by referendum” … it is not unprincipled to think that only one – rather problematic – theory of democracy. (If you poll the public, ‘would you want a referendum on issue X’, (eg the BBC licence fee or whatever) they always say yes – in larger numbers than they would vote in said referendums … a pollster once suggested it is like polling the question “would you like a sandwich”

The logic of your argument suggests it would be dishonest of the politicians not to include six voting systems; a question offering all possible combinations of Lords reform; another on whether to stay in or get out of Europe; another on Scottish/Welsh independence/devolution; whether to have a written constitution.

On the specific case, referendums on issues (get out of Europe, change the electoral system) tend to be advocated by those who want to change the status quo. I strongly suspect a preferendum would favour those who want no change – compared to either an FPTP/AV or an FPTP/PR

And politics is both about saying what would be good – more equality, less carbon emissions, better democracy, a balanced economy, lower taxes, or whatever – and working out how to make it possible – which requires both policy means and a political strategy to build sufficient support to overcome opposition. Symbolic challenges to keep issues open are a good part of this. But a party with a single MP talking about pluralism becomes more than an NGO-style pressure group when it is able to participate in alliances to make changes possible.

All this does is risk confusing the issue in the minds of the voters – it won’t succeed, but if it did, the referendum would no longer be a clear choice between status quo and (some) desired change; it would likely fail. People say Greens aren’t against the referendum, although most leading Greens have said they’ll vote No purely because of Lib Dem betrayal/”collusion” with the ToriNazis (TM Leftwing Troll Sally).

I mean come on, this is a party that took 37 years to elect 1 MP. They aren’t interested in taking responsible decisions nor do they actually want to change anything in politics. If they were serious, they’d disband and join one of the real parties.

It’s just a spoiler tactic, as Sunder says, to try and raise their own profile – at the expense of even the most modest reform. We don’t win AV, we won’t get AV+ or STV or even the shitty AMS the Greens favour.

Phil Hunt: “should constitunencies become multi-member?” which would lead to STV or SNTV, bepending on whether the AV question passed.

Oh, that’s a nasty one 🙂
My personal preference order is STV > AV > FPTP > SNTV so my vote in the second question depends on the result of the first question.

Thanks for your reply, Sunder.

No, I don’t think democracy = how much we decide by referendum.

What I am saying is that it makes very little sense to allow people elected by a system to determine what changes to make to that system of selection, a system which they are the beneficiaries of.

The manner in which we choose our representatives is a qualitatively different issue from what level the licence fee should be set at, or other policies. It needs to be disentangled from policy preferences of those kinds. Those who say if you want PR vote lib dem, or that their failure to attract a majority means PR is not wanted, don’t get this. That is not a fair way to choose how to be represented.

Yes it could be complex to go through an entire constitutional process with referendums on Lords reform and so on, but I would say it is worth it – look what the commons has achieved on Lords reform, on voting reform. There have been referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution – was that wrong? What is your objection to people being asked whether they want a written constitution?

As to your concern that a preferendum would favour the status quo, look to New Zealand’s vote as a model. The first option is do you want to change the voting system, then which is preferred – it can be done on one ballot. Look at the poll you cite in the comments here – only a quarter of people are wedded to FPTP. There is no reason to think this would favour the status quo – what does is the fact that supporters of reformed systems not on the two-choice ballot are less likely to turn out and vote. Reformers will be underrepresented.

As to strategy, of course realism is required. But this debate, the first time the electoral system is being opened up to the public (if only by a fraction), has become mired in tactical thinking. Narrow-minded, tribal tactics have replaced grand strategy, with such comments as “I will vote against AV because I want to give the government a bloody nose” common, and with a union, an organisation that is supposed to promote its members’ working conditions and rights, redirecting money towards fighting a change in the voting system for fear of loss of power rather than spending it fighting budget cuts.

@Phil and Cim,
I’m not sure that a vote for multimember would be interpreted as support for SNTV. We already have some multimember wards in local elections and the voting system there is the block vote. We also had the block vote for two-member parliamentary constituencies when they existed. For a time the limited vote was used in three-members, but that was only 1867-1885.

Most countries have abandoned SNTV now but admittedly in Japan it worked out as more proportional than their current Supplementary Member system!

SNTV and limited vote would both be vastly better than block vote (which tends to be less proportional than FPTP).

As a Green Party Cllr, I am against AV – it is not proportional, and with gerrymandered boundaries, the Tories will get a stronger grip over the country – at Labour’s expense. I am not voting for, nor campaigning against. I’m campaiging for PR, and for Lucas’ amendment. I am writing ‘I want PR’ on my ballot if no option is there.

Also, we are not splitting the left – we are leading the left and trying to unify the left into demanding PR that will benefit all on the left, and the majority of people in this country as a consequence.

However, I suspect that conference ‘centrists’ will adopt AV in a week’s time, because “AV is better than FPTP” – apparently.

Damned whichever way we go really.

@41

So you are going to balls up the only chance in a generation we have of changing the electoral system. AV might not be perfect but it’s a damn sight better than FPTP. Each to their own, I suppose.

Adam,

I agree with you – PR should be included on the ballot, and if it is not then I will spoil my paper. I think it is misguided to believe that a change to AV now will make it easier for a shift to PR in the future, as many of those in the Yes camp seem to think. This is the one opportunity we will get in maybe a generation to change the voting system – the left should not waste it backing AV when what we really want is PR.

@41 again

Ah, I see from your blog that you define “democracy” in a very strange way – apparently it’s fine for Cuba to not have elections. Peculiar.

@42 – actually, don’t bastardise what the blog says. Read and quote with accuracy.

Secondly, ask any Aussie Green Party member, who’ve experienced AV since 1901 (somewhere round there), that it doesn’t help with elections. They finally got their first Greens MP this year in Melbourne, whereas we got the first British Green elected under FPTP. With gerrymandered boundaries, AV will be of little benefit.

Plus, if we get AV, there will be, rest assured, no further electoral reform for decades. The chance is now, so we must push for it.

Spoiling a ballot may aid that message. I’m campaigning neither for nor against, for we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. I am not supporting FPTP, but the difference between that and AV is minimal.

The difference is that with AV I can vote (say) Green, then Lib Dem, then Labour. Meaning that I get to vote for my party of choice _and_ my vote ends up with someone with a chance of winning.

Without it I have a choice of voting Green (and my vote going to waste) or Labour (and having my choice be misrepresented).

Sunny quoting Caroline Lucas: “At recent Compass conferences, I have discussed the need for a more progressive, pluralist politics, based not on Blair’s suffocating “big tent”, but on a campsite of different parties and movements, sharing common values but maintaining their own identities. Labour could play an important part in that progressive alliance, but only if it can leave behind its arrogant belief in its own exclusive role. Is there no candidate willing to lead the party in that direction?”

Bother. Twice today, I agree with Lucas.

Some people have discussed how a referendum might work if there were multiple AV and PR options. I suggest that the campaigns reduce the technical language (AV, FPTP, AMS, STV) and use normal speech. Create video models and posters that explain the argument, rather than conducting warfare based on the number of posters in windows. Change the ballot paper to incorporate a brief meaningful message next to the campaign name. And use AV to pick the winner.

But that’s obvious innit?

@12 blanco

“Greens don’t believe in STV. They think we can bolt on a closed party list system, like that used in the Euro elections, onto existing FPTP.”

Well the Green Party is in favour of introducing AMS for General Elections: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policypointers/ppgovt&dem.pdf

“Greens have already come out against the referendum, lining up with Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, and other right-wing climate change-denying loons.”

Where did you get this from? Green Euro MP Jean Lambert has already come out in support of a yes vote in the AV referendum and the party as a whole will make it’s decision at conference this coming weekend. That’s the great thing about the Green Party the members decide it’s policies, it’s democratic.

“Hope they’re proud of themselves for once again splitting the left with their holier-than-thou irrelevant nonsense!”

I don’t suppose you will, but do you care to give another example of this happening? I say another, do you want to give an actual example as this clearly isn’t one? If those on the left who voted for no2eu in the North West region at the last Euro elections had voted Green we’d have Peter Cranie in Brussels rather than Nick Griffin, and that’s under a form of PR. No electoral systems or political parties are perfect, but it’s probably good practice not to spread out right lies about either.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Caroline Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum http://bit.ly/c08V2w

  2. David NP Ludlam

    RT @libcon: Caroline Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum http://bit.ly/c08V2w

  3. Matt

    I completely support this. Full options available RT @libcon: Caroline Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum http://bit.ly/c08V2w

  4. Stuart Vallantine

    Caroline Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/e4uVxYi via @libcon – I hope we get STV as alternative!

  5. Sam Goodby

    While this is good as I prefer other systems to AV, is @CarolineLucas at risk of splitting the reformers' vote? http://bit.ly/c08V2w

  6. LLPaulJ

    RT @libcon: Caroline Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum http://bit.ly/c08V2w

  7. Simon Foster

    RT @libcon: Caroline Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum http://bit.ly/c08V2w

  8. Paul Perrin

    RT @libcon @CarolineLucas calls for PR option in AV referendum http://bit.ly/c08V2w << More than 1 choice or PR in one go and FPTP will win

  9. Phil Evans

    I might move to Brighton just so Caroline Lucas can be my MP http://bit.ly/aZtWxG #votingreform #fb

  10. Ryan Bestford

    @CarolineLucas calls for PR option in AV referendum – http://bit.ly/aSRCje (via @LibCon)

  11. Fernando North

    I wonder how parties will view C. Lucas ammendment to the AV Bill calling for a wider choice of systems > http://t.co/WLxFkdN via @libcon

  12. Philip Cane

    Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum and hints at AMS inclusion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hRkgU1k via @libcon

  13. Philip Cane

    Caroline Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum and hints at AMS inclusion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hRkgU1k #No2AV

  14. Vote No To AV

    Caroline Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum and hints at AMS inclusion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hRkgU1k #No2AV

  15. Thom Brown

    BBC News hasn't mentioned @CarolineLucas since May, so you've probably not heard about her call for PR in the referendum: http://j.mp/cVN5v3

  16. Sven Rufus

    Lucas calls for PR option in AV referendum | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/GBJMRJm via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.