Sorry but 2011 wasn't the chance to get things wrong, it was set up purposely to keep the current system whilst giving the illusion of change. At no point was a PR system put forward, it was a choice between FPTP and FPTP with just the requirement to get 50% of the vote in the constituency. Such a system does very little to address the problems with our outdated political system. As I mentioned, it was done so either outcome would result in no PR system. Win and then governments make the small changes and then say "well you had your vote on change, we changed, we don't want constant referendums on changing the political system". Vote against it, same answer but at least then the argument can still be made that change is wanted but not as proposed.
The whole point is we shouldn't be forced to choose between 2 forms of FPTP when the main call was for a complete change.
Personally I would want a system like this:
Commons - Elected through a dual constituency system. Constituencies made larger but have 2 MPs (similar to senators per state in the USA). The reasoning is that in swing seats you will likely have each MP from different parties. This means it is unlikely you will get a situation where an MP doesn't represent their constituents because they don't want to stand out against their party, the other MP who is not part of the party will still raise the concerns. In safe seats it won't make much difference. The election of MPs will be staggered with each being in Commons for 8 years but elections every 4 years. The idea is that this house will be the one to keep a sense of continuity and allow longer term relations between constituents and their MPs.
Lords - PR based on national vote with seats allocated to try to reflect the % of the total vote. A minimum cut off equal to the number of votes required to get 1 seat shall be applied (so any party that does not get enough votes to merit 1 seat will be rounded down to 0. 1/4 of the seats up for grabs every 2 years so each member will have their seat for 8 years minimum.
It seems quite complex but the hope is that staggering how seats are allocated would make it more difficult for a single party to just sweep into power with 1 election, they would need a prolonged period of support. The PR Lords would allow minor parties to have greater representation and would also allow for a greater check on the Prime Minister and Commons. Also due to the fact neither House is completely changed in an election, it should allow a PM to stay in power for a similar amount of time, despite the more frequent elections. People may also feel that every 2 years is too frequent to be voting and may lead to apathy but I feel having a regular chance to give feedback to how the country is being run is better than having a government get into power and basically being unaccountable to the electorate for the next 5 years.
Rage little has changed since i studied A-level politics and Constiututional law at University, which was a long time ago. Essays on how we can change our voting system and reform the House of Lords. It seems so idealistic looking back now and I see how fallacious it all was.
I was referring in my posts to the practical reality of completely changing our voting system. Yes, unfortunately, 2011 referendum was set up to fail, but if that could not get through then I think there is little hope of getting anything stronger form of PR geting through in the future within our current system of Government. We shouldn't be forced to choose between what were two bad choices, but that is our current reality - there was a small window to change it and Nick Clegg knew it.
The crux of the problem, as I see it, is that we have an executive dominated House of Commons. As long as we lack separation of powers, where the executive branch is not firmly entrenched in the legislature, then there is no incentive for any incumbent Government to change from FPTP for the House of Commons, as their whole raison d'etre is to seek a majority and push through their legislative programme. No British Government wants to share power and the easiest way to form a majority is via FPTP. PR just increases the chance of Coalitions and minority Governments and even more so. What we have seen since 2010 is very unusual for FPTP. Boundary changes in future are going to favour the Tories as I understand it.
As for The House of Lords, talk of completely overhauling it has been argued for so long. Yes, we've had abolition of hereditary peers, which is the biggest change in our life time, but turning it into a wholly elected chamber is not being realistic. Its current role is not as True revising chamber, as it should be, but make the Government "think again" chamber with little power other than to delay legislation up to a year and no power to delay financial legislation. Why would any current or future British Government set up a revising upper chamber which has greater legitimacy and powers to slow down or block their legislative programme? Moreover, the Rest of the House of Commons would also not seek an Upper House which challenges it's own position. This means a watered down reformed Lords which is part elected and mostly still appointed and its role kept firmly as it is at present.
To invoke complete change in our voting system it would mean abolishing Parliament (take out the executive branch of government out of the House of Commons) and have truly separate branches of Government because it isn't going to happen as long as things stand with an executive entrenched firmly in the House of Commons.
