Thread by @TomKibasi

THREAD on why the question matters

Picture this: we’re holding a referendum on electoral reform. The question on the ballot says:

‘Should the United Kingdom keep the electoral system or change the electoral system?’

(1/6)

In the campaign, some people argue for PR, others say the House of Lords will be elected, some say it will be alternative vote. A few people at the fringe say it will be ‘fancy franchises’ where people with £100,000 in the bank or a degree get double votes.

(2/6)

The referendum says the UK should change the electoral system by 52% to 48%. The Govt says it’s solely a choice for the governing party and it uniquely knows the will of the people.

More and more of those on the right say we must enact the fancy franchises plan.

(3/6)

At this stage Parliament intervenes and says that the fancy franchises plan would harm many ordinary people and the only people who would benefit are the better off.

Parliament says that the plan should be proportional representation, abolishing the constituency link.

(4/6)

People are dug in: half the population say they were promised fancy franchises. Progressives say they want PR but keep the constituency link. Half the people want no change.

Is there now really a mandate for PR? Or has this whole mess produced no mandate for anything?

(5/6)

This is Brexit. If the Govt had built a post-referendum consensus, it might have created a specific mandate out of a general one.

But by now, it has destroyed that possibility. It has no mandate for anything & no majority.

A 2nd ref looks more *necessary* day by day.

(6/6)