First we had this. Starmer suddenly has a "long-standing view against PR."
A tangible change in tone, from constructive ambiguity to clear against.
What is going on? (A thread) 1/15 bylinetimes.com/2023/04/27/kei…
You'd have imagined the official spokesperson would have said, "#PR for the Commons isn't the priority but Lords reform is. In power, we'll consult on the best voting system for our new elected 'Assembly of Nations'." They didn't say that, why? 2/15 theguardian.com/politics/2022/…
The Brown report is aware that the new second chamber must have "electoral legitimacy". 3/15 labour.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
Constitutional lawyers are also aware. And most seem to think the new Lords would need #PR to avoid being a complete dead-duck. As from democratic legitimacy comes how much moderating power a 2nd chamber can exercise. 4/15 constitution-unit.com/2023/03/01/the…
Lords reform is also clearly very popular (Tories included). 5/15
But Labour's local elections campaign didn't mention its plans to devolve power to the regions, even once. It was the perfect opportunity. Instead focussing on a smear campaign against Rishi Sunak. (Any excuse to use our paraody meme again.) 7/15
And Labour paid the price, falling short in the locals on getting enough support to project a Labour majority. Suddenly #PR is back in the mainstream agenda. 8/15 inews.co.uk/news/politics/…
So send out @wesstreeting. One of the few people in the shadow cabinet who has been a long-standing supporter of #PR. 9/15
But again - Wes goes 'off script' and doesn't mention 'It's not a priority', Lords reform, or devolution. 10/15
So what is going on? Why would @Keir_Starmer launch a massive constitutional change agenda, but then never mention it again, and especially not when the topic actually comes up? 11/15 bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
Is the answer actually that the topic has NOT come up? Is #ProportionalRepresentation off the table already for the new Lords and devolved administrations (as well as Westminster as well)? Is this why it hasn't been mentioned. Is this why the change in tone? 12/15
If Starmer has a preference for #FPTP in BOTH HOUSES he should say so now. The implication is worrying. Is Lords reform nothing more than a direct attack on our cross-bench, Green and Liberal peers, and nothing to do with increased democracy? 13/15
And prepare for the ground for his "heir". No doubt a rejuvenated and more extreme "Suella Braverman" type Tory leader, who will take power back under a democracy with less checks and balances to prevent tyranny, than when Starmer took the reins. 14/15 express.co.uk/news/uk/118046…
PR AND LOCAL ELECTIONS: A SUBJECT NEVER MENTIONED (rant incoming!)
So the media today (5 May) and Saturday will be filled with reportage about how voters in various parts of England have made their “democratic choice” in selecting who should lead their local government. 1/8
Meanwhile, commentators are falling all over themselves to suggest what the results will mean for the next general election when voters across the UK will also be making their "democratic choice". 2/8
It’s all BALONEY. For elections to be fair and democratic, it is pretty elementary --- DUH! --- that ALL votes must count the same. In local elections, they don’t. Often the results are even more undemocratic than what happens in general elections… if that is possible. 3/8