Disenfranchised in england and in france

[Tangled up in Blue]

Exactly.

I could never see a Tory government agreeing to the Great Reform Act, the Second Reform Act or Female Suffrage....

Reform of the CURRENT electoral system.I got an A level in History too BTW.:)

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Don't get me wrong............I will feel a particular kind of nausea to see Cameron's grinning mug all over the media on Friday or Saturday. (One of the main reasons I left teaching and England was 'Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher'. It will however be tempered with a great sense of relief, as long as the Lib Dems are not drawn into some kind of agreement to support him in government.
In fact the idea of some kind of electoral pact with either party is fraught with difficulties, especially for the minor participant. If it did come about they would have to be extremely careful about what they signed up to. IIRC the deal that David Steel made to keep Callaghan in power for another year in 1977, didn't do us any favours. I suppose one could say that there is a difference in entering some kind of a coalition in order to form a govenment as opposed to keeping the fag-end of an administration in power for another year.

I can certainly remember demonstrating against her, when she was Education Secretary under Heath, on her visit to Birmingham where I was a student at the time.
I agree that Steel should have negociated a better deal for the Liberals.
Clegg's price for any kind of pact must be for a referendum on some form of PR and that will only happen with Labour.The Tories won't touch that sort of reform with a bargepole.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Reform of the CURRENT electoral system.I got an A level in History too BTW.:)

That's not what you said. You said never. They clearly will agree to electoral reform.

In fact I'd go as far as to show that history has shown they are the party best placed to deliver on electoral reform. This isn't because they are necessarily the most radical, but because they are the party best placed to deliver. What it means is that they won't rush into change for change sake, but once the time is right and there is a cross-party consensus they'll be able to come up with a workable solution.

I think this works better than coming up with half-arsed measures like Labour's botched Lords reform.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

That's not what you said. You said never. They clearly will agree to electoral reform.

In fact I'd go as far as to show that history has shown they are the party best placed to deliver on electoral reform. This isn't because they are necessarily the most radical, but because they are the party best placed to deliver. What it means is that they won't rush into change for change sake, but once the time is right and there is a cross-party consensus they'll be able to come up with a workable solution.

I think this works better than coming up with half-arsed measures like Labour's botched Lords reform.

Agreed I said never.But I didn't say the Tories have never agreed to electoral reform. I was clearly (in context)talking about the present/future situation(that's why I used will never) and NOT giving an historical overview.
FWIW I think the chances of Cameron making a deal with the Lib Dems on electoral reform in the current circumstances are about zero.If he did the Tories would be doomed to be a permanent minority party (unless the BNP/UKIP vote increases alarmingly)in any future coalition.Turkeys,Xmas etc
I agree with your comments about HOL reform BWT but there should still be an elected second chamber (IMO).

 

[canveyshrimper]

Agreed I said never.But I didn't say the Tories have never agreed to electoral reform. I was clearly (in context)talking about the present/future situation(that's why I used will never and NOT giving an historical overview.I think the chances of Cameron making a deal with the Lib Dems on electoral reform in the current circumstances are about zero.If he did the Tories would be doomed to be a permanent minority party.Turkeys,Xmas etc
I agree with your comments about HOL reform BWT but there should still be an elected second chamber (IMO).

I am not sure that would be the case, in many ways the Tories could welcome a form of PR. For instance in Scotland and Wales where they were wiped out in 1997 there are 1000's of disenfranchised Tory voters. The Tories have consistently come second in a good few constituencies and under a form of PR I am sure would take a lot of second preference votes therefore giving them a few more seats.

I also reckon that the Conservative vote holds steadier than that of the Labour vote, apart of course from the usual Labour strongholds. I can't be arsed to check but I am sure there was a study done post 2005 where it indicated under PR the Tories would have gained approximately another 30/40 seats. Since then Labour have gerrymandered boundary changes which makes it even more difficult for the Tories to win under FPTP. But I guess that's how "New" Labour viewed democracy.