Skip to main content

AV referendum: Its May 2011

I broke the story earlier today that Clegg plans for the AV referendum to take place next May: http://bit.ly/bMDDOz . See James MacIntrye taking up the story, here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/public-accounts/2010/07/160-forward-story-cameron

UPDATE (Evening): No official announcement/confirmation - looks like the coalition are sticking to announcing the date officially next week (I think they would look bad if they didn't announce it through Parliament). BUT: After Ross Hawkins, (Beeb Political Correspondent) phoned me earlier to try to establish who my source was, I just saw James Landale (Beeb Political Correspondent) confirm that the BBC believes that the LFF story that I broke above is correct: That the government will announce next week that the referendum will be held on May 5 2011.

UPDATE (Morning of 2nd): The story is now the lead on the BBC, and is spreading all over the media. My story was right, and the coalition may have been forced to bring forward its tacit confirmation of it as a result of my breaking the news. :-)

Comments

Rupert said…
AV is a foot in the door. The key point for anyone disappointed in AV is: We need to stay in the real world, here. It is fine to argue for the inclusion of PR in the referendum (provided that the referendum itself is done by AV...: otherwise, inclusion of PR in the referendum will simply guarantee that FPTP wins, by default). BUT, it won't happen. SO: when the referendum comes, and is AV vs FPTP, then surely Greens / progressives will/must vote for AV.
Don't let the best be enemy of the good.
2 July 2010 at 13:34
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more