(indeed, learning your place in stratified systems of subordination is part and parcel of the Eton education, as Dave and Boy George would surely attest).

Why should George Osborne know any more about it than Harriet Harman? Neither of them went to Eton after all, and they both went to St Pauls.

The way to back electoral reform is to get behind the Electoral Reform Society’s “Vote for a Change” campaign (http://www.voteforachange.co.uk/)

They have been making real progress on influencing policy, and yesterday delivered over 40,000 signatures to Millbank to challenge David Cameron’s stance on possible electoral reform.

TIm J,

Good point. I got Eton and The Bullingdon confused (we lowly sorts make these mistakes).

Substitute Boy George for Borris “Far hikes of the poorest, tax breaks for the bankers” Johnson, if you like.

On another subject, does anybody know if that weird oriental green jacket thing that Helena Kennedy wears is her only item of clothing? I’ve never seen her wear anything else.

Paul,

You may be a lowly type. I’m not. I went to a Comprehensive, but I’m as good as anyone (until tested – the test results will then determine who is better). So why does it matter where you were educated (I presume you are a Comprehensive pupil as well)?

Anyway, what’s the point of partisan sniping in an article about something non-partisan like electoral reform. Are you only preaching to the converted? Do you not want to win opponents of reform to your viewpoint? Because showing blatant political partisanship in making a case ties your argument (electoral reform should have a chance) to a political viewpoint (anti-Tory, which many will read as pro-Labour or, considering the association with electoral reform and the anti-government comments, Lib Dem), you make anyone considering voting Conservative (almost half the population if you add a chunk of undecideds to declared Conservative voters) think this is an argument associated with those parties they are rejecting. By not making cheap shots, your argument becomes far less partisan and more appealing.

Plus it would give people less opportunity to distract from the text of your article…

Basically, 200 ordinary people selected by YouGov from a range of backgrounds were invited to debate ideas for political reform that had been suggested by the public online. Over the weekend they consulted academic experts and identified a set of priority issues which will be put on the Power2010 website.

Isn’t this just another focus group (albeit one that has been set up by an outside body rather than the government)?

This is take 2 for the Power Commission (I think there was Power 2005 – it was a while back anyway) and whilst they are intellectually stimulating they don’t really focus on the practical.

Has anyone ever been down to the town hall for a full council meeting? People may sit on the sidelines and gripe and stuff but as soon as you ask them to do something it’s always someone else’s problem.

Hmm…bit depressing really.

‘Basically, 200 ordinary people selected by YouGov from a range of backgrounds’

‘Government by focus-group and tabloid headline has resulted in one of the most mistrusting, suspicious and authoritarian governments in recent British history’

Some confusion here: what you just described _is_ a focus group. Are you suggesting making focus groups a formal part of the constitution?

FPTP suits the Labour and Conservative parties very well — Labour can get a parliamentary majority on a third of the vote, and the Tories would only need a percentage in the high 30s.

This is of course why neither of them have changed it, even though they both know it’s a very flawed system, which is why they don’t use it internally. If you see a Labour or Tory canvasser, I suggest you ask them: “If FPTP is a such good voting system, why don’t you use it to elect yout leader?”

I doubt if either Labservative party will reform the system, since they have so much to gain from keeping it the same — not just their 4 grand plasma TVs, duck houses, and second homes, but their places on quangos, and easing their sons and daughters into lucrative jobs. They are an institutionally corrupt duopoly.

I would suggest that people vote for whichever PR-supporting party is best placed to win in their local constituency. In most places, this means the Lib Dems. Ideally the pro-PR parties would run on a joint slate for one election to change the system, but I don’t see that happening.

Martin Sullivan: What’s needed is Proportional Representation of the kind which Ireland and Israel enjoy; successive weak coalition governments made up of people who detest each other

You, sir, are a fuckwit.

These countries use totally different systems of PR: Israel uses party lists, Ireland uses STV. If by “weak” you mean the politcians have difficulty pushging through unpopular measures, that’s a good thing. I doubt if Irish and Israeli politicians hate each other more than in other countries. Incidently, list PR is also used in South Africa, wihch has stable 1-party rule, and STV is used in Malta, in which power laternates between 2 big parties. So it’s not necessarily the case that either system will lead to there being lots of little parties — it will only do so if electoral support is divided among lots of little parties, and if that’s the case, it’s a feature not a bug that it gives that outcome.

Strange that Power 2010 is using approval voting (which isn’t the best of systems), while at the same time having the number one item being “Introduce a proportional voting system”.

I’ve built an app (http://www.modernballots.com) that demonstrates the use of open-source implementations of, for example, Schulze STV. Some days I just feel that programmers are lazy. :/