Vote for Change? Cameron is the anti-change candidate

Conservatives scupper a referendum on electoral reform.

My colleagues James Macintyre and Jon Bernstein have already blogged on the new report from the Electoral Reform Society, highlighting how the "election is already over in most of the country", given the preponderance of so-called safe seats in our antiquated, disproportional and majoritarian first-past-the-post voting system.

But I thought I'd highlight how the Tories, the party campaigning on a slogan of "Time for a Change", succeeded last night in blocking any meaningful and democratic change to our broken electoral and political system in the dying days of this discredited parliament.

From the Guardian:

In one of the first casualties of the so-called wash-up, the government was forced to abandon its proposal to introduce a referendum on the Alternative Vote system for electing MPs in October.

The Tories rejected a Labour compromise that would have introduced a sunset clause so the referendum would have to be triggered by an incoming government for the referendum to be activated.

The Tories, so keen to hold a referendum on European treaties, won't allow the British public the opportunity to decide how to choose our elected representatives. So much for "devolving" power and "trusting" the citizens of this great nation.

Here is Willie Sullivan, head of the pro-plebiscite Vote for a Change campaign:

In Wash Up and armed with a veto not granted them by any voter, the Conservatives have killed reform of the voting system and reform of the House of Lords. Cameron's message is clear. And it isn't change.

It is ridiculous the government has backed down. But it's a scandal that Conservatives have been so willing to sacrifice constitutional reform to further their own prejudices. This scorched-earth policy reveals a party that is simply too scared to leave the verdict on first-past-the-post to the British people.

Oppose political reform. Defend the status quo. Deny voters a vote. This is the modern Conservative Party, under the "modernising" David Cameron. And, to borrow a phrase from across the pond, this is not change we can believe in.

 

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.