The AV decision was a tough one for me. In the end, despite the disgraceful 'no' campaign, I used my own judgement and voted 'no'. It was close. If I had been a constituency and not an individual, the exit poll would have been 51 percent 'no' to 49 percent 'yes'.
Ultimately, the 'yes' campaign failed to make a good sell. Their key arguments - less safe seats and making MPs work harder for votes - had little impact.
Explain to me how a seat where the lead party already has over 40 percent of first preferences is going to find the seat any more difficult to win under AV. Then explain why that would give the MP an incentive to work harder.
The gerrymanderers in government are presently embarking on an undemocratic process of fewer parliamentary seats and fixed five year terms. Good luck if you want to get rid of despised politicians.
These bigger constituencies will make safe seats even safer. If anything, there should be far more MPs, paid less and presiding over smaller and more volatile constituencies.
The current Westminster reform plan will see less competitiveness - all in the name of electoral reform to supposedly please the public. Nice.
