Obvious PR winners would be @UKIP, @TheGreenParty, and @LibDems, losers: @theSNP, and @Conservatives.
-
-
.
@UKLabour would technically lose seats (232 to 198), but I'd argue they would be in a better position...0 retweets 0 likes -
1) They'd go from 100 behind Tories to 40 behind 2) No Tory majority 3) From 1 to 14 seats in Scotland
0 retweets 0 likes -
To be clear, Tories would still have won and Cameron would have stayed Prime Minister due to coalition arithmetic: pic.twitter.com/lOPHS9bGxj
4:25 PM - 11 May 2015 · Details0 retweets 0 likes -
But I have to imagine LAB would be able to use CON having to rely on UKIP votes against them the same way CON did same to LAB w/r/t SNP.
0 retweets 0 likes -
"Do you really want Nigel Farage to be Deputy Prime Minister?" etc
0 retweets 0 likes -
This is of course an imperfect analysis, because electoral reform would change who people vote for.
0 retweets 0 likes -
From Labour's perspective, none of this changes fact that first priorities have to be making up deficits on economy and leadership.
0 retweets 0 likes -
But embracing PR, in addition to being better for democracy on merits, would be in their self-interest.
0 retweets 0 likes -
In the same way it would significantly benefit
@TheDemocrats in the U.S., which I wrote about last fall: http://bit.ly/1K35McI .0 retweets 0 likes
By the way, there are parallels between the "boundary changes" the Tories are proposing and GOP gerrymandering: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-19166125 ….
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Devin Mitchell