So Labour are doing what they said in their Manifesto , that's a first.

I think a waste of money but in the scheme of things not a huge figure.

It would appear most Labour MP's are now voting No. I do think that their should have been a minimum turn out to change things. At least 50% to quote the Yes campaign.

I hope the result is No but would not be the end of the world.

Perhaps we should have a referendum on a minimum turnout for a referendum, but I suspect that few people would vote, so even if the result was yes to minimum turnout, it would have little legitimacy as it would not meet it's only criteria.

This referendum should never have happened. Electoral reform is a great idea but we have been presented with one option only and I for one have no idea why its been this one. In my office today so many people were discussing what they were they were going to do and it seemed as if they like me had too many questions that remained unanswered. We really needed a lot more debate and discussion on this. What would have been good would have been a general consensus on electoral reform, then leaving the detail up to parliament to decide. The decision to go for AV relies on people having to technically appraise two systems and to make a decision between them. I do not have time to read through all the arguments for and against so I have taken the honest decision not to vote at all. If I had voted today I would have had to toss a coin as to which way I was going to vote. Thats not worth a trip to polling station.

Roz, it's pretty obvious. The Tories were the biggest party at the general election by a long way. Tories don't want electoral reform, especially full PR. A compromise of the Lib Dem coalition agreement was a referrendum on AV - a system the Tories could deal with if people voted yes, but were probably sure enough people would vote no.

So the Tories get more of what they want in the coalition agreement at the expense of very little. You say 'consensus on electoral reform would be good' - but we're a million miles away from that, evidently.

Roz
I think there has been plenty of publicity and advice. You say you wanted more info but also you were too busy to cope with any more.

Not sure there is an answer to this.

The answer was/is/would have been to have held proper debates and analysis which could have been easily understood without having to take a degree in politics. The campaign on both sides was garbage as was the reporting.There was no way in which people could make an informed choice as there were too many uncertainties about either decision which is why no doubt most people have voted against this change. As well as a little satisfaction in roasting Nick Clegg.

This referndum was a total waste of time and money being held for a game of political appeasement where everyone knew the rules and most likely the outcome well before it even started.

It will be interesting to see if Clegg manages to hold on and what would happen to the Coalition if he goes. Can he realistically stay now? Its difficult to second guess the mood of the country in a snap election but I would imagine the Tories could increase their majority if they go for it in the summer or the autumn. I think they have demonstrated that they don't need the Lib Dems and that the Lib Dems can no longer work with the Tories.

Barbecue sauce, anyone?

I spent a jolly 15 hours yesterday, ensuring some 400 of the good burghers of Sydenham got to exercise their democratic rights.

Frankly the ignorance of (admittedly a small part) of the electorate was quite scary. People turned up to vote, but then asked why there weren't the names of the political parties on the ballot paper. (In order to maintain their impartiality, poll staff were also forbidden to explain in detail either.) It does beg the question whether, when there are names on the paper, whether they really understand what they are voting for.

roz said: This referndum was a total waste of time and money being held for a game of political appeasement where everyone knew the rules and most likely the outcome well before it even started.

Absolutely. What really gets me is that the Condems bleat on endlessly about wasting taxpayers' money, yet this is the biggest waste of 'taxpayers' money' I can remember.

Surely you remember the £7bn cost of two aircraft carriers (it has gone up by £2bn in the last year) that will not have any aircraft, and a cancellation fee of £5bn if we only wanted to build one?
It puts the £80m cost of democracy in context.

Although the 'no' vote won with a substantial majority nationally, in Lewisham the results were very close (still a majority to 'no').
http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.c...?id=LEWISH
'No' won with 50.65% against 49.35% to 'yes' in Lewisham. Thankfully this result was not the national picture, as such a close result would have been a nightmare.

I'm thinking of the 15 or so people I personally know from my workplace who left last week due to redundancy as a result of budget cuts of much less than £80 million. They are amongst the several hundred or so will join them shortly. Some I know face no future in work again in this economy and the rest of their lifetime on jobseekers and likely penury. They are the wrong side of 50 but can't draw their pension for another decade. Years to be spent on the sidelines of life.
That puts £80 million into context for me. If its so little, throw some of that my way and I'll take it off your hands. Its probably the price of several thousand public sector jobs plus a decade of a range of childrens services.

Seems like some of us Inner Londoners were bucking the national trend.
Southwark 52.7% said yes to AV
and Lambeth 54.7% Yes

The Lewisham turnout of 33.2% was perhaps not as bad as some had expected.

Lewisham bucked the trend of Inner London Labour boroughs by voting no.

Southwark, Lambeth, Islington, Camden and Haringey are in the yes camp.

I'd love to see the results broken down into wards, so we can see the demographics of who went for Yes and No.

Interesting who voted yes. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge, 4 in North London, 2 in South London (with Leiwsham very close).

Michael
The two aircraft carriers to which you refer were ordered by the last government , mainly to be built in Scotland with cancellation charges that made it not worth while cancelling.

Oxford and Cambridge, eh? Now I wonder why just them, apart from some central areas of the ancient metropolises (and of the great and ancient city of Glasgow)?

Students? Glasgow Kelvin is a uni area as is the part of Edinburgh that voted yes.

Clearly some fairly deprived parts of inner London have certain similarities with the thinking of our most brilliant brains! Interesting one.

Indeed, Roz, but the 'yes' vote areas also included Hampstead (Camden), Highgate (Haringey), Dulwich (Southwark), Clapham (Lambeth) Barnesbury (Islington) and whatever the trendy bits of Hackney are.

To think that Lewisham came within 745 votes (1.3 percentage points) of membership of this glittering group! I hope the estate agents have noticed.

Why not let those constituencies that wish to use AV to select their MP, just go ahead?

Thats not a bad idea, but probably too late to implement now.

I agree, but I fear it would be seen as reactionary. I believe that before the 1832 Reform Act counties and boroughs were allowed to decide themselves how to choose their MPs and that there were a variety of different types of franchises. Between then and the Representation of the People Act in the 1940s the OPOV FPTP system gradually became universal for elections to the Westminster parliament. To restore any kind of local option would look like turning the clock back.