Mark Thompson is spot-on in his analysis

AV or its limited SV variant (which could actually prove more beneficial to Labour than AV for reasons too complex to go into here) is perceived as a perfect pre-emptive strike solution by many Labour Party tribalists.

Labour will implement this change only as a last resort; they would prefer to retain FPTP, but if the polls continue to point to a Conservative landslide they will seriously consider bringing it in before the next election. They'll have to make their minds up soon though because constitutional change like this takes time to push through Parliament.

I accept the point raised by others that not all LibDem voters will go for a Labour candidate as their second choice and vice versa but I am convinced that a significant majority will do so and in marginal constituencies such voting patterns will be decisive in consolidating anti-Conservative sentiment. SV / AV is still a majoritarian system so marginals still remain crucial in the electoral equation.

In this context SV / AV will be viewed by Labour tribalists as a strategic counter measure again the negative influence exerted by Lord Ashcroft's targeted spending in the marginals.

I also agree that if a certain tipping point is reached, AV or SV can conspire against Labour but we haven't reached that point yet and National support for Labour would have to be closer to 25% than 30% for it to begin to take effect.

No, this sudden enthusiasm for SV / AV is an utterly cynical attempt on the part of Labour to consolidate anti-Conservative sentiment and thus cling on to power in some form or other.

The best we can hope for at present is that this move backfires by still delivering a hung parliament, which can then be exploited by the LibDems to bring about real reform in the shape of Multi-Member STV.

It is now more vital than ever that electoral campaigners refine their message about the real (duplicitous) motivations driving Labour in their advocacy of SV / AV. We must be ready to continue informing a relatively ignorant public about the merits of other proportional methods, primarily STV, which not only retains the fabled constituency link but actually enhances it, whilst irrevocably tilting the balance of power in favour of the electorate at the expense of organised political parties.

I'm not convinced Labour would benefit from AV - the Lib Dems certainly would. But in Lab-Con marginals, it's no longer the case that Lib Dem voters would prefer Labour - look at the recent polling data for the London mayor which shows Lib Dem supporters would give their 2nd preference to Boris.

Such half-hearted steps to reform are doomed to ineffectuality and to increase apathy.

A much more radical approach is needed. I haven't bothered to work out the details, but with modern technology, communications, and flexible organisational models, why should we, in the 21st century, be restricted to political parties, constituencies, or even nation states?

If a Belgian consortium could offer me a package of social security benefits, with security, street-lighting, garbage disposal, and other local infrastructure outsourced via a Lichtenstein corporation dealing with local subcontractors, why shouldn't my taxes go to them rather than an inefficient, old-fashioned, monopolistic gang of windbags in Westminster?

I have no loyalties to or interest in "Great Britain", as it has clearly shown over the past fifty years that it has no loyalty to me and no interest in my well-being, wants, or beliefs.

All we have in common is physical locality. What I'd like to see is a restructuring of the social contract so that I can select a quasi-nationality distinct from my location, have a real choice of social and taxation packages, and have some real input into the policies performed in my name.

Europe could be the overall framework; within it let a million nationalities bloom.

Let's be radical.

i attended a Progress/MVC debate at the HOP a couple of weeks ago where Michael Wills was a member of the panel.

He made comments in his contribution about not wishing the system to favour any one particular party and then later made positive noises about AV. From the floor I made pretty much the same point Peter has made here that AV does favour the Labour Party. His response to me was to shrug his shoulders and say that there is no evidence it would favour them. Professor Robert Hazell, Professor of Government and the Constitution (UCL) who was also on the panel picked up my point later and confirmed that one the most recent research, AV would indeed benefit the Labout Party. However later he did point out that there is some evidence that is changing as Labour becomes less popular. Eventually it could cause big problems for Labour.

I also felt however that the motives expressed for AV were disingenuous (e.g. maintaining constituency link etc.) and I and other contributors talked up STV as a much better (and proportional) solution. I got the feeling that I we are whistling in the wind though. Even Polly Toynbee who was also on the panel felt that AV is a good first step, then an argument for a more proportional system will be more likely to be heard. I however agree with Auy AC on this thread that if AV is implemented, the "50% in each constituency" argument is gone and some attempt at reform has been addressed. I think any further reform a proportional system would then be further away than ever.

Posted this initially in the “No Overall Control” article thread but it really belongs here.

I have just spotted this comment from Minister of State for the Justice Ministry - Michael Wills, reported in the Guardian and Observer [23rd and 24th March respectively].

“Wills said the decision [about voting reform] would not be based on whether Labour would benefit. “It should not be about parties choosing a system that will most advantage themselves, it’s about a voting system that delivers democracy for all of us,”

This comment refers to an apparent favourable government reaction toward the Supplementary Vote [SV] system; a limited variant of the Alternative Vote.

It is no coincidence that such a system would favour Labour due to the vast majority of LibDem voters indicating a Labour candidate as their second choice and Labour voters reciprocating for the LibDem candidate.

Effectively, adoption of the SV system will consolidate anti-Conservative sentiment within individual constituencies.

The Minister is therefore being disingenuous in his remarks.

The Supplementary Vote is not proportional and can in fact deliver even more disproportionate overall outcomes than FPTP, which is some achievement!

The history of New Labour's constitutional reforms shows how they're essentially committed to the same old Westminster model: a centralized executive- dominated system believed to deliver "strong" and "effective" government (judge for yourself). The legitimacy of the system comes from the one voter input that happens every four years or so at elections.

The problem is the "no party" vote now comfortably beats them every time: the system is under threat. This explains why Jack Straw and other Westminster warriors have now switched to supporting AV. AV is hardly an improvement on FPTP. It isn't proportional and in fact can deliver less proportional outcomes than FPTP. But,crucially, it produces the same winner-takes all "strong" government. If they introduce AV alongside compulsory voting we will lose the main indicator of discontent with the current system, low turnout. It will allow them to claim a bigger mandate and so ignore our current crisis and preserve the essentials of the falied system.