LDV members’ survey: is electoral reform a hung Parliament ‘deal-breaker’? And are Labour or Tories most likely to deliver it?

A couple of weeks ago, Lib Dem Voice invited the members of our private forum (open to all Lib Dem members) to take part in a survey, conducted via Liberty Research, asking a number of questions about the party and the current state of British politics. Many thanks to the c.250 of you who completed it; we’ve been publishing the results on LDV over the last few days. You can catch up on the results of our exclusive LDV members’ surveys by clicking here.

Yesterday, we looked at how Lib Dem members would respond in the event of a hung Parliament, assuming electoral reform was on the agenda. Today we’re looking at just how important you think electoral reform is, and which of the other two main parties you think are most sympathetic to the idea of electoral reform.

LDV asked: In the event of a ‘hung parliament’, and if the Lib Dems were prepared to cooperate with Labour/Conservatives in some way, do you believe a referendum on electoral reform should be a ‘deal-breaker’?

You said:

66% – Yes, electoral reform is fundamental to the Lib Dems. No deal of any kind is possible without it.
30% – No, electoral reform is important, but should not be a deal-breaker compared with other big issues the public cares about more.
4% – Don’t know / No opinion

A clear-cut decision – two-thirds of party members say the party should not consider any kind of deal with either Labour or the Tories unless electoral reform is on the agenda. Worth noting, though, that a significant minority, almost a third, think the issue should not be a deal-breaker, and that the Lib Dems run the risk of being judged harshly by the voters if we make it one.

LDV then asked: If the result of the next general election is that the Lib Dems *do not* form the next government, either on their own or as part of a coalition, which of the two other main parties do you think would be most likely to advance the Liberal Democrats’ electoral reform agenda?

And you said:

34% – Labour
1% – Conservatives
61% – Neither party
4% – Don’t know / No opinion

It wasn’t much of a surprise to me to see that there is deep scepticism that either Labour or the Tories are likely to deliver on electoral reform – after all, neither party has shown a great deal of legislative interest up until now. However, I was slightly suprised by how many LDV-reading party members reckon Labour might just be prepared to advance the Lib Dems’ electoral reform agenda.

It’s logical, of course: Labour is likely to find itself in opposition within 12 months, possibly facing a large Tory majority. Just as the period of Thetcherite dominance in the ’80s encouraged some Labour figures (eg, Robin Cook) to contemplate electoral reform, so might a renewed spell of opposition trigger a resurgence in interest?

And of course the Tories – for all their progressive talk – have explicitly ruled out consideration of any substantial reforms which might fix our politics. The only real surprise is that even 1% of party members might think the Tories would step up to the plate; though, to be fair, there are a handful of Tories doing their best to convert their stubborn colleagues to the cause.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in LDV Members poll.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/16245 for Twitter and emails.

One Comment

  • Sunder Katwala 22nd Sep '09 - 10:15am

    This seems to me a good example of the wisdom of crowds ….To adapt the aggregate result as suggesting that the LDV crowd feels there could be a one in three chance of Labour advancing electoral reform, and that this is 34 times more likely than the Tories doing so, then that seems to me a fairly good analysis.

    I would myself put the Labour odds at somewhat better than one in three, and probably a little over 50-50 but not perhaps too much over it.

    I understand entirely why LibDems would be sceptical of either major party on this.

    But while there remains pro firstpastthepost sentiment on the Labour Representation Committee left and a small part of the tribalist Labour right, you now have a much broader argument for electoral reform than ever before. This is something on which Roy Hattersley now agrees with the Compass Neal Lawson left, with the Progress Blairites, with most of the Fabian/ippr/social democratic thinking types. The unions are now agnostic/neutral rather than hostile. There is always a case that inertia could prevail, but it is now a much less contested argument than it was in the past.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarMartin Gentles 19th Apr - 10:50pm
    Certainly RE should be included in a civic minded curriculum. The question isn't religious education, the question religious selection in education. This can inculcate social...
  • User AvatarRadical Liberal 19th Apr - 10:01pm
    'Indeed. So do we really need another one in a position of power and influence?' Don't you believe in balance and a diversity of views?...
  • User AvatarSimon Shaw 19th Apr - 10:01pm
    Just to point out that it is not £3,600 NET, it is £3,600 GROSS. In other words, £2,880 NET. It's available for everyone, including children.
  • User AvatarAmalric 19th Apr - 9:42pm
    Sir Archibald Sinclair in the first clip said, “Freedom is what it (Liberal Party) fights for. Our goal is a new Britain … - well...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 19th Apr - 8:41pm
    As far as I know the £3,600 rule is still in effect. I've checked HMRC, but I've made a mistake in the past by assuming...
  • User AvatarStephen Howse 19th Apr - 8:12pm
    Indeed. So do we really need another one in a position of power and influence?