Whatever final deal is negotiated, it won’t contain everything Liberal Democrats will want. It will involve some major compromises – and so it should in a democracy, given that we didn’t win a majority or the most seats.
But from what we’ve seen today and over the weekend, Liberal Democrats should be proud of just how well our negotiating team is working on our behalf.
They have a tough job – the issue that many members hold most dear (electoral reform) is also the one that it is hardest to win concessions on from from the Conservatives and is the one on which Labour has a record of breaking promises. Yet there have been no soft concessions from our side. The hard-ball negotiating line has even forced one of the other party leaders – the current Prime Minister – to announce plans to quit. (Even more remarkably, he also got the party’s name right for once 🙂 )
That’s a major sign that our negotiating team is successfully doing everything it can to get the best possible deal.
It’s not just the negotiating team that gives cause to be proud of the party. So too do our democratic processes: the regular involvement of our MPs, the key role of the Federal Executive, the widespread phone consultation exercise with local party officers and more – including the serious weight given by senior party figures to the results of The Voice’s poll of party members. That consultation and democracy has already drawn some envious glances from those in other parties where the attitudes towards such factors are very different.
What happens next? David Laws’s seven rules for negotiating in balanced Parliaments gives some good clues as to how the process may play out. Key parts of the substance are still far from clear. What is increasingly clear though is that the deal extracted will be the best that could have been.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Damian Collins at Hereford Military History Festival in September
The Joy of Six 1529
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Jason Connor
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
78 Comments
So hang on. We start the weekend with a principled statement saying that because the Tories got most votes and most seats they should have the first chance to try to form a coalition and we’d listen on that basis.
Now it seems that Gordon Brown resigns from Labour and we abandon that principle.
Have the Tory talks stalled or not? If not, we should not be making out we will do an alternative deal – especially since the parliamentary maths is just too tight.
A six month cock-up coalition of losers would be the Tories’ wet dream.
Bloody strange person who has wet dreams about politics. I prefer beautiful women.
But, the thrust of Jock’s remark is sound. Much as it pains me to admit it, the Tories reached the post… there are many MPs who did not receive a majority of the vote.
What is happening? If the Party goes for the Tories, it will be spitting in the eye of everyone who’d jolly-well had been told that theirs was a vote against the Tories and that liberal meant sandal-wearing hippydom and not, well, Liberal; as well as selling out the supposedly non-negotiable PR for a promise of a free vote which would fail.
If the Party goes for Labour, it’s shoring-up the unsuccessful competitor which is offering AV as opposed to PR.
Still, at least no-one ever is going to vote for PR now they’ve seen what it leads to.
He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it:
“This call for boldness did not carry the day and Labour under Ramsay MacDonald formed a minority government. MacDonald had clear, long-term strategic aims: keep the Liberals out of power and further strengthen Labour relative to the Liberals. Whilst Labour pursued its long term vision of replacing Liberals, Liberal MPs were rather shocked to discover that Labour didn’t cooperate in Parliament and, in the constituencies, was gunning for their votes and seats. This included running candidates in many seats where they would split the anti-Conservative vote and so let the Conservatives gain the seats from Liberals. For Labour, the short-term pain of strengthening the Conservatives was worth it for the long-term gain of making British politics be about two parties, with the Liberals not one of the two.”
If the Lib Dems combine with Labour, The SNP’s and the Scottish Nationalists, not only will the Scots and Welsh have their own parliaments they will also be running the UK parliament. Where does that leave all the mainly Conservative and right of the party Lib Dem’s,like me, who live in middle and Southern England, subsidising everyone else with no say. Definitely time for an English Assembly or even Scottish Independence. This is absolutely not why I voted Lib Dem
Jock – talking to the Tories first and listening to what they say does not equal doing a deal with them. Nor does the fact that we are now negotiating with Labour mean that we’re necessarily going to do a deal with them. Hearing what each side has to say is the right thing to do so we can make the judgement as to what is right for the country.
As it happens, I think the arithmetic means some sort of Tory-LD arrangement is the most likely outcome, but as far as I can see we haven’t ruled anything in or anything out at this stage.
It should be pointed out that the talks with the Conservatives have not yet foundered; and it’s quite possible that the possibility of a coalition that leaves the Conservatives in the cold will have a wonderfully concentrating effect upon the deliberations of the Conservative MPs. It is, of course, always possible that the Tories at Westminster will simply throw up their hands and start considering, not what additional sweeteners they can offer, but how to destabilize and undercut a potential ‘rainbow coalition’ — if possible, before it forms.
The prospects for the Liberal Democrats in a bargain with the various parties and MPs of the left depend on two different pressures. On the one hand, if talks with the Conservatives fall through in a definitive way, then in a sense it weakens Nick Clegg’s hand: it’s either Labour or nothing at that point. On the other hand, the left parties probably share a common interest in avoiding an early election, which — by most accounts — the Conservatives would not mind fighting. Is that enough of an incentive to sink their differences in a true coalition government representing a broad spectrum of parties? I have no idea.
Jock,
Not at all. We are still negotiating with the Conservatives. We may still side with them. We are now also starting formal negotiations with the Labour Party. What part of first are we abandoning by opening a second set of negotiations?
To be successful in any negotiation you need to demonstrate that you have a viable alternative. If the Tories want a deal they have to go the extra step. It looks to me that we are playing the hand that we have been dealt very well. The others parties do not seem so sure footed.
It seems to me that the “viable” alternative is LDs walk away and let the others work out how one of them might govern! After all, more people voted for Labour and Conservative than for either Labour and Lib Dem or Conservative and Lib Dem.
LDs are not the “king-makers” the people are.
I’ve monitored and analysed politics and society for the last 30 years. The UK place in the world has become a disgrace and much damage has been done by Labour & Conservatives governing times. The damage both economical & political will take decades to mend and, how we avoid revenge terror attacks by those affected by UK policies I beg to know.
Although the electorate was unpredictable in their voting intentions, one thing is clear, they wanted to see the end of this reign of terror by Labour. The Election outcome has given this. It’s also given Liberal Democrats and ideal opportunity to shape the future of government & peoples lives. This will not be easy for any coalition etc. given what is to be inherited. But, in all consideration, it’ll be hard to do worse than the last 3 decades.
Listen to the electorate and not the rich influential dictators that have caused most damage in the last 30 years.
If the Lib Dems combine with Labour, The SNP’s and the Scottish Nationalists, not only will the Scots and Welsh have their own parliaments they will also be running the UK parliament. Where does that leave all the mainly Conservative and right of the party Lib Dem’s,like me, who live in middle and Southern England, subsidising everyone else with no say. Definitely time for an English Assembly or even Scottish Independence. This is absolutely not why I voted Lib Dem
Well, hang on. We have the maths to get this to work without including PC or the SNP. They could perhaps vote stuff down, but I’ve said before and I’ve said again, that would reflect VERY badly on them. We could treat them reasonably, but not give in to unreasonable demands.
All I can say is that Nick appears to have bigger cojones than I ever suspected.
Stephen, some might say that your own thirst for power is less important than that blessèd national interest. Brown currently is imagining that he will stay on until a successor is chosen, and a LabLib pact would be an affront to the plurality which voted Tory.
This is not about politicians securing their positions…it’s about the wishes of the electorate. Remember that?
You have sat here too long for any good you are doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
This is the time we Lib Dems MUST stick together, whatever the outcome of the next few days. Wake up & smell the coffee – if we do get the Holy grail of PR for Westminster we will be having this process every few years. Its time we understand this is the future – or do we want to stay around 20% & 10% of MP’s & shout from the side lines? Come on lets step up to the mark & get stuck in & make this country as Liberal as possible!
“We have the maths to get this to work without including PC or the SNP. They could perhaps vote stuff down, but I’ve said before and I’ve said again, that would reflect VERY badly on them.”
Jez, do you think the average Gnat voter gives a damn about what tactics their respective parties adopt in Parliament. Any coalition or arrangement which relied on them would be pretty unstable, as they could put pressure on for all sorts of goodies, without having to suffer any adverse electoral consequences should they bring the whole edifice crashing down. I don’t want the whole government of the UK held to ransom by the Gnats demanding more support for fishermen in Buckie or Plaid wanting a bypass for Caerphilly.
Is it conceivable that we, the Lib Dems, may have out smarted everyone for once. Set up what looks like a deal with the Tories, convince everyone that the talks are going well (when maybe they are not), hey presto – Gordon goes, we get a progressive alliance PLUS PR? Surely we couldn’t be that Machiavellian?
Bernard, add to that the matter of anyone who thinks a “progressive” coaltion could include nationalists reveals the unreality of the word.
Can its use be banned for the next forever?
Jock, here’s a relatively simple reply:
Nick had to talk to the Tories first. He has never been obliged to do a deal with them! It isn’t unprincipled to open talks, without making a commitment to reach a deal…come what may.
Because we say we want PR (and we haven’t hidden or disguised that fact)…we accept that that makes partnership politics compulsory. BUT our negotiators remain under an obligation – and here’s a principle for you – to battle as hard as they can for the change that those who voted LD want and deserve. That change is contingent on advancing towards our goal of fair votes. And Liberal Democrats really do believe that it is critical to getting a political system that stands any chance of working properly – its a matter of practical politics as well as a matter of principle.
We had to show that we were capable of discussing the future of our country with the leaders of other political parties. That does not/should not compel us to do a deal with any of them – Conservative or Labour or…. .
No one should be allowed to lose sight of the fact that our political opponents are supporters of a great electoral fraud…so we need to proceed with great caution whenever they appear reluctant to fix our rotten political system and we have the ability to get them to think seriously about a subject that don’t ordinarily want to talk about.
UNLESS we can make progress with overturning that fraud, which means that it takes 35,021 vote to elect a Conservative MP 33,338 to elect a Labour MP and MORE THAN 119,000 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat to the HoC we SHOULD NOT do a deal with anyone.
No one, who has taken part in talks from any other party, should have had any reason to imagine that a ‘deal’ could be agreed, with any prospect of sticking, if it did not have the backing of our party’s parliamentary party and its Federal Executive.
It remains the case, because the key to talks with other parties – the absolute key to finding agreement – is reform of the electoral system that failing to reach a sensible agreement on how to do this will undermine the prospect for secure and stable agreement with the Liberal Democrats and a secure and stable government involving the Liberal Democrats (for the whole country).
I’m sure Liberal Democrats understand this and I’m confident that no one can say that the talks that have taken place so far have been anything other than highly principled.
If the Scottish Nationalists or Plaid Cymru actually enter the British government, they undercut their entire raison d’être; at best (for them), they become merely regional parties. Their participation would, ipso facto, invalidate the argument that they can only gain their objectives through independence. The most they can push for is additional devolved powers, which was pretty much in the cards anyhow.
You’d be wrong. As Jock said, Clegg could abjure and allow the Party which received most votes and most seats to lead a Government, and support/oppose bills on individual value.
Angling for the best personal deal is not principled. Does this really have to be explained?
It needs to be made clear by the Liberal Democrat part that talks with the Conservatives have not broken down, in spite of the BBC trying all day to make it look like that….
Andrea, I suspect the BBC has been mischievous… past couple of days it’s been running on ConDem talks with LabLib in tiny writing (including the hearsay that Brown had more-or-less yelled Clegg out of the room, despite both Parties refuting it).
Ah, joy. Several days of listening to anguished screams from Labour-inclined “Lib Dems” convinced that talking to Tories is “selling out”, and swearing never to vote LD again.
Now to be followed by equal and opposite screams from Torydems.
This is coalition politics, folks. This is negotiating. If any of you imagines that a good way to negotiate a deal is to say, “Whatever we do, we’re going to either do a deal with you to get half of what we want, or stand back and let you do it on your own, whatever happens we won’t deal with anyone else” … well, I hope I never have to depend on your negotiating skills for anything. And I suggest you don’t go into business, or indeed anything more demanding than a fruit & veg market. Meanwhile, let the grown-ups most of us were trying to get elected last week try to get the best outcome possible from a non-optimal situation. (Yes, there’s a shorter word for that…)
This is certainly a high-stakes game the party’s negotiating team is playing: entertain offers from Labour in parallel with continuing negotiations with the Conservatives. In other words play hard to get with the aim of extracting a better eventual deal.
On the one hand it might give us a better bargaining position; on the other, I would think there is a serious risk that it sparks a public backlash and a loss of market confidence. At any rate it means a decision will need to be reached very soon, perhaps by the middle of this week at the latest.
A key question is how the Tories will respond. Will they feel they have been negotiating in good faith, and the Lib Dems are double dealing; or will they understand that it’s fair enough for the party to consider rival offers and seek as strong a hand as possible?
Tonight’s developments might make it harder for Cameron to persuade Tory MPs to back him in his current strategy. On the other hand it might lead him to take the plunge and agree to a bolder stance on electoral reform to kill the rival Labour offer before it takes hold.
Personally I hope for the latter outcome and on that basis a durable Con/Lib Dem agreement, but I can’t say I’m confident of it.
Malcolm, as someone who would prefer a Labour-led Government, I am dismayed by this three-way squabble by individual men who all failed to achieve what they planned to (although Cameron was less unsuccessful). The electorate, much as I hate to say, prefers the Tories.
Well, that was fun.
I’m looking forward to that as well.
I don’t think it’s possible for a form of PR to be voted through even if a deal was done with labour, many lab MPs don’t want it and it would only take a very small rebellion for it to be voted down.
AV is the best possible outcome here surely?
I think we should spare a thought for our MPs who have just been working flat out on an election campaign and are now working ridiculous hours in this climate of uncertainty as they receive barrages of e-mails offering them ‘advice’.
@Jock – We haven’t abandoned the principle, the Tories have refused to give way. Nick has a duty to our voters to try to maximise on our manifesto commitments – what we said voting for you would get you. Either because their are inflexible or illiberal the Tories have been unwilling to give enough ground on enough key issues, it is only right and proper that Nick explore the other options.
It should be noted that the melt-down from anti-Tory voters often was met with open disdain from Party loyalists – even if there were backroom deals going on, this amorality is precisely the reason I wouldn’t vote LibDem in any other constituency (well, maybe in Twickenham or Ross, Skye and Lochaber).
Duncan – we just got an offer of a referendum on AV from Hague, WITH their MPs backing. Anything more than that from them OR Labour would not be realistic.
@Duncan – there is more at stake here than LibDem manifesto objectives. Spin it how you like, but the simple fact is that despite massive media coverage, the majority of the UK population has no interest in the LibDem approach. Were that not the case, the party would have won more than 57 seats against the Tories 300 +/-. If Clegg wants to win the support of the electorate at the next election, which may not be too far away, he is far better accepting that achieving LibDem aims should be secondary to sorting out the country. Certainly the UK would become more productive this week if everyone wasn’t chatting by the photocopier!
The day that the Liberals form an alliance with Labour will be a very sad one for the UK.
It is shocking to think that the party who received the most votes and gained the most seats will not be in power.
It makes a mockery of this country. It makes a mockery of Nick Clegg’s reputation. It makes a mockery of the British people’s choice.
WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN.
I am frankly shocked that you can commend the negotiating tactics which are causing such uncertainty over the governing of our country. Negotiating out of self interest is no way to exercise the trust the voters have placed in the LibDems!
Time and again, Nick Clegg underlined that fairness lay at the heart of Liberal democrat politics. If he and the negotiating team were unable to secure the prospect of ‘fairness’ with the Conservatives (which would always have been very unlikely) then it is perfectly consistent to seek ‘fairness’ with the Labour party. I most sincerely hope that a coalition – a progressive alliance – will be formed and will seek to achieve greater fairness in the UK. This would include electoral reform.
Albatross, did you want wafers with it?
I’m pretty appalled to see Nick Clegg go from making a stand on principal and putting the “national interest” first… to seeing him and his team engage in smoky-room horse-trading, looking for the deal that is best for him, and for the interests of the LibDems, who like-it-or-not the country rejected at the polls. Is this the democracy any of us really believe in or want??
It has been said above that a Lib/Lab coalition with a shaky majority, in a hopelessly weak position, with an unelected leader, pursuing policies that the electorate have rejected, will be great news for the Conservatives. Too right it will. I suspect that if the horse-trading continues any longer, most ordinary people will cocnclude that Nick Clegg is a man they cannot and will not trust ever again.
A day to be proud of? I don’t think so, sounds like the Tories just suckered those on high into accepting a referendum on our current broken voting system with a bell/whistle tacked on.
Until today I thought the Lib Dems really did offer fairness.
I thougth Nick Clegg was intent on doing the best for the country, sounds to me that as usual interested in thier own ends. Here we are seeing exactly the worst of PR England has a massive Tory majority , bring on Devolution for England
I hope that the discussions with the Labour Party tonight are courtesy and not real attempts to join up with a failed party. As a forty year old from a working class family, I have lived through The Conservatives destroying what I had – grants and free meals so I could continue my education into 6th form and a full grant to go to University (and yes I was there at the Grants not loans protests). As a Director of a small business I then saw Labour take away everything we worked so hard to start – tax breaks on low profits, hours of free business advice and training and a sense that entrepreneurship is worthwhile. In teaching I found that the education system is severely contributing to the crisis in the well-being and lack of aspiration of young people and am disappointed by all parties lack of concern at this and the discrimination society now has against young people – the very people we will depend on for a future stable society. This is why now at 40 I will complete a Phd and make a difference in this area! I have always supported the Liberal Democrats for not only their concern with society but also their realistic interpretation of the global economy. Please, please Nick Clegg do not fall into the trap of supporting a failed labour government that has brought so much misery, hopelessness and lack of aspiration to our families and young people. I had nothing as a child but I knew that if I worked hard I would get somewhere – that is not an option open to children in similar situations now.The Conservatives will never gain my vote but to work with them now to do what matters – get tough on the economy and make taxation fair – will show real character from the Lib Dem party. A coalition with Labour will be the opposite – a real compromise and I fear the end of any real change.
It seems the longer these negotiations go on, the more damaging they are becoming for the Lib Dems. The national interest as Clegg keeps harping on about, is not best served by his political games with the Tories and Labour.
The Lib Dems have 2 duties:
– the National Interest – a stable govt in difficult economic times
– to further the core Lib Dem policies that were backed by almost 7 million people on 6th May.
They are totally correct to negotiate to maximise both of these. There is no way that the party will swallow an arrangement with the Tories that does not include real meaningful moves towards voting reform. The Tories need to realise this and opening up a dialogue with Labour is a good way to make the point.
I dont think it about hard ball negogiating whats so ever its about going in secret talks with the Labour camp behind people backs and then playing one party against the other. Liberals will never ever get my vote, they brought in the most satanic piece of legistation ever years ago by introuducing the Abortion Act on to the statue book and believing in a EU which has the most Godless constitution ever written, we lack a Winston Churchill how we need a man of that stature right now.
As someone profoundly interested in democracy, I take no delight in the fact that Clegg forced Brown to resign, when Brown had received a significantly higher percentage of the vote. And it surprises, and disappoints me, that you do.
I’ve just seen William Hague say that the Liberal Democrats would only enter a coalition with a party offering a referendum on AV. A slip on his part surely? Our preferred method of PR is STV, we may settle for AV if they will go no further. The BBC say it is the Conservatives’ final offer. Unless Labour can go one better, it looks like we have a referendum on AV WITH the backing of the Conservative Party, and one would assume from their manifesto, the Labour Party too.
Well this is fun isn’t it.
If we took as a sample everybody who came on here and claimed that “I voted Lib dem at the last election and will never vote for them again” and then extrapolated it up, the LD’s would have all 645 seats!
Well the Conservatives have cleared stated their position on PR now. They will offer a referendum on AV and nothing more. Seemingly to their mind it is better to have another general election which they probably feel they would do better in upon the simple argument that the people wanted change and voted for it (combined Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote was for change) and instead, thanks to the Liberal Democrats, didn’t get it.
The Liberal Democrats can negotiate from the so called “king maker” position of strength but let’s not forget that position isn’t nearly as strong as it appears once the prospect of another general election is on the table. Would a coalition including the nationalists really be stable in the face of what will be needed to deal with the economy? Would it deliver on the Liberal Democrat promises to secure civil liberties? PR is not the only important thing on the table.
@ michael robinson.
You do realise that Winstobn Churchill saw a United Europe as a bulwark against tyranny and fascism and therefore supported it.
And you don’t happen to live in the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency do you?
Colin – Don’t you think that maybe the Lib Dem negotiation team had to make realistic demands first, e.g. AV as a minimum, alongside tax, education and deficit reduction strategies, rather than petulantly insisting on full PR?
Jamie, Nick didn’t force Brown to resign. He lost the general election and the knives were already out in his own party. He was going. His statement was clearly intended to put pressure on the Liberal Democrats to support a Labour government and to try and sow discord with the Conservatives. He’s just playing true to form.
To the Lib Dem negotiating team I say WELL BLOODY DONE. They have extracted a commitment for a referendum (Ok I know it’s only AV) from the Tories – implacable enemies of change and immediate legislation on AV from Lab with a follow up referendum for (presumably STV). Who’d have thought it and how despereate the two big beasts are to get their hands on the doorknob of No 10. Clegg for PM I say – you’ll probably get it from Labour
I think the Lib Dems may have to do a deal with the Tories simply because of the arithmetic and because of the problems in the Labour party. I’m also not convinced that Labour could get the AV bill through parliament and I think a referendum on PR would be a non starter in reality.
At the end of the day, I’ll back Nick on whatever he decides but for me the Tory offer, whilst not as attractive on paper, is the most realistic.
Cogload, as I recall you were calling everyone who disagreed a “troll”. I’d keep very quiet if I were you.
Are you not forgetting another party? Sixty million of them, to be precise.
@ Alec.
No. But feel free to do the same in return if it makes your day.
“Alec” the troll attempts to strike again, I see. (Pro tip – trolling is meant to be hard to spot until after the damage is done :))
Anyway, I’m damn proud of our party today. If the opinion polls pre-election are any indication, our latent support is significantly higher than our voterbase – I think Clegg knows this full well and is not scared to do what is needed to achieve our goals in a hung situation.
The Tories have now all but matched Labour’s offer, and I don’t think Labour can guarantee the passage of a bill introducing AV through Parliament – nor do I think voting reform should happen without a referendum.
Ideally, I would have liked Cameron – having taken the big psychological step of agreeing to a referendum on voting reform – to have gone the whole hog and agreed to STV raher than just AV being put to the people. That would have outflanked Brown and given us a deal that hopefully even those most sceptical of the Tories could have united behind.
However, this is a significant concession and I think the Lib Dems have to consider it very seriously.
I also think the pressing national interest in constructing a stable government and addressing the fiscal crisis needs to weigh very heavily in any decisions over who to support – and both the parliamentary arithmetic and policy considerations on these central issues point to a Tory/Lib Dem alliance being the most credible solution.
Nick Clegg has played a blinder the right wing press seemed to believe that he had sold out to the torrys without anything concrete on the crucial issue of electoral reform. The media also seemed to portray that the idea of a progressive alliance was dead as Nick Clegg could not work with Gordon brown.
Now with Gordon browns announcement on his future the door was opened widely to a new progressive form of alliance with electoral reform at the heart of it. This will effectively mean an introduction of legislation for A.V and a referendum on P.R. Then the torrys come back with the offer of A.V.
Now its time to decide whether its the math’s of the torrys or the policy similarities with Labour. Personally I feel the Lib Dems should form an alliance with the Labour party P.R a fair way to cut the deficit and no tax breaks for millionaires are all areas we can work together on. If we side with the torrys we will be held responsible for there savage unfair cuts and we won’t get P.R and probably be lucky to get A.V even.
Labour are actualy planning to introduce A.V in the house and then A full referendum on full STV. The torrys are only backing a referendum on A.V we are also alot closer to Labour in terms of policy’s on cutting the deficit in that both us a Labour agree that the Conservatives savage cuts this year would endanger the recovery. The chance of a progressive alliance may never come along again if we choose to get into bed with the torrys.
Gordon Brown has said he’ll go but we can’t wait until September for a new Labour leader. If there is to be a Lib-Lab coalition there’s no way Brown can lead it as prime minister. He has been decisively rejected by the electorate. The only option would be for Nick Clegg to lead the govt. When Lloyd George and, later, Ramsay MacDonald were PM, they led the smaller party in the coalition. Labour would have to swallow hard but the prize is staying in govt and the next election under PR to maintain the progressive majority.
As I understood, this was only a free vote amongst MPs – which would have been a predetermined result.
Like “progressive”, this is a plastic term which I hope not to hear before the next GE (no matter how soon that may be), but I agree with the thrust… very few voters (and, I doubt, stunning numbers of LibDem voters) will have been thinking much about electoral reform. All this cant about taking principled stands looks mighty transient when angling for personal advantage; and definitely considering the references to *political* rather than *electoral* reform until today’s double-dealing came out.
The delight being expressed in this thread at openly-admitted Machiavellianism and skulduggery is jaw-dropping. The public is, as they say, not stupid (despite what bloggers giddy after a radium drink may think).
The Labour rainbow proposal has clear emotional attractions but it’s flawed in practice – it would only take a tiny handful of Labour backbenchers (and there are a lot opposed to ANY form of electoral modernisation) to sink the whole deal, in the face of certain Tory opposition, and by that time Clegg would have burned his bridges by signing up to the project. At least a deal with the Tories offers the prospect of actually delivering what has been agreed – and will put Labour’s deathbed conversion to reform to the test, since if they fail to back the AV referendum and then AV in the actual vote, the naked opportunism of their current position will be exposed for all to see.
its not all abot electoral reform its about the torrys plans to make savage cuts this year before the recovery has been secured. While you say not a substational number of Lib Dems did not see electoral reform as one of the key issues it is at the heart of what the party stands for this is a key issue of fairness why in some constituency does your mean 10 times more than in another, why should we get 23% of the vote and yet 10% of the seats.
The deal with labour would allow us to play a more equal role in a coalition this would allow us to implement more Lib Dem policys. How could we work with a party with such negative backwards views to both europe and imigration. David Cameron is not the problem with the Conservatives there problem is the old nasty wing of the party. these M.Ps are actualy closer to U.K.I.P than Cameron even let alone us. Half of them dont even accept climet change is a man made phenomon and there shadow home sectutary Chris Grayling beleives that a business should be able to turn away people based there sexuality. In Europe the Conservatives chose the leave the main center right alliance in order to instead join up with a alliance made up of Holocaust denyers and Homophobes.
The Lib Dems and Labour have many simular policys and with a new modern progressive Labour leader idealy Alan Johnson (a full proponet of full STV) we could lock the torrys out of power for a generation.
So where do the Lib Dems stand in terms of Labour’s proposed Tax on Jobs?
And how keen are we on the idea of the English accepting all of the cuts, while the Scots and Welsh nationalists force the lib/lab government to pay them billions extra?
Suppose the Labour party elect a new leader who is not strongly in favour of honouring the Lib/Lab pact…?
This is all a nonsense – and a betrayal of the british people. Democracy – if not actually dead – is surely in hibernation today. If this is the “new politics” please can we have the old sort back, where we have a government that has enough democratic mandate to enact policies we actually voted for, lead by a leader we elected??
Rome burns whilst Nick fiddles.
Simple hiding to nothing really. If LD side with Labour now then no amount of ‘reasonable explanations’ and ‘we had to do the best for the party’ will ever see anyone believe Nick Clegg or LD again. The constant haggling is also putting on the best ad campaign in the world to the general public as to why to avoid PR like the plague – No matter what the reality. You know and I know that the Tory media will slaughter this carry-on in any kind of referendum.
Time to get the best deal you can, man-up and think of the economy NOT what voting system we’re going to use at the next election. If the LD’s want ANY to harbour any thoughts of the country thinking kindly of them into the next election when there might be a real hope of reform, then they have to get on with it. Now. Not Wednesday, not Thursday. NOW.
Time to act like the leader of the country Nick, not just the leader of a party who think it’s all over if they don’t get what they want this time.
I accept the Libdem leadership was right to put pressure on the Tories to get the best possibe deal. But to negotiate with a single party in good faith without first telling them they were negotiating with another party is very bad form.
I am disgusted by the Lib Dem leadership’s stance. They have done a lot of harm to the party’s image and if they do a deal with Labour to avoid having a referendum on election reform would be very undemocratic. They will be seen to put the Party above the National Interest. I would then never vote for them again..
At what point are we actually going to start saying that Clagg as PM is a possible outcome of these negotiations – specifically on a programme to introduce electoral reform?
At least that would shut up all the people who think we are somehow betraying them!
Must admit the thought had crossed my mind. If we as public & party reject the Tories then Nick Clegg is the only party leader people were able to “judge” and then vote for…
“I accept the Libdem leadership was right to put pressure on the Tories to get the best possibe deal. But to negotiate with a single party in good faith without first telling them they were negotiating with another party is very bad form.”
I do agree, however Hague did not give the impression of being taken by surprise. In fact I would not be too surprised if this wasn’t previously agreed as maybe a move to get the MPs etc of both parties onboard?
“While you say not a substational number of Lib Dems did not see electoral reform as one of the key issues it is at the heart of what the party stands for”
Very well put.
But on a more fundamental level, the contrast between Hague smiling this morning like the cat that had had the cream, and Hague forcing out an offer of a referendum on electoral reform this evening through gritted teeth, suggests we may be moving in the right direction!
One way or another, today is indeed crunch time. We can’t be seen as going behind the Conservatives’ backs or holding the country to ransom over our own party’s interests any longer.
It really doesn’t matter whether or not there is any truth to that perception, but if we do not act decisively to form a stable coalition, and instead stall progress, destabilise the country and possibly force another election soon, no form of electoral reform will stop us from being utterly annihilated at the next elections.
You can’t please everyone but if we turn out not to be capable of working with the political mix this election has thrown up – and that does mean working with the Tories – then we’ve lost our own argument for PR before a referendum has even been drawn up.
We have a once in a generation chance to become an active part in government again, to make a real difference for the people of this country and to prove ourselves to be a real and desirable alternative to the other parties.
But with yesterday’s events and the mis-representation thereof in the media – chiefly the BBC who seem keen to throw a spanner in any Lib/Con coalition – we are dangerously close to not only losing that chance but to becoming more hated/feared/loathed than the two other main parties, for holding the country to ransom over seemingly petty party interests and forcing another election – in which we would get well and truly annihilated.
It is now clear that a referendum on AV is what we’d get from either party. There already is a set of other concessions with the Tories worked out, do we really need to lose the last of our credibility by starting drawn out “negotiations” with Labour when that party has voiced clearly that THEY can’t see this working? Never mind the fact that the numbers just do not add up!
All the electoral reform discussion seems to be about Westminster, whereas local government and the HoL are important too. If we can get AV for Westminster with STV for local government and the Lords, surely that’s a deal worth having? And since there isn’t any prospect of the rainbow option delivering (even if a referendum bill passes the Commons, which is unlikely given how few Labour rebels it would need to sink it), most referenda become votes on the popularity of the sponsoring government, and I don’t see a Lib-Lab government being particularly popular right now? Whereas an AV referendum under the Tories stands a much better chance of passing the Commons (since if it’s part of the deal the Tories are honour-bound to support it, unless their plan is to scupper the deal at this point and go back for a majority – hence some sort of fixed term change voted through first is essential) and a much better chance of passing in the country, particularly if the larger part of the new government is campaigning against, since a) they’ll look stupid doing so and b) the popularity of the government won’t be such an issue
If there is a referendum proposed by a Tory led administration on AV and that bill goes before parliament and an amendment is tabled to add an option for PR would there be a commons majority for it? Would it get through the HoL? I suspect not. I think the AV may be the best we would get in this parliament….
Nick is right to have started the discussions with Labour now as time is precious – this may actually hasten the signing of a deal with Cameron as it will be come clear that Labour can’t actually deliver sound and stable government.
I think we should all be patient (inc the Tories and Labour supporters who have magically found this site!!) – politics is the art of the possible and a week is a long time in politics…
We are not ‘ Labour Lite’, the national and party Interest is to form a coalition with the Tories.
As a long time Liberal Dem voter and member, I’d like to succintly argue that we try and do a deal with the Conservatives as long as we have a guarantee on their voting reform referendum.
Why:
– We do need a strong and stable government which can make difficult decisions–a lib-con coalition would have a larger and more stable number of votes in parliament
– A strong government will need popular support.: 58% of the electorate voted liberal or Conservative, more than voted for the “Traffic Light” parties
– We need to show the electorate that the party is able to make mature decisions in the national interest. Going with Labour would confirm the suspicions that the Liberal Democrats are just ‘Labour Lite’
– To secure electoral reform, we need to demonstrate that the coalition forming process is responsible–not tribal.
– Finally, the Labour offer of AV without a referendum is poisoned chalice. I support AV as progress, but there is a principle that significant constitutional changes should not be imposed without giving voters a chance to approve them.
Listening to George Osborne on Radio 4 – there is hope?
I am a voter in my 20s who has voted for the Lib Dems at three general elections for the reason that I believed they were the most progressive, forward-thinking reforming party in the country. Central to the Lib Dem campaign and appeal over my lifetime has been the promise to reform our antediluvian voting system to a fairer, proportional system.
PR is not just another policy that can be horse traded with other minor policy concessions. PR is right of the core of the Lib Dem appeal, image and is the most progressive, transformative, reformative policy from any of the parties that has the potential to change the shape and nature of politics for the better forever in the UK. It is the biggest, boldest, bravest political idea on the table which goes beyond party politics, spin and horse-trading. The implementation of PR would enable fair, representative, proportionate, truly democratic government in the UK and is on the similar level of grandness as giving women the right to vote in the suffragette movement.
In my mind, and many other people of my generation, the Lib Dems were the only party of the future with genuine plans for reform.
The events of the past few days I believe have set the Lib Dem appeal and cause back irrevocably. I do not view Nick Clegg’s decision to form a coalition with the Tories as shrewd political manoeuvring to facilitate the implementation of a Lib Dem programme of reform. I view his decision, and that of the party as short-sighted grasping for power at the first opportunity. They have eagerly sacrificed their central policy of proportional representation, the biggest political idea and ideal of all the main parties, in or the expediency of power. It is cynical betrayal pure and simple.
There will be a backlash to this treachery by the Lib Dems and more people will feel dismayed, disillusioned and disenfranchised in a broken political system that seems set to perpetuate itself as there are not enough bold, visionary and courageous people that are willing to fight for a better future based on the highest of ideals.
I am so utterly dismayed that the UK political system has now proven to offer no choice, no diversity and no genuine representation for both myself and countless other, disenfranchised people.