On paper, an informal Lib-Lab pact at the next General Election makes sense. Whatever you want to call it – informal, non-aggressive, unofficial, secret – an agreement is reportedly in place, and it makes political sense.
It makes political sense as we are in a unique situation. The Lib Dems and Labour have not always been on friendly terms, particularly at the local level where campaigning styles often clash, and in some constituencies and Councils they never will be. Yet at the next General Election (if it takes place in 2024) the Conservatives will have been in power for 14 years, and for all their faults, have arguably played a good electoral strategy and outmanoeuvred Labour and the Lib Dems. If the Tories are to lose their majority, it will require a united front from the opposition to target the voters disillusioned by partygate, failing to see the benefits of Brexit and unlikely to benefit from levelling up.
Labour knows they can’t take on the Tories on their own. They are unlikely to regain seats in Scotland and will face an uphill struggle to win back ‘Red Wall’ seats in traditional Labour heartlands. The Party is also facing huge funding issues, with unions slashing donations, meaning resources are thin on the ground. The Lib Dems on the other hand know they can win traditional ‘Blue Wall’ seats, as demonstrated in Chesham and Amersham and North Shropshire, to take crucial seats away from the Conservatives. And the Conservatives are worried about the local electoral machine that the Lib Dems have deployed in these by-elections. Making a speech at Conservative Spring Conference last weekend, Party Chairman Oliver Dowden said the Tories are “going to have to fight this one seat by seat… doorstep by doorstep” and that it needs “to be reminding people that the best way to tackle the cost of living locally”.
The politics therefore makes sense, but so do the numbers. The Lib Dem’s top 20 target seats – i.e. the seats where the swing needed for a Lib Dem gain are lowest – are all currently held by Conservative MPs, bar one held by the SNP (Dunbartonshire East) and one held by Labour (Sheffield Hallam). Labour’s top 20 target seats are also all currently held by Conservative MPs, apart from one held by the SNP (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath). It means if Labour and the Lib Dems target their resources in these top 20 target seats and gain from the Conservatives, the Conservatives’ working majority of 77 votes is slashed by 76 and almost wiped out.
An agreement to ‘give way’ in target constituencies is therefore key to toppling the Conservatives. The 2019 General Election saw too many seats where Labour and the Lib Dems fought a good election campaign, splitting the vote between the two parties, and allowing the Tories to come through the middle. Wimbledon was a good example where the Lib Dems received 19,745 votes, Labour received 12,543 votes yet the Conservatives won with 20,373 votes – only 628 votes. In Kensington, Labour received 16,618 votes, the Lib Dems received 9,312 votes yet the Tories won with 16,768 votes – a majority of 150 votes.
Despite a Lib-Lab pact having a strong chance of working, if it does, it could prove to be a poison chalice for the Lib Dems. Should the General Election result in a hung Parliament, questions arise over what governance path the Lib Dems take. Burnt by the Coalition Government, a formal arrangement is likely to be off the table, but an informal agreement could be pursued – but for what? Does the Party want to be considered the partner of the Conservatives and Labour when they can’t win a majority or to be seen by the electorate as a Party in its own right? The electorate is also unforgiving of being ‘duped’ into an election pact which wasn’t clear from the outset, unaware they were voting for it. If the Lib Dems are focussed on pushing the Conservatives out of Government, a Lib-Lab pact is the way forward, but it needs to give serious consideration to what it could mean for the Party in the long-term.
* Lizzy Tomlin is a Lib Dem activist in south west London
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Jason Connor
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
28 Comments
We should .make it clear from the start that any party wanting our support in a hung parliament must have PR(STV) for all elections as its first act of parliament after the election or we will not give them support. No referendum, just legislation. The party should have a bill drafted ready to be introduced immediately after the election.
Our experience in 2015 shows we cannot and must not have any form of coalition or agreement without PR. Had we had PR in 2015 we would have had many more than 8 MPs.
We might also want to insist that there should be a second General Election once PR is introduced to give fair representation in a democratic parliament.
For once Mick, I agree with you 100%. It is exactly what I would do.
Mick Taylor’s suggestion could work. The weakness in any electoral pact is that all parties will have an over-inflated view of their importance post-election. An immediate second election – under PR, and no pacts – will give parties an accurate view of their relative strengths.
The Labour Party leadership understands that they are unlikely to win an outright majority themselves at the next election so will be relying on support from a smaller party. Given that the Labour Party may prefer to concede electoral reform to the Liberal Democrats rather than concede the right to a second Scottish independence referendum, helping the Liberal Democrats win Tory seats makes it more likely that a Labour/Liberal Democrat deal could command a majority in the Commons.
Good article Lizzie.
And Mick is absolutely 100% right about PR.
In the last quarter century we’ve had two serious go’s at getting PR for Westminster. Both failed, and both have important lessons that we need to learn from.
First, in 1997 Paddy Ashdown reached an ‘understanding’ with Tony Blair that the New Labour government would introduce PR. The trouble was that they didn’t tell the rest of the Labour party! And once Straw, Prescott et al got involved, they torpedoed it. So…
Lesson #1. A good personal relationship between the 2 leaders is not enough. We need the entire Labour party to commit.
Then in 2010 Nick Clegg tried to make PR a condition of the coalition, but all he got was a referendum and a watered down form of AV that even we couldn’t get excited about, so it failed miserably. So…
Lesson #2. We need to demand proper PR. Personally, I’d say STV or nothing. And…
Lesson #3. No referendum. If it’s in Labour’s manifesto (see Lesson 1) and ours, as well as the SNP, Greens, PC etc. then there should be no need to put it to a vote.
We need to be bold about this. We’ve pussy-footed around for too long and where has it got us? I’m getting too old for messing about, and I want to see PR in my lifetime.
Excellent article on the possibility of a pact. However being a member of the party around 50 years I have seen a number of pacts. Some not as bad as others labour or conservative were never completely honest with us. However, willing to let us take the blame for unpleasant policies. On one hand you have to compare getting people to vote tactically or have lots of paper candidates where we are weak. I feel that the Scottish Greens will live to regret their pact with the SNP for a chance at government. Always tell my SNP friends there is not a clamour for Independance, voters are possibly sick of the rest of us. Time will tell.
I believe that any standing arrangement which included Con or Lab
would alienate a significant proportion
of reform minded activists, parties, and electors
(e.g. a standing alliance arrangement,
a standing coalition arrangement,
or anything like the standing 2010 ConDem arrangement).
Many reform minded activists, parties, and electors
would welcome the concept of co-operation.
However, the devil is in the detail:
a. Con and Lab would both refuse to ‘engage with’ any arrangement
in which they were not allowed to dominate the agenda.
b. All other parties would refuse to ‘engage with’ any arrangement
in which they would lose their unique identity.
Thus, reform minded activists, parties, and electors must abandon all wishful thinking
about any standing arrangement which included Con or Lab.
Indeed, a Campaign for Reform must specifically and overtly exclude
any and every ‘whiff’ of any standing arrangement which included Con or Lab.
I believe that,
for the next (final FPTP) UK election,
reform minded activists and parties must focus solely on options for a combination of:
a. Prior to the next (final FPTP) UK election,
a Campaign for Reform must focus solely on
a Tactical Voting arrangement to force a hung Commons
(by unilaterally ‘gifting’ marginal seats
from the stronger of Con and Lab to the weaker of Con and Lab
without any ‘whiff’ of the beneficiary party ‘returning the favour’).
LD would be uniquely positioned with the elector power
to ‘lead’ such an arrangement
(i.e. ‘leading’ the SNP, Green, Reform, and PC parties).
b. Following the next (final FPTP) UK election
(i.e. in a hung Commons),
a Campaign for Reform must focus solely on
a Confidence and Supply arrangement
with the least obstructive of Con or Lab in a hung Commons;
with control over the agenda for constitutional reform as the sole ‘red line’
(i.e. not a standing alliance arrangement,
not a standing coalition arrangement,
and not anything like the 2010 ConDem arrangement).
SNP would be uniquely positioned
with the seat power to ‘lead’ such an arrangement
(i.e. ‘leading’ the LD, Green, Reform, and PC parties).
It is a good article, no doubt about it and yes, Mick is right about PR (STV) Legislation no Referendum should be one of our Red-Lines.
But sorting out our voting system should not be our only Red-Line. From an English Regions point of view so should Devolution for the 8 English Regions.
Why should England with its 8 Regions be the only Home Nation under Direct Rule from Westminster?
Any Coalition with Labour should have Legislation ready to go for a Federal United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the 8 English Regions.
Two Red-Lines, PR and Devolution, not much to ask for is it.
‘Why should England with its 8 Regions be the only Home Nation under Direct Rule from Westminster?’
That’s the fly in the ointment though isn’t it? Do the people of England want 8 devolved regions? I can see why the Balkanising of England might be useful from the point of view of holding together the UK, but frankly if we’re going down that road I’d rather a devolved English parliament (literally anywhere in England other than London) and let the future of the UK be what it may. My aspiration is for one devolved England, not 8 competing ones.
I would, on the other hand, support a Balkanised England as part of a process that also broke up Wales and Scotland, potentially into regions that crossed national borders. Otherwise, England would remain (even with 8 devolved regions) as the one country in the UK not allowed its own national government.
I would agree with a red line of STV, although I think it should be STV(+) as a personal preference.
Here we go again…
IMO .. no public word from the various party leaderships, this would give the conservatives a stick to beat us with. But many policy objects are shared by all parties that may join a non aggression …. ie repeal of some of odious acts passing at the moment. Other than labour, all other parties would look to enact PR, so this one subject to negotiation .. 🇺🇦 #StandWithUkraine
Agree with Lizzy, agree with Mick Taylor.
@TonyH – no Nick Clegg did not try to make PR a condition of Coalition. He told (note told, not discussed with), a meeting of the Parliamentary Party before the 2010 election, that “PR was no longer a deal breaker for any Coalition negotiations.” He had abandoned that particular Red Line (and, after the election, our long standing Tuition Fees policy), and the catastrophic results we all know only too well -and are still only just starting to recover from in electoral terms.
I agree with Malcolm Todd.
But what happens if a Liberal Democrat and Labour arrsngement doesn’t have a majority so SNP votes are required? In that situation the SNP will demand IndyRef2. Would the Labour Party be vwilling to grant both PR and IndyRef2?
Also the SNP, if there votes were needed, would insist on IndyRef2 taking place before any election following a change to PR because in such an election they would almost certainly lose seats and therefore influence.
But if the SNP won the IndyRef2 vote then the decision to change to PR without a referendum would have been carried because of Scottish votes. It’s not clear to me in that circumstance that not having a confirmatory referendum would be politically possible.
Finally no referendum on PR implies that you don’t think that a referendum would succeed: which is a terrible position to be in.
There is No Pact.
Labour & Libdems have lists of Target Seats with very few Seats on both lists – that’s down to the Voters changing their minds, not the Parties.
Its way too soon to predict the next Election yet – we don’t know what will happen so lets stop all this nonsense about Labour not being able to win.
How public does the Party need to be about any agreement it makes with Labour in contesting the next GE? It will be fairly obvious in those marginals in which either Party does not campaign. The media will also write articles and ask politicians what is going on. We should emphasise that we are being forced into this situation by our ludicrous electoral system and so make a plug for PR.
Andrew Tampion piles whatiffery upon whatiffery.
The UK is a parliamentary democracy, where laws are made in parliament. We decide who governs us at General Elections.
Referenda are an alien concept in our democracy. [Thanks Harold Wilson who introduced a referendum on the EU because he wanted to bypass his warring party] They are dangerous because it is almost impossible to get voters to answer the question asked. The AV referendum was lost because voters wanted to kick Nick Clegg, not because they were necessarily against AV. The EU referendum was won by a campaign of lies and distortions and on issues that were nothing to do with the EU.
No, Mr Tampion. A party or parties that get together after an election to introduce a policy that was in their manifesto have a mandate to do so. No referendum or other sanctioning vote is required beyond a majority in Parliament.
As to your hypothetical scenario, well you really tried hard to think up the most unlikely one possible to justify your (weak) argument. Even if everything panned out as you suggest, it would not invalidate a vote in the UK parliament by UK MPs.
In any event, my proposal for a second election once PR had been agreed would produce a much fairer representation of the people and a truly democratic parliament.
What’s not to like?
I’m afraid that any “pact” of any sort with Labour would lose numerous Lib Dem voters in a number of Constituencies. We have been stabbed in the back and pushed from 2nd into 3rd place here and elsewhere by lies, sneers and innuendoes. I could never support an agreement with them.
The most recent projections by Electoral Calculus (i.e. as of 2022 03 01)
suggests a default outlook of Con with 245 seats and Lab with 311 seats
(i.e. a lightly hung Commons).
Optimized tactical voting (i.e. as defined earlier)
in the 33 ‘most convertible’ marginal seats
could reset this to Con with 278 seats and Lab with 278 seats
(i.e. a well hung Commons).
However, electoral reality is extremely volatile.
Polling immediately prior to the next (final FPTP) UK election
may well suggest a default outlook anywhere between
a Con ‘elected dictatorship’ and a LAB ‘elected dictatorship’.
However, an appropriate tactical voting arrangement (i.e. as defined earlier)
could easily ‘neutralize-to-hung’ any outlook between and including those extremes.
Mr Taylor. What is unlikely about Labour and the Liberal Democrats not winning enough seats to have a majority of MPs. That’s what happened in 2010. Except that in 2010 Labour had about 40 seats in Scotland, which is unlikely in 2024.
You mention the right of parties to introduce measures that were in their manifesto. That sounds like whatiffery to me because Labour have never had a commitment to electoral reform in their manifesto before. There is no certainty that they will next time.
There is No Pact.
Any talk of Pacts damages both Us & Labour.
Paul Holmes:
“Nick Clegg did not try to make PR a condition of Coalition. He told (note told, not discussed with), a meeting of the Parliamentary Party before the 2010 election, that “PR was no longer a deal breaker”
Could you please clarify this? – The facts need to be known and I assume you were in a privileged position to know.
Is your reference to PR simply the obvious fact that he was ready to accept AV instead (in my view the fundamental error of the 2010 agreement) or do you mean that Nick Clegg was prepared to forego Commons electoral reform altogether?
My assessment is the previous Coalition experience together with the continued strength of the SNP makes a post electoral Coalition with Labour unlikely. A more contingent, transactional agreement would seem more likely.
In 1997, there was an informal agreement between non-Tory parties that the party that stood little chance of winning didn’t campaign that hard or at all.
This tactical voting did deliver a majority of non-Tory MPs. There was also agreement that certain constitutional changes would be introduced, including devolution, voting reform and House of Lords Reform.
Scotland and Wales got their Parliament/Assembly, but devolution was not delivered to the English Regions. House of Lords reform was started with most hereditaries being removed, but then it stalled. There was a commission on electoral reform, but its recommendations were not implemented.
If LibDems are to form a coalition or a supply and confidence agreement, there must be an immediate bill for PR (STV) in all elections. Firstly, because it is fair. Secondly, because without it the LibDems cannot give support to any governmental arrangement because under FPTP, we risk a repeat of 2015.
Sometimes Alison, in politics, especially under FPTP, you have to hold your nose and vote for the party that is your least bad option, but that has the best chance of defeating your worst option. That’s tactical voting, not an electoral pact.
At the next election, many people who traditionally voted Tory will want to see the back of this appalling Tory Government. Given the vagaries of FPTP we have to be open to defeating as many Tory MPs as possible and that means informal agreements to enable non-Tory parties to maximise the number of seats they gain.
No PR, no support for another party that aspires to government. We will not be offered it: we have to impose it. End of story so far as I am concerned .
For as long as I can remember, activists for Proportional Representation
(including many of those engaging with LibDemVoice discussions)
base their analyses and arguments on assertions similar to the following:
. . . . . . STV (Single Transferable Voting), an electoral system which satisfactorily balances proportionality, local representation and voter choice . . . .
However, analysis and projections by the Electoral Reform Society (see below)
illustrate that,
although STV would have been substantially less dis proportional than FPTP or AV,
STV would have been nowhere near proportional,
and would not have delivered any of the other related assertions.
I use as my primary frame of reference
a report published by the Electoral Reform Society,
which analysed the 2015 UK State Election (based on FPTP),
and included projections illustrating the effect of potential alternative arrangements.
That report is available at:
The 2015 General Election: A Voting System in Crisis – Electoral Reform Society – ERS (electoral reform.org.uk)
Search for Section 5.e. within that report ‘Seats in Alternative Parliaments’.
The report published by the Electoral Reform Society,
which analysed the 2015 UK State Election (based on FPTP),
is available at:
The 2015 General Election: A Voting System in Crisis – Electoral Reform Society – ERS (electoral reform.org.uk)
Search for Section 5.e. within that report ‘Seats in Alternative Parliaments’.
1. With regard to the ‘proportionality’ assertion:
a. With fully proportional representation,
the supposedly sovereign electors
who tried to nominate UKIP as their proxy in the UK Commons
would have been allocated 82 MPs from UKIP.
However, the ERS analyses and projections suggest that,
with STV,
those electors would have been allocated only 54 MPs from UKIP.
b. With fully proportional representation,
the supposedly sovereign electors
who tried to nominate LD as their proxy in the UK Commons
would have been allocated 51 MPs from LD.
However, the ERS analyses and projections suggest that,
with STV,
those electors would have been allocated only 26 MPs from LD.
c. With fully proportional representation,
the supposedly sovereign electors
who tried to nominate Green as their proxy in the UK Commons
would have been allocated 25 MPs from Green.
However, the ERS analyses and projections suggest that,
with STV,
those electors would have been allocated only 3 MPs from Green.
So, that is my problem with the assertion that STV
would deliver proportional governance.
Lets forget about Lib/dem Labour pacts or Lib/dem Green pacts what we need is agreement on is reform of both local and national government underpinned by policy commitments from their leadership on PR as the preferred voting system post 2024 .
Local agreements should be left to local parties and national politicians should step aside and leave it to local autonomy on the ground .
“…but for what? Does the Party want to be considered the partner of the Conservatives and Labour when they can’t win a majority or to be seen by the electorate as a Party in its own right?”
This is the problem in a 2.5 party system based on FPTP and a U.S style 2 party system is worse.
There are looser pacts in Wales and Scotland and these have worked fine, more loosely with the LibDems involved in both.
A party with a 20% ( optimistic) strategy cannot win, so has to work with other parties.
PR voting and making pluralistic politics is the way for better representation and participation, with far better decisions and policy being made. But until then the LibDems will have to work with the undemocratic, semi dictatorship we have now.