The Liberal Democrats and Labour have entered into an informal electoral agreement to prevent anti-Conservative opposition being split at the next election. Giving Labour a free hand to rebuilding their Red Wall, they will give us equal freedom to dismantle the Blue Wall. With major trade union opposition to Proportional Representation having been removed, it might be possible that the replacement of First Past The Post with PR will be adopted by Labour as party policy and enacted by the next government.
Change to the electoral system will inevitably result in behavioural changes amongst those operating within the political system. With PR, voters can vote as they wish and expect to get their desired representatives rather than having to vote tactically for the lesser of two evils. And, politicians would be required to be more conciliatory and cooperative in order to win votes and form governments, the negative campaigning typical of FPTP likely being a liability. PR will also change the party system.
A Conservative- and Labour-dominated two-party plus system has naturally resulted from FPTP, the British electorate’s desire for a true multiparty system being long frustrated with the seat shares of third parties being unfairly suppressed. With Single Transferable Voting being our party’s preference, and hopefully that of Labour in the future, the British party system under PR is likely retain two major parties but would grant greater (proportional) influence to smaller parties. STV would allow the Liberal Democrats to reclaim our rightful position as Britain’s third party, with a fair and considerable seat share (fifty-nine if STV had been used at the last election, based on votes cast under FPTP). Within such a system, we should consider the role our party should play.
One option for our party could be the development of our new electoral agreement with Labour into a wider electoral and political alliance. In Scandinavian party systems such as those of Sweden and Norway, PR systems have resulted in so-called ‘red-green’ alliances, comprising major social democratic, socialist, green or centrist parties, which campaign as separate parties but would automatically form a coalition government if they were to win a majority of parliamentary seats. In Britain, a left-leaning progressive alliance would likely encompass the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens, effectively a traffic light coalition akin to that currently governing Germany. Within such an alliance, the vote and seat shares of each party would determine their influence upon the government agenda they would collectively formulate and enter into.
Whilst this would be a natural fit for the Liberal Democrats, membership of such a bloc (admittedly a semi-permanent institution in Sweden) could pose several problems. Such an explicit arrangement with Labour and the Greens could dissuade Tory left voters from voting for us as a lower preference or a protest vote, which we would rely upon in part for our rearrangement with Labour to be effective. It could be possible that a Labour-Lib Dem-Green alliance could end our party’s independence, merging into a single party as did happen with the Danish Red-Green Alliance. And, it could force the Conservatives to try and form their alliance with other right-leaning parties, namely Reform UK, the DUP and the UUP, pushing them or any Conservative-led government to the extreme right.
The alternative option for our party could be to act as an independent kingmaker, willing to enter into a coalition or supply-and-confidence agreement with Labour or the Conservatives, changing allegiances with changing electoral fortunes. In party systems where two major parties of government continue to exist under PR, minor parties have managed to effectively accommodate such a role, with ACT New Zealand historically being able to leverage its seat share to incorporate its policies into government agendas of both the Labour and National parties.
Although we would have greater negotiating strength under PR than we had in 2010 under FPTP, even suggesting that our party ally with the Conservatives would justifiably sound alarm bells amongst leadership and membership alike. However, the prospect, no matter how remote, might just have to seem possible enough for some Conservative voters to list our candidates amongst their preferences in the belief that we would support a Conservative-led government if we are ever to win their votes. Also, such a perceived openness would put paid to likely Conservative criticism that we would not be putting the country first.
If our party is serious about the adoption of PR, we should seriously consider our position in the party system that it would create and plan accordingly.
* Samuel James Jackson is a member of the Executive Committee of the Calderdale Liberal Democrats, the Secretary of the Lower Valley Liberal Democrats and has served as a council candidate in the Ryburn and Park wards
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
Belljar
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
John Waller
Peter Martin
Katharine Pindar
Mary Reid
19 Comments
“The Liberal Democrats and Labour have entered into an informal electoral agreement to prevent anti-Conservative opposition being split at the next election”.
May one ask Mr Jackson, is this guesswork, wishful thinking, or an informed official announcement. If the latter on whose authority ? One wonders whether the silence on LDV about the parliamentary by-election in the Erdington constituency tomorrow is part of the arrangement. There is, according to the Birmingham Mail, a Liberal Democrat candidate in the by-election, but I’ve yet to see anything on LDV :
“Lee Dargue is the Liberal Democrats’ candidate – and works in the rail sector around occupational health and safety and environmental management. Mr Dargue, who handles media and communications for the party in the West Midlands, said: “There’s definitely a feeling people are finding things aren’t as they should be”, ………. Birmingham Mail.
If the Lib Dems committed themselves to a permanent alliance with Labour, they would give up all pretensions to being an independent political party. They would just be Labour’s southern, suburban branch. Whilst the current leaderships of the two main parties, and the current state of electoral geography, make a non-aggression pact with Labour sensible in the short-term, this may not always be the case. If the Lib Dems give up their independence in this way, they might as well cease to exist.
If we look back to 2010, a majority of our Voters then did not want to see us in Government, that might be different now we have a much smaller Vote but we ought to aspire to grow & that means again attracting “Soft” Liberals who don’t see us as a potential Government Party.
Any participation in Government at Westminster will break us again, we should rule it out. Fair Votes don’t imply Coalition – Minority Governments can manage fine as long as they are reasonable.
The only government we should participate in is a Liberal Democrat led one. That is not going to happen so let’s not even discuss the issue.
John and Paul are both right.
I am a member of the Liberal Democrats to put liberal philosophy into effect, not to be an adjuct of the Labour Party (or the Tory party for that matter.)
It’s about time people who want the so called progressive alliance remember that liberalism embraces capitalism as the great tool for alleviating poverty when combined with human rights, democracy, rational enquiry and the rule of law.
Much of the Labour Party still cannot understand this. They are the party after all that tried to give us Corbyn as Prime Minister – one of the few who could fairly compete with Boris Johnson for the title of least suitable candidate for PM.
Labour will not support STV unless they are no longer in a place to deliver it.
Blair’s view expressed to Paddy (expressed in Paddy’s autobiography) is common among many Labour MPs. They don’t view elections in a way that makes them want a system of PR.
Getting PR is so pivotal to reforming our governance that the best should not get in the way of the good. We exist to put our policies into legislation. We need to up our negotiating so we can capitalise on PR when it comes.
It is probably to late for me, but I have always believed that to get Liberal/ Lib Dem policies endorsed nationally you have to get a voice in government And the only way for this party to do that is in coalition and also to have PR, and yes we do need to negotiate a lot better than last time, but it is possible to learn from mistakes and whatever anyone says I still believe there were elements of the Lib Dems participation in that coalition government to be proud of.
I continue to believe that a Labour party in coalition or confidence and supply with the SNP is more likely to concede proportional voting in England than one seeking a deal with the Lib Dems, for the reason that Labour will be under pressure from the SNP to concede a referendum on independence and therefore PR could give Labour an insurance policy against losing control of Parliament in the event of independence being enacted.
Whereas they would see PR as demanded by a stronger Lib Dem party as giving a rival a route to greater power.
fs people 3rd Mar ’22 – 10:05am:
[Labour] don’t view elections in a way that makes them want a system of PR.
It’s hard to see why they’d want to change to a system which would result in their votes and seats haemorrhaging away to smaller parties. Labour already have PR with 31.1% of MPs on 32.1% of the vote.
I believe that I might be overthinking this but if Labour were to win the next election but are only able to form a minority government, surely it would be more acceptable for them to enact PR than agree to an independence referendum. Here are a few reasons why.
1. Labour would be under pressure from its own membership to enact PR if it is part of their election manifesto, which it might be come their 2022 Autumn Conference.
2. Labour would want to avoid any prospect of granting the SNP a referendum even after an election as it arguably serves as a strong incentive for some voters to vote Conservative, despite everything.
3. As adopting PR is also part of the SNP’s platform, it is unlikely that their MPs would vote against it if introduced by Labour, as it would damage their image particularly if their opposition is in tandem with the Conservatives. Abstaining from such votes would also be ineffective if only the Conservatives in a Labour-led Parliament are the only party to oppose PR.
@John Bicknell “They would just be Labour’s southern, suburban branch.”
Under Starmer, it’s difficult to see Labour trying to become much more than its own southern, suburban branch!
I’m uncomfortable with the notion that UK politics is simply Tory vs. not Tory (which, sadly, often looks more like nasty Conservative vs. nice conservative 🙁 ). Perhaps it’s inevitable that first-past-the-post would lead to such a binary situation. However, dividing English politics into Tory and non-Tory might not be as successful as we’d hope if Labour and Lib Dems fish from the same pool with Labour having little to offer the red wall (simply hoping it will fall back in line) and the Lib Dems not wanting to venture there.
It’s deeply depressing that only the Tories seem to be able to present themselves as a party for every part of the UK both geographically and demographically. And so often it feels like, instead of offering positive alternatives, the Opposition parties are just moaning and waiting for Buggins’ turn when voters are fed up and want a short break from Tory government.
It’s hard to take very seriously an article which begins “The Liberal Democrats and Labour have entered into an informal electoral agreement to prevent anti-Conservative opposition being split at the next election” without providing any source for this remarkable and almost certainly inaccurate claim.
The author also doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a conference vote and a manifesto commitment. The next Labour conference may vote for PR (though I wouldn’t hold my breath), but that’s a long way from making it into the manifesto, which is decided at a meeting of the NEC, shadow cabinet and a few others.
@Malcolm Todd “… the difference between a conference vote and a manifesto commitment.”
Seems to be an issue for Lib Dems as well … I’ve commented quite a few times on the long wait (5+ years and two general elections) for conference votes to end selection by schools based on academic ability and religious faith to be mentioned by the party, let alone put in a manifesto! 🙁
A true proportional system such as STV ( more or less so) would change voting patterns, not only to be reducing the need for tactical voting and voting for 1st choices, but because of a plethora of new parties starting or others expanding into Parliament. In addition, the two big parties are liable to split at least two ways from their present uncomfortable internal coalitions
Another potential block might be the one nation Tories and LibDems, who might even attract the Greens, although that might be more of a stretch. While that does not appear to amount to an election winning combination based on the present FPTP situation, but it would be essentially the centre to centre right, the biggest minority view in the UK according to studies and a more acceptable choice to many more who are horrified by our present politics.
The centre right Liberal combination has often predominated in many countries around the world and would make the present extremist Blukip Tories unlikely to be viable. Of course the balkanisation could go much further, but that is less likely under STV which favours medium sized parties over tiny ones or independents
@ John A quick look at recent Holyrood and Scottish local government results – all elected by a form of PR – would give you food for thought about how much Liberal Democrats benefit from “STV (more or less so)”.
David, is Scotland’s LibDem recent performance down to the voting system or because of the fall out from the coalition and austerity, while in the country there are 3 parties connected to Social Democracy on centre to centre left.
Well, if we’re can’t trust the opening paragraph to tell the truth, why read the rest of the article?
Disinformation like this will lose the LDs bottles as canvassers repeat the unfounded claims of the first paragraph and cannot substantiate them.
Very poor show.
John O’Donoghue:
I am curious to know what is the ‘untruth’ (in your opinion) in the first paragraph? Some of it is hard to verify (informal electoral agreement) or speculative, but nothing that is palpable untrue.