The Lib Dems have always argued that the country should elect MPs using a fair voting system – a form of proportional representation. Hopefully this hasn’t passed too many of our activists by. Certainly, in the 22 years I’ve been a party member I don’t recall meeting many Lib Dem activists who were under the illusion the party favoured First Past the Post.
Fair voting systems normally lead to balanced, or hung, parliaments and frequently to coalition governments. We’re used to them in Scotland and Wales, not to mention in the majority of successful western nations.
So I would hope that most Lib Dem activists would have accepted the principle that, when the voters tell them to, parties that disagree on policies and fight bitterly against each other in elections can and should knuckle down and explore the options to work together to deliver stable government.
The people might not even get along, but I doubt they can hate each other any more than different factions within our main parties already do (I don’t recall Blair and Brown always being best buddies, nor John Major or Maggie Thatcher getting on perfectly with others in their own parties, and I’ve even heard rumours of people within the Lib Dems who don’t enjoy each others’ company too much).
I’m no fan of the Conservatives – as our local Tories will testify. But does that mean I think the Lib Dems shouldn’t even consider working with Cameron? No, of course not.
It may well be that no deal can be done – that the parties can’t find an approach that’s agreeable to both. The Lib Dems have a strong internal democracy and no deal’s going to be smuggled through on the quiet.
But to refuse to even try, as some Lib Dems seem to be suggesting (egged on by Labour activists), is to reject the very principles of fair voting we’ve always supported.
I would like to see MPs elected by proportional representation. That means I’d like to see the UK parliament switching to be like most of the economically strong AAA-rated countries, where coalitions – working with your political opponents – is the norm.
We as a party must be willing to try to make it work. That means talking to the Conservatives (as the party that clearly won the most votes and seats) and making a genuine effort to figure out whether the Lib Dems and the Tories can work together for the benefit of the country.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
45 Comments
Absolutely, and I think it could be A Good Thing for country and for party.
The prospect of a share in power is exciting, and we must make it work. However, an all-party commission on electoral reform is not enough – there have been many of those in the past 100 years. We must have at least a referendum on STV and a commitment to implementing its result.
Selling out the party principles is what the last Liberal government did and we have not held power for 90 years as a consequence.
By doing this deal with the Tories you will lose at lest half our voters including myself.
I can’t see why we can’t let the Tories get on with forming a minority government, us being a large opposition with other parties, Tories will falter. Surely balanced parliament is more democratic than joining with a party that have completely contrasting views on society?
I agree, a Tory minority government or a Lib/Lab coalition would get nothing, I repeat nothing, done. Also Clegg should fight to the death for electoral reform.
People who say they’ll stop voting Lib Dem if they make a deal with Cameron are naive idiots. I understand that half of Tory policies are dreadful. But so are half of Labours. I will vote for Lib Dems if they vote for the right policies and against the wrong ones.
Its time to act like adults not children.
I agree wholeheartedly and, at the same time, disagree wholeheartedly.
PR delivers a system where politicians must work with their enemies. We as Lib Dems must understand that and be prepared to act on it when necessary, but this time is NOT one of those times.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to work constructively with the Tory party but everything to do with needing to do everything we possibly can to achieve PR.
The choice between a risky grab for PR and a safe option (whether a loose or tight coalition with either party or on or own) is a false dichotomy. What we actually have is a choice between a slim chance at reform vs certain decline, the only question is over how long it will take.
While we have FPTP the only way to get serious power is to leap-frog one of the other parties and go from 20 to 40% of the popular vote overnight. This will self-evidently never happen. We cannot achieve 40% based on a slow continual increase because when we get to around 25% and three similarly strong parties, FPTP breaks down and delivers a hung parliament. This is always followed by a reset where the smallest party is cast down by the electorate – not because they don’t want to vote that way but because they know their votes will be wasted if they do. It happened in 1974 and it is happening again now. It makes no difference what coalitions we do and do not form, if we do not get PR, the party will decline and it may take us 35 years to regain our current position.
(I have written about this more fully here)
My belief has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting to play nicely, and I don’t even know any Labour activists, so I am most certainly not being ‘egged on’. Right now we have the anger of a disenfranchised populace behind us willing to organize demonstrations and showing their feelings with petitions that have garnered 25000 signatures in 18 hours! Uniquely this election, the voters expressed a wish for a hung parliament and exactly the sort of maturity to cope with the politics you are advocating, but FPTP cannot deliver it for more than the next few months or a couple of years at the most.
I believe with every fibre of my being that we must now drop every other policy we care about* to push for PR with everything we have in order to take advantage of this, the best opportunity we have ever had to see it realized. Once we have achieved that we will be in a much stronger position to act on all our other policies and may actually see a few of them come to fruition. David Cameron’s meaningless promises will not do that for us, what ever he may promise while he is weak and desperate.
If we do not listen to them, the disappointed electorate will turn on us and deliver a judgement that could see us cast down more swiftly and further than our worst imaginings.
*with the exception of tackling our hurt economy which we stand a better chance of doing with Labour anyway
As a Lib Dem (previously Lib) voter for circa 40 years, my view is that we should start practising the art of negotiation and co-operation where possible as this is what would be needed at every election if we had PR. I am passionate about achieving PR. However, refusing to co-operate with others will ensure we never get it. Although I would probably instinctively prefer a Lab/LD arrangement than a Con/LD arrangement, I am not seduced by Gordon Brown’s “promise”. Lab promises on PR have never been translated into action. Apart from that, the fact remains that a combined Con/LD arrangement would be the biggest combination of votes and seats available to have legitimacy in tackling the economic situation. Also, any combination involving the “nationalist” parties would disadvantage England as those parties would demand “special” status for their countries
This morning’s Today programme described some very lean pickings on the table from Cameron in return for backing a tory government. As others have said, we’ve had electoral commissions before. The least Clegg should hold out for is a referendum, though Cam’s chums in the press would have a field day influencing the outcome.
I think the public is very much in favour of electoral reform, so a betrayal would further disillusion people. If the Lib-Dems are also associated with the economic policies of the idiot tories then they would be unelectable for another generation under an unpopular electoral system.
I think there is less of a risk to progressive politics in Britain if Clegg is hard nosed and fails to form a government with the tories, letting them form a minority government and dealing with issues as they arise, than if he desperately joins them and gets nothing for it but a share of the blame.
Dear Iain. I am extremely proud that Kent is now solid blue. and that the Conservatives made so much (but not enough) progress in the GE. It is worth noting that between us, we have some 60% of the vote. That is at least 6 out of 10 people who wanted rid of Brown’s administration for a variety of reasons.
Notwithstanding the above, I would suggest that it is now incumbent for the anti-Brown vote. to come up with a stable coalition, for an agreed period of time, that can govern the Country and start to undo the monumental damage done to the UK’s interests – particularly since 2004/5. LibDems and Conservatives have proved that they can work in an ordered and (fairly) harmonious fashion, and there are enough points of agreement in end results to forge workable policies as to means employed. If both sides stay aware that they have a responsibility to the electorate who wanted to be shot of Labour, the coalition should last long enough for emergency action to stabilise the economy and roll back the monolithic state to be taken.
Activist, what is a activist? Many people feel strongly about their political views and many want to voice their opinion on the current situation. Clegg has a responsibility to carefully consider his next decision as party leader. This is where he will loose touch with his own voters if this not taken under consultation.
The fundamental points seem to be missed, many votes where cast not because of personallities but because of mandates. If Clegg does decide to form the government with the tories, then this is, in most voters eyes, a betrayal of their vote and a betrayal of the mandates which we voted for. Many of the ideals supported by the Lib Dems are close to Labour and not to the conservative. Clegg needs to protect the mandates and as he has all the bargining chips, lets insist on electoral reform and get it. Lets see how strong Clegg can be, listen to his voters hearts, Lets see him stick to his guns and get this county moving again but on the correct side. No one wants to side on the loosing team but surely lets do what best for the country and not play a part in bringing it to its knees under a conservative goverment.
The tweetashpere makes for interesting reading. The red danger light should be flashing. This could well spell the end for the Lib Dems. It promises to be a disaster.
Your argument is flawed. You are basically saying that if we ever get PR, then the Lib Dems should always work with the largest party.
This is not what the party wants, or the people who voted.
The point that lots of Lib Dem supporters moaning about coalitions with people you don’t like is redundant if they’re also calling for fair votes and by extension permanent coalitions is spot on.
Nevertheless, many of us who have switched our votes for the first time on the premise that we were not voting for Conservatives, are understandably concerned by the thought that our votes may invested the power in Clegg to anoint Cameron as PM. There was a quicker way of doing if that was what we so wanted, and it would’ve involved crossing a different box in the polling station on Thursday.
More specifically, some non-members-but-sympathisers like me are sceptical of Clegg’s priorities. Given:
a) the Tories’ consistent fundamental rejection of any voting reform, emphasised by Cameron’s statement yesterday (other than boundary changes that would benefit their performance);
b) a widespread suspicion that Clegg, like all other party leaders, is career-driven and minded towards the power of being in office. Not to mention rumours of him being a ‘closet Tory’;
c) Clegg’s public repudiation of tactical voting, which though understandable, if it had not happened, I’d hazard we’d be looking at a different national picture. (Admittedly I say this with the bias of working on a campaign for electoral reform that was advocating tactical voting to get a progressive alliance who’d work for fair votes).
d) that he’s been making signals that he’d align with the Tories long before the election, even though policy-wise they’re quite disparate in many areas;
It seems that maybe Clegg always wanted the Tories to become the “party with most seats” so that they would have “first right to seek to govern”, and that electoral reform is not a priority for him at this stage. Either that or he’s playing a risky game between his two courters.
That is why <A href=″https://twitter.com/#search?q=%23dontdoitnick″#dontdoitnick is a trending topic on twitter. Obviously it’s linked to a general dislike of the Tories by LD supporters. However, some people are worried that either by Clegg’s design or by accident, fair votes are going to be left by the wayside, screwing over not just big sections of the party, but all the people that voted for them too.
(sorry for the essay!)
It seems to me that when i decided to vote for the liberal democrats in favour of positive change, for an ethical future, i did so by firmly rejecting the mandates and beliefs of a antiquated and backwards thinking party such as the conservatives. I expected a hung parliment, this is no great shock, but what i did not expect to happen, was that Nick Clegg would decide to side with the conservative establishment. I understand the idea of statesmanship but believe that Nick is hiding behind the excuse that people have spoken in favour of a conservative rule, so therefore it is his duty to support this. However, the conservatives did not win with a majority, and many seats were won by labour. Ethically, morally and politically, i feel that the lib dems owe it to their voters to join with labour and other partys for a more equalitarian and sustainable future for all citizens of this country, because under the conservatives they will have very little power, they will be ousted at the first available opportunity, after being used for conservative convenience and then, the common people will be completely left up the river without a paddle – im not an activist, merely a young mother of three hoping for a better future for my children!
We do not need another Comission on the voting system and why do we need a referendum to decide whether we should become a modern democracy. The immediate introduction of STV is an esential precondition to any deal.
Ellie
I believe with every fibre of my being that we must now drop every other policy we care about* to push for PR with everything we have in order to take advantage of this, the best opportunity we have ever had to see it realized.
No, NO, NO!!!
This will be seen by the electorate as a crude sell-out by us just to grab power. It will confirm everything the typical “hmm, maybe LibDem” voter worried about when s/hey wavered and in the end did not vote for us on Thursday.
Let others sell the PR line, not us.
My feeling is that Labour lost and the Conservatives won, that is how the electorate will see it. So the Conservatives should be given a chance to govern. Had there still been a hung Parliament, but Labour was ahead of the Conservatives and we had shown a strong improvement, it would have been a COMPLETELY different situation. That is why asking in advance “What would you do in a hung Parliament?” does not work, because it does depend on the overall situation.
Anyone who voted Labour or Conservative was backing the two-party system and the current electoral system which works on the basis “better distort representation and have more chance of a single-party absolute majority than have fair representation for third parties but a perpetual coalition”. In that sense, anyone who voted Labour WAS voting for a Conservative government if the Conservatives came ahead. If they didn’t want that, they should have voted for us, because we stood for and end to the two party system.
We should have better prepared the ground by putting that line out before the electiion. This is one of many pieces of tactical advice I made here and elsewhere during the election campaign which had they been taken would have seen our party do much better.
I agree entirely from a Lib Dem perspective.
Also shouldn’t lose sight of the pressures the Tories and particularly Cameron are under. If Cameron wants to achieve anything as PM, he desperately needs a stable deal. I think I heard Philip Blonde talking about it yesterday, describing a coalition as an opportunity for Cameron to deliver a Disreali style great reforming Parliament. That may be overplaying it. But people shouldn’t lose sight of how high the stakes are for Cameron. He may come under heavy fire for a coalition. But he’s stuffed without one too. Under these circumstances, a commentator-surprising shift towards something reasonably substantive on electoral/political reform could be his Clause 4-cum-independence of the BoE, and enough to give him serious capital to do a lot of other reforming stuff.
Also, if I hear Ben Bradshaw et al trying to annexe the entire 6.75m LibDem electorate as some kind of adjunct to a failed Labour party under a so-called “progressive” banner one more time, I think I’m going to scream. Didn’t see any sign of a progressive alliance over the last 13 years. Shameless, desperate, hypocritical grasping to hang on to power. Its time for real change now.
Rob
Any kind of agreement made by the Liberal Democrats to support the Conservatives in forming an administration would be against both the national and party interest.
The Tory economic plans with severe cuts to the public sector would cause unmitigated chaos this year and would very probably lead to another economic downturn for that matter. Consider what happened to the United States in the late 1930’s when the government spending which was leading the US out of the depression was suddenly cut, the country fell back into economic woe and only really recovered in terms of employment due to WWII.
Moreover from the interest of the party in both the short and long term any kind of agreement with the Conservatives would be a disaster and cause grievous damage to the Liberal Democrats and the liberal cause for perhaps decades. The fact is that there are simply too many Tory policies which are an anathema to both the majority of our core support and indeed those outside that group whose votes we seek to court in future elections. The Liberal Democrats would be signing their own death warrant as a meaningful political party if they helped legislation through the house which is so diametrically opposed to what they have always stood for.
In any case who really believes that the Tories wouldn’t stab us in the back and call another election as soon as they considered they could obtain an actual majority? For a few token cabinet seats at best the Liberal Democrats would be throwing away perhaps the only chance we would ever have to actually obtain PR and our long-term goals of achieving a more liberal United Kingdom would be scuppered. Even if David Cameron was offering a referendum on proportional representation (which he isn’t) he could never get his own MP’s to go along with it (Turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas) so why take the scraps off the mans table when we’re in a position to actually get what we want, and the country needs, from a Labour party which has no choice but to be more cooperative and accommodating?
There are enough MP’s in the House of Commons between the Liberal Democrats, Labour, SDLP and Alliance to form a workable government, especially given that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are far more anti-Tory than they are anti-Labour so getting legislation through wouldn’t be a problem. This grand coalition would represent an actual majority of the electorate as well as the most parliamentary seats so it would be a legitimate group to govern the country and ideologically its constituent parts are closer in policy and instinct than the abomination of a Lib-Dem/Conservative agreement would be.
I vote Liberal-Democrat, I have been both an electoral agent and a Council Candidate for the Liberal Democrats and I would be horrified, and frankly ashamed, if the party I support put short-term self-interest ahead of not only national but also long-term party interest by agreeing to aid the Tories when a far better alternative is presenting itself.
It might be a rough ride, certainly the Tory press would give the Liberal-Democrats another hammering if a coalition was formed with Labour, but it would be the right thing to do both for the United Kingdom and the party and I can only hope that the decision-makers who are going to have to make the call today have the guts to do what’s right and not what’s easy.
Uh-oh.
It’s beginning to look a lot like the Lib Dems are hung as well as the government :-/ Perhaps this post should be entitled “grown up politics means sometimes working with your friends”?
I agree with Mike’s point that the reducto ad mandate is flawed because it implies Lib Dems should alway work with the largest party, which is patently not true.
If we choose to work with Labour, fully aware that it is likely to keep Gordon Brown in post, then it follows we did not side with the Tories to keep him out but were actually voting FOR our own principals all along. That may seem odd to a dyed-in-the-wool Labservative, used only to voting against what is worst, but it is an old story to us long-term Dems who have been voting with our consciences for decades, in the full knowledge that it will almost always result in a wasted vote. A Lib/Lab coalition has every bit as much of a mandate as a Conservative minority government, it even has a few more seats.
This argument will not go away until we have PR. Only with PR will we no longer have to pick which of two distasteful regimes to prop up. I said it in my comment above and I will say it again here, if we want to escape this trap we have to put all our other policies to one side.
It hurts me to turn my back on children in Yarls Wood, to ignore the poorest tax payers and forget about the schools but if we don’t drop everything in the fight for PR now, we won’t be able to help them anyway.
The above article is right. And Electoral reform (and a referendum on it) are what Nick should hold out for. Along with the pupil premium.
The Liberal Democrats are the party of democracy, and they won’t rush into this. At the moment they are talking. Nothing as been agreed and nothing will be agreed unless the concessions reached are agreed with the party executive.
People asking for the immediate introduction of STV as a preceondition are simply not being realistic. If that is the precondition for a deal the deal won’t happen. We need to explore other options. I’m intrigued by Danny Finkelstein’s suggestion of parliamentary time to bring a voting reform referendum bill forward but, just as he does, I wonder if there really is a partiamentary majority for reform (which makes Gordon Brown’s promises worthless at this stage) or indeed a majority of the public who would vote for it when push came to shove. I wonder if we shouldn’t be willing to compromise – forget about FPTP for Westminster right now (as I’m not quite certain the country understands it well enough) but agree to STV for the Lords and local government. It would amount to substantive progress for our agenda and we would also get a chance to build a countrywide consensus on PR by demonstrating how and why it works in practice and so effectively ingraining it in the country’s political culture. I truly believe that the momentum for PR in Westminster would be unstoppable in those circumstances and would follow in due course.
I voted Lib Dem to keep the Conservatives out – more fool me, you will lose my support and that of many others by doing a deal with Cameron.
Matthew Huntbach,
Essentially what you offered there was, once again, the reducto ad mandate which is, as Mike and I have said above, flawed.
Also, you say people voting Labservative should have voted for us if they wanted reform, they didn’t and so they must not want it. Again, you logic is flawed. Yes, if they wanted reform, they should have voted for us. They didn’t vote Lib Dem, but it doesn’t follow that they don’t want reform, it means they didn’t want to waste their vote.
Before this election, thousands and thousands actively campaigned for a hung parliament. If that isn’t an expression of the wish for PR and the maturity to handle it, I don’t know what is. We saw absolutely crazy swings all over the country; the electorate knew they couldn’t vote for us so they found an different, unexpected and intelligent way of voting for the same thing. Frankly, we should be astonished by that!
I like to argue as if I’m right and listen as if I’m wrong, so my arguments will be forceful, however, I do read what people say and, if I think they have a point I will happily change my view. You have not presented a logical explanation for why I am wrong so I will, respectfully, maintain my original view. I look forward to you response 🙂
Rod,
I don’t know of many people expecting immediate STV. I certainly use “electoral reform” as shorthand for “a referendum on STV asap and well take it from there”.
***
Incidentally, Anthony Hook’s article here raises an excellent compromise suggestion. Namely, a fully elected Lords with STV in return for, perhaps, just AV in the commons. He makes the superb point that we don’t really need STV in the commons, as long as we have it somewhere. AV would probably be enough to break the FPTP deadlock in the commons anyway.
“Anyone who voted Labour or Conservative was backing the two-party system and the current electoral system . . . anyone who voted Labour WAS voting for a Conservative government if the Conservatives came ahead. If they didn’t want that, they should have voted for us, because we stood for and end to the two party system.”
This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long while, congrats.
I would also like to point out that, considering a vote for a LIb Dem candidate is considered a wasted vote pretty much everywhere, the only way to give the party any power at all was to deliver a hung parliament. Considering the energy put into to achieving that by the electorate before hand and the largely positive view now it has happened, I think we could count many of the votes cast on Thurday as Lib Dem votes, even if they weren’t actually cast for a Lib Dem candidate.
I am a pensioner who has never failed to vote, I now vote Lib Dem because I am a natural left of centre person who likes what you stand for. I was totally opposed to the Iraq war, I don’t want Trident and I do want PR, I’ve always wanted PR since I was a student and we used that voting system in the student union. In the past I have voted both positively for Labour and also tactically for Labour where I have lived in constituencies where a LD vote is very low. I wouldn’t describe myself as an activist, I’m just an ordinary voter who has changed from a Labour voter to a LD. It is quite clear to me that the majority of the country do not want a conservative government. After all the anti Brown hysteria and loads of conservative propoganda, not just from the poodle press but from front organisations that leafleted on their behalf (is this legal – it shouldn’t be?) the majority of this country still voted against Cameron and that needs saying loud and clear – I don’t believe they have any more hidden supporters out there. Any formal deal with the Conservatives would seem to me like a sell out of all the principles I vote for and you say you believe in. I have nothing in common with the Conservatives. Let them try to form a minority government and govern if you don’t want to do a PR deal with Labour and vote for any reasonable measures they wish to enact and vote against them raising inheritance tax thresholds and all the other rewards for the well heeled etc. Have you listened to some of the new Trory MPs – they really scare me – shades of the American neo cons.
There is a dangerous and arrogant presumption taking hold amongst many – with vocal cheerleading from Labour MPs like Ben Bradshaw, that there is some kind of uniform view amongst the 6.8m people who voted Lib Dem that we are in some way part of a previously unstated, undeclared “progressive bloc”. I don’t recall “Lib Dem, part of a progressive alliance with the Labour Party” being on my ballot paper. Or in the manifesto I voted for and campaigned on. I do recall a manifesto full of important priorities which I now believe Nick Clegg and team have a duty to try and deliver on.
I also don’t recall too much evidence of that so called “progressive alliance” over the last 13 years. Now they’re on the ropes, Labour are keen to push it. But for every one of you who has deep seated concerns about an arrangement with the Tories, I am quite certain there is at the very least another one who’d be compeletely outraged by a deal to keep a defeated Labour party in power.
On electoral reform, yes, of course, as a long-time LibDem member and activist I want firm action now. But two caveats. Political reform was only one of the four priorities we put to the British electorate. If it was our only one, we should have been honest in saying that. But it wasn’t. Second, if we want electoral reform, a harder struggle with the Tories could well deliver more than Brown’s referendum now pledge. Because I am absolutely convinced a referendum delivered by propping up Labour would be soundly lost in the face of a ferocious Tory/media campaign highlighting that keeping the Tories out to prop up the election losers is precisely why electoral reform is a bad thing. Conversely, if we can get something from the Tories that goes to a referendum, their need to make a coalition with us work to deliver their programme would massively blunt their argument that electoral reform is a bad thing that leads to weak government.
Finally, we shouldn’t lose sight of how much Cameron needs a deal to save his own skin and to deliver a real programme of the change and reform he wants to see. Nick has a stronger hand than many commentators are giving him. And Cameron a weaker one. But if the self-appointed Twitterati keep trying to pull the rug for under him, we could sabotage our moment of unparalleled opportunity.
In Nick we trust.
I think one thing I should say is this. I believe in a fair democracy. To that end I take the view that STV has the highest priority. We must get it through the next parliament. Even if it means the destruction of our party a fair voting system would be a worthwhile exchange. We have to put the national interest above that of the party and to me that means STV at all costs. A fair voting system lets everyone have the same sat in government and that is why, even if it means unelectability for decades, we must achieve it.
Actually I completely disagree that Proportional representation should be the single biggest issue for the Lib Dems to push.
Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem party has constantly spoken out about the need for politicians to put aside their own parties agendas and work together to find solutions to the real problems facing the general public, much as it hurts to say this, the voting system is not one of the greatest challenges we face, and turning down the opportunity to be a part of a collaborative cabinet/government where the Lib Dems would be in a better position to affect the solutions to critical economic, environmental and social issues would be hypocritical in the extreme.
Turning it down for a better chance to do away with FPTP, which is clearly to the Lib Dem’s benefit, or because they don’t want to be seen to be a part of unpopular decisions is NOT working in the publics best interest; it is almost as selfish as Labour and Conservatives wanting to hold on to FPTP.
If we truly want proportional representation then the best thing that can be done is to lead by example and prove that a balanced parliament, and a mixed cabinet can work, and work well. By being a part of the type of government being fought for, they have a greater chance to convince the public that it is a good and workable idea, which in turn could lead to the general public putting more pressure on the government to call a referendum. By not taking every opportunity to increase the parties influence in parliament, the Lib Dem’s let down everyone who voted for them based on their policies, and send completely the wrong message on why they want electoral reform.
I have to agree with your article, especially in light of all the good that can hopefully come from a coalition Government. I’m surprised that there hasn’t been more discussion about the major transition between generations we are witnessing in the leadership of our country. After 13 long years of Baby Boomer Prime Ministers, and even longer with a Baby Boomer-dominated Parliament, we now have a new generation in charge: Generation Jones…the heretofore lost generation between the Boomers and Generation X. We are likely to now have a GenJones PM in Cameron, and Parliament has now undergone a dramatic shift from Boomer to Joneser domination. In other Western countries in recent years, a lot of media attention has accompanied this Boomer to GenJones transition. In fact, it got so much media buzz after Joneser Barack Obama came to power that The Associated Press’ annual Trend Report named The Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009 in the U.S. I’m very curious to see if a GenJones media buzz happens here like in other countries now that we’ve caught up and had our passing of the generational torch.
This commentary in The Independent this week has a very interesting take on the meaning of Clegg and Cameron’s identities as GenJonesers: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/jonathan-pontell-cleggs-rise-is-the-sound-of-generation-jones-clearing-its-throat-1961191.html
I just love some of these arguments about ‘the electorate wants’. Surely the point is that the electorate doesn’t want one party in power by itself. Once you accept that the rest is inevitable…
Rob,
Putting PR first does not discard all the other priorities and promises, it secures a way to actually deliver them. I find it very hard to believe that will happen with either of the coalitions on offer, although, once we have secured that all important promise, I would be happy to then start working together on the others. Going into the election as a single issue party would have been foolish and disingenuous, after all, those are our priorities and, with PR, they are things we would do.
Alex,
That seems a rather naive view to me – no party offers reforms to make itself weaker. We will not get PR from either of the other two parties while they are strong, our only opportunity is to wring these concessions from them while they are weak. Turning down the opportunity because it would strengthen our own cause may seem noble and a way of lifting ourselves above the muck of the old-style of politics but, frankly, it’s a bit dim. It’s now or never.
Proportional representation will make parties working together inevitable and a diversity of views will be a strength not a weakness. However to get that we need electoral reform, not just more talk about electoral reform.
Ellie, as you’ve said, no party offers reforms to make itself weaker – so why do you think the tories are actually serious about electoral reform? Even if they pay lip-service to the idea initially, they can use their friends in media to attack the idea in any case, and then not support it when it came to a final vote…
As I’m about to blog, I do love this idea that if we push for PR we’ll be seen as only being interested in ourselves and the voters will punish us. The voters already think all politicians are in it for themselves and we’ve just come out of an election where we got 9% of the seats on 23% of the vote, how much punishment would they have to give us under PR for things to actually get worse?!
Ellie. You say “That seems a rather naive view to me – no party offers reforms to make itself weaker. We will not get PR from either of the other two parties while they are strong, our only opportunity is to wring these concessions from them while they are weak.”
I realise that both parties will not willingly do so, and I agree that if we can wring a concession now then that is only a good thing. But if this isn’t possible, to not be a part of a newly formed government, in my opinion, is detrimental to the nation as a whole. If the Lib Dem’s believe in the policies they put forward, that they are the right way to go (as I do), they should, in the nations interest, take every opportunity to make sure they get implemented, even if it’s only partially or in some moderated form. Voting Reform is not something which, like the environment, or the economy, or social inequality, which presents a very real and present danger to our stability. I know it’s important, and I’d love to see PR implemented, and have the kind of coalition government that seems so successful in other countries, but I still feel it isn’t as important as some of the other challenges we face.
And I don’t think it’s naive to assume that should the population truly and vocally want a referendum on the voting system that they won’t be able to put any pressure on whichever government is in power.
Gareth,
It’s not about the voters punishing us, it’s about acting in line with what you say. The Lib Dems and Nick Clegg constantly say you need to put the voters and the public interest first and foremost. I don’t think turning down a coalition to try and push reform is the best way when there are so many other important issues they could influence. If of course it turns out that this isn’t the case either… well, obviously the choice is clear.
First up – I loathe the Tories, always have and always will. I’ve been there on the pavements/doors in Winchester, North-East Fife and host of other places – fighting them (and seeing their lies about us and our policies).
But, above all else, the UK needs a proper Government, with a workable majority – one with the ability to actually govern. We mustn’t end up as another Greece. Short of another election (and no guarantee that would be any more decisive..) the only option is a Lib Dem-Tory tie up.
A once in a generation chance to show the public that coalitions can work. No referendum on PR will be won until people have a positive frame of reference for coalitions. More importantly Nick, Vince could actually drive a strong Govt agenda on climate change, civil liberties, banks, fair tax – and get credit for it. Worth the risk.
The system is broken. The electorate were forced to play all sorts of stupid games, vote swap, vote tactically, vote against their own preference, because otherwise our votes aren’t counted at all.
I don’t believe the Cons got 37% of the vote in a fair election. They can’t advocate FPTP and then also claim share of the vote. It’s one or the other. Until we have a vote under PR we’ve no idea what the electorate want – other than broadly left-leaning co-operation.
You told us to ignore personalities and party allegiances, to vote for principles, and vote for policies. The principles and policies the majority voted for are best represented through a left-leaning alliance.
We’re in danger of shooting ourselves in the foot. Surely we need to be persuading the public that balanced parliaments can work and are a viable system for the future – if we can’t do that then people won’t wote for PR.
If all we do is obstruct and block then parliament will fail and people will just opt to go back to majority governing. Of course we should push for PR, but the reality is that Cameron won’t and can’t offer it, and likewise Labour is not in a position to deliver; there are too many labour mps idealogically opposed to the system – and they are not as rabidly desperate as brown to stay in power.
We need to play a smarter ‘long’ game rather than a short term ‘all or nothing’ approach. Show people that balanced parliaments are a better way to govern and you build the momentum to push electoral reform.
A decent coalition government now with someone we are not usually seen as being in agreement with will be the best advertisement for PR in the future, utterly disarming Cameron and the Tory press’s insistence that coalition is an unmitigated disaster and showing it up merely as a scare tactic to give him the power he feels born to wield.
What people appear to be forgetting is that any decision on PR is likely to be implemented only after a referendum. Even if we do a deal with the Tories, the only thing we really need is for that deal to *exclude* PR in such a way that we are not bound by some collective responsibility to reject it, and then set about working with others to make sure a bill is promoted, even if not by our coalition partners.
But whilst I do hold that PR is of crucial importance, I also think there are other issues, as people like Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan suggested yesterday that change the system is such a way that we might want to worry less about how people get put on the green benches.
If we can work together for example to achieve significant devolution of power to local communities, which is somewhere which, in theory at least both Con and Lib say they are much in favour (and has the advantage, unlike PR of being mentioned in our party constitution) then arguments about how people with very little power get elected (ie Westminster) are less important.
But for those who would resign, never vote again or whatever if we don’t do a deal with Labour I offer this from 101 years ago by a party member:
We should not lose sight of the fact that 77% voted against Clegg, which is an overwhelming mandate to keep him out of office.
If point-scoring and rhetoric are omitted, Labour and Tory policies are identical in most important respects (imperialist war abroad, police state at home, rob the poor to subsidise the rich, etc) so why not a ‘Grand-Coalition’ where Cameron becomes PM with Mandelson as FM in return for whipping recalcitrant Labour hacks into line. Brown and Clegg get deservedly binned, the bankers are happy and the circus continues with hardly a glitch.
Perfect. Now make it so!
Pinter – following your logic, we would have had no prime minister at all in decades. In this election, 77% voted against Lib Dems, 72% against Labour are 64% against the Conservatives,
What a rather excellent, and liberal, suggestion. The civil service can stick around until pay-day if they like, but we wouldn’t really miss them if they all went out and got or created productive jobs before then. Many of the buildings are already owned by someone else who can make sure they are emptied when the rent is not paid.