Britain faces the grave threat of a Reform-led Trumpist Government in a hung parliament after the next election. Lord William Wallace recently discussed a Labour / Lib Dem / Green Coalition as a potential winning alternative. Many commenters on LDV supported the idea, while recognising substantial difficulties.
Coalition won’t happen unless it is meticulously debated, planned, and wargamed in advance. Here, I seek to start this ball rolling.
A first question: If a larger Party offers a smaller Party the Deputy Premiership, plus a key “Quad” Coalition Governing Committee with 2 members from each Party, is that fair? The answer is no. That’s what Clegg and Cameron agreed in 2010. Cameron, as permanent PM, then ran rings around Clegg, trashing his voting-system referendum and much else, and leaving the Lib Dems the big losers in 2015. Don’t let’s help Labour do likewise.
In Coalition, junior partner/s often get screwed. That’s when they fail to play hardball, accept superficially fair deals which won’t work out that way, and stumble into under-planned agreements with a mishmash of “red” lines which only get overturned. Let’s not do that.
Back in 2010, anti-Tory Lib Dems like myself pilloried Clegg for selling out principles for the sake of Ministerial limousines. In hindsight, that particular criticism was wrong-headed. Power is what matters. When you have power, then you can insist on implementing your principles. Not the other way round.
Spare a thought for the Greens, who might well out-poll Labour, yet win far fewer seats. We need their enthusiasm, idealism, and drive. Frankly, we also need Green supporters to vote tactically, secure in the belief that helping a prospective Coalition partner beat Reform will advance their own cause. How can we persuade Polanski that this will also work well for him? The answer must be – Offer him a decent deal.
Don’t be tempted by the option of saying after the election “Sorry Zack, you only got nine seats, so we don’t want you.” If you leave that option open, Zack won’t play ball. Instead, make quite sure in advance that the Greens – and Lib Dems – will be guaranteed positions of real power. Make a formal public agreement in advance, to apply unless any single Party wins an overall Parliamentary majority.
How can all Coalition Parties be guaranteed a real share of power? Here are my initial suggestions. Please argue with them, rubbish them, point out problems, and float better ideas – because it is consensus we need.
The Irish model, whereby the Parties take turns to occupy the premiership, is one option. A 3-way Coalition Governing Board, e.g. with 6 Labour, 4 Lib Dem and 3 Green members, could be another.
Whatever is done should reflect the true balance of strength between the Coalition Parties, as indicated e.g. by betting odds. It should be finalised at least three months before the election, so that everyone knows what they are voting for.
Difficult? Sure. Too hard? Not if keeping Farage out matters.
* David Allen was a Lib Dem activist for more than 25 years, including being a Borough Councillor and local party Chairman in Rushcliffe. However, he opposed the Tory coalition, and finally left the Party in 2020. Since then, he has been politically independent. He would be delighted to support a centre-left Coalition including the Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1538
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
expats
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
39 Comments
Just an observation – current opinion polls suggest the SNP will achieve at least 40 MPs next election. I know they would neither by invited to join a UK coalition government, not accept if offered, but it is highly likely that Labour/Lib Dems and Greens could fall short of a majority without SNP support. Considering what sort of offer we could make to secure their support after the next election may need to be part of planning.
Good article David. Have you re-joined David? I hope so.
In New Zealand Labour and the Greens signed a memorandum of understanding. Personally I’d rather go into a coalition with the Conservatives than the greens under current leadership.
Joan Summers – Yes, the SNP (and Plaid) are a “wild card” to be reckoned with.
In 2015, Cameron weaponised the SNP “threat”, claiming that Ed Miliband would have to sell out our United Kingdom in order to get SNP support for a Labour Government. This was effective, and also totally cynical. Had the Tories and Labour ended up with equal numbers of seats, with the SNP holding the balance, you can bet that the Tories would have raced to offer the SNP pretty much whatever they asked for, if that would have meant the Tories retaining power.
So, yes, some thinking about how to deal with the SNP and Plaid is needed. But first, let’s concentrate on dealing with Labour and the Greens. And let’s not give Farage and/or Badenoch a stick to beat us with.
If we are serious about this then we should start talking to The Greens at the base, local activists don’t need anyones permission to do that, just approach Greens where you are & see if they are interested. By all means try Labour as well but I doubt that would get anywhere.
Russell: The polls
https://www.markpack.org.uk/155623/voting-intention-opinion-poll-scorecard/
indicate something like Con 20%, LD 15%, Lab 19%, Grn 14%. A CON-LD total of 35% just isn’t anywhere near a winning score. A LD-Lab-Grn total of 48% does look like a winning score.
Further – In most LD seats, the Tories (or Reform) are the main opponent. Lib Dems gain from tactical anti-Tory voting. If a Tory-LD coalition were mooted, those tactical votes would soon peel off and go back to Lab or Green.
Paul Barker – Good point. A tentative initial tie-up between LD and Grn would also force Labour to wake up, take notice, and start to see the case for joining the deal. With LD plus Grn on about 29% playing Lab on about 19%, would Labour still feel happy to go it alone?
David; What about those 500 + seats the Greens and Libdems lost their deposits at the last election. Both parties are irrelevant in huge numbers of constituencies. In those constituencies Labour are hemorrhaging support.
Two things need to be nailed down.
1) Electoral Reform. Not “After a referendum” – either there is reform or there is no deal.
2) No “Group responsibility” with everyone publicly supporting whatever is agreed. The parties must be free to set out their disagreements publicly, as well as their agreements.
Without those two, the junior parties will be trashed from all sides, and we’ll be right back where we started one election later.
Reform have been in favour of electoral reform in the past. That may change if they achieve power without needing it. But what if they offer a coalition and agree to electoral reform?
Or what if Labour agree to electoral reform without a referendum but insist on a referendum to determine the type of proportional system adopted: eg STV vs some form of list system?
The only way a Reform-led coalition is going to happen if the Tories + Reform get more than 50% of MPs at the next election (and if those two parties are willing to go into coalition with each other). If that happens, then it’s pointless us talking about coalitions because the progressive parties won’t have enough MPs between them to form any kind of Government!
It’s probably worth senior LibDems doing a bit of private thinking ahead of time about how a coalition might work, just in case we are in a position where a progressive coalition might be feasible after the election. But formal proposals before an election are likely to annoy too many voters and thereby damage the chances of progressive parties getting more MPs.
“either there is electoral reform or there is no deal”
Now, is that good strategy, or bad strategy?
Well, first of all, the progressive coalition partners have to win an effective majority of seats under the existing system, first-past-the-post. Will it help, if those partners are still dithering about whether they really mean to form an effective coalition government? Will it help, if they are still arguing with each other as they go into the election? Will it help if, instead of talking about their plans to revitalise Britain and keep the racists out of power, they are busy telling the voters about arcane changes to the voting system which will benefit themselves as politicians?
It won’t help, will it? It will only reduce the chances of beating Farage.
What will be much more constructive will be to drive through a pre-election agreement (as per my OP) to ensure that the Lib Dems and Greens gain real power in Coalition, and Labour can’t just do everything their way.
Once that coalition has actually won power, everything changes. Suddenly, Labour will tell their doubters that yes, thank heaven for that coalition we agreed to, it is what enabled us to hold on to a share in power. Then, as for all new governments, the Coalition will falter in the polls. Then, the Lib Dems and the Greens will demand electoral reform. Suddenly, with the 2034 election in mind, Labour too will probably see the advantages of PR.
That’s when to demand PR. When it can realistically be achieved.
This is putting the cart before the horse somewhat, why should we even be willing to join a coalition in the first place rather than work with a minority government.
Coalitions under first past the post will be especially hard on smaller parties as they will be less well represented than larger ones and they can lose a much larger share of their seats than their fall in vote share.
I say no coalitions until AFTER an election has been held under PR.
We should remember we are not unique. We should look how other countries manage (or fail to manage) coalition or minority government situations. As usual with me, Denmark is a useful exemplar, although the nearest party I identify with, Radikale Venstre, is not in the broad coalition of Social Democrats (Labour) Moderaterne and Venstre (pro EU Conservatives)
From a leverage perspective I agree with David Le Grice, no coalition under FPTP only minority government support dependent on constitutional reform including PR.
Reform of the voting system as a condition of support in the eventuality of a coalition may prove problematic as the Lords may well oppose it. They can be weird like that.
As such any commitment to introduce one may fall flat on on its face, no matter how genuine and well intentioned all parties may be.
I wouldn’t put it past the Lords to refuse to pass the bill and claim there was no mandate on the grounds that the largest party (presumably Labour) didn’t have it as a manifesto commitment.
Incidentally, why does the comment system rely on an American English spell-checker? Trump hasn’t yet conquered the UK and it’s irritating having correct spellings underlined as being wrong when typing a comment.
Come to that, why does this site use the .org domain – administered by the PIR in Virginia and under the control of the US authorities, rather than .org.uk which is controlled by Nominet and subject to UK regulation?
1. Green voters already break tactically for us in our winnable seats; we don’t need a pre-electoral agreement with the Green Party for electoral purposes.
2. Greens are out to displace us; Polanski despises us, as do many Green activists. There is no basis for the sort of agreement you are talking about, because the Greens do not want it. Nor do plenty of Lib Dem members, who know how hostile Greens can be locally.
3. We are offering down-to-earth, evidence based policies. The last Green manifesto was pure fantasy; a huge wish-list of expensive promises, with no indication of how this would all be funded. I don’t believe we should link up with fantasists, whether Green, Reform or Your Party.
I
This is all useful thinking about tactics but the first priority is to bring a coherent vision and set of policies AND priorities as to what we want for the country. Then see where we agree or disagree with other parties and have conversations with them about their priorities if they are willing to talk honestly. I suspect the worst thing we can do before the next election is promise to coalition to voters, as opposed to working together on various issues. Those who think that PR is just an arcane change to the system for our benefit, should note the rise in support for PR and therefore the real chance of convincing people it is good for the country. In this age of populism we must not loose site of the effect that can come from campaigning over a long period of time so that people change what they think.
The simple fact is that coalitions in the HoC under current UK rules and regulations simply cannot work for the smaller party and that was clearly demonstrated to our detriment in 2010-2015.
The most obvious of these is Short Money.
Short Money is paid to parties in opposition to to assist an opposition party in carrying out its parliamentary business, travel and associated expenses and for the running costs of the Leader of the Opposition’s office.
As I understand it, we used this money to pay for staff to analyse government proposals (Content of Queens Speech, Bills, Statutory instruments (occasionally), random ministerial pronouncements etc and provide briefs on good Lib Dem responses to them, potential amendments, important parliamentary questions etc.
Short Money is not however paid to the government party as allegedly they have the Civil Service to rely on to do this for them. Whether you believe this or not depends upon how accurate you consider the BBC documentary “Yes Minister.”
However, the sting in the tail was that once we entered formal coalition we were “in government and we lost that money immediately. That was £1.75 million in 2009/10. The consequences were catastrophic.
Good staff who had worked for us for years were unaffordable and many/most of them had to be laid off. Where the money came from to do this I don’t know, perhaps we had funds put aside, or perhaps extra donations came in. However Expertise built up over previous decades was lost for good allegedly replaced by Civil Servant briefings which varied between adequate (ish), insufficient and untimely, poor, to positively suppressed (the Home Office particularly).
Labour and the Conservatives of course are used to this and either make use of secondees) from like thinking think tanks, consultants, American healthcare companies etc, or employees obtained from and returned to unions, think tanks, businesses wanting a person with contacts in the new government etc.
We don’t have that at the time and apparently we hadn’t thought of it or if we had, it wasn’t mentioned very clearly when we voted for it.
We must not forget it again.
Thanks David Evans for raising the issue of Short Money. I agree that it would have to be resolved to make a progressive coalition viable.
I don’t much like “red lines”, but this would be an exception. Lib Dems and Greens should insist that the rules be changed, as soon as a progressive coalition takes office, to retain Short Money for governing parties. Once you are the government, you can do these things! And the cost – £1.75 million – is the smallest of small change as far as the government budget is concerned. It’s about 0.0004% of that budget.
Let’s not have to say in 5 years time “Sorry Britain, we had to let Farage take over, expel all the non-whites, and join the US. We couldn’t form a strong united opposition, because of the Short Money problem.”
Nigel Jones: “Those who think that PR is just an arcane change to the system for our benefit, should note the rise in support for PR and therefore the real chance of convincing people it is good for the country.”
Good point.
Adam: “Reform of the voting system as a condition of support in the eventuality of a coalition may prove problematic … Any commitment to introduce one may fall flat on on its face”
Also a good point. Making a big commitment which then falls over could be a sure-fire way to make a governing Coalition fall apart. That we must not do!
Personally, I would want to scrap FPTP, though I also distrust “pure” PR systems such as Israel’s, which give too much power to small fringe parties.
I don’t think a prospective progressive Coalition should PROMISE voting reform. I do suggest that – if it could be agreed – an advance promise could be made to hold a constitutional convention, agree a best reform option, and then hold a referendum to approve or reject the change.
David le Grice: “Why should we even be willing to join a coalition in the first place rather than work with a minority government.”
Well, that’s what Steel did with Callaghan. Steel had even less power in that arrangement than Clegg had in the Tory Coalition. At least Clegg could claim some Lib Dem policy achievements, if not nearly enough.
“Coalitions under first past the post will be especially hard on smaller parties”
True, that has often been the case. But why accept a coalition agreement which benefits Labour and screws their coalition partners? Can’t Labour’s prospective partners learn to stand up for themselves, and say “OK Labour, if you don’t want to be thrown out at the next election, this is what you must give us”?
In my OP, I suggest some ways to do that. I’m hoping someone will comment on those!
Our constitution still requires a special conference for a coalition government. Of getting two thirds support for an agreement.
This party is making a big mistake if it continues on this left path. There is a need for a proper centre to centre right party in this country. We should be moving right not being centre left.
I for one would vote against any coalition with the Greens or the SNP.
The problems of this country and not going to be solved with a coalition with those who want to tax the rich more.
One third of our voters in 2024 voted for the Tories in 2019. It just opens up the door for the Tories to moderate and wipe us out in most of our seats.
Re the Irish rotating Taoisigh, that only applied from 2020 onwards as FF and FG were virtually level in seat numbers after counting, and while the gap was extended in 2024, it wasn’t so to a numerically significant degree, so unless Labour and the Lib Dems are almost neck and neck (say 200 vs 180), then Davey would have little realistic claim to a stint in No 10. Generally, the practice here has been that coalition partners, either current or prospective, all campaign as individual parties on their own manifestos, though the various groupings on the left and centre-left have promoted a mutual transfer policy in recent years, thereby maximising their collective seat return. That wouldn’t prevent (as suggested by numerous contributors here) a plank of shared principles to present before voters, in order to indicate which parties would be mutually compatible.
Owen Driscoll: “There is a need for a proper centre to centre right party in this country. We should be moving right not being centre left.”
You do have a point there. The old Ken Clarke / Michael Heseltine / David Gauke “sensible” Conservative Party has disappeared. Today’s Conservative Party is almost as obsessed with immigration and race politics as Farage is. So yes, there is potentially a gap for a moderate right-of-centre party.
But if such a party existed, what would its ambitions be? In an even more crowded field, its chances of single-handedly winning a majority of seats would be nil. It would have to work with other partie(s).
One option would be to work with Reform, maybe alongside the very diminished Badenoch Tories. Would you really want that?
The other option would be to work with Labour and perhaps also the Greens. Wouldn’t that be – even from your centre-right perspective – a rather better option?
Nigel Jones: “This is all useful thinking about tactics but the first priority is to bring a coherent vision and set of policies AND priorities as to what we want for the country. Then see where we agree or disagree with other parties and have conversations with them about their priorities”
Completely agree. See for example the article by Wallace (link at beginning of OP) which addresses what a coherent vision might look like for a progressive coalition. That needs to be developed alongside the tactical and strategic questions, which do also have a lot of bearing on what policies and priorities could be practicable.
“I suspect the worst thing we can do before the next election is promise to coalition to voters”
Disagree.
I can understand a concern that a coalition could risk being a disorganised or unambitious government. That’s why I advocate planning and making an outline agreement before an election.
Then – Sure, the card-carrying activists for a specific Party generally dream of single-Party rule, and think of a broader alliance as being very much second-best. Most non-activists, I suggest, would think quite differently. Very few non-activists nowadays have fixed party loyalties. Many would like to see Polanski’s ambition, but tempered by Reeves’s fiscal prudence. Many would like to keep Labour in power, but with Davey empowered to jolt Labour out of their complacency and austerity-lite policies.
The Lib Dems won’t win alone. A progressive Coalition might very well win. With (as you emphasise) the right policies and vision!
Paul Culloty: “unless Labour and the Lib Dems are almost neck and neck (say 200 vs 180), then Davey would have little realistic claim to a stint in No 10.”
Thank you for engaging with my OP. The UK doesn’t, however, need to follow the Irish exemplar precisely. As you say, the idea of a rotating premiership followed a near dead-heat between FF and FG in Ireland. In the UK, a similar deal would need to be struck in advance, as a condition for rescuing Labour from oblivion and offering them a coalition.
If that idea is considered too difficult, mightn’t that really mean an acceptance that the Lib Dem and Green Parties are little more than glorified talking shops, and that the only real alternative to the Right is Labour Government? Isn’t that a counsel of despair?
Admittedly, it’s very arguable that right now, Labour are just psychologically unprepared to accept that they are going to need a coalition in 2028-29. Right now, many Labourites are thinking “Sure, Keir has made a pig’s ear of this! However, when we replace him with Weshabana Burnham, who has the gift of the gap, magically we’ll be able to turn all this around!”
Not an unreasonable comfort blanket for Labourites. But, fast forward to 2027, and we can expect Labourites to be saying “Oops, it didn’t work! They’re now all singing that Weshabana is a winker (or somehting like that.) We’re still way behind Farage! That election is looming! Help! Lib Dems! Greens! Fairy godmothers! HELP!”
Let’s plan for 2027.
“Gab”, not “gap”. Duh!
I wouldn’t rule out some kind of arrangement with any Conservatives who gave unequivocal commitment to new military and economic alliances with the European states, Canada and Australia, an urgent increase in defence spending and pushing on with net zero as quickly as possible.
A national government may be necessary.
A commitment to ECHR would also be a good idea.
Mick Taylor (on an earlier thread):
https://www.libdemvoice.org/coalition-government-again-78907.html#comment-609547
Good post. You make a strong case for making STV a precondition of any coalition with Labour. Against that, there are the practical difficulties I have discussed above, the fear that a campaign to prioritise more tinkering with electoral systems could be a vote-loser, and the fear that demanding STV will just empower the worst tribalists within Labour to say “No deals”! In other circumstances, Lib Dems might reasonably say “well, beggar off then!” But with Farage waiting in the wings, would that be right?
So Mick, I’m slightly inclined to accuse you of letting your heart rule your head – But perhaps that’s unfair.
Perhaps a good strategy might be:
1 – Get Lib Dems and Greens talking to each other. Scare Labour with the possibility that even a limited arrangement – e.g. to stand a single candidate in vulnerable Labour seats – could hurt Labour badly.
2. If and when Labour get close enough and scared enough about the next election, offer them a coalition lifeline, on favourable terms. (Don’t try doing that yet, Labour will just ask too high a price, they aren’t yet scared enough!)
3. Decide at that stage whether a demand for immediate STV legislation would be the right option. Think hard about whether a recipe for guaranteed real power-sharing in Government might not be the higher priority.
I despair. Coalition and work with the Greens. Please forget all this, do we never learn.
We can be the Opposition much sooner than we think if we strive forward ourselves not going on about working with x and y. Let us demonstrate real self confidence.
There is an alternative , unless there is a complete melt down Labour at the next general election they will still have a majority of the seats, if our aim is to keep Reform and a rag bag of Tories out of power then the option of supply and confidence should be considered .
Theakes,
There is a fair chance that in three years time, the balance of voting opinion will be quite similar to now. Then Farage will only be beatable by a well-organised and prepared progressive Coalition. There is also a fair chance, as you imply, that the balance of voting opinion will have changed considerably. In that case, the ideas I have promoted will be in th bin – Such is life!
Farage might implode. Labour might sack Starmer and stage a recovery. Or, as you suggest, Labour might continue to plummet.
But if Labour lose most of their seats, I don’t see the Lib Dems picking most of those seats up – do you? They would probably fall to Reform.
So yes, it’s a plausible scenario that the Lib Dems could become the Official Opposition on (say) 80 seats, slightly ahead of the nationalists, facing a baying mob of Reform MPs jubilantly fomenting race riots from the Government benches. Is that really an outcome to be prized?
I would analyse the situation differently: If in 3 years time, the balance of polling is similar to now, then what will actually beat Farage is tactical voting by people who don’t like Reform. Recent history shows that a lot of people are very willing to vote tactically against the Tories – and considering that a large number of progressive voters seem to fear/dislike Reform even more than they dislike the Tories, it seems highly likely that people will also vote tactically against Reform. If that gives Labour/LibDems/SNP/Greens/Plaid between them a majority MPs then all that’s required to prevent Farage forming a Government is a confidence and supply arrangement with the largest ‘progressive’ party. There’d no need for an actual coalition.
On the other hand, if tactical voting isn’t enough to stop the Tories + Reform getting a majority in Parliament, then any talk of any progressive coalition is dead in the water because there won’t be enough ‘progressive’ MPs.
Either way, coalition is irrelevant to stopping Farage.
Simon,
You’re right. Tactical voting will probably be crucial to stop Farage. But how do we make sure that it will happen? All too often, a lot of noise is made about persuading people to vote tactically, but except at byelections, very few people actually do vote tactically.
That’s why Coalition can be a game-changer. Right now, for example, the Greens dream of supplanting Labour, so they wouldn’t for one moment think of voting Labour to help beat Reform. But what if that changed, and Polanski was able to tell his members “We’ve made an agreement, and if the Coalition parties win an overall majority, I’ll be the Energy Secretary? Further, our 3-way Coalition Governing Board, with 6 Labour, 4 Lib Dem and 3 Green members, will make sure we Greens get a fair share of power”?
I think the problem with that kind of agreement (pre-election) is that, whilst there are some ‘progressives’ who will happily vote for any anti-Reform party, there are others who are committed to only one party: There are likely to be a fair few Green supporters who would never vote LibDem (or Labour), and vice versa. Some of those people, in the event of a coalition agreement, would not bother voting because they can’t stomach one or other of the coalition partners. There’s a particular danger for us because the Greens have become so extreme under Polanski and Labour so unpopular under Starmer that we would certainly lose a lot of votes if we entered a pre-election coalition agreement with either. (I myself would be much less enthusiastic about campaigning for the LibDems if they were allied to Polanski). It would also be an open opportunity for the Tories and Reform to exploit. I can just imagine their leaflets… ‘If you vote LibDem you’ll get (Insert the most stupid thing Polanski has recently said)‘
The risk is therefore that tactical voting by those people who will vote for whoever to keep Farage out would be cancelled out by the people who will refuse to vote for a group that includes whichever progressive party they dislike. Because of that, you could easily end up actually letting Farage in rather than keeping him out.
Simon,
Well – Yes, in a Reform / Labour marginal seat, quite a lot of Green supporters would still vote Green, even if there was a strong coalition agreement in place between Labour and the Greens. However, some Green supporters would, no doubt, be prepared to switch tactically to vote Labour. And there would surely be more such switchers in the event of a formal coalition agreement. So, coalition would increase tactical voting, not reduce it.
Your second point, that some Lib Dem supporters could be upset by a coalition with either Greens or Labour, is a little stronger. However, what do we imagine such a discomfited Lib Dem supporter would decide to do? Vote Reform, just to show how upset they were? Surely not. Vote Labour, if it was the Greens they specifically didn’t like? That doesn’t make sense either. Vote Tory? Well, that might have been an option if (say) Sunak had still been around, but with Badenoch aping everything Farage says, I can’t see many defections that way. Overwhelmingly, I’d suggest, those slightly discomfited Lib Dems would just grumble a bit and then vote Lib Dem anyway.
They might, indeed, even be reasonably happy with a formal deal guaranteeing the Lib Dems a real share of power. They might, in fact, be more worried if there were no deal in place, as that woul leave the Lib Dems more vulnerable to domination by Labour in the event of a hung parliament and the need to cobble together a bad rushed deal to stop Farage.