Lib-Lab coalition in 2010

[Deleted]

2010 election result being something like this for the 3 main parties:

CON 271
LAB 270
LDEM 60

What would've happened in 2015 if there'd been a LIB-LAB coalition?

[rivers10]

The political landscape today would be utterly unrecognisable. In a nutshell it would have went something like this...

Coalition agreement would have stipulated that Brown had to go and the UK had to introduce PR (no referendum on the issue) the ensuing Lab leadership (and by default Prime Ministerial) contest would have opened up some big internal left/right wounds within the Lab party. Not sure who would have won and ultimately became PM but it doesn't really matter.

Follow a few years of spending cuts (note austerity wouldn't have been much different, one of the Tories greatest acts of spin was abandoning their own deficit reduction plans after they plunged us back into recession and then re-branded Labours plans as their own plan all along) and the introduction of PR rifts within Labour would be growing...

This would have been nothing compared to the divisions within the Tories, Cameron and his modernisation strategy would have been seen as a failure (he would have resigned as Tory leader) and his successor would have almost certainly been unable to reconcile left and right within their own party. With the crisis in the EU, and the introduction of PR UKIP's rise would have been even more prevalent aided by the real prospect of winning large numbers of seats (there would have been dozens of Tory defectors to UKIP me thinks)

Meanwhile similar divisions within Labour would eventually lead to the coalitions collapse as factions within the Labour left (almost certainly led by John McDonnell with Corbyn in tow) breaking away disgusted at their own parties imposition of austerity and further moderated by the Lib Dems.

With the grievances over the EU and immigration still going strong the strongest faction going into an early election would undoubtedly be the much larger and stronger UKIP.

Where things go from that point on who knows???

[mboy]

Not close.

* Labour would have insisted on a referendum on PR, and the Lib Dems would have agreed that. The referendum would have been lost.
* There was never a double-dip recession under the Coalition.
* The Lib Dems would still have been slaughtered at the 2015 election.

[Deleted]

I agree the Lib Dems would still have been annihilated.

Although Clegg would’ve held on far more easily due to the demographics of his seat.

Seats like Cambridge and Leeds NW would’ve been interesting because these had considerable Tory vote shares in 2010. But probably would’ve been lost to Labour with the LDs falling to 3rd.

[timrollpickering]

Mar 9, 2018 14:45:59 GMT mboy said:

Not close.

* Labour would have insisted on a referendum on PR, and the Lib Dems would have agreed that. The referendum would have been lost.

Indeed the Lib Dems, ERS and other parts of the constitutional change sector had spent much of the past dozen years attacking Labour for not holding a referendum on the Jenkins Report or the voting system in general and would have found it very difficult to argue against having one. (This was part of the general strategy fail of the 2000s that led to the mess of the AV referendum.)

Incidentally the figures in the first post imply a Commons with 49 "others". Assuming none of the Northern Ireland parties are included in the big three figures (and in a hung parliament that's not necessarily automatic, particularly as the SDLP's inclusion or not could affect which was the biggest party), that leaves 31 others. The Speaker, 1 Green, maybe 4 Plaid Cymru (assuming they hadn't regained Ceredigion), perhaps Dr Taylor... but it becomes a hard stretch to envisage either 24 SNP or a Ukip breakthrough in 2010.

[Deleted]

If there wasn't a referendum Labour MPs would have revolted and it would have probably failed. I reckon David Miliband probably would have become PM.

[Deleted]

Mar 9, 2018 15:19:33 GMT timrollpickering said:

Mar 9, 2018 14:45:59 GMT mboy said:

Not close.

* Labour would have insisted on a referendum on PR, and the Lib Dems would have agreed that. The referendum would have been lost.

Indeed the Lib Dems, ERS and other parts of the constitutional change sector had spent much of the past dozen years attacking Labour for not holding a referendum on the Jenkins Report or the voting system in general and would have found it very difficult to argue against having one. (This was part of the general strategy fail of the 2000s that led to the mess of the AV referendum.)

Incidentally the figures in the first post imply a Commons with 49 "others". Assuming none of the Northern Ireland parties are included in the big three figures (and in a hung parliament that's not necessarily automatic, particularly as the SDLP's inclusion or not could affect which was the biggest party), that leaves 31 others. The Speaker, 1 Green, maybe 4 Plaid Cymru (assuming they hadn't regained Ceredigion), perhaps Dr Taylor... but it becomes a hard stretch to envisage either 24 SNP or a Ukip breakthrough in 2010.

Okay

Let’s call it CON 281, LAB 280, LDEM 60

[greenchristian]

Mar 9, 2018 14:45:59 GMT mboy said:

Not close.

* Labour would have insisted on a referendum on PR, and the Lib Dems would have agreed that. The referendum would have been lost.

Why so certain that a referendum on genuine PR would have been lost?

[mboy]

For all the reasons that the AV referendum was crushed. The idea that there's a huge number of people out there (and it would need to be a huge number of people) who were in favour of PR but voted against AV is utter bunk.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

I supported AV but would vote against PR.

[greenchristian]

Mar 12, 2018 20:58:55 GMT mboy said:

For all the reasons that the AV referendum was crushed. The idea that there's a huge number of people out there (and it would need to be a huge number of people) who were in favour of PR but voted against AV is utter bunk.

I think the pro-PR vote could easily have been a lot higher than the pro-AV vote was, for reasons not directly related to the change from AV to PR.

Firstly the pro-PR campaign would have been able to put out a much stronger message. The campaign's organisation and strategy would still have been utterly abysmal, but we'd have had a clearer and easier message - instead of "make them work for you" it would be something along the lines of "make everyone's vote count". And the message couldn't have been undermined by the "grubby little compromise" thing, or the way that AV was clearly presented as nobody's favourite system.

Secondly, there was also a notable "punish Clegg for propping up the Tories" thing going on with some sections of the electorate. Those voters would most likely have switched, and the kind of voter who voted in favour of AV but would have wanted to punish the Lib Dems for propping up Labour is almost certainly a lot smaller.

[Deleted]

I wasn't old enough but probably would have voted against it. I'm not sure now but I'm favour of AV+

[thetop]

Mar 12, 2018 20:58:55 GMT mboy said:

For all the reasons that the AV referendum was crushed. The idea that there's a huge number of people out there (and it would need to be a huge number of people) who were in favour of PR but voted against AV is utter bunk.

Not really, when you consider the turnout. It certainly had more likelihood of passing: the same polling showing AV trailing by 10% had the option of PR reducing the lead to 3%. I don't think there was much enthusiasm for AV even amongst those who care about electoral reform, nor did it offer much to unhappy Conservative/Labour voters who'd like to splinter. There was also a temptation to give Clegg a kicking that was unhelpful to its chances.

[greatkingrat]

The problem is there is no such system as "proportional representation" so the polls overstate the support. People may say they are vaguely in favour of a more proportional system, but they don't all agree what that system should be. Once you pick a specific system (whether it is AV, STV, party lists or anything else), you inevitably lose some of the support for "PR" in general.

[timrollpickering]

Mar 12, 2018 22:29:28 GMT thetop said:

Mar 12, 2018 20:58:55 GMT mboy said:

For all the reasons that the AV referendum was crushed. The idea that there's a huge number of people out there (and it would need to be a huge number of people) who were in favour of PR but voted against AV is utter bunk.

Not really, when you consider the turnout. It certainly had more likelihood of passing: the same polling showing AV trailing by 10% had the option of PR reducing the lead to 3%. I don't think there was much enthusiasm for AV even amongst those who care about electoral reform, nor did it offer much to unhappy Conservative/Labour voters who'd like to splinter. There was also a temptation to give Clegg a kicking that was unhelpful to its chances.

You'd need either another 7 million or to switch 3.5 million (more if David is representative of a sizeable pro AV anti "PR" block). That's a pretty huge number.

The turnout strongly suggests that it was almost entirely the politically interested who came out to vote. The idea that there was a significant block of voters who didn't show up for AV but would have come for "PR" is fanciful.

Do you honestly think a PR system would have been immune to criticism of confusion? In the run-up to the referendum on the old forum I wrote a post explaining how surpluses work in STV in Northern Ireland (in the thread on the Republic's election that year if anyone's got access). The response was that even a lot of PR supporters had gone off STV. Or the arguments about the cost of implementing it or the time it takes to count? Remember 2010 was the year Parliament legislated to guarantee declarations in the small hours so spending more for a quicker outcome was established.

[greenhert]

Do people not seem to realise that in parts of Britain, PR is already in force?

Specifically, the London Assembly, the Welsh Assembly, and the Scottish Parliament all use PR for their elections. Their PR system-AMS works very well by allowing both constituency votes and list votes, and it avoids the very long counts associated with STV. PR campaigners need to highlight those bodies first and foremost when campaigning for PR in the House of Commons, and how FPTP is bad for both sides of the political coin depending on location.

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2018 10:47:22 GMT greenhert said:

Do people not seem to realise that in parts of Britain, PR is already in force?

Specifically, the London Assembly, the Welsh Assembly, and the Scottish Parliament all use PR for their elections. Their PR system-AMS works very well by allowing both constituency votes and list votes, and it avoids the very long counts associated with STV. PR campaigners need to highlight those bodies first and foremost when campaigning for PR in the House of Commons, and how FPTP is bad for both sides of the political coin depending on location.

i think we should have stvfor local elections

[timrollpickering]

In London most people barely register the existence of the London Assembly. When the GLA was set up all the emphasis was on the Mayor. It's continued that way with the constituency members a very distant second and the list just a strange ballot paper you get every four years that some voters think is a second preference and certain parties play on that.

And there's criticism aplenty of the AMS system - "two votes", turf wars, "losers can be winners" (e.g. Clwyd West), disproportionate results that require explanation, to say nothing of how it's been exploited abroad by devious politicians (hello Silvio Berlusconi).

Finally the AV referendum was held on the same day as Northern Ireland had a preferential voting election. It still lost there. Don't assume just because some politicians have imposed a system (or bundled it into a package referendum) that voters automatically understand and like it and want it for Westminster.

[The Bishop]

Mar 12, 2018 22:29:28 GMT thetop said:

Mar 12, 2018 20:58:55 GMT mboy said:

For all the reasons that the AV referendum was crushed. The idea that there's a huge number of people out there (and it would need to be a huge number of people) who were in favour of PR but voted against AV is utter bunk.

Not really, when you consider the turnout. It certainly had more likelihood of passing: the same polling showing AV trailing by 10% had the option of PR reducing the lead to 3%. I don't think there was much enthusiasm for AV even amongst those who care about electoral reform, nor did it offer much to unhappy Conservative/Labour voters who'd like to splinter. There was also a temptation to give Clegg a kicking that was unhelpful to its chances.

And that was greatly aided by his previous dismissal of AV as a "miserable little compromise".

[timrollpickering]

There's a lot of assumption here that the referendum would have been on something other than AV. But this seems to pander to the myth that it was only AV because of an offer in the coalition talks and Clegg being a shit negotiator.

This insider account of the constitutional change sector suggests otherwise:

www.libdemvoice.org/what-part-of-yes-do-you-not-understand-26100.html

Return to Jenkins

Rightly, Baston and Ritchie begin their book with a brief overview of the history of electoral reform in the UK. It is a fair summary but there is an omission that is all the more disappointing given the authors' inside knowledge on the subject. Specifically, what the book does not explore at all is the fact that since the Jenkins Report was mothballed by the Blair government in 1998, an emerging consensus had been forming between electoral reformers in Whitehall around AV.

When I first started working for the New Politics Network in 2004 (NPN merged with Charter 88 to form Unlock Democracy in 2007), I was quite surprised at to what degree this was buzzing around within both Labour and Lib Dem circles. At Labour conferences, it was de rigour for reform inclined government ministers to make speeches in favour on AV on the fringe. We would receive almost monthly reports (from some admittedly eccentric circles) about how the government was going to announce its support for the policy any day now.

Inside the Lib Dems, I became aware of quite how keen some Parliamentarians were about damping down party support for STV. When I sat on the party's policy working group for democratic reform in 2006, I was once told that we couldn't expect to introduce STV within a single Parliament because the boundary changes would be so complicated, and would have to settle for AV at first. This was nonsense; even leaving aside the speed at which the current boundary changes are taking place, multi-member constituencies can be easily created simply by combining the existing single-member ones.

But perhaps the most tacit admission that the Lib Dems were geared up for compromising over AV was the party's response to the expenses scandal in 2009. At a time when the mood for reform was at an all time high, Nick Clegg abandoned the party's support for STV in favour of AV+ (indeed, given that this was a clear gesture of compromise, it makes Clegg's later critical comments about AV being a "miserable little compromise" all the more inexplicable).

It was very clear that talks between Labour reformists and senior Lib Dems had been going on and that the groundwork for AV being introduced was being laid. Outside of Westminster however, the number of people privy to these talks were very limited indeed and while it appeared that ERS people and certainly the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform were involved, I've never personally been clear about to what extent this included the staff team.

The hush-hush nature of the talks was almost certainly a response to the fallout following the Jenkins Report which ERS tore itself apart over in the late 90s and beyond. But one of the problems about this lack of frankness was that there seemed to be a lack of strategy. For example, back in 2004 there was clearly a lot of hope that Labour might introduce AV without a referendum and this continued despite a 2005 manifesto commitment not to introduce any change to the voting system without one. Yet this was almost inevitable given that the Lib Dems, ERS and Charter 88 had all been taking Labour to task for failing to hold a referendum on the Jenkins proposals. The divisions within ERS meant that while ERS appeared to be continuing to push for AV behind closed doors, the public position of the organisation became more critical of AV – which predictably became a problem once the referendum became a reality.

(If it reads as if I, as an Unlock Democracy employee, am playing organisational politics here I can assure you I'm not. I've been a member of ERS since 1996 – barring a brief resignation at the height of the Meadowcroft–Russell wars – and have stood for council on three occasions. But the simple fact is that in terms of funding and history, ERS is the main player when it comes to electoral reform and its internal divisions have affected everything else).

By the time the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition talks began in May 2010, so much spadework had been done behind the scenes with Labour on AV that it is no surprise that it rapidly became the only real option. Those of us who had been pushing for an alternative plan such as a Citizens' Assembly followed by a referendum were given short shrift.

In hindsight, the conditions attached to the referendum were such that it was almost certainly doomed to failure. But I would argue that if reformers had done a better job at uniting behind a single strategy before May 2010, we could have potentially got more out of the coalition talks and would have been better placed to fight the campaign when it happened.

(My emphasis. I'll leave it to others to explain the Meadowcrof-Russell wars.)

Some comments and replies from that thread:

Old Codger Chris: When did the Lib Dems – and the ERS – become keen on AV? When it was clear that this was all the Conservatives would concede (combined with the revised boundary rules which were their real prize). I would argue that, since the Tories obviously would not have conceded a referendum on PR, the Lib Dems might have been able to shelve electoral reform in return for some quite different concession, Tuition Fees perhaps?

James Graham: No, Old Codger, that is exactly wrong. My point is that AV was being touted as effectively the only option around Westminster since before 2004.

Whether it *was* the best option was not discussed outside of Westminster. ERS itself was not having that discussion internally; the Lib Dems weren't having that discussion internally. Nevertheless, cross party talks were going on about AV on a regular basis.

It is a complete misconception to believe that it only emerged in May 2010 as the only option the Tories would compromise on. And even if that was the case we are still open to the charge of not doing our jobs properly because it should have been better strategised than that.
...
I didn't just cite Clegg's conversion to AV+; I cited the moves to get the party to adopt a two-stage policy in 2006 and the numerous discussions I kept coming across, with people talking about AV as if it was a done deal.

Regarding Clegg's unilateral dropping of STV in 2009, in any negotiation, you don't voluntarily start giving ground unless you see so ground being given by the other side – something which palpably had not happened at that stage. In May 2009 that hadn't happened. Dropping STV then, paved the way for Gordon Brown to announce the AV referendum 4 months later.

This strongly suggests a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would have gone for an AV referendum as well. In reality the offer of such a referendum, far from outfoxing the Lib Dems, was the Conservatives merely bidding at the going rate.