An offer of AV

[ajva]

I think the LibDems should go for it. It's not PR, but it's a slight improvement, and a hell of a concession from the Tories. And what's more, if the LibDems turn it down, they'll be seen as putting their party interest first and possibly be punished for that later on.

What do you think?

Comments

[djm4]

I think you're right, but mostly because I don't think we'll get full PR out of this. But if I were Nick, I'd be saying 'multi-member STV as an option, or no deal' and see who blinks first. The fair votes brigade will know they're being sold a dud in AV.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeed. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, though. Nick knows he won't get STV out of this, so surely the only reason he'd take that position would be if he thought a deal was impossible anyway, for whatever reason. But then again, even if that were the case, would he really want to risk being seen as the deal-breaker? After all, if STV is the long-term goal, surely it's in the LibDems' interests to show that coalition government can work?

[lovingboth]

Sod any referendums, I would want an actual Government-whipped bill. The alternative is to have a referendum where most of the Government is actively campaigning for a 'no' vote.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Then we have to campaign for a "yes" vote, yes? And if the British public still votes "no", then that's their choice. It's a big thing; we can't fairly foist it on people - we have to make a good case for it. Which shouldn't be completely impossible, I wouldn't have thought. Particularly because it would be a slight (only slight, mind, I know) move towards keeping the Tories out of majority government.

[lovingboth]

Far bigger things have been done without a referendum. Masstricht, for a start.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

But Maastricht got referendums (referenda??) in other countries in Europe (I was in Denmark when the famous 'no' vote came in), and there was a lot of anger in the UK about us not being offered a referendum.

[lovingboth]

I was actually thinking of Thatcher (!) signing up to the Single European Act - "one of the largest transfers of power from a member state to the European Community" through extension of qualified majority voting in Europe, i.e. giving up the UK's power of veto - without bothering to have a referendum. (Again, the Danes and Irish had one.)

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Ah, OK.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I think a referendum's fair. If the populace don't want electoral reform, I don't think it should be forced on them. But there'd need to be a LOT of public consultation.

[lovingboth]

I am less democratic. Lots of changes get passed without a referendum. Where was the referendum on ending (nearly all) hereditary peers in the Lords, for example? Or introducing non-FPTP votes in Northern Ireland Euro elections decades ago and Euro elections for the rest more recently?

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

Indeed - similarly the choice to use PR systems for the London Assembly and Scottish Parliament. Or even things like changing the constituency boundaries.

(AV+ is also arguably much closer to what we have now than multiple member region systems - although I guess at the moment, it looks like any referendum will be for the latter, given that Lib Dems support STV.)

Having said that, I think that Labour offer a good deal - a bill for AV, and PR with a referendum.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Labour do offer an excellent deal, but that's partly because they can't be certain of delivering it.

[djm4]

I think they can be pretty certain of not delivering it. It only takes a couple of other Labour MPs willing to follow Tom Harris (and there will be plenty), and it's dead.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

The word “progressive” has now been redefined as “willing to barter away everything you campaigned for in return for the chance to be in government, albeit at the beck and call of a party that has spent its entire existence trying to wipe you off the political map”. Who knew?

LOL. OK, I officially love Tom Harris today. And frankly, his objections are good ones, though I disagree with his view that "this would happen every election under PR".

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

*shrug*

Up to you. But Euro elections are a different matter, and almost nobody in the country thought hereditary peerages were a good thing. I think it'd be extremely unpopular to introduce such sweeping constitutional reform without a referendum, and if it were done by a coalition government which hadn't even succeeded in an election, well, I suspect that'd look worryingly undemocratic, and could perpetuate the feeling of frustrated rage a hell of a lot of people already feel about the last Labour government.

[barakta]

This. I would not be happy with AV only as it's not enough of a change. If we're going to go for political reform aren't we better off doing it properly rather than half arsedly which would then mean "Oh we can't change again we did it last year/decade/century".

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Yes, we'd be better off doing it properly. But that isn't going to be on the table, I don't think. What is on the table is something that would make the electorate wake up to the fact that voting change is possible.

[barakta]

One would have to explain how an election works or can work to everyone - annoyingly we never got taught at school as that'd be politics innit...

[djm4]

You have to remember that going into coalition with the Conservatives is likely to make us vanish as a political force for at least a decade, possibly forever. It's not as if any of the other options are much better (although a Lib/Con coalition will probably hurt us most), but we'd still need to get something significant out of this. It really depends what else we're getting out of this. If there's a serious commitment to a greener economy, and a promise not to repeal the Human Rights Act, I suspect Nick might be severely tempted to fall on that particular sword.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

You have to remember that going into coalition with the Conservatives is likely to make us vanish as a political force for at least a decade, possibly forever.

Are you sure about this? I would have thought the opposite was the case.

[djm4]

Yes. The problem is that whichever choice Nick makes, it will always be possible for either Labour or the Tories to argue that they were offering a batter deal which he rejected, and that a vote for Lib Dems is a vote for the other party. And that if he'd chosen them, we could have had voting reform, which will lose him the support of a lot of the Fair Votes crowd.

Whoever he doesn't choose doesn't actually have to *deliver* on any if this, just claim that they would have done. And whoever he does choose will, as the senior partner in the coalition, use the Lib Dems as a scapegoat for every unpopular decision they make, and take the credit for every popular one.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Well, on the other hand, I would say agreeing to the Tories' deal would offer these two advantages:

1) An opportunity to prove that the LibDems are capable of being a party of government, capable of hard decisions, rather than simply being the wishy-washy bunch that a lot of the electorate unfairly think them to be and

2) An opportunity to prove that coalition government can work. As I've said before, if multi-member STV is the LibDems' long-term aim, they have to be able to show that coalition government can work for Britain. Otherwise most people won't want it.

[djm4]

Neither of those opportunities is, IMO, at all real, especially with so few MPs and the prospect that a snap election called will give the Conservatives a majority. If the Conservatives had anything to lose by making a hung parliament look bad, then I'd agree. But they don't - and nor, for that matter, do Labour.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

But the LibDems do - that's my point. The LibDems, paradoxically, have the most to lose if they can't strike a deal. Very few people will want proportional representation in this country if it becomes obvious that coalition governments can't work here. That's the only circumstance under which I can see the LibDem vote utterly collapsing for a generation.

[djm4]

I agree, I just don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to make a deal work - at least, not to make it work well enough that it will be seen to work by the British public.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Is it possible you forget that the British public loves a noble underdog? If the LibDems are seen to strike an honourable deal, but then lose out afterwards, many more people will be on their side than if they're seen to be deal-breakers for the sake of party political advantage, and they'll live to fight another day. Make no mistake: if all these coalition talks end in stalemate or something unstable, the LibDems will be blamed, and coalition politics will be disregarded as a permanent impossibility. Which will be the death-knell of PR for the next 20/30 years.

On the other hand, if they result in a coalition that the LibDems are seen to be betrayed on, there will be sympathy. Enough sympathy to defend the initial negotiating position for later days. Even if it gets the LibDems no further forward today, it won't push them further back in the hearts of the electorate. Unlike if there's no stable deal in the first place. In which case, as I say, the LibDems will get creamed in popular opinion.

And there's always the chance that the deal could work a little better than you expect. One mustn't be completely pessimistic.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

This is a very good point! Thank you for bringing up some perspectives which I hadn't really considered.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Would there be any realistic point to the Tories repealing the Human Rights Act while remaining members of the EU?

[djm4]

Probably not. Wouldn't put it past the fuckers to do it anyway.

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

If people have to go to Strasbourg to enforce their rights, it will be much harder and fewer of them will do it.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Oh, this is true, and I think it'll be substantially more expensive for them, but it's never going to cut that avenue off completely. Additionally, I suspect (I don't know, because I'm waaaaay rusty on EU law & procedure) that remaining as a member state could require us to pass some sort of equivalent legislation in the near future anyway.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Either way, I expect the convulsing carcass of ID cards is toast.

[lovingboth]

I am not convinced by the 'vanishing for a decade' either (especially if there is actually get a change in the electoral system, which I suspect would have to be via government bill rather than a referendum). Obviously it upsets half the activists, but then so would a coalition with Labour.

Either way, it depends on being able to point to actual changes in what would have happened and keeping the HRA does not count.

[djm4]

I'm assuming there will be no substantial change to the electoral system. I can't see one coming out of this. AV doesn't count; yes, it may give different results from FPTP, but it has the potential to be even less proportional.

I think we're going to be very badly hit whatever we do, to be honest.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Hm, I don't know that they should. I'm not sure AV on its own is worth it, really. I think I mostly agree with djm4.

There's no doubt it's a very difficult situation for the Lib Dems. All the options look poor: vanishing as a political force; being frozen out of power (and therefore having little ability to influence policy); losing a vast chunk of grass-roots support for supporting the Tories; losing a vast chunk of grass-roots support for supporting Labour. I don't envy Nick Clegg at all, because he's sure to be viciously lambasted for whatever choice he makes.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Indeed: damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I have to say, though, I'm hugely impressed by how hardball the LibDems are being in negotiations. Got to give them credit for having balls of steel. I hope they don't push it so far they lose everything. But then, that's why I'm not a professional negotiator, I suppose. :o)

Very big balls indeed?

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Sort of like this?

Re: Very big balls indeed?

[ajva.livejournal.com]

A bit like that, yeah. Ha! :oD

Re: Very big balls indeed?

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I thought it was particularly appropriate since the 'balls' keep moving away and then coming back.

Ooh, little bit of politics...

[boxcat.livejournal.com]

Deal with Labour, for the very simple reason that it's the only route which gives us the possibility of a PM named Balls. :)

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Indeed, although given the slender nature of his majority now, I would respectfully suggest that such a deal could be easily...er..castrated, shall we say? ;o)

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

The Labour deal seems much better - AV no matter what, and a referendum on on PR.

As an aside, whilst I'd love PR, I'm glad that other options are being considered. There are criticisms to PR - I disagree with them, but I note a lot of people hold these views. But even for non-PR, I'm not sure there are any good reasons to stick with FPTP rather than one of many better voting systems (although I wonder why no one seems to consider anything other than AV... *mutters* Condorcet)

they'll be seen as putting their party interest first and possibly be punished for that later on.

I think the question is what do Lib Dem voters think - the Lib Dem demand for PR was known before the election, so I think there's a risk at least as many Lib Dem voters will be annoyed if they give into a coalition with the Tories without getting what they ask for in return. Even the Tory offer of AV is only with a referendum, and I fear that will fail if the Tories and the Tory papers campaign against it (especially if it gets conflated with PR). The Labour deal promises AV without a referendum. So yes, I would be very happy to even get AV (and I think the non-two main parties would be helped greatly, due to reducing tactical voting and vote splitting) - but it still seems that Labour are the better deal for that.

There'll be a lot of complaining about "coalition of the losers" and so on, but if this is from Tory voters, it won't harm them anyway. I guess one risk is if a Lib/Lab coalition is less stable, and breaks up before AV can be passed, and a referendum held?

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I guess one risk is if a Lib/Lab coalition is less stable, and breaks up before AV can be passed, and a referendum held?

That is, I think, the major risk for this issue. And incidentally, I'm with you on Condorcet, although we'd need a statute for resolving the theoretical circular issue, unlikely though it may be to occur - but let's be honest, if we can't get STV, we're unlikely to get Condorcet, which is something I've only ever heard seriously favoured by mathematical geeks like you, me and ciphergoth.

I suppose the whole thing comes down to the risks of accepting or not accepting any particular deal. I happen to think that the chances of getting voting reform are no bigger with a Lib/Lab/others pact than with a Lib/Con, pact, but that the latter is more likely to result in a government that would be able to institute more policies that I'd be in favour of, traded off against the risk of the LibDems vanishing into the electoral ether if they're seen to stymie a deal. But let's see what happens; there's no doubt the whole process is bloody fascinating, and very high stakes.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

It was indeed ciphergoth who first told me about Condorcet :) I'm reminded of Nick Clegg's talk to the Take Back Parliament protest, about how electoral systems used to be something that only academics discussed. I have this image of a flash mob of protesters chanting "Condorcet Now!"... But yes, I do agree that it's unlikely to ever be considered. (The last thing we want is vote splitting between different voting methods, so I can happily support AV tactically.)

(There are a few non-Government uses of Condorcet methods I don't know if you know - but yes, they all seem very geeky.)

there's no doubt the whole process is bloody fascinating

Yes, much more fun than a normal election :)

Regarding deals - seeing how things have turned out, I agree that a Labour coalition and their offer of PR didn't seem workable (it would be curious to know what the details were - so far I've just seen Dr Evan Harris tweeting that Labour were only offering their manifesto as the joint programme, and comments elsewhere that Labour MPs would oppose a deal). So I can see a coalition being a lesser evil to either a Tory minority Government on their own, or another election which risks a Tory majority.