The Cous-Cous and Caviar Coalition.

Firstly, I do not see AV as a sufficient compromise. It’s not fair and It’s only marginally better than FPTP. The issue of fair votes is at the heart of our ideology and should be at the centre of any negotiations. Like many, I’m angry that this is not on the agenda.

However, we have always campaigned for a cleaner politics and a more grown up and consensual approach to policy implementation by the government, which it now looks like we have got. Because the British political system places so much emphasis on winners or losers and one party government, I think it has been difficult, even for Liberal Democrats, to grasp the idea of a coalition. The truth is, in a coalition you do have to work with other parties and the nature of political parties is such that they each have different ideologies. I am in total shock about how mature the Conservative Party have been with regards to this,  I would have thought any deal would be accompanied by leaked assaults on us in the press. In fact, it was senior Labour figures that couldn’t grasp the concept of working together in coalition for the sake of the national interest.

The natural assumption would be that we formed a coalition with Labour. Firstly it is true that the numbers didn’t add up to ensure a decent majority, It probably wouldn’t have worked even if the nationalists, Caroline Lucas and the Ulster parties could be taken on board.  It would have been in the best interests of the Conservative Party, the right-wing media and some sections of the Labour Party that the coalition be defeated at the first opportunity, indeed the noises coming from the back benches of Labour made it clear that they would vote against some likely policies of the ‘rainbow coalition’ . We would then have had a general election, led by the media telling us that coalitions do not work; we would have lost most our seats in parliament and there would have likely been a landslide to the Tories. We would then have had to kiss goodbye to any prospect of a referendum for PR in our life times, let alone trying to get an electorate to agree to what would be perceived as perpetual hung-parliaments with unstable governments.

The other issue that we should bear in mind, is that the Labour party have never been committed to PR. We would have got AV without the endorsement of the electorate and then a referendum on PR straight after, the electorate would likely vote no to PR as they would have felt that electoral system has already been reformed. Again, this would have ended the prospect of PR within our life-times.

The agreement that was reached between the Liberal Democrats and The Conservatives is one of the most radical platforms for civil liberties that a government has stood on. Let’s get behind the coalition, because if it does not work, the Liberal Democrats are finished and any hope for PR will be gone. We still need to fight for PR and I will continue to do so, both within and outside the party. But, timidly, I still agree with Nick. Lets get to work!

Time For a Grand Coalition?

‘We are in a fast changing situation so don’t jump to conclusions on what you hear. Especially if you hear it from the media or political opponents. ‘ Adrian Sanders MP Blog Saturday 8th May 2010.

The election campaign has proved that some sections of the media cannot be trusted when reporting on the Liberal Democrats, as Sanders says, we should stop jumping to conclusions. All this talk about deals maybe missing the point which is what party is best placed to form a stable government. The ‘rainbow coalition’ with Labour looks unlikely to be stable, the number of parties involved and the fact that the leader of such a coalition will not be in place until the Autumn could lead to it falling at anytime. It would be in the Tories best interests that such a coalition failed and they would seize any chance to bring this to plan.

The option of a Lib/Con coalition at first glance looks to be more stable, but the Tories have a vested interest in making sure a hung parliament does not work. What guarantee would be in place to ensure that the Tories don’t just call another election as soon as the opinion polls swing in their favour? Cameron and the right-wing press could then blame the Liberal Democrats for the failure of the coalition and destroy any chance of PR in the near future.

On the face of it, other than some bizarre statements from Alistair Darling ( Who probably wouldn’t have kept his seat under AV), the politicians are acting in a responsible, mature manner. It would be great if we could see a more constructive debate during a general election campaign and I fully believe PR could help deliver that.

With this apparent willingness to engage and compromise, would a grand Con/Lab/Lib Coalition, with policies decided whip free in parliament be such a bad idea. The results of the election are mainly down to two issues; The economy and the expenses scandal. On both issues there is a broad consensus among all 3 parties.  We should push all other manifesto pledges aside a form a government of national unity with the explicit aim of restoring trust in politics and reducing the deficit for a set term of 2, 3 or 4 years.

The results show that voters dislike all politicians, they do not trust them and they feel they only work in their own interests. A government of national unity would be the only way to address and restore peoples faith in politics.

FPTP Myth 1: It’s Easy to Understand.

One of the perceived benefits of the First Past the Post System is that it is an easy system for voters to understand. However, the last few weeks have proved that this is not the case.

In his book , ‘Free Radical’, Vince Cable describes how he has had to explain, to obviously well read and intelligent people, that their vote does not go into one big pot which is used to decide the political make up of Parliament. Prior to this election, Labour and the Tories have tried to hide the complexities  of the First Past the Post system and have perpetuated this myth. After the ‘Clegg effect’ became apparent, it was hilarious watching the right-wing media trying to explain FPTP and why the Lib Dems would still be third in terms of seats even if we were ahead in the share of the vote. It is something that all of us have continually tried to explain, with people looking at us as if we are stupid when we say that Labour or the Tories cannot win in a particular constituency; ‘oh you mean in the local elections, I’m talking about the general election!’.

An IPOS/Mori poll  conducted before the election suggested that only 30% of voters in marginal constituencies know that they live in a marginal constituency. The whole point of FPTP is that voters in marginal constituencies have the power to eject a government, but if a sizeable proportion of voters (Caroline Lucas was elected by just over 30% of her constituents) do not realise this, then that argument is obsolete.

The truth is, FPTP is so complex and so un-democratic that many voters do not understand it. Whilst telling at a polling station on Thursday in an ultra safe tory seat, a young voter asked me why people are saying that his vote doesn’t have as much worth as that of votes in other areas. It was with considerable difficulty that I tried to explain the system to him. He left, probably not believing that a such a system would even be allowed in a country that is supposed to be a democracy.