Nick Clegg has had a very disappointing 24 hours. After a successful performance in the first debate and weeks of Clegg-mania, some pundits before yesterday even went as far as imagining a LibDem majority. And yet, the support Clegg and his party gained in the pre-election opinion polls failed to translate into votes and seats. Ultimately, when they stood at the ballot box, British voters believed all the scare-mongering the two main parties and Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda machine have been feeding them over the last few weeks – the “Vote Clegg, get Brown/Vote Clegg, get Cameron/Oooh, the Markets won’t like a hung Parliament” litany we’ve been unable to escape since Clegg’s triumphant performance in the first debate.
And yet, the electorate did not exactly express confidence in either Labour or the Conservatives, and this morning Nick Clegg found himself in the position he has spent the entire campaign rejecting: the kingmaker. So, despite losing five seats and failing to capitalise on their pre-election popularity, the Liberal Democrats still have everything to play for. They are currently talking to the Conservatives about a fairly wide range of issues to understand where they can find common ground. They may still talk to Labour. Issues that have been mentioned by the various party leaders over the course of the day and the courtship include taxation, defence, the EU (the Tories’ “line in the sand”), education, tackling the deficit, low-carbon economy, the economic recovery and, of course, the elephant in the room that is electoral reform.
So on what criteria should Nick Clegg and the Parliamentary Liberal Democrats base a decision as to who to attempt to form a government with? There are practical issues for a start: Con/Lib would have an absolute majority, Lab/Lib wouldn’t. While chances are that a Lab/Lib government could work, there would be no guarantee that some of the smaller parties wouldn’t try to throw a spanner in the works, especially when it comes to, say, cuts in Scotland or Wales. Another question to consider would be what government positions they can get. Arguably having Vince Cable as Chancellor would do us all a world of good in the short to medium term. Though Lord Kalms has already explained (on PM) in no uncertain terms that no major cabinet positions would be given to the LibDems in the event of a Con/Lib coalition.
We then start looking at policies and manifesto issues, and it very quickly becomes clear that the only thing worth playing for – for the Liberal Democrats and the country both – is electoral reform. Changing Britain’s electoral system to a form of Proportional Representation would be something that would leave a legacy for generations. It would drastically change the political landscape and culture of this country – and for the better. Gone would be the days of tactical voting, the days when a Labour seat is worth 33k votes whereas a LibDem one is worth 126k and a seat for the Greens 200k. Michael “I am a banana” Gove may disagree with me, but any other system would be more democratic than the current one.
Realistically, there is no way for the Liberal Democrats to achieve true electoral reform in a coalition with the Tories. David Cameron’s overtures on the subject were extremely cagey, and it is doubtful whether he can carry the rest of his party with him even that far. A Con/Lib coalition therefore is unlikely to achieve anything significant. It would legitimise a largely Tory government, with largely Tory policies which would severely damage the country socially and economically. It would also get the Liberal Democrats implicated in the savage cuts which will need to come regardless of who’s in power and which are likely to make the party implementing them unelectable for a generation in Mervyn King’s assessment. And it could not achieve anything like true electoral reform.
A Lab/Lib coalition, personality clashes between Clegg and Brown notwithstanding, is a lot more likely to achieve good, lasting political reform. Labour are a lot more open to the idea than the Tories. In addition, Labour and the LibDems are far more natural allies in both economic and social policy. Even if they ended up implementing the necessary budget cuts to tackle the deficit, a Lab/Lib coalition is much more likely to protect the poorest and cushion the worst of the impact. And once PR is through, in about 18 months’ time, they could call a new election. The LibDems would have left a lasting legacy while also making it possible for them to play a meaningful, influential role in British politics for generations to come.
Therefore, the only item on the LibDem shopping list really should be serious, lasting electoral reform; and it should be non-negotiable.
Once we’ve crossed that bridge, of course, the question is how to best achieve the right kind of electoral reform through a referendum. The public is notoriously fickle and referenda are a risky business. Many a referendum has failed because of the way the question was worded. Had it not been for that, for instance, the Queen would in all likelihood no longer be Head of State of Australia.
@norightturnnz over on Twitter pointed me in the direction of the New Zealand electoral reform this morning. A two-stage approach seems like the best way to go about it, as it separates the question of whether we should scrap First Past the Post from the question of what we should replace it with, and thus doesn’t split the pro-reform vote.
I’m getting carried away of course. First we need a government – any government. Ideally, though, it should be one fully committed to comprehensive electoral reform and moving away from FPTP. And just because I haven’t quoted this stat enough today, here it is again:
Number of votes needed to gain one seat in Parliament under the current UK electoral system: Lab: 33k, Con: 35k, LibDem: 126k, Greens: 200k
If that is democracy, Michael Gove is a banana.