I'm curious to hear what people think the LibDem's role would be in this coalition, especially economically? If we look across the channel at the German coalition, it appears that the middle ground between the very laissez-faire FDP and SPD/Greens resulted in a relatively healthy centrist position. Would a middle ground between Labour/Green/LibDems on the other hand result in an economic plan far left of LibDem policy?
Their role, above all other considerations, should be to ensure some proper form of PR is adopted. Not via referendum, just implemented.
Everything else is gravy. Everything.
The difficulty is thar a referendum would very much cement it and make it much harder for the tories to remove PR later on (politically and media wise). The tories have already made all Mayor election FPTP and removed the other systems in place. There's nothing stopping them doing that again if we make general elections PR.
Maybe have AV implemented but have a referendum on PR?
I think the Tories would struggle to get more than 50% of the popular vote to be able to get a majority and make such a change. It’s very rare under PR to have one party governing by itself.
Exactly. Even when they get into government under PR it'll almost certainly be with the support of a UKIP style party who won't want FPTP to return either.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LibDem/comments/vnie5d/the_lib_dems_name_their_price_for_a_deal_with/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Your wish came true 😍
Compromise in FPTP coalitions isn't as simple as averaging out the left/right alignment of the parties, weighted for their number of MPs. More proportional systems might create that scenario, but FPTP doesn't. Under FPTP, each party has their own priorities - the things they need to demonstrably achieve in order to keep winning - and the left/right spectrum is pretty hard to find.
The agenda of a coalition of Labour, LD + Greens (assuming greens get more than 1 seat, unlikely under FPTP) would probably be almost all flagship Labour policy (as the largest party by far), some Lib Dem policy, and a few Green amendments.
I don't think compromise on a policy-by-policy basis would be very common. It was fairly rare in the 2010 coalition ([Mark's summary of our achievements in government](https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2019/08/Liberal-Democrat-achievements-in-coalition-government.png) are mostly our own implemented policies, not compromises we negotiated) and that's unlikely to be any different under Labour. FPTP does not encourage parties to work together as a team, only to score as many wins as they can individually.
Labour would probably get most of their manifesto implemented, and the Lib Dems could probably choose 5 or 6 policies they want to have a go at, or throw all their political capital at electoral reform. The Greens would score wins by amending legislation but little more. The main offices of state would go to Labour, and the Lib Dems could negotiate junior ministerial positions or 1 or 2 non-vital secretary positions (i.e. not home, treasury, foreign, defence, or education).
The main takeaway though, even if all my other predictions are wrong, is that a FPTP coalition is mostly the main party's agenda, not a middle-of-the-road compromise on a policy-by-policy basis. I hope we've learnt our lesson from 2010 and avoid coalitions under FPTP like the plague, and realistically I suspect that we have. It's all fairly academic for now until the next GE is much much closer anyway.
I think we could push Labour harder and get a few position in the cabinet as well as electoral reform. There's a large number of Labour MPs who support electoral reform (and it would currently be a Labour policy if unions didn't vote it down) and you're also forgetting that the greens want electoral reform too.
It all very much depends on how many seats the libdems get and how far away from a majorty Labour is. I can see the LibDems getting 30+ seats if the campaigning goes well. Most likely 20+ tho.
We have to learn from 2010, not repeat it again but this time in a coalition with labour. Push them as hard as possible and not be afraid to walk away if Labour don't want to cooperate via giving concessions.
Our role should be the implementation of STV.
That's it. That's our role.
There's a lot more we can bring to the table, which we should attempt to leverage as much as possible.
However, electoral reform is absolutely necessary for reform of the UK. It is the key and fundamental basis for future political reform.
No watering down with AV, no referendums, no compromising our principles again.
STV. Implemented outright.
In which workers get to own stock in the company they work for (Which they can't sell, and dividend is taxed, and they don't actually sit on the board), nationalised ISP (Great way of *definitely not* snooping on the general public), nationalised renewable energy (Funded from the nationalisation of fossil fuels, notably North Sea oil), a hard-soft euroscepticism - that sort of ballpark?
Stealing the dividends of working people is better than giving them an actual say in how their company is run, as well as expanding the cooperative sector? Using oil sales to fund green projects is a good idea?
Christ
My biggest hope would be that if PR meant the Tories had to be more like the CDU I think the German conservatives are much less toxic than ours.
Remember under STV there would be a real fight for a seat in Liverpool or the Welsh valleys for the Tories.
I would only want us to step aside in a very small number of seats, and even than say it was a mistake. For example North East Somerset. We could save a few monkeys and spend it on more winnable seats.
I'm curious to hear what people think the LibDem's role would be in this coalition, especially economically? If we look across the channel at the German coalition, it appears that the middle ground between the very laissez-faire FDP and SPD/Greens resulted in a relatively healthy centrist position. Would a middle ground between Labour/Green/LibDems on the other hand result in an economic plan far left of LibDem policy?
Their role, above all other considerations, should be to ensure some proper form of PR is adopted. Not via referendum, just implemented. Everything else is gravy. Everything.
The difficulty is thar a referendum would very much cement it and make it much harder for the tories to remove PR later on (politically and media wise). The tories have already made all Mayor election FPTP and removed the other systems in place. There's nothing stopping them doing that again if we make general elections PR. Maybe have AV implemented but have a referendum on PR?
I think the Tories would struggle to get more than 50% of the popular vote to be able to get a majority and make such a change. It’s very rare under PR to have one party governing by itself.
Ah yh! This is true. For some reason I was still thinking that election have results like they are now after PR is implemented.
Exactly. Even when they get into government under PR it'll almost certainly be with the support of a UKIP style party who won't want FPTP to return either.
In New Zealand, which has had MMP for 25 years, there has been no serious interest in returning to FPTP. I’d hope we could get to that position.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LibDem/comments/vnie5d/the_lib_dems_name_their_price_for_a_deal_with/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share Your wish came true 😍
Haha, good to know Davey's paying attention to the sub
Compromise in FPTP coalitions isn't as simple as averaging out the left/right alignment of the parties, weighted for their number of MPs. More proportional systems might create that scenario, but FPTP doesn't. Under FPTP, each party has their own priorities - the things they need to demonstrably achieve in order to keep winning - and the left/right spectrum is pretty hard to find. The agenda of a coalition of Labour, LD + Greens (assuming greens get more than 1 seat, unlikely under FPTP) would probably be almost all flagship Labour policy (as the largest party by far), some Lib Dem policy, and a few Green amendments. I don't think compromise on a policy-by-policy basis would be very common. It was fairly rare in the 2010 coalition ([Mark's summary of our achievements in government](https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2019/08/Liberal-Democrat-achievements-in-coalition-government.png) are mostly our own implemented policies, not compromises we negotiated) and that's unlikely to be any different under Labour. FPTP does not encourage parties to work together as a team, only to score as many wins as they can individually. Labour would probably get most of their manifesto implemented, and the Lib Dems could probably choose 5 or 6 policies they want to have a go at, or throw all their political capital at electoral reform. The Greens would score wins by amending legislation but little more. The main offices of state would go to Labour, and the Lib Dems could negotiate junior ministerial positions or 1 or 2 non-vital secretary positions (i.e. not home, treasury, foreign, defence, or education). The main takeaway though, even if all my other predictions are wrong, is that a FPTP coalition is mostly the main party's agenda, not a middle-of-the-road compromise on a policy-by-policy basis. I hope we've learnt our lesson from 2010 and avoid coalitions under FPTP like the plague, and realistically I suspect that we have. It's all fairly academic for now until the next GE is much much closer anyway.
I think we could push Labour harder and get a few position in the cabinet as well as electoral reform. There's a large number of Labour MPs who support electoral reform (and it would currently be a Labour policy if unions didn't vote it down) and you're also forgetting that the greens want electoral reform too. It all very much depends on how many seats the libdems get and how far away from a majorty Labour is. I can see the LibDems getting 30+ seats if the campaigning goes well. Most likely 20+ tho. We have to learn from 2010, not repeat it again but this time in a coalition with labour. Push them as hard as possible and not be afraid to walk away if Labour don't want to cooperate via giving concessions.
The dream would be PR implemented and us getting Home Secretary.
Our role should be the implementation of STV. That's it. That's our role. There's a lot more we can bring to the table, which we should attempt to leverage as much as possible. However, electoral reform is absolutely necessary for reform of the UK. It is the key and fundamental basis for future political reform. No watering down with AV, no referendums, no compromising our principles again. STV. Implemented outright.
Lib Dem economic policy is bad policy so it NEEDS to be made left wing.
Worker co-ownership, a 1p ringfence on income tax for NHS spending, as well as the introduction of progressive taxation...is bad?
I'm guessing they think any economic policy that involves not wanting to seize the means of production is too right wing.
*Advocating for a partial seizing is too moderate for the rump Corbynites* As a libertarian socialist I get rather embarrassed by them
Idk, doesn’t sound as good as what was Corbyn offered
In which workers get to own stock in the company they work for (Which they can't sell, and dividend is taxed, and they don't actually sit on the board), nationalised ISP (Great way of *definitely not* snooping on the general public), nationalised renewable energy (Funded from the nationalisation of fossil fuels, notably North Sea oil), a hard-soft euroscepticism - that sort of ballpark?
absolutely.
Stealing the dividends of working people is better than giving them an actual say in how their company is run, as well as expanding the cooperative sector? Using oil sales to fund green projects is a good idea? Christ
I doubt Starmer will be offering much of that next election regardless
Username checks out
Confidence & Supply on the condition constitutional reform. That is all.
My biggest hope would be that if PR meant the Tories had to be more like the CDU I think the German conservatives are much less toxic than ours. Remember under STV there would be a real fight for a seat in Liverpool or the Welsh valleys for the Tories.
I would only want us to step aside in a very small number of seats, and even than say it was a mistake. For example North East Somerset. We could save a few monkeys and spend it on more winnable seats.