Very cool, if true

I'm not sure the Lib Dems would go for a coalition unless Labour gave cast-iron guarantees on PR, although a 28:23 split would put Clegg in a position of some strength. Blair made a lot of promises on PR back in 1997, and retreated soon as he saw the size of his majority.

From:

andrewducker

Absolutely. The guarantees would have to be of a referendum within X time period.

And preferably for STV.

From:

I'd also advocate fixed-term governments, with the proviso that an election would be triggered by, say, a two-thirds vote of no confidence in the current administration.

From:

The BBC's estimated projected national vote share puts the Tories on 38%, Labour on 23% and the Lib Dems on 28%, which would be a result I'd be very happy with in a national election, as it would push a Lib/Lab coalition, grounded on a move to PR.

I think that this is the best we can hope for in the national election, as well. I would dearly, dearly love to see this country move to PR, and I hope that if the above occurs then the Liberal Democrats will stick to their guns and insist on PR for any coalition.

The "nightmare" result for me is a reenactment of 1997 but with Cameron instead of Blair at the helm.

From:

After 1997 and Blair's betrayal, I'd be amazed if we didn't play hardball next time.

From:

I don't know. It's a tough choice for any party leader. What if Labour refuse those terms? There's the option, hanging right there, of being closer to power than the Liberal Democrats have ever been in, well, in my politically aware lifetime. I can understand that it would be a temptation.

From:

Ah, I take it you're too young to recall the blinding success of the Lib-Lab Pact?

Nick Clegg is pretty certain to want a proper coalition, especially if the LDs score higher than Labour.

From:

Hehe, I've never heard of it. I'm 27 and only came quite recently to political awareness.

From:

I'm trying to inform myself about it. Do you have any good links describing what kind of promises were made, how they turned out, etc.?

From:

Well the last one was in Scotland not too long ago, dunno if that qualifies as the Lib-dems being in power. It is only the Scottish govt. afterall...

From:

a-pawson.livejournal.com

I think betrayal is a bit too strong a word. Yes, Blair had put plans in place with Paddy ashdown to share power to ensure the Tories didn't form a government, prior to the 1997 election. But once it became obvious Labour were going to win by a landslide, I doubt any politician would have seriously not pulled out of any power-sharing plans.

From:

andrewhickey.livejournal.com

I don't think that was the betrayal referred to, as much as the promises of PR, and the subsequent sweeping of the Jenkins Commission report under the carpet.

From:

Precisely. Blair portrayed himself as a believer in a more democratic electoral system, then ditched his alleged values soon as it became politically opportune.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/

Please see my reply to

andrewhickey.

From:

burkesworks.livejournal.com

Those figures, according to my preferred formula, give a Tory majority of 4 and the Lib Dems 96 seats according to the raw maths.

Trouble is, what of the putative Labour calls for PR now that Alan Johnson has been shunted into the Home Office?

From:

Let's all swing to the Tories, because, y'know, people either haven't noticed all the duck islands on that side, or haven't thought about when all this expenses stuff started.Which would be under Thatcher.
Sometimes I despair of the intelligence of the world, I really do.

From:

There's nothing like finding a way to still blame the Tories ;)

From:

wolfieboy.livejournal.com

Forgive this ignorant American. What does PR mean? I have some knowledge of coalition gov'ts but I'm not familiar with this term.

From:

Proportional Representation - a system of voting where, loosely speaking, if 20% of votes go to a party, that party gets 20% of the power. As opposed to "first past the post" voting, where the party who gets the most votes gets all the power.

Google them for much better definitions than mine. :D

From:

wolfieboy.livejournal.com

Thanks! That helps a lot. I just wasn't looking forward to googling "PR".

From:

It's the democratic alternative to the "first past the post" system, whereby a government can exercise a huge majority in Parliament despite only receiving 30% of the votes cast.

From:

Well that depends on your defintion of "democratic". PR would likely be a big step towards voting for parties and not individuals. It would likely harm independent candidates standing on local issues.

Personally I reckon a FPTP lower chamber and a PR Upper Chamber (plus getting rid of the queen and electing the executive branch of gubmint might be interesting).

From:

andrewducker

PR only increases the importance of parties under some versions of PR. With STV, for instance, it's very easy to vote for independents, as you're voting for people, not parties.

From:

What he said.

IIRC, the Jenkins Commission opted for STV.

From:

a-pawson.livejournal.com

I'm not convinced that breakdown of the vote would result in a Lib/Lab coalition. Not least, because the Lib-Dems tend to fare better local elections, and also never manage to turn their vote percentage into seats.

I'm sure the BBC or someone will do some much more detailed analysis, but Labour won the last general election with only 35% of the popular vote whilst the Tories got an overall majority with just 41.9% in 1992. I'm pretty certain if there were a general election today, we would see a Tory majority.

From:

princealbert.livejournal.com

Small pedantic point but your text above should read LibDems not Liberals. Liberal Party has 2 seats so far in the local elections in England.

From:

andrewducker

Good Lord - I didn't even realise there was still a Liberal Party! Thanks for the correction!

From:

Well it's a new one formed in 1989...

http://www.liberal.org.uk/

From:

(Arguably the Lib Dems do have more right historically to be attatched to the term Liberals)

From: