Ming has begun preparations for coalition talks

In an interview for The Times, LibDem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has revealed that his chief whip, Paul Burstow, has been given the task of reporting on how coalition talks should be conducted.  In addition he told The Times that the price of doing a deal with Gordon Brown would be a firm commitment to proportional representation for Westminster.  A poll of Tory activists by this website recently revealed that a promise to hold a referendum on PR for Westminster would be “unacceptable” to 67%.

The LibDem leader's interview pointed to negativity towards the Tory leader.   He said there was no personal chemistry between the men and continued:

“I noticed that Mr Cameron was saying we should let people stand up at Premiership football matches. You slightly wonder, if someone sent him a petition saying that the Earth is flat, would he say that this is a proposition that required careful scientific analysis.”

Sir Menzies' intervention comes after a number of disappointing poll numbers for his party.  A YouGov survey and yesterday's Communicate Research poll both put the LibDems on just 17%.  ConservativeHome's overall poll of polls has the party down to 18%.  Iain Dale thinks that Ming has made his first significant mistake with this talk of coalitions:

"Now that he has discussed the subject once, the media can be forgiven if the question is repeated again and again. It's a legitimate subject for debate. The polls currently point to a Conservative victory, but I think a hung Parliament is by no means beyond the realm of possibility.  By even mentioning the possibility of a formal coalition, Sir Ming has opened a Pandora's Box."

Comments

[HF]

Confirms my view that Ming and Gordon have already agreed a deal in principle.

[William Norton]

I'd be surprised if Gordon has reached a deal, in principle or otherwise, with Ming: you may recall, Gordon tends to have bad luck with such agreements; and if there was a deal Ming's probably forgotten what it was anyway....

[Richard Hyslop]

If yesterday's opinion poll in The Independent were to be the out come at the next general election then the Tories would be returned with a 100 seat majority! The Lib Dems on the other hand would be reduced to only 17 seats!

Since Ming became leader their poll ratings have fallen dramatically. If certain Lib Dem MPs have their way Ming may not even be leader at the next general election.

The Lib Dems are a joke and Ming has done them no favours with this interview. All he has done is make them look arrogant.

[DavidDPB]

Go back to your homes, and prepare for government.......

[comstock]

If yesterday's opinion poll in The Independent were to be the out come at the next general election then the Tories would be returned with a 100 seat majority! The Lib Dems on the other hand would be reduced to only 17 seats!

On the other hand the poll of polls says hung, with conservatives 27 short of a majority.

I can't see the Liberals going as low as 17, myself, because they pick up a lot of tactical and protest votes which don't figure in the polls.

[Valedictoryan]

This is yet more reason to unite behind David Cameron and make sure we win an outright majority.

[Michael Rutherford]

I would be very surprised if Labour or the Conservatives would promise proportional representation in the House of Commons. Why would it ever be in our interests? Would we really give up our chances of getting a future majority just so that we can get in government in the short-term? Not a chance in my opinion.

It would be hard to imagine the Lib Dems making anything other than losses at the next election, they are not in a strong position. Yes, they might be able to get into a coalition on something involving green issuesm but it is hard to imagine them changing either party's direction.

I think the bit about Cameron being populist is simply hilarious. Can anyone remember a time when the Lib Dems weren't didn't decide their policies completely on the basis of opinion polls?

[Michael McGowan]

Surely the point is that Labour has less to fear from PR than the Tories: the Lib Dems are a leftwing party, often more so than Labour, and Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell are just two more social democrat MPs. The aim of both Labour and the Lib Dems is what it has always been since 1997: to use constitutional change to turn the UK into an indelibly leftwing country....another Sweden if you like. The Tories have never seemed to have a convincing strategy to counter this.

[comstock]

would be very surprised if Labour or the Conservatives would promise proportional representation in the House of Commons. Why would it ever be in our interests? Would we really give up our chances of getting a future majority just so that we can get in government in the short-term? Not a chance in my opinion.

You could be right. If Ming won't budge on PR, don't rule out the party with the most seats opting for minority government, possibly with support from any MPs elected for the DUP/UUP/SNP/PC/RUC/SDLP/MRLP (and any other intials they can get their mitts on :D) then calling another election later.

And don't totally rule out the grand coalition either.

[comstock]

Surely the point is that Labour has less to fear from PR than the Tories: the Lib Dems are a leftwing party, often more so than Labour, and Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell are just two more social democrat MPs.

You forget the fact that ultimately polticians want power, and are relucatant to give it away.

[George Hinton]

PR would be too great a price to pay for a coalition, even Gordo's not going to swallow that one.

[Praguetory]

Ming is desperately scrabbling around for a way to make his mark. It's pathetic. We should work on the assumption that Ming and Broon will coalesce. Having made that assumption, it makes sense to be nice to right-wing Libs and to ram home the message with the electorate that a vote for the Libs is a vote to keep Labour in power.

[Michael McGowan]

Comstock, isn't the point that Gordon Brown wants power for himself in the short term? He doesn't want to be Jim Callaghan Mark II. If PR is the price for that, so be it. In any case, Labour and the Lib Dems essentially agreed in the early years of this Government that if necessary, they would push the AV version of PR which maximises the left's electoral advantages at the Tories' expense.

[Richard]

Why is it always PR? Why isn't there another totemic Lib Dem promise they can ask to be fulfilled? Ah yes - PR benefits them and they don't have any other totemic policies.

[malcolm]

I think Gordo very well might George. It was after all in Blairs mind before the '97 lanslide scuppered Ashdowns hopes

[Angelo Basu]

If there were to be PR there would need to be an immediate GE as soon as the legislation had been passed in order to demonstrate that the government which had introduced such a radical change to the political system had legitimacy under that new system- it would be hypocritical in the extreme to continue as a government elected via FTP.

As for Ming's sneering comments about standing at football matches this shows a contempt for a significant proportion of society and a lack of understanding of the issues- with the strict crowd segregation that is in place these days and development of new stadium technology there is no reason why terracing could not be reintroduced to higher level football. There are certainly more practising football supporters than practising Muslims in this country so to dismiss a matter of interest which would be supported by a majority of fans as being akin to believing in a flat earth is shocking. Particularly in relation to clubs outside the top haldf dozen or so "brand" clubs , football clubs are one of the remaining bits of social glue in many local communities, particularly amongst the often ignored indigenous majority.

[comstock]

the AV version of PR
What is the AV version, exactly?

[Michael McGowan]

I thought (Sean and others, correct me if I am wrong) that it was the system whereby voters record first, second and third preferences and a candidate cannot win a constituency unless he either wins a majority of first preferences (unlikely in most Tory constituencies) or wins more than 50% of the votes cast once second and third preferences are taken into account. Lib Dem voters rarely record a second preference for the Tories, as Labour well knows.

[comstock]

the system whereby voters record first, second and third preferences and a candidate cannot win a constituency unless he either wins a majority of first preferences (unlikely in most Tory constituencies) or wins more than 50% of the votes cast once second and third preferences are taken into account.

First/second preference? Like they use for Mayor in London? Yes, I've always favoured that. That isn't PR, though,surely?

I thought PR was where seats are divided up in proportion to votes so 40% of the votes= 40% of the seats. Great in theory but in practice gives minor parties too much power.

IMHO 1st/2nd preference is much better

Lib Dem voters rarely record a second preference for the Tories, as Labour well knows.

You presume the parties would sing the same song under 1st/2nd preference as they do now, and people would vote the same way as they do now.

Surely this type of reform would force politicians to appeal across the nation and not just to 'swing' marginals.

Lets take Darlington http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlington_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29

Safe Labour seat, presently taken for granted by Labour and ignored by the Tories. Under such a reform Labour would have to work damn hard to keep it's 50% vote share (and so couldn't ignore the people of Darlington) and the Tories would have something to fight for in the area.

Both parties would have to start listening more. With at least 500 of the 650 seats 'in play', things would get interesting.

[Michael McGowan]

Not sure why small parties as well as big parties should not have power: after all, big parties are in reality no more than an aggregation of factions, often getting on badly with each other.

Your point about Darlington is a good one and I agree. However, the argument cuts both ways because there are an awful lot of Tory "safe" seats where the MP has less than 50% of the vote.

[gingeral]

Ming's opinions on coalition are ultimately irrelevant as he's going to lose a large number of seats at the next GE (they won't go down as far as 17 though, 45-50 is more likely) and be pensioned off immediately afterwards. Cameron should be wooing Clegg/Laws etc, who are probably instinctively more likely to jump into bed with him than Ming is (if you excuse the expression).

[Lame Duck a l'Orange]

This whole discussion is moot.

Lame duck Ming Campbell will not be Liberal Democrat leader at the next general election.

Ruling that roost will be either Foghorn Clegghorn, 'Young Turk' Huhne, or Campbell's reinstated predecessor The Famous Grouse.

I can't see either Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne working well with Gordon Brown, and 'Scottishness' may count against Charles Kennedy going into coalition with a Brown government due to the much-vaunted fear of a Tartan takeover with a Scot-heavy government (Brown as PM, Kennedy as DPM/ForeignSec, Alastair Darling as Chancellor, John Reid as HomeSec etc...).

[Graeme Archer]

Iain is completely right. This is a disasterous thing for the Minger to say. Every interview he gives between now and the election, with a bit of luck, he will be asked and asked and asked whether he's more likely to form a coalition with the socialists or the Conservatives. (I think the whole idea of a hung parliament is unlikely I should say but it's what excites nearly all the commentators innit). Answer the question Ming! Answer it honestly, the way you want to, the way your patrician nose twitches with disdain at the mere mention of the word "Conservative" ... answer it and watch your middle class vote flee back to the regenerated Conservative Party! Bye-bye! Go back to your home and prepare for a nice high tea.

[Matt Wright]

Confirms that the Lib Dems would prop up a tired backward thinking Labour party so any vote for them is a vote for more failure rather than a positive future. Our strategy is working and we should keep up the pressure,

Matt

[comstock]

Answer the question Ming! Answer it honestly, the way you want to, the way your patrician nose twitches with disdain at the mere mention of the word "Conservative" ... answer it and watch your middle class vote flee back to the regenerated Conservative Party!

That might have been true 20 years ago when Thatcher was in number 10, Labour was very left wing and the SDP/liberal alliance provided the mid-point.

Now I would guess most of the Lib Dem vote is either a) Left of Blair, b) Protest vote-don't like either main party but feel they should vote c)Tactical by Labour or Tory supporters in unwinnable seats (eg Lab in south/south west) d) Green but less so than the green party.

Of this little lot, only part of c) will really be affected, surely? And with this talk he may even gain some Labour voters in places like Eastleigh (where he sorely needs it)

[Mike Routhorn]

At the next election there is every chance that Ming will encourage those of a left-wing persuasion to vote Lib-Dem rather than Labour. If they find that their vote has been used to keep Labour in power they are going to be none too chuffed and Ming's credibility will be down the lav.

There will be such outrage that another General Election will be called and the Lib-Dem vote will be wiped out.

[Yet Another Anon]

Iain Dale thinks that Ming has made his first significant mistake with this talk of coalitions
The Liberal Democrats are obviously going to be intransigent over the issue of PR and they are going to expect to be treated as equals in a coalition and that is the basis Ming is going in on and if that is what he gets then for the Liberal Democrats that would be a big success and Menzies Campbell would go down in history as the man who got the Liberal Democrats some things the Liberals\Alliance had failed to achieve over decades, and if the discussions fail then Menzies Campbell can say the other side had failed to address basic fundamentals of the Liberal Democrat agenda and agreement was not possible and in fact he comes out looking tough and in the event of a Labour-Conservative coalition or a Labour or Conservative minority government with significant support from the other main party, he can then present the Liberal Democrats as being the real opposition and at least will retain his integrity.

[Yet Another Anon]

I thought PR was where seats are divided up in proportion to votes so 40% of the votes= 40% of the seats. Great in theory but in practice gives minor parties too much power.
Even in a national list system the percentage of seats would be higher because of the parties failing to win enough of a percentage to win any seats and so the percentage they would get would be the percentage of the vote that parties winning seats got, many countries with PR set a minimum as well such as 5% which in this country would normally mean only Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and national parties such as the SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP, UUP, Sinn Fein and SDLP winning seats if there were seperate English, Scottish, Welsh and Ulster lists although UKIP would have a chance especially on a regional list system; but the Liberal Democrats favour STV which is a constituency based system and there is Alternative Vote which is not a form of PR but uses preference votes usually on a constituency based system but for example Jack Straws plan for voting method on the bill on the Reforms to the House of Lords had been on AV, there are compromises between AV and PR using top up systems - the Liberal Democrats might settle for a compromise system such as that Roy Jenkins proposed.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

There are umpteen forms of voting systems, but for those confused here's a quick run down of the main ones used/discussed:

Single member First Past The Post: Voters vote for one candidate and the candidate with the single largest number of votes, whether that's 27% or 98%, gets elected. Used for Westminster elections.

Multi-member First Past The Post: As applied these days voters can vote for as many candidates as there are positions to be filled. Used for many council elections.

Alternative Vote, also known as Single Transferable Vote for single member seats: Voters number all the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins 50% +1 of the vote the lowest scoring candidate is eliminated and their votes are redistributed. This continues with successive candidates until one has 50% +1 of the vote. (And before anyone asks, if votes don't transfer then the overall target figure falls.)

Supplementary Vote: Voters cast their first and second preference only. If no candidate gets 50%+1 of the vote then *all* bar the top two are eliminated and any second preferences for the remaining two candidates are added to their total. Used for directly elected Mayors.

(This is one of the more devious voting systems. Labour used it because they feared that under a pure AV system the Lib Dems would prove good at soaking up transfers from fringe parties and getting into the final two.)

Multiple ballots: Voters cast a single vote for a candidate. If no candidate gets 50%+1 of the vote then a second round is held and the top scoring candidate in that wins. Depending on the rules in place this is either between only the top two candidates in the first round (as in the current French elections), between all candidates standing in the first round except those who withdraw (leading to scope for electoral coalitions that allow the voters to decide between parties within the coalition) or even with the potential to nominate new compromise candidates.

Single Transferable Vote (for multi-member seats): Voters number all the candidates in order of preference. Each constituency elects more than one member. In order to be elected a candidate must achieve a "quota" of votes (number of votes cast divided by the number of seats + 1) either through first preferences. If a candidate gets more votes than they need ("goes over quota") the value of their excess votes ("surplus") is transferred to the next preferences. When there are no further candidates over quota, the lowest polling candidates are eliminated in order and votes redistributed according to second preferences. As you can see this is a complicated system for politicians and psephologists, though the voter doesn't need to worry about things - voting is literally as simple as 1, 2, 3... Used in Northern Ireland for the Assembly, European Parliament, councils.

(For devious systems I think the Australian Senate takes the biscuit. Since the voter can be potentially faced with having to rank 100+ candidates in some states, there's a method whereby they can cast a single vote for a particular party and their vote will be given a preference order specified by the party in advance. This is very popular with voters who've just had to cast a long AV ballot for the lower house but can lead to all manner of horsetrading and bizarre results amongst parties.)

Party lists: These can be done either totally nationally or on a regional basis. There are two options:
"Closed list" - voters vote for one party and the seats are allocated according to the number of votes each party gets, with individual candidates' success depending on the order the party has nominated them.
"Open list" - voters vote for an individual candidate on a party list. The seats are allocated to parties on the basis of these votes, but with the order of allocation determined by the number of votes each individual candidate has received.

Additional Member System: This is a hybrid, with some seats directly elected in single member constituencies, with a regional or national "top-up" list allocating additional seats to parties, depending on how many local seats they've already won. As a hybrid it can use any form of single member election and any party list system in any combination. First Past The Post & Closed List Regional Top-Up are used for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments; First Past The Post and Closed List authority wide Top-Up is used for the Greater London talking shop.

(This system can create endless confusion as a lot of voters seem to think the top-up list is a second preference. This is a particular problem in London as voters are also casting voters for the Mayor of [Greater] London which *does* have a second preference built in.)

The other popular misconception is that every or most PR system always produces results along the lines of "40% of the votes = 40% of the seats". Each system is different but there's a lot of scope for local variations plus a slight bias towards larger, established parties with strong electoral bases in the right areas, that can distort things. Some STV elections have seen one party get the largest number of first preference votes but another get the most seats - Northern Ireland in 1998 (SDLP top the poll, UUP get 4 more seats) and more than one election in Malta (to the point where they introduced a top-up element to give the largest polling party a majority).

The Lib Dems have tended to advocate STV in about 4 or 5 member constituencies, with some smaller ones for special geographic cases like the Isle of White and the Highlands & Islands of Scotland (spot the advantage for them there!). Few of the smaller parties would have much chance of breaking through in many such constituencies - indeed UKIP would probably need 10 or 11 member constituencies to get enough votes together in one place for a fighting chance.

The other feature of STV that gets very messy is that it pits candidates from the same parties against each other. Sometimes they're able to divide up the constituency so that individual candidates work different areas, but when you have candidates who know they can only get elected at the expense of their running mate it can lead to bitter and counterproductive campaigning. In the current Northern Ireland Assembly Elections the rivalries between the two SDLP candidates in South Antrim have become so vicious and public that they'll probably wind up losing the single SDLP seat!