2020 Liberal Democrats Leadership Election

[DaWN]

I'm not suggesting that the only strategy the Lib Dems should pursue for the rest of eternity is the middle class suburbia one, but it is clearly a viable one for short-term mild recovery back into the 20s in terms of seats, which should be the only goal for 2024. If that is successfully carried out, then a look at possible electoral coalitions for further recovery can looked at based on where successes and failures took place in that election. What I am certain of is that basing any future strategy for a socially liberal, internationalist party on the socially conservative, Brexit voting rural south west is going to end in humiliation.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Devon is not exactly Tennessee you know. The factors that led to the Liberals and then the LibDems being so competitive across large parts of the West Country have not gone away and will erupt again at some point in the future. If the LibDems don't capitalise, someone else will.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Also, the LD path back to relevance has two steps:

1. Win enough seats to hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament;
2. Play their cards well enough to get credit for keeping their coalition partner in check.

If they're only seeking to win about 20 seats, the window in which 1 is even possible as a strategy is incredibly narrow, especially since in those circumstances you can always promise to built a new relief road in County Antrim instead to win over the DUP.

[Alcibiades]

Also, the LD path back to relevance has two steps:

1. Win enough seats to hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament;
2. Play their cards well enough to get credit for keeping their coalition partner in check.

If they're only seeking to win about 20 seats, the window in which 1 is even possible as a strategy is incredibly narrow, especially since in those circumstances you can always promise to built a new relief road in County Antrim instead to win over the DUP.

And to demand PR at all costs to enter coalition, which would probably be easy enough to get Labour to do.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Also, the LD path back to relevance has two steps:

1. Win enough seats to hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament;
2. Play their cards well enough to get credit for keeping their coalition partner in check.

If they're only seeking to win about 20 seats, the window in which 1 is even possible as a strategy is incredibly narrow, especially since in those circumstances you can always promise to built a new relief road in County Antrim instead to win over the DUP.

And to demand PR at all costs to enter coalition, which would probably be easy enough to get Labour to do.

I take it you're too young to remember how things went down in 2011?

[Alcibiades]

Also, the LD path back to relevance has two steps:

1. Win enough seats to hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament;
2. Play their cards well enough to get credit for keeping their coalition partner in check.

If they're only seeking to win about 20 seats, the window in which 1 is even possible as a strategy is incredibly narrow, especially since in those circumstances you can always promise to built a new relief road in County Antrim instead to win over the DUP.

And to demand PR at all costs to enter coalition, which would probably be easy enough to get Labour to do.

I take it you're too young to remember how things went down in 2011?

This is partly what I’m referring to. Clegg should have demanded at the very least actual PR, not settled for AV (which would have produced a less proportional result than FPTP at the election), and really the next time the party is in coalition, they ought to make it a condition of the coalition to adopt PR without a referendum.

[Former President tack50]

Also, the LD path back to relevance has two steps:

1. Win enough seats to hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament;
2. Play their cards well enough to get credit for keeping their coalition partner in check.

If they're only seeking to win about 20 seats, the window in which 1 is even possible as a strategy is incredibly narrow, especially since in those circumstances you can always promise to built a new relief road in County Antrim instead to win over the DUP.

And to demand PR at all costs to enter coalition, which would probably be easy enough to get Labour to do.

I take it you're too young to remember how things went down in 2011?

This is partly what I’m referring to. Clegg should have demanded at the very least actual PR, not settled for AV (which would have produced a less proportional result than FPTP at the election), and really the next time the party is in coalition, they ought to make it a condition of the coalition to adopt PR without a referendum.

In fairness, "adopt PR without a referendum" will look very bad on the Lib Dems, they would easily be painted as undemocratic and "wanting to impose what got soundly defeated in 2011"

[EastAnglianLefty]

Also, the LD path back to relevance has two steps:

1. Win enough seats to hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament;
2. Play their cards well enough to get credit for keeping their coalition partner in check.

If they're only seeking to win about 20 seats, the window in which 1 is even possible as a strategy is incredibly narrow, especially since in those circumstances you can always promise to built a new relief road in County Antrim instead to win over the DUP.

And to demand PR at all costs to enter coalition, which would probably be easy enough to get Labour to do.

I take it you're too young to remember how things went down in 2011?

This is partly what I’m referring to. Clegg should have demanded at the very least actual PR, not settled for AV (which would have produced a less proportional result than FPTP at the election), and really the next time the party is in coalition, they ought to make it a condition of the coalition to adopt PR without a referendum.

I think if they want to take that negotiating strategy, they should probably make sure they have enough money left for a second election that year. There's a substantial chunk of Labour that opposes PR on general principles, another chunk that reacts poorly to the Lib Dems making ultimatums, and a third chunk whose openness to PR drops rapidly the closer they get to forming a government.

[Alcibiades]

Also, the LD path back to relevance has two steps:

1. Win enough seats to hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament;
2. Play their cards well enough to get credit for keeping their coalition partner in check.

If they're only seeking to win about 20 seats, the window in which 1 is even possible as a strategy is incredibly narrow, especially since in those circumstances you can always promise to built a new relief road in County Antrim instead to win over the DUP.

And to demand PR at all costs to enter coalition, which would probably be easy enough to get Labour to do.

I take it you're too young to remember how things went down in 2011?

This is partly what I’m referring to. Clegg should have demanded at the very least actual PR, not settled for AV (which would have produced a less proportional result than FPTP at the election), and really the next time the party is in coalition, they ought to make it a condition of the coalition to adopt PR without a referendum.

In fairness, "adopt PR without a referendum" will look very bad on the Lib Dems, they would easily be painted as undemocratic and "wanting to impose what got soundly defeated in 2011"

If it’s in their manifesto and they end up in government it’s not exactly undemocratic. Plus, I think swiftly scrapping FPTP is much more democratic than having some low-information, low-turnout referendum. Basically most voters don’t care much one way or another about the electoral system.

[Alcibiades]

Also, the LD path back to relevance has two steps:

1. Win enough seats to hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament;
2. Play their cards well enough to get credit for keeping their coalition partner in check.

If they're only seeking to win about 20 seats, the window in which 1 is even possible as a strategy is incredibly narrow, especially since in those circumstances you can always promise to built a new relief road in County Antrim instead to win over the DUP.

And to demand PR at all costs to enter coalition, which would probably be easy enough to get Labour to do.

I take it you're too young to remember how things went down in 2011?

This is partly what I’m referring to. Clegg should have demanded at the very least actual PR, not settled for AV (which would have produced a less proportional result than FPTP at the election), and really the next time the party is in coalition, they ought to make it a condition of the coalition to adopt PR without a referendum.

I think if they want to take that negotiating strategy, they should probably make sure they have enough money left for a second election that year. There's a substantial chunk of Labour that opposes PR on general principles, another chunk that reacts poorly to the Lib Dems making ultimatums, and a third chunk whose openness to PR drops rapidly the closer they get to forming a government.

Even a bad election under PR will result in more seats for the Lib Dems than a good election under FPTP. They simply have to do it as soon as they possibly can. As for Labour, opinion in the party seems to be moving towards PR. Remember, Labour’s seat share at the last election was actually less than their vote share, and the upcoming boundary review looks set to be even more favourable to the Tories.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

The assumption that a party that has, over decades, optimised itself for expansion via shock by-election wins and persuading natural supporters of other parties to vote tactically on a local level would do particularly well under PR always strikes me as a bit heroic.

[Alcibiades]

The assumption that a party that has, over decades, optimised itself for expansion via shock by-election wins and persuading natural supporters of other parties to vote tactically on a local level would do particularly well under PR always strikes me as a bit heroic.

They may not necessarily gain vote share (although for the tactical voting reason below, they probably will), but they will almost certainly gain a lot of seats. To get fewer seats than they have been getting post-coalition, the Lib Dems would have to drop down to less than 2% of the vote, which is not going to happen barring a catastrophic fall.

In fact I think PR would liberate the party from having to target specific seats and by-election victories to gain exposure and success. There is no doubt that in recent years the party has been harmed by tactical voting, and in fact I would argue that they even were in better days, with many viewing them as a wasted vote.

But the bottom line, and why PR has been one of their few consistent causes célèbres over the years, is that the party has always had, and always will have, an extremely inefficient distribution of votes for FPTP.

[IceAgeComing]

You're assuming national list PR and no threshold which isn't what PR in the UK would look like: in reality it'd resemble what Scotland has strongly and we have an effective threshold of around 5.5-6% (it changes depending on the constituency results and a litany of other factors) and in a 2015-17 style election that would result in the Lib Dems not having the support to win list seats in parts of the UK, and certainly if they underperformed those numbers.  Especially since based on recent evidence the Lib Dems get more votes under FPTP than they would under PR: so their vote would fall close to that 5-6% range that puts them at risk of being shut out.  Look at Scotland and Wales for examples of that: the Lib Dems have no PR seats in the Welsh Assembly and in Scotland they got one list MSP in 2016 because 5.5% Scotland wide isn't enough to guarantee list seats in every region while the Greens, that got 6.6% managed to get enough list seats to finish ahead of them despite the Lib Dems also winning four constituencies.

That's why "DEMAND PR INSTANTLY" isn't a viable strategy: changing an electoral system is incredibly complicated and requires defining what system you want to use (STV, AMS or List PR; if its the latter two do you have open or closed lists; with AMS many list seats relative to constituency ones do you have and in List PR do you go for lots of small regions or a small number of large ones; if you go for STV how many members do you try to get per constituency and how do you handle places like the Scottish Islands and the Isle of Wight that are currently considered as special cases worthy of special representation: do they get to keep 1/2 member seats while everyone else doesn't?) and really requires a long period of consultation to work out exactly what system to use and to sort out all of the legislation to make sure that there aren't any loop holes in it; a period of time for a referendum if you have one which is sort of required to get popular legitimacy for a new voting system (and 2011 has given you precedent that one must happen) and also a period of time to educate people about how the new voting system works and what they have to do.  Its that legitimacy part that's most important: if people don't view the system as being legitimate then they'll not be likely to see the outcome of an election as legitimate and plenty of people will be campaigning to go back to FPTP - and indeed that's why you'll see lots of PR-sympathetic people in Labour (and the SNP and honestly even the Tories: there are a few there) refuse PR without a referendum because they know that legitimacy matters a lot.  As far as I'm aware the Lib Dem manifesto only says PR but not what precise form of PR to use and in that sort of situation they aren't exactly in a position themselves to claim a mandate from their own voters for any particular electoral system.

There's a reason why New Zealand took a couple of election cycles to change from FPTP to MMP: making sure the new system has legitimacy is even more important than making sure that its the perfect one.

e: also every region that the Lib Dems do well in sort of was sparked by them doing the building up local support in local elections and then turning that into constituency support in a General Election or by-elections.  You can go right back to Orpington in 1963 sparking a (temporary) Liberal revival in South East London; or the Liberal success in South West London sparking from some good by-election performances in the early 70s proving that the Liberals could compete there: and some strong performances in the 1990s and 2000s against both major parties won them seats in parts of the country they never would.  Without those by-elections its harder for them to get that sort of mid-term oxygen and also to prove to voters that they can win in certain bits of the country: and while under PR that doesn't really matter you would still be dealing with voters with a FPTP mindset.

[Former President tack50]

You're assuming national list PR and no threshold which isn't what PR in the UK would look like: in reality it'd resemble what Scotland has strongly and we have an effective threshold of around 5.5-6% (it changes depending on the constituency results and a litany of other factors) and in a 2015-17 style election that would result in the Lib Dems not having the support to win list seats in parts of the UK, and certainly if they underperformed those numbers.  Especially since based on recent evidence the Lib Dems get more votes under FPTP than they would under PR: so their vote would fall close to that 5-6% range that puts them at risk of being shut out.  Look at Scotland and Wales for examples of that: the Lib Dems have no PR seats in the Welsh Assembly and in Scotland they got one list MSP in 2016 because 5.5% Scotland wide isn't enough to guarantee list seats in every region while the Greens, that got 6.6% managed to get enough list seats to finish ahead of them despite the Lib Dems also winning four constituencies.

Given the fact that the UK actually does (well more like "used to" because Brexit) have a kind of election that is both national in nature and using PR (the EU Parliament elections), wouldn't the model resemble more the EU Parliamentary elections than the Scotland/Wales elections?

A model like the EU elections probably involves dividing Britain into the 12 regions it uses for the EU elections.

Yet instead of each region electing 3-10 MEPs (for a total of 73); the UK would instead be electing 600-650 MPs at Westminster so the regions would be 10 times larger.

That would mean that the effective threshold would be slightly above 1% (the Southeastern region probably elects somewhere around 80-90 MPs) assuming no artificial thresholds are used of course.

[Alcibiades]

You're assuming national list PR and no threshold which isn't what PR in the UK would look like: in reality it'd resemble what Scotland has strongly and we have an effective threshold of around 5.5-6% (it changes depending on the constituency results and a litany of other factors) and in a 2015-17 style election that would result in the Lib Dems not having the support to win list seats in parts of the UK, and certainly if they underperformed those numbers.  Especially since based on recent evidence the Lib Dems get more votes under FPTP than they would under PR: so their vote would fall close to that 5-6% range that puts them at risk of being shut out.  Look at Scotland and Wales for examples of that: the Lib Dems have no PR seats in the Welsh Assembly and in Scotland they got one list MSP in 2016 because 5.5% Scotland wide isn't enough to guarantee list seats in every region while the Greens, that got 6.6% managed to get enough list seats to finish ahead of them despite the Lib Dems also winning four constituencies.

That's why "DEMAND PR INSTANTLY" isn't a viable strategy: changing an electoral system is incredibly complicated and requires defining what system you want to use (STV, AMS or List PR; if its the latter two do you have open or closed lists; with AMS many list seats relative to constituency ones do you have and in List PR do you go for lots of small regions or a small number of large ones; if you go for STV how many members do you try to get per constituency and how do you handle places like the Scottish Islands and the Isle of Wight that are currently considered as special cases worthy of special representation: do they get to keep 1/2 member seats while everyone else doesn't?) and really requires a long period of consultation to work out exactly what system to use and to sort out all of the legislation to make sure that there aren't any loop holes in it; a period of time for a referendum if you have one which is sort of required to get popular legitimacy for a new voting system (and 2011 has given you precedent that one must happen) and also a period of time to educate people about how the new voting system works and what they have to do.  Its that legitimacy part that's most important: if people don't view the system as being legitimate then they'll not be likely to see the outcome of an election as legitimate and plenty of people will be campaigning to go back to FPTP - and indeed that's why you'll see lots of PR-sympathetic people in Labour (and the SNP and honestly even the Tories: there are a few there) refuse PR without a referendum because they know that legitimacy matters a lot.  As far as I'm aware the Lib Dem manifesto only says PR but not what precise form of PR to use and in that sort of situation they aren't exactly in a position themselves to claim a mandate from their own voters for any particular electoral system.

There's a reason why New Zealand took a couple of election cycles to change from FPTP to MMP: making sure the new system has legitimacy is even more important than making sure that its the perfect one.

e: also every region that the Lib Dems do well in sort of was sparked by them doing the building up local support in local elections and then turning that into constituency support in a General Election or by-elections.  You can go right back to Orpington in 1963 sparking a (temporary) Liberal revival in South East London; or the Liberal success in South West London sparking from some good by-election performances in the early 70s proving that the Liberals could compete there: and some strong performances in the 1990s and 2000s against both major parties won them seats in parts of the country they never would.  Without those by-elections its harder for them to get that sort of mid-term oxygen and also to prove to voters that they can win in certain bits of the country: and while under PR that doesn't really matter you would still be dealing with voters with a FPTP mindset.

You raise some good points, and you are right that there will be hurdles in implementing PR. I think that at the moment it’s quite hard to gauge the public attitude to electoral reform, as it hasn’t really been an issue for a while. The 2011 referendum on a system which in practice would not have changed much had only 42.2% turnout after a campaign which received very little attention for a national referendum and turned into a personal referendum on Clegg.

Nonetheless, there are no current PR systems in which you have two parties dominating to the extent that has happened in England in the last two elections. West Germany pre-reunification is the only semi-comparable example I can think of (and I doubt the UK would be using a threshold as high as 5%). PR would of course make coalitions inevitable after every election. It would not be wise for the Lib Dems to enter coalition again for a very long time with the Tories, but I think as a sort of semi-permanent partner to a centre-left Labour party, it could be advantageous to the Lib Dems. They have always had their greatest success as a centre-left check on an electable Labour.

And to your point that the PR system likely to be actually adopted could disadvantage the Lib Dems, the Electoral Reform System had a report (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-2019-general-election-voters-left-voiceless/#sub-section-33) which found that under every conceivable system other than FPTP the will Lib Dems would have gained anywhere between 48 and 68 seats. I am also still far from convinced that PR would result in a reduced vote share for the party.

It is certainly not inconceivable that at the next election the Labour wind up just short of a majority, leaving a deal with the Lib Dems as their most desirable route into government. In such a case getting real PR would be far less difficult than with the Tories in 2010 (Starmer actually seems quite amenable to it) and the Lib Dems simply have to attempt it and expend a good deal of their negotiating leverage on it. The chances of ending up with fewer than 40 seats are vanishingly small.

[Alcibiades]

You're assuming national list PR and no threshold which isn't what PR in the UK would look like: in reality it'd resemble what Scotland has strongly and we have an effective threshold of around 5.5-6% (it changes depending on the constituency results and a litany of other factors) and in a 2015-17 style election that would result in the Lib Dems not having the support to win list seats in parts of the UK, and certainly if they underperformed those numbers.  Especially since based on recent evidence the Lib Dems get more votes under FPTP than they would under PR: so their vote would fall close to that 5-6% range that puts them at risk of being shut out.  Look at Scotland and Wales for examples of that: the Lib Dems have no PR seats in the Welsh Assembly and in Scotland they got one list MSP in 2016 because 5.5% Scotland wide isn't enough to guarantee list seats in every region while the Greens, that got 6.6% managed to get enough list seats to finish ahead of them despite the Lib Dems also winning four constituencies.

Given the fact that the UK actually does (well more like "used to" because Brexit) have a kind of election that is both national in nature and using PR (the EU Parliament elections), wouldn't the model resemble more the EU Parliamentary elections than the Scotland/Wales elections?

A model like the EU elections probably involves dividing Britain into the 12 regions it uses for the EU elections.

Yet instead of each region electing 3-10 MEPs (for a total of 73); the UK would instead be electing 600-650 MPs at Westminster so the regions would be 10 times larger.

That would mean that the effective threshold would be slightly above 1% (the Southeastern region probably elects somewhere around 80-90 MPs) assuming no artificial thresholds are used of course.

Although there would probably be some form of constituencies/MMP. But I agree that it would probably be more like the EU elections than the Scottish Parliament (which is actually quite fat from being truly proportional, placing more weight on the constituencies than the lists).

[EastAnglianLefty]

It's theoretically possible that Labour might agree to some change to the electoral system in return for a coalition with the Lib Dems. There's absolutely no chance that would involve a national list, or regions anywhere near as large as those used for European elections.

Realistically, most changes besides STV for local elections would require a referendum (as 2011 is a precedent, as are the devolution referendums from some standpoints.) Sticking it in the LD manifesto wouldn't change that, because they'd be the junior partner and if it wasn't in Labour's manifesto too you couldn't say people had already voted for it. And that means you'd have to win the referendum, which means it would have to be something that Labour could be convinced to campaign for (because people don't care about electoral systems and otherwise it'd become a referendum on the Lib Dems, which is only ever going to have one outcome). Which would require the maintenance of something resembling a constituency link - it is a point of principle for a surprisingly high number of people in Labour.

I'm also somewhat sceptical that the Lib Dems would actually try to make it a red line, because again, most people do not care about electoral systems. Lib Dem activists do, but if you made it a red line then you would have to concede to Labour priorities on other issues and if you think those would be popular in Wokingham et al. then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Cassius]

It’s not quite true that no country using PR has seen two party dominance recently; New Zealand (which uses a similar system to Germany) has seen quite significant two-party polarisation over the last 15 years between Labour and National. Given that New Zealand is arguably the country that is closest to the UK when it comes to its political system (in terms of party alignment et al), it’s perfectly possible that this kind of polarisation could continue to play out in a UK with PR, especially since there’s plenty of evidence that tactical voting continues to play a role in PR systems.

[Alcibiades]

It's theoretically possible that Labour might agree to some change to the electoral system in return for a coalition with the Lib Dems. There's absolutely no chance that would involve a national list, or regions anywhere near as large as those used for European elections.

Realistically, most changes besides STV for local elections would require a referendum (as 2011 is a precedent, as are the devolution referendums from some standpoints.) Sticking it in the LD manifesto wouldn't change that, because they'd be the junior partner and if it wasn't in Labour's manifesto too you couldn't say people had already voted for it. And that means you'd have to win the referendum, which means it would have to be something that Labour could be convinced to campaign for (because people don't care about electoral systems and otherwise it'd become a referendum on the Lib Dems, which is only ever going to have one outcome). Which would require the maintenance of something resembling a constituency link - it is a point of principle for a surprisingly high number of people in Labour.

I'm also somewhat sceptical that the Lib Dems would actually try to make it a red line, because again, most people do not care about electoral systems. Lib Dem activists do, but if you made it a red line then you would have to concede to Labour priorities on other issues and if you think those would be popular in Wokingham et al. then I have a bridge to sell you.

The fact is that the current electoral system is an absolute disaster for the Lib Dems, far worse for their representation in parliament than almost anything else that they could possibly do or have happen to them. Having a system of MMP with suitably large lists like in Germany would not actually be much less proportional than a national list.

The issue of to referendum or not to referendum on PR is a tricky one. I am of the view that the UK had gone far too much down the road of direct democracy in recent years, reducing complex issues best decided by legislators to slogan-dominated, low-information campaigns. One could argue that electoral reform is even wonkier of a topic than devolution or the EU, and thus even more inappropriate to hold a referendum on. The sad truth is that most of the electorate don’t really have a clue, nor care much about, electoral reform so, as you said, would probably turn it into a referendum on the Lib Dems. On the other hand, most people are sick of referenda, so there may be some incentive for Labour not to too aggressively pursue a referendum on PR if the Lib Dems are demanding its introduction.

[IceAgeComing]

You raise some good points, and you are right that there will be hurdles in implementing PR. I think that at the moment it’s quite hard to gauge the public attitude to electoral reform, as it hasn’t really been an issue for a while. The 2011 referendum on a system which in practice would not have changed much had only 42.2% turnout after a campaign which received very little attention for a national referendum and turned into a personal referendum on Clegg.

Nonetheless, there are no current PR systems in which you have two parties dominating to the extent that has happened in England in the last two elections. West Germany pre-reunification is the only semi-comparable example I can think of (and I doubt the UK would be using a threshold as high as 5%). PR would of course make coalitions inevitable after every election. It would not be wise for the Lib Dems to enter coalition again for a very long time with the Tories, but I think as a sort of semi-permanent partner to a centre-left Labour party, it could be advantageous to the Lib Dems. They have always had their greatest success as a centre-left check on an electable Labour.

And to your point that the PR system likely to be actually adopted could disadvantage the Lib Dems, the Electoral Reform System had a report (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-2019-general-election-voters-left-voiceless/#sub-section-33) which found that under every conceivable system other than FPTP the will Lib Dems would have gained anywhere between 48 and 68 seats. I am also still far from convinced that PR would result in a reduced vote share for the party.

It is certainly not inconceivable that at the next election the Labour wind up just short of a majority, leaving a deal with the Lib Dems as their most desirable route into government. In such a case getting real PR would be far less difficult than with the Tories in 2010 (Starmer actually seems quite amenable to it) and the Lib Dems simply have to attempt it and expend a good deal of their negotiating leverage on it. The chances of ending up with fewer than 40 seats are vanishingly small.

Malta uses PR (STV; five members per seat so it passes the proportionality test as well) and has a true two party system: you have to go back to 1962 to find a third party MP elected in their own right (a couple of members of the Democratic Party won seats in 2017 but they stood on a combined ticket with the Nationalist Party so they don't really count) and New Zealand uses a PR system (MMP) which is very much trending towards being an effective two-bloc system: New Zealand First is gone in the next election and likely won't return which leaves you with two parties of the left who'd only work with each other (Labour and the Greens) and two parties of the right that'd only work with each other (Nationals and ACT) with ACT only getting in because the Nationals effectively concede a safe seat to them.  And in reality its trending towards a two party system: the Greens will be near the 5% threshold and ACT below it with no one else getting above 2%.  Pretty sure there are other examples but those two come to mind instantly especially since both come from the Westminster tradition and New Zealand is the closest example to what a post-PR UK would look like.

In every PR election ever held in the United Kingdom with the exception of the 2019 European Parliament Election - an example of special circumstances if ever there was one - the Liberal Democrats underperform relative to how they do in comparable FPTP elections.  In every Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly Election (where we have FPTP and PR results and an increasingly knowledgable voter base that know what the two votes mean) the Liberal Democrats perform better in the FPTP bit than in the PR bit of the ballot; and in every prior European Election the Lib Dems consistently performed 2-3% below what they went on to do at the following General Election.  Its a consistent pattern: and one that makes sense when you think about it.  The Liberal Democrats traditionally were the protest vote party: they were the people that voters of both major parties would go to to make a point since under FPTP they were the only viable third party (and in 2019 were the pro-Europe third party).  When you add PR in to things there suddenly are other options for voters: and so rather than going for the Liberal Democrats you'll see voters vote Green, or for whatever the Brexit Party is called now - and that's why voters voted UKIP and why there was this big Lib Dem>UKIP shift.  Its a brave decision to argue against the evidence of every PR election in the UK bar one and I think the Lib Dem leadership would probably be aware of that as well.

Also the Scottish Parliament elections tend to be really rather proportional - certainly not any less proportional than many countries that have voting systems that would be considered PR systems.  The SNP got a majority on 44% in 2011 but that was as much because there was a fair amount of wasted votes (the Greens got 4% in that election and that meant that they were often just short of a regional MSP on around that share of the vote; the Lib Dems were the same with their 5.5%; you also had around 4% of votes for other parties as well) which effectively reduces the threshold you need in order to get a majority and would do in any PR system.  In 2016 that didn't happen as much (Lib Dems got less list seats on their 5%; but the Greens went up and managed to actually win a list seat almost everywhere) which was a factor in the SNP not getting a majority then.  Its not perfect but no system is: and because of that constituency link its always going to be the PR system that would be preferred in any electoral reform which is why the Jenkins Commission went for a modified (and worse) version of it the last time there was any government action on this topic.

[Alcibiades]

It’s not quite true that no country using PR has seen two party dominance recently; New Zealand (which uses a similar system to Germany) has seen quite significant two-party polarisation over the last 15 years between Labour and National. Given that New Zealand is arguably the country that is closest to the UK when it comes to its political system (in terms of party alignment et al), it’s perfectly possible that this kind of polarisation could continue to play out in a UK with PR, especially since there’s plenty of evidence that tactical voting continues to play a role in PR systems.

You’re right, I forgot about NZ, but unlike the UK it never had a significant, long-established third party, and indeed the introduction of PR resulted in a parliament with more diversity of parties.

And I don’t think tiny Malta is in any way comparable to the UK.

In every PR election ever held in the United Kingdom with the exception of the 2019 European Parliament Election - an example of special circumstances if ever there was one - the Liberal Democrats underperform relative to how they do in comparable FPTP elections.  In every Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly Election (where we have FPTP and PR results and an increasingly knowledgable voter base that know what the two votes mean) the Liberal Democrats perform better in the FPTP bit than in the PR bit of the ballot; and in every prior European Election the Lib Dems consistently performed 2-3% below what they went on to do at the following General Election.  Its a consistent pattern: and one that makes sense when you think about it.  The Liberal Democrats traditionally were the protest vote party: they were the people that voters of both major parties would go to to make a point since under FPTP they were the only viable third party (and in 2019 were the pro-Europe third party).  When you add PR in to things there suddenly are other options for voters: and so rather than going for the Liberal Democrats you'll see voters vote Green, or for whatever the Brexit Party is called now - and that's why voters voted UKIP and why there was this big Lib Dem>UKIP shift.  Its a brave decision to argue against the evidence of every PR election in the UK bar one and I think the Lib Dem leadership would probably be aware of that as well.

You could make an argument that FPTP could have had some disadvantages when the Lib Dems were winning 60 seats. But today their seat haul is so abysmal that there is virtually no chance PR would reduce it. Indeed, FPTP presents somewhat of a danger that if they get unlucky they could be entirely wiped out of Parliament, which would never happen under PR. And I don’t think the rise of the Greens or a Eurosceptic party under PR would necessarily be a bad thing for the party, as it would increase the legitimacy/importance of third parties. In addition, PR would remove a great deterrent for many of the types of voter that the party is currently targeting (namely wealthy ex-Tory Remainers), who feared a hung parliament, as all parliaments would inevitably be hung under PR.

[Zinneke]

It strikes me that there is no way of knowing how many people would vote Lib Dem if there were PR in a national election where they gain momentum like they did with Cleggmania and to a lesser extent the anti-Iraq War (forget about low turnout EU elections). So the argument that they are also a party that fundamentally lives off the scraps of the FPTP system seems also far fetched. Given the volatility of current electorates compared the past, you can see why the party is in favour PR. Its a Hail Mary too - they can't really do any worse can they?

[CumbrianLefty]

The assumption that a party that has, over decades, optimised itself for expansion via shock by-election wins and persuading natural supporters of other parties to vote tactically on a local level would do particularly well under PR always strikes me as a bit heroic.

Maybe not "particularly well", but quite possibly "well enough".

[DaWN]

11:30 tomorrow is zero hour. Try and hold in your excitement.

[Blair]

I think people still overestimate the willingess of the Labour Party to back PR; especially because it's seen (incorrectly) as the worse sort of naval gazing- I remember the 'he needs a helmet, not a new voting system' type ads we had in 2011.

I think the only accepted way to change a voting system is via referendum & I don't think PR would pass; the two easiest arguments are 1.) It costs too much 2.) Do you want Farage/Galloway/Momentum in Parliament?

There's a certain visceral distrust of it; while the AV vote in 2011 most likely did a lot worse for a whole host of reasons (being a half way system, clegg being hated etc) it wouldn't fill me with confidence. Even more so it's part of a horse trade for a government.

On a slightly related note there's a tendency in both the Lib Dems & Labour to talk about PR without working out how you achieve it (aka 326 votes for the bill & 50%+1 in a referendum)