The two elections that I have been interested in this year have each thrown up interesting results. The UK, a country famed for not doing coalition politics, has resulted in a surprisingly successful pairing between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Meanwhile Sweden, a country that is typically governed by a coalition of several parties, has for the first time in decades effectively ended up with a hung parliament.
This post combines factors and factions of both countries to consider one potential option for the left-of-centre in the UK – a Red-Green coalition, or a Progressive Alliance if you will.
The losing ‘half’ of Sweden in last week’s election was the Red-Green coalition but they have campaigned so steadfastly alongside each other that even the promise of Ministerial seats has not tempted the Greens into Government. In the UK coalition Government may well be here to stay so those currently making up the Opposition may have to find a more proactive approach to the new terrain that objecting from the sidelines strictly along party lines.
So, if a Red-Green coalition makes political sense in Sweden is there any credence to the argument that it makes political sense in the UK? If so, how would it work?
Well, assuming the AV referendum is either rejected by Westminster or ignored/rejected by the public, First Past the Post could see a dividing up of constituencies in a loose agreement between the Greens and Labour.
In return for (1) policy concessions, (2) Labour not fielding a candidate in Brighton Pavilion to safeguard Caroline Lucas and (3) perhaps not fielding candidates in Cambridge and other seats where Labour probably won’t win but the Greens are fighting to finish higher and higher, the Greens would agree to not field candidates in the vast majority of seats across the UK. The message would be that a vote for Labour is a de facto vote for the Greens and an upside would be that more targetted, intensive campaigns could be lodged in the Cambridges, the Oxfords, the Lewishams and the Norwich Souths.
A springboard to representation that helps keep the Conservatives out of power and helps speed up more Greens getting into Westminster.
Similar suggestions were raised before the May election this year with prominent environmentalists urging Greens to vote tactically, back the Lib Dems(!) or back Labour as the least worst option between the top two parties. A coalition is at least a more elegant solution to a last-gasp panic because with a week till voting it looks like the Tories are getting in.
Examples already exist and not just in Sweden. A Red-Green alliance ruled Germany from 1998 to 2005, the Socialist Left and Greens governed France from 1997 to 2002 and in Norway a Red-Green coalition has ruled since 2005, winning re-election in 2009. There are fewer examples in the UK with Leeds Council being the only example of a formal arrangement that I could find.
The benefit for Labour speaks for itself. In the last election, had the Green votes been added to the Labour vote, Gordon Brown would have taken eight seats off the Tories and one from the Lib Dems* (see bottom of post). That may not sound like much but there is every chance that a formal agreement would bring more jaded Greens out to vote and the green credentials that support from Caroline Lucas’ party would provide would mean large swathes of Lib Dem votes could well move to Labour at the next election, more so than is already on its way of course.
The combination of Green votes pushing Labour candidates over the line, a boost in turnout from environmentalists and Lib Dems switching sides could well prove decisive in what should prove to be a very close election in 2015.
No candidate in most constituencies may seem like a high price to pay from a Green perspective but Labour has more to offer and less to lose so the imbalance is unavoidable. The attraction of being able to directly shape Government policy must be appealing for Greens who for so long have been on the fringes of political debate and were one to suggest that such a coalition could never make a difference then it is worth noting that had UKIP votes been added to the Conservative votes in each constituency in May 2010 then Cameron would be enjoying a majority right now. I suspect UKIP would be more than happy with 1 MP and no Euro-friendly Lib Dems in Government but, well, they’ve missed their chance.
And therein lies the risk at brushing off this option too cheaply. Caroline Lucas losing Brighton Pavilion in 2015 (or whenever the next election will be) is a nightmare result for the Greens from where they are now. The momentum lost from being frozen out of Westminster just when Climate Change becomes irreversible would be very damaging indeed.
There’s no reason why compromise and progress cannot be realised simultaneously and why a merger of the left shouldn’t deliver green shoots and ripe red fruit for all involved.
* Constituencies that Labour would have won in May 2010 if they had also claimed the Green vote in each constituency:-
Brighton Kemptown (from the Conservatives)
Brighton Pavilion (of course)
Broxtowe (from the Conservatives)
Cardiff North (from the Conservatives)
Hendon (from the Conservatives)
Hove (from the Conservatives)
Lancaster & Fleetwood (from the Conservatives)
Norwich South (from the Liberal Democrats)
Stroud (from the Conservatives)
Waveney (from the Conservatives)
#1 by Gary Dunion on September 27, 2010 - 10:02 am
Jeff,
Am I reading this totally wrongly: “had the Green votes been added to the Labour vote, Gordon Brown would have taken 1 seat off the Lib Dems (Bradford West) and 4 seats off the Conservatives (High Peak, Lewisham Deptford, Stalybridge & Hyde and Witney)”?
Labour *did* hold Bradford West, Lewisham Deptford and Stalybridge and Hyde. High Peak has a Tory majority of nearly five thousand and a Green vote of less than one thousand, and Witney is the safe-as-houses seat of our esteemed Prime Minister with a Tory majority ten times the size of the Green vote.
That aside, the rest of your article makes an interesting case. Not, as you say, to be brushed off to quickly. I am in favour of coalition government in principle (you have to be if you’re in favour of PR and don’t rate Malta as the pinnacle of representative democracy), but all too aware of its pitfalls for the parties involved.
One of those is the potential for surprising and disappointing voters with a choice of coalition partner. Arguably the decision of who to put in Number 10 is more important than a junior party’s policies and yet in this country we have a tradition of not revealing our thinking in that issue.
Pre-existing electoral coalitions (assuming they are honoured, as the Swedish Greens have done) do away with this uncertainty. The voter can back a the party of their choice while also supporting an executive candidate who has a chance of winning, without resorting to a presidential system.
#2 by Jeff on September 27, 2010 - 10:13 am
Thanks Gary,
It seems my vlookup may not have worked! Lib Dems won Bradford East by less than 400 votes and I may well have added the Greens’ Bradford West votes to the Labour result. There was no Green candidate in Bradford East so no votes to add there to push Labour over the edge. Something similar must have happened in the other seats. Dammit. I’ll update the post (and update from ‘Microsoft Spreadsheet’ to bona fide Excel!)
I’m glad you embrace the idea of deals between parties though, I predicted the suggestion would be dismissed out of hand and, to be fair, I’m playing Devil’s Advocate myself as I don’t really think it could work as there is too big a divide between Labour and Green policies but, well, something to think about if we do move closer and closer to PR.
I do think there is a lot to be said for pre-election ‘deals’. Even, as you say, a 3rd/4th/5th party freely admitting who they would vote into office would be progress.
Overall I just wonder how other countries can work in deals to efficiently and the concept seems to be so foreign to us Brits.
#3 by John Ruddy on September 27, 2010 - 10:45 am
Jeff,
An interesting post. Aside from the actual maths, I think it makes a lot of sense. Ed Miliband is the ‘greenest’ party leader Labour have ever had, and probably more environmentally friendly than the leaders of the other two main parties.
The Lib Dems seem wedded to the Tories at the moment, and although they are desperate to maintain their seperate identity, many of the Lib Dem activists I have spoken to seem determined never to have anything to do with Labour, even in a coalition for government after 2015. So a loose coalition between Red and Green could well have advantages for both.
#4 by Jeff on September 27, 2010 - 11:47 am
I agree John. If 2015 does become a bit of a Tory-LD love-in then the left has to be ready for that. A Labour-Green link up, even loosely, would be more than palatable as far as I can see. As you say, Ed being in charge makes it more plausible too although Caroline Lucas did say in her congratulations message to the Labour leader that he needs to go “much further (than High Pay Commissions and living wage promises) to demonstrate that Labour has genuinely changed”.
Note that the electoral maths has been belatedly updated for the correct constituencies that would have notionally been won by a Red-Green coalition.
(The message here is – don’t scrimp, buy Excel)
A 9-seat swing though, something to think about perhaps. Certainly more than I had expected.
#5 by John Ruddy on September 27, 2010 - 12:07 pm
If the AV referendum passes (and I think its a big IF, even though I am in support of it myself), then such a loose coalition might be possible, with each party recommending that 2nd prefs being given to the other partner. I think it is likely that the Tories and Lib dems will do soemthing similar – though how much it is likely to be followed is another thing.
#6 by Jeff on September 27, 2010 - 12:15 pm
The danger I guess is that the Greens may end up relegating themselves to being the environmentalist group of the Labour party just when they are beginning to push into the mainstream. This is something that I daresay Labour wouldn’t mind if it helped boost them beat the Tories.
So there would probably have to be a seismic shift in policy from Labour before any agreement could take place. (No to nuclear power/weapons, Robin Hood tax, restructuring of economy in order to boost sustainable living etc)
In saying all this, I still hope we’ll have a 2012 election after the coalition falls apart due to the AV referendum being shown up for the horrid little compromise that it is. But that’s just me.
#7 by James on September 27, 2010 - 12:32 pm
From a Scottish perspective there’s not much to choose between Labour and the SNP. Some issues point one way for a notional Green second preference, some the other.
Blocking nuclear weapons: SNP better
Blocking nuclear power: SNP better
Blocking coal plants: Labour better
Low pay: Labour better
Transport: both awful
Planning: both awful
etc.
#8 by Jeff on September 27, 2010 - 12:49 pm
Yeah, I agree James. I was thinking this ‘deal’ would work more at Westminster than Holyrood.
There is already potential for the Greens to pick up double-digit MSPs without any constricting deal with another party and, as you say, there is no obvious choice for who to deal with anyway.
I don’t know what it takes to go from being a fringe party to a mainstream party but GS are certainly closer to it than GPEW. I suppose a proportional voting system helps enormously!
#9 by Alasdair on September 27, 2010 - 12:41 pm
Hi,
I don’t think it’s a suggestion we need to dismiss out of hand, and I don’t object to electoral cooperation per se, I’m glad we formally backed Ken as a second preference in London and hope we do so again, but I’m not sure there’s many places this would work at Westminster.
Of those 9 seats we could have swung, if all our votes went as we asked, some of those were very close, 3 are target Green seats, so we won’t stand down there. Of our other targets, Cambridge wasn’t that far off Labour winning, Lewisham Deptford is Labour held, Oxford East is Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington is Labour. There aren’t many seats where Labour are third and we do well. Oxford West and Abingdon maybe, but not many others.
If Ed does move the party to the left and we get some kind of electoral reform, maybe we could back them as a second preference, but as it stands I don’t see this working.
#10 by Jeff on September 27, 2010 - 12:47 pm
Thanks Alasdair, and you’re right. When I had the idea for this post I had hoped that Green target seats were Lib Dem or Tory held as that would have beefed up the potential for something to work but, as you already knew, one by one I noted that Labour held the seats that the Greens are looking to take next after Brighton Pavilion.
I still think there could be a way though. Lewisham Deptford, Oxford East and Hackney North etc could be agreed as fair game for the Greens to target even if Labour-held. If Labour pick up 8 seats in other constituencies then they won’t mind losing 1 or 2 to the Greens (who will be able to flood these seats with money and activists), particularly if a Green MP will largely vote alongside Labour MPs.
I agree that would be a sticking point though.
There must be a better way; all of the things that the Greens have argued for for decades are now being adopted by mainstream parties and the Greens are seeing little benefit. That must be hugely frustrating and a new approach, a fast-track to representation, must be at least an option.
#11 by John Ruddy on September 27, 2010 - 2:25 pm
Jeff,
Have you looked at how Labour works with the Co-Op party? A candidate has to go through both parties selection processes, and gets funding etc from the Co-Op whilst also receiving the benefit of local labour organisation.
Now I’m not suggesting that this could be done at once, but it does show that Labour can and does work with parties that share its values.
I think that Labour’s transport policies may get better – already there is talk of a mutual rail network.
#12 by Jeff on September 27, 2010 - 2:28 pm
I don’t really understand how that works between Labour and Coop to be honest John but I take your point.
However, I daresay there is a much, much wider difference between Labour/Green policies than there is between Labour/Coop policies.
#13 by Stuart on September 28, 2010 - 8:58 am
John, I’m aware of this system, and have a real problem with it. If I was a Co-op party member, I am effectively a Labour Party representative even though I may want to be affiliated with a different party…? Anyway, think this is for another debate.
I would argue the biggest thing stopping this (apart from clearly different party policies) is the tribalistic culture within the Labour Party- I’m not suggesting everyone in it is like this- just that it is a general attitude I get when talking with some members. Pluralism is something that Labour doesn’t really do well, and it would rather never work together with other parties, the last 2 years of this parliament are a good example.
For this to work Labour really needs to take a look at itself, realise it has to co-operate with other parties and become pluralistic. They have to wake up to the fact that this will probably become the norm as coalition politics grows in the future.
I genuinely think this is why Labour couldn’t do a deal with the Lib Dems when they had the chance to form a government, and now the whole country is suffering for their tribalism.
#14 by Chris on September 27, 2010 - 2:46 pm
Mmmm.
This is all sounding a bit parliamentary. The target for the Greens is to put climate change at the centre of government policy. An alliance with Labour alienate a lot of people who might otherwise support them. Winning more MPs is not the answer, particularly if it was on the back of denying people a fair choice.
In the highly unlikely event that Labour were to not defend Oxford East, the Lib Dems would walk the seat on the votes of 5,000 workers at the BMW Mini factory who won’t be voting Green.
#15 by Phil Hunt on September 27, 2010 - 4:39 pm
I don’t think a scheme like this would work. Many Labour supporters aren’t keen on the Greens, and many Green supporters aren’t keen on Labour.
The way for something like this proposal to happen would be for AV to pass, then voters could just vote honestly for their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc preferences.
I wonder what Ed Milliband’s position on AV is? If he prefers FPTP, perhaps he should give up the Labour leadership in favour of his brother 🙂
#16 by Mike Shaughnessy on September 28, 2010 - 12:12 am
It’s an interesting concept Jeff. As has been pointed out the Greens don’t have a big bargaining position, and there would loads of difficulties at local level brokering deals.
In Haringey, the Labour party seem to welcome our standing as they think it takes votes of the Lib Dems, and do have quite good relations with Labour locally.
AV could lead to Labour voters 2nd preference vote for the Greens being wasted and the Con/Lib being in forever as I have posted here http://haringeygreens.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-av-much-of-alternative.html
But blog discussions like this air the possibilities, so well done for raising it.
#17 by The Irn Juq on September 28, 2010 - 2:24 am
I’m not sure anything like this could be arranged formally though, I know that there was talk of Labour standing constituency candidates for the Scottish Parliament but not on the list, and the Co-Op party standing a full set of list candidates but not in any seats, and the electoral commission were quick to put a stop to it.
#18 by John Ruddy on September 28, 2010 - 6:54 pm
I hadnt heard that it had been formally proposed, and even if it were, I’m not sure there is anything the Electoral Commision COULD do about it – the Co-Op party being a totally legal seperate party, registered as such with the Electoral Commision. It has to submit seperate expenses etc. Theres certainly nothing against it in legislation.
In short, it might be against the spirit of the law, but not the letter, which doesnt condone it, but does say that such alliances could have electoral advantage.