WI Tories do slightly worse in 2010?

Thande

Donor
There were reports that it was actually offered - I've seen it in a couple of books, and other sources suggest it as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/07/did_labour_offer_av_without_re.html

Labour offering automatic AV wasn't cloak and dagger stuff, it was openly announced the day after the election in OTL; I'm surprised nobody except me seems to remember. That's what scared the Tories into offering a referendum on AV, which Hague announced following Labour's offer.
 
Labour offering automatic AV wasn't cloak and dagger stuff, it was openly announced the day after the election in OTL; I'm surprised nobody except me seems to remember. That's what scared the Tories into offering a referendum on AV, which Hague announced following Labour's offer.

I remember this. Or I think I do, at least.

As the rest of the thread has said, though, the Tories still get in with Nick. There were leaked reports as early as January 2009 that the Lib Dems were preparing to go into government with Cameron.
 
David Laws mentions that the Labour negotiating team were pretty divided on it--Ed Balls in particular said things to the effect of "yeah, we'll push for AV, but to be honest, I don't see us getting it through the House", which rather undermining the whole promise.

Although the Tories taking fewer seats might not affect the formation of the government, it'll probably weaken Cameron's position with the Conservative Party--even in OTL there's an element of 'against an unpopular third-term prime minister with less charisma than a brick wall and still he couldn't win', which might be increased here.
 
OK, since the "straight AV Vote" was a real Labour offer, does that make such a vote in Parliament happening under a Conservative-Liberal Coalition any more likely? (I know VJ thinks not, but I'm interested in other opinions now.)
 
There were reports that it was actually offered - I've seen it in a couple of books, and other sources suggest it as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/07/did_labour_offer_av_without_re.html

From the very same Michael Crick blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/07/was_the_coalition_built_on_a_l.html

Ahead of tonight's Newsnight special on the coalition (at 2230 on BBC Two) it is worth asking a big question:

Were Conservative MPs railroaded into accepting the coalition on the basis of a lie, or at best an unfortunate misunderstanding?

That's the allegation which has been swirling round among Tories at Westminster for several weeks now.

One Conservative MP - far from a right-winger - reckons David Cameron lied to the shadow Cabinet and his backbench MPs at least four times in the hours leading up to the coalition agreement with the Lib Dems on 11 May.

The big issue is whether the Conservatives needed to offer Nick Clegg a referendum on the AV voting system.

Mystery especially surrounds what happened on the afternoon of Monday 10 May.

I recall William Hague emerging from St. Stephen's entrance of the Commons with the surprising news that the Tories would now offer the Lib Dems a referendum on AV.

I suggested to Hague that the Conservatives were now merely matching Labour, who had been promising a referendum on AV since Gordon Brown's speech at the 2009 Labour conference, and included it in their 2010 manifesto.

Oh no, Hague told me, he understood that Labour was now offering the Lib Dems AV WITHOUT a referendum.

I must admit Hague's comment disconcerted me. I failed to follow it up, simply because I feared I was uninformed and that Labour had made this promise during the course of the day and I hadn't noticed.

And it's now clear from several government Tory sources that David Cameron told both his Shadow Cabinet that afternoon, and the meeting of all Conservative MPs that evening, the same thing. His argument was that they had to do something to catch up with Labour's offer to the Lib Dems of AV without a referendum.

But it wasn't true. There's no evidence that Labour ever offered the Lib Dems AV without a referendum. Indeed it's hard to see how the Labour leadership ever could have got Labour MPs to go along with such an idea.

Among those Conservative MPs who recall being told by the party leadership that Labour was offering AV without a referendum was Julian Lewis.

And during the Commons debate on the Queen's Speech, on 7 June, he raised the matter with the Shadow Justice Secretary Jack Straw:

Dr Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman [Jack Straw] confirm that in the course of the competitive negotiations with the Liberal Democrats as to which side was going to form a Government, his party offered the Liberal Democrats a deal whereby AV would be rammed through this House without a referendum?

Mr Jack Straw: The answer is no. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that a very significant proportion of Labour Members, including myself, would never have accepted such a proposition had it been put forward - let us be absolutely clear about that.

(Hansard 7 June 2010, cols 29-30)

Astonished to get that response, Julian Lewis then pursued the issue with Nick Clegg later in the same debate:

Dr Lewis: ..... He will have heard the answer that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) gave when I asked him whether it had been the case that the outgoing Labour Prime Minister had offered, during the coalition negotiations, to ram through the alternative vote without a referendum. I am not giving away any trade secrets when I say that Conservative MPs were told that that was the case. The Deputy Prime Minister is in a position to know. Were the Liberal Democrats offered by the Labour Party the alternative vote without a referendum? Can he set the matter to rest?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The answer is no. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) was right. That was not offered by the Labour Party in those discussions. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is right - I should know whether it was offered or not.

(Hansard 7 June 2010, col 44)

So where did the story about Labour offering the Lib Dems AV without a referendum come from?

There are several possibilities.

In their talks with the Tories did the Lib Dems over-egg, exaggerate, or even lie about what Labour had offered them?

That's certainly the view of at least one Conservative minister who is very hostile to the referendum.

Or did the Conservatives simply misunderstand what the Lib Dems said they were being offered by Labour?

Alternatively, did David Cameron and his senior colleagues simply invent Labour's offer in order to cajole Tory backbenchers into accepting they should offer Lib Dems the AV referendum?

There's one other intriguing possibility - which some Labour people suspect may have happened - that in a desperate moment Gordon Brown privately offered Lib Dems AV without an referendum, but failed to tell Jack Straw or any of his other colleagues or the Labour negotiators about his offer. In any case, Nick Clegg denied that in the Commons.

Meanwhile another of David Cameron's claims also aggrieves many Conservative MPs as they become increasingly concerned about the coalition.

In his meeting with Tory MPs on the Monday evening, David Cameron said the party had no option but to go into coalition with the Lib Dems, and that a minority government wouldn't be viable.

And yet only two days later, in the famous press conference in Downing Street garden (misnamed the Rose Garden press conference), Cameron claimed he could indeed have gone it alone, but much preferred a firm coalition with the Lib Dems.

"We could have had a minority government backed by a Confidence and Supply arrangement but thought this is so uninspiring, it might last for a month, six months or a year but it won't do what we want to achieve..."

As the arguments about AV and the coalition get increasingly heated over coming months, the mysteries of who said what during those few fascinating days may be worth a lot more examination.

Most relevant points highlighted in bold, but to sum up, if it was offered, then it was done by Gordon Brown, off his own bat, in a moment of madness, without any knowledge by Labour itself, and it was never a serious proposal which was going to fly with Labour. It's simply ludicrous, to my mind, to suggest that the Labour negotiating team, as a unit, actually formally offered this to the Lib Dems, it betrays a complete ignorance of how the issue is recieved in Labour. They were neither that desperate for a coalition nor that stupid. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, in the circumstances, was both. There is a massive, massive difference between Gordon Brown, as a self-interested individual political operator, floating the idea without consultation, and the Labour Party as a collective body floating it.

I disagree with Crick on Clegg denying Brown personally offering it - note the careful way Clegg phrases his answer - "that was not offered by the Labour Party in those [the formal coalition negotiation] discussions"
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
From the very same Michael Crick blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/07/was_the_coalition_built_on_a_l.html



Most relevant points highlighted in bold, but to sum up, if it was offered, then it was done by Gordon Brown, off his own bat, in a moment of madness, without any knowledge by Labour itself, and it was never a serious proposal which was going to fly with Labour.

Ah, now that's interesting. It is true that I remember it being said by or about Hague that Labour had done it. So perhaps it was a cover-up then. Hmm.
 
David Laws mentions that the Labour negotiating team were pretty divided on it--Ed Balls in particular said things to the effect of "yeah, we'll push for AV, but to be honest, I don't see us getting it through the House", which rather undermining the whole promise.

Although the Tories taking fewer seats might not affect the formation of the government, it'll probably weaken Cameron's position with the Conservative Party--even in OTL there's an element of 'against an unpopular third-term prime minister with less charisma than a brick wall and still he couldn't win', which might be increased here.

Cameron is essentially toast if there's a Lib-Lab coalition. He might get a year to hang around and see if it's going to collapse but he's just not cut out to be an appealing King Across The Water.
 
Cameron is essentially toast if there's a Lib-Lab coalition.

Not, toast, not immediately, but his position would be weak. Phone hacking and the related fallout, I suspect, would be the coup de grace.

(Assuming that is an ATL workable Lab-Lib coalition or course, and not some +1 majority rainbow monstrosity, which would have been the result with an OTL result)
 
Not, toast, not immediately, but his position would be weak. Phone hacking and the related fallout, I suspect, would be the coup de grace.

(Assuming that is that this is an ATL workable Lab-Lib coalition or course, and not some +1 majority monstrosity)

Pretty much why I said if it lasts he's gone after a year's grace.
 

AndyC

Donor
From the very same Michael Crick blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/07/was_the_coalition_built_on_a_l.html



Most relevant points highlighted in bold, but to sum up, if it was offered, then it was done by Gordon Brown, off his own bat, in a moment of madness, without any knowledge by Labour itself, and it was never a serious proposal which was going to fly with Labour. It's simply ludicrous, to my mind, to suggest that the Labour negotiating team, as a unit, actually formally offered this to the Lib Dems, it betrays a complete ignorance of how the issue is recieved in Labour. They were neither that desperate for a coalition nor that stupid. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, in the circumstances, was both. There is a massive, massive difference between Gordon Brown, as a self-interested individual political operator, floating the idea without consultation, and the Labour Party as a collective body floating it.

I disagree with Crick on Clegg denying Brown personally offering it - note the careful way Clegg phrases his answer - "that was not offered by the Labour Party in those [the formal coalition negotiation] discussions"

Well, Crick is contradicting himself. I'll note that both the posts came on the same day (26 July 2010), and near sequentially (ie the post you highlighted, followed by another that agreed, followed by a last one on it (the one I highlighted saying that secret sources told him that they DID offer it w/o a referendum but it was swiftly withdrawn (probably for the reasons you cite))
 
(the one I highlighted saying that secret sources told him that they DID offer it w/o a referendum but it was swiftly withdrawn (probably for the reasons you cite))

If by 'they' you mean Labour, it doesn't actually say that, it just reiterates the rumour that was raised in the post I quoted, about Brown:

A pro-Labour source whom I trust, and who was working on the fringes of the coaliton talks says that to his knowledge Gordon Brown DID suggest to Nick Clegg at one point that it might be possible to push through AV without a referendum.

Emphasis on Gordon Brown, which, as I stated above, is a hell of a lot different to it coming from the Labour negotiating team. All that I've read on this does repeat at least the rumour of Gordon Brown making this offer, so it's not some kind of secret history or anything. But even if we accept this rumour, it doesn't amount to a credible offer for AV without a referendum from Labour. If G Bone made such an offer, he was speaking ultra vires.
 
If by 'they' you mean Labour, it doesn't actually say that, it just reiterates the rumour that was raised in the post I quoted, about Brown:



Emphasis on Gordon Brown, which, as I stated above, is a hell of a lot different to it coming from the Labour negotiating team. All that I've read on this does repeat at least the rumour of Gordon Brown making this offer, so it's not some kind of secret history or anything. But even if we accept this rumour, it doesn't amount to a credible offer for AV without a referendum from Labour. If G Bone made such an offer, he was speaking ultra vires.

Appendix 5 in 22 Days in May is the minutes from the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition talks and has the following passage:
2.1.2 Immediate legislation to introduce the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons. This will be confirmed in a referendum.

Given that (to my knowledge), none of the Labour negotiating team has called Laws out on that (or heck, sued for libel), it seems pretty conclusive that a deal was offered, and offered officially by the team, not by Gordon Brown in a fit of panic.
 
David Laws explicitly stated that the idea that Labour offered to scrap the current system without a referendum was due to "confusion in the smoke and heat of battle" when he appeared before the Commons political and constitutional reform committee in October 2010. As you can see from the above quotes, Jack Straw and Nick Clegg have also poured cold water on this, and I know Andrew Adonis has as well, if not openly. (Rawnsley interviewed him for The End of the Party)

With respect I think you are misinterpreting that rather brief footnote. I think what it is trying to express is the exact same process that happened IOTL, with enabling legislation for the referendum. Though at the basic level I confess I am rather puzzled how you can believe that "This will be confirmed in a referendum" is an expression of an intention not to hold a referendum on the issue.
 
David Laws explicitly stated that the idea that Labour offered to scrap the current system without a referendum was due to "confusion in the smoke and heat of battle" when he appeared before the Commons political and constitutional reform committee in October 2010. As you can see from the above quotes, Jack Straw and Nick Clegg have also poured cold water on this, and I know Andrew Adonis has as well, if not openly. (Rawnsley interviewed him for The End of the Party)

With respect I think you are misreading that rather brief footnote. I think what it is trying to express is the exact same process that happened IOTL, with enabling legislation for the referendum. Though at the basic level I confess I am rather puzzled how you can believe that "This will be confirmed in a referendum" is an expression of an intention not to hold a referendum on the issue.

Oh, I don't--as I understand that sentence, it's saying the same thing as OTL, except the change will be enacted before the poll, and the referendum question will be worded as 'do you want to change back'. Admittedly, that's probably not what is conventionally understood by the phrase 'change to AV without a referendum', but its probably just true enough that nobody would actually be lying by saying it.
 
Oh, I don't--as I understand that sentence, it's saying the same thing as OTL, except the change will be enacted before the poll, and the referendum question will be worded as 'do you want to change back'. Admittedly, that's probably not what is conventionally understood by the phrase 'change to AV without a referendum', but its probably just true enough that nobody would actually be lying by saying it.

Ah gotcha; I'd say that's technically different from a straight Parliamentary AV Vote, unless there's a General Election before (or on the same day as) said referenda. That said, I am slightly curious now if changing the wording of the ballot to "change back" would be enough to get a Pro-AV Vote, or whether the Brits would still stick with what they know (though I'd guess the British voters just prefer FPTP).
 
Top