Talking to the Liberal Democrats won’t be easy

My own political story is a case in point: I’ve been a Labour activist all my adult life and in every constituency I’ve lived, the Lib Dems not the Tories were the opposition. I’ve seen close up, as a council candidate, how they can campaign – and in 2005 I was heartbroken when my first boss, the Labour MP Anne Campbell, was unseated by a Lib Dem.

But if we want to see Labour in government, we need to be ready to talk. Of course, we all want Labour to win the election outright and hope we don’t need to negotiate with anyone. But we can’t ignore the polls. Labour needs to be thoroughly prepared to negotiate a partnership with the Liberal Democrats – either a second coalition or some looser political alliance.

So today the Fabian Society and Centre Forum – the independent liberal think tank – publish a joint analysis of the policy programmes of the two parties. Our aim is to facilitate a clearer understanding of the potential (or otherwise) for partnership, from the point of view of policy. This is independent analysis without any involvement from the two parties. It is a resource for the politicians, not something they have ghost-written.

The report shows that – with respect to policy – there is significant common ground between Labour and the Liberal Democrats which offers scope for positive dialogue and potential agreement. If the electoral maths and personal relationships permit it, the overlaps suggest a realistic and comprehensive agenda for government could be negotiated.

To start with, there are many examples of matching policy commitments: fiscal rules which permit the government to borrow for investment; decarbonising the power sector by 2030; major devolution within England; extended free childcare for under-5s; building at least 200,000 new homes a year; a higher Minimum Wage; means-testing the Winter Fuel Payment; an elected House of Lords; votes at 16; and the mansion tax.

There is an even longer list where one party has a policy position, but the other does not. Our judgement is that many of the ideas of one party will be acceptable to the other, if presented as part of a positive negotiation, where both sides come in a spirit of give-and-take. For example Labour might be prepared to go further on environmental issues than its current position, while the Liberal Democrats would probably accept Labour’s banking and job guarantee proposals.

Then there is a shorter list of clear disagreements, including Trident, airport expansion, the energy price freeze and the 50p top rate of tax. The success of any negotiation would turn on how these issues were handled: but if the two parties wanted to work together they could probably find a way around these issues.

Of course, each party’s 2015 policies are the transient product of their longer term political and ideological commitments. So there is also the question of whether their worldviews would be sufficiently close for the parties to sustain a con­structive partnership over a whole parliament. Or would we see a slow-motion ‘divorce’ once early commitments were fulfilled, as has been the case with the present coalition? Only time will tell, but the instincts of Liberal Democrats on economic, social and political reform seem to suggest that a lasting relationship with Labour is at least possible.

A deal with the Lib Dems might be unsustainable for reasons apart from policy, especially if both parties perform poorly in May: our report passes no judgement on the electoral wisdom of a pact. But if a partnership opens the prospect of a radical Labour-led government, then we should not dismiss it out of hand. With so much overlap between the two parties, Labour must be ready to talk, should the electoral maths require it. Otherwise the Lib Dems will fall into the arms of the Conservatives again.

You can read “Common Ground?” on the CentreForum website here