I think the LibDems will probably survive OK at a council level, but even with a new leader I suspect that around half of their former voters will not vote for them again in the next ten years at a general election as a result of perceived untrustworthiness/feelings of betrayal. In a first-past-the-post system, the impression that you can't win is fatal. It takes a long time to build up a critical mass of credibility to the point that attracts a significant proportion of votes, and the LibDems seem to have flushed that critical mass down the toilet. Regardless of how badly they do in 2015, I think 2020 will be roughly as bad, or worse. I do take your point about people who supported the LibDems pre-2010 not having a natural alternative, Scots possibly excluded. But the Greens may well pick up a lot of them - that's what happened here when the Australian Democrats (similar to the LibDems, now defunct) imploded at a time the Greens were just starting to get their shit together.

The greens are far, far, far, to the left of the liberal democrats. I think labour will do better out of it than the greens will.

So do I.

But look at it the other way: before the Greens, who did Greens voters vote for. My bet would be LibDems, on the whole. Less on left/right considerations, but just motivated by progressivism generally. The Australian Greens are far to the left of where the Australian Democrats used to be, but were the main beneficiaries of their demise (which came after doing Tory-enabling deals, for what it's worth).

The charismatic founder of the Australian Democrats summed up their philosophy as existing to "keep the bastards honest". For those disenchanted with the major parties' lack of vision beyond expediency, a third party that trades on its integrity will always be attractive. The Greens fit this bill. The LibDems used to, but don't now, and tossing away their appeal to voters who want to "keep the bastards honest" will kill them off, in my opinion.

OlivierK wrote:So do I.

But look at it the other way: before the Greens, who did Greens voters vote for. My bet would be LibDems, on the whole.

Unlikely, there'd been a green party for 15 years before the Lib Dems came into existence. They could have voted liberal, but the political landscape has changed a lot since the early seventies.

I didn't mean "before the Greens existed, who did Greens voters vote for" but "before they voted for the Greens, who did Greens voters vote for". It's my impression, possibly incorrect from this distance, that the Greens are currently doing relatively well in the UK, and are tipped to win much of the student vote that once belonged to the LibDems. The latest ICM poll (third table) reckons that 8% of people who voted LibDem in 2010 will vote Green in 2015 (and 25% of LibDem voters will go to Labor). The N is tiny, so I take that with a sack of salt, but it seems that the Greens are currently well organised and led and have an opportunity to do very well from the LibDems' self-inflicted misfortunes. If that leads them to gaining a similar vote share to the LibDems over the next two elections, then I think the Greens' attractiveness to young voters, combined with their previous voter base, will keep them going upwards. We'll see, I guess.

Oh, I see, that makes a lot more sense, sorry I misunderstood.

Interesting link, thanks.

I sincerely doubt the Greens will be large beneficiaries though, which is what the link would suggest - even matching their current poll prediction of 5% would be a MASSIVELY good result for them - in recent years they've never managed to top 1%. I guess we'll see in time.

In the end, I think first-past-the-post dissuades many from voting Green. they always do better in the "if you thought they could win, who would you vote for?" polls. I can't really blame people for not voting for them if they're going to poll 5% in the constituency. Their nationwide vote will go up as the number of seats in which they can be expected to run first or second increases, more than anything else (in the absence of voting reform). Here, they run in the low teens, because we use STV and people know that they can vote for a candidate unlikely to win, and still direct preferences to "lesser of two evils" major party rather than waste their vote. They still only have one federal constituency MP, but their vote is a more accurate indicator of support levels, and in line with their Senate (kinda-sorta-PR) representation.

I'm jealous, perhaps I should emigrate to Oz. I was pretty disappointed with the fizzled attempt at electoral reform here. Whilst I personally would never vote green (or at least for our very left wing green party - not sure yours are as far left, which would suit me more) I think it's ridiculous that you have people who want to vote for them but won't because of the electoral system, I see nothing democratic in that.

I'd rather be on the "losing" side in a better democracy than the "winning" side in a more imperfect one.

Yeah, our electoral systems aren't perfect, but they get a lot right.

And our Greens are a curious mix of young progressives disgusted by the rightward lurch of the Australian Labor Party, environmental and social justice activists, and cranky old Marxists. Mainly the former these days, but it varies from state to state.

I've had a look at the UK Greens manifesto, and it lines up pretty closely with our own Greens' policies.

OlivierK wrote:In the end, I think first-past-the-post dissuades many from voting Green. they always do better in the "if you thought they could win, who would you vote for?" polls. I can't really blame people for not voting for them if they're going to poll 5% in the constituency...

Yes this likely the more important reason for former yellow voters to be voting labour as opposed to green than any consideration of policy. The yellow tory party used to have a wide range of views among its small support, but they have steadily losing seats since 2006 and today are reduced to the pro-europe tory party, and there's not much demand for that (ken clarke is already taken).

Many of their former supporters might be natural greens but not incapable of pragmatism, so will be voting labour as the party best placed to keep tories (blue yellow and purple) out. As the party most likely to be forming the government I would prefer to see labour having to chase progressive green votes rather than regressive anti-environment torydem ones.

In the British system voting for the Greens is really a wasted vote. If you dont want another tory government there is only one option I am afraid and that is labour. Voting SNP is an option in Scotland and a strong SNP fraction would stop Labour going too far to the right as it did under Blair.

The problem so long as the Britain remains with the FPTP there will always be a bias to the two major parties.

So What Went Wrong with the Electoral System?

We will be back to a very two party system after the next election when people find out voting Green gives you a ultra Conservative party , voting UKIP gives you a moderately pro European Labour party

The electoral system will NOT change but people will change to fit the system

mrjonno wrote:We will be back to a very two party system after the next election when people find out voting Green gives you a ultra Conservative party , voting UKIP gives you a moderately pro European Labour party

The electoral system will NOT change but people will change to fit the system

If I believed the words you write, I'd be depressed.

Old enough do realise that doing things because they are right or wrong is just idealistic shite of the young. I vote on what is likely to be work the best (or least worst).

If you really want to want to change things don't hang around with the young hand around with pensioners who have the numbers and actually vote. That basically the lesson to be taken from the Scottish referendum that the young don't change things, the internet doesnt change things , marches don't change , but keeping the biggest socio-economic groups happy does(the boring middle aged / middle classes and the old) slowly of course

ronmcd wrote:

mrjonno wrote:We will be back to a very two party system after the next election when people find out voting Green gives you a ultra Conservative party , voting UKIP gives you a moderately pro European Labour party

The electoral system will NOT change but people will change to fit the system

If I believed the words you write, I'd be depressed.

I agree Ron. The long term trend of the vote share of the biggest 2 parties has been a slow but persistent decline. I doubt we'll see it change so suddenly.

Thommo wrote:The greens are far, far, far, to the left of the liberal democrats. I think labour will do better out of it than the greens will.

The essential problem with the liberal democrats is that it's pretty much impossible to say what they are or how far left or right they are. There have been plenty of people vote lib dem because they were perceived as being further left than Nu Labour on some issues - such as taxes on the rich or free university education. Combine with that the lib dems making some of the right kinds of noises about environmental issues, and I can see the fit. My wife is an ex-lib dem thinking of going Green, and I don't think she's the only one.

In economic terms, however, the lib dems have now shown that their political space can be interpreted as being at least as far to the right as the tories. If you believe their resident representative on this forum, much of it appears even moreso. After all, that's the other meaning of "liberal" - as in "neo-liberalism". Nobody who supports that aspect of the party would seriously entertain voting for the Greens, who are about as close as we have to a communist party in the current political spectrum. But then they probably wouldn't vote Labour either.

My personal experience says that many more people have voted lib dem for the first reason rather than the second, so based on that some may vote Green, though as you say many will vote Labour. Presumeably those who voted for them in order to destroy the welfare state and NHS and let the Wisdom Of The MarketTM reign glorious, will be pretty happy with their record and vote for them again.

Beatsong wrote:In economic terms, however, the lib dems have now shown that their political space can be interpreted as being at least as far to the right as the tories. If you believe their resident representative on this forum, much of it appears even moreso.

This thread seems to be a competition as to who can write the most insane bullshit. You're currently winning.

So you mean you hate freedom?

Thanks for your perspective Beatsong.

Beatsong wrote:So you mean you hate freedom?

So "at least as far to the right as the tories" is freedom?