2011 British AV referendum postponed by a couple of years?

[Basileus Giorgios]

This thought occurred to me today.

What if, due to whatever reason, the bill for an AV referendum is passed by the Coalition Government at the same time as OTL: but it is stipulated that the referendum itself will only be held in the last eighteen months of the Parliament. Let's say for the sake of argument that Clegg feels in May 2010 that it is better to be seen to be concentrating on the big economic issues first: obviously at this point neither leader really anticipates just how much work they'll have to do to sooth their respective parties.

So, what happens?

 

[LancyIain]

An interesting idea. One thing that might happen is a slightly better local election performance for the LibDems in 2011 since without the referendum I suspect there would be a lower turnout and fewer people would be voting with the urge to give Nick Clegg a kicking. Another change is that UKIP are probably more of a factor in 2013-2014 than they were in 2011. That would mean Farage would be almost certain to be consulted on his and his party's views on the issue of AV. That would almost certainly lead to more UKIP involvement in the campaign than OTL. The leaders of three of the four largest parties would therefore be clearly in favour of the change. Labour would still be divided on the issue.

Possibly this change in timing would mean the boundary changes get passed in Parliament. The LibDems may be a bit less resentful too, since there will not be any perception that Cameron sanctioned a campaign aimed at targeting Clegg and the party in order to defeat AV. On the other hand, assuming the No campaign is roughly the same as OTL, when the referendum campaign happens the Conservatives and LibDems will have their differences exposed brutally, and they LibDems will feel Cameron targeted Clegg.

All in all, I think this might have made the 2011-2013/2014 period more harmonious within the coalition, but I think the two parties would find it harder to come back together afterwards than they did OTL. I'd say an early end to the coalition and early elections become more likely than they are, with (assuming the boundaries are changed) a Labour majority becoming less likely. AV is also more likely to come in since Ed and Farage are more established figures, meaning Clegg doesn't become quite as much the focus of the Yes campaign that he was. I don't know that it would have changed things enough for Yes to win, but I would think the result could well be a lot closer.

 

[V-J]

Farage would be excluded even if he was Lord God Almighty because the vast majority of people who seriously believe in electoral reform and would therefore naturally form the core of a campaign, as opposed to adopting it as a tactical position as UKIP do, can't bring themselves to mentally deal with the fact that its main effect would be as an enabling mechanism for parties like UKIP. For them it is electoral reform = Polly Toynbee and happycakes.

If anything a more established Farage would be a bigger threat; it would be even clearer that it would be a case of vote AV, get UKIP if they brought him on board. 2013 Farage would dominate an AV campaign and totally alienate the actual natural Guardianista constituency for electoral reform as the scales fell from peoples' eyes and it became clearer it wasn't the way to the New Jerusalem. Farage would be left saying 'Vote AV so we can actually have a chance at winning Westminster seats, oh please!' and it would go down in flames.