Not The Politics Thread.

[Voll Blau]

1 minute ago, LiberalFox said:

If Labour really cared about ending Conservative dominance of British politics they would support PR. 

 

This is true. And the majority of Labour members support it too.

[bovril]

I don't necessarily blame Conservative voters in 2019 based on what was the alternative, and I understand why Johnson's vison for the country sold well.

 

I have less empathy for people who are still sure they'll vote for them in the next election, even though there's a long time to go. I'd probably rather vote for whatever Farage's next party is than the current government. 

[Alf Bentley]

33 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

If Labour really cared about ending Conservative dominance of British politics they would support PR. 

 

 

As an inactive Labour Party member, I've long been a supporter of PR - like many party members. Before the 2001 election I went and lobbied my then Lab MP about the party reneging on its 1997 commitment to hold an electoral reform referendum (potentially winnable at the time). On hearing his guff about FPTP providing "strong government" (), I then went and cast a protest vote for the Lib Dems at the 2001 election.

 

If given the chance, I'd still vote for the party to adopt PR as a policy - and would vote for that in any referendum. But political times move on and I wonder if changing Lab policy is still the best way of achieving PR?

 

I'm inactive, as I say, so not the best qualified to comment on thinking within the Lab membership but....

- Labour lost votes at recent elections due to the Tory idea of a Lab vote meaning a "coalition of chaos" with the SNP and others (bitterly ironic, given the 2010-15 Con/LD "coalition of austerity"). Maybe a Lab PR policy could become popular, particularly if the Tories continue to abuse power and discredit themselves. But for Labour there would obviously be a big risk of it providing ammunition for the Tory "coalition of chaos" argument.

- I also wonder if Labour memories of 2010-15 will still be too fresh? Because PR would be massively beneficial to the LDs, but what did they do on the one occasion they achieved power? They joined a Tory-led coalition that introduced savage public spending cuts, entrenching inequality and poverty & lack of opportunities for a substantial minority. I know there are valid arguments why an alternative centre-left coalition would've been potentially unstable in 2010 - and I'm sure you'll say that the LDs managed to moderate Tory policy......but the widespread opinion is that they didn't moderate it much at all, certainly not enough. An accurate opinion, in my view.

 

So, I wonder if PR - or at least a PR referendum - is more likely to be achieved through agreement between Lab, LDs and other pro-PR parties AFTER an election that produces a hung parliament?

Labour, Lib Dems & other sympathetic parties generally have the potential to challenge the Tories in different seats - and Labour currently looks incapable of winning a majority. But, depending on events, a hung parliament in 2023-24 is quite possible, so a decent wedge of LD MPs in a hung parliament would be in a strong position to push Labour over the line on PR....especially as many members/MPs are in favour.

 

As 99% of voters do not share our intense interest in electoral reform and 90%+ don't have any deep interest in politics, maybe the parties are better advised to focus on core arguments of wider interest - and on the seats they can win? 

Then, a hung parliament might offer a much better opportunity to achieve the PR goal.

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As an inactive Labour Party member, I've long been a supporter of PR - like many party members. Before the 2001 election I went and lobbied my then Lab MP about the party reneging on its 1997 commitment to hold an electoral reform referendum (potentially winnable at the time). On hearing his guff about FPTP providing "strong government" (), I then went and cast a protest vote for the Lib Dems at the 2001 election.

 

If given the chance, I'd still vote for the party to adopt PR as a policy - and would vote for that in any referendum. But political times move on and I wonder if changing Lab policy is still the best way of achieving PR?

 

I'm inactive, as I say, so not the best qualified to comment on thinking within the Lab membership but....

- Labour lost votes at recent elections due to the Tory idea of a Lab vote meaning a "coalition of chaos" with the SNP and others (bitterly ironic, given the 2010-15 Con/LD "coalition of austerity"). Maybe a Lab PR policy could become popular, particularly if the Tories continue to abuse power and discredit themselves. But for Labour there would obviously be a big risk of it providing ammunition for the Tory "coalition of chaos" argument.

- I also wonder if Labour memories of 2010-15 will still be too fresh? Because PR would be massively beneficial to the LDs, but what did they do on the one occasion they achieved power? They joined a Tory-led coalition that introduced savage public spending cuts, entrenching inequality and poverty & lack of opportunities for a substantial minority. I know there are valid arguments why an alternative centre-left coalition would've been potentially unstable in 2010 - and I'm sure you'll say that the LDs managed to moderate Tory policy......but the widespread opinion is that they didn't moderate it much at all, certainly not enough. An accurate opinion, in my view.

 

So, I wonder if PR - or at least a PR referendum - is more likely to be achieved through agreement between Lab, LDs and other pro-PR parties AFTER an election that produces a hung parliament?

Labour, Lib Dems & other sympathetic parties generally have the potential to challenge the Tories in different seats - and Labour currently looks incapable of winning a majority. But, depending on events, a hung parliament in 2023-24 is quite possible, so a decent wedge of LD MPs in a hung parliament would be in a strong position to push Labour over the line on PR....especially as many members/MPs are in favour.

 

As 99% of voters do not share our intense interest in electoral reform and 90%+ don't have any deep interest in politics, maybe the parties are better advised to focus on core arguments of wider interest - and on the seats they can win? 

Then, a hung parliament might offer a much better opportunity to achieve the PR goal.

That all seems reasonable and I'm sure will happen regardless (the part about focusing on winnable seats).  I was more referring to Blair having the chance and deciding instead he was quite happy running the country on 30 something percent of the vote. I won't hold my breath for proper electoral reform if and when someone manages to win one with Labour. 

[Spiritwalker]

3 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

If Labour really cared about ending Conservative dominance of British politics they would support PR. 

 

With the SNP taking control in Scotland and the increasing drift to the right in England, it is probably

Labour’s easiest route back into power.

[Dunge]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As an inactive Labour Party member, I've long been a supporter of PR - like many party members. Before the 2001 election I went and lobbied my then Lab MP about the party reneging on its 1997 commitment to hold an electoral reform referendum (potentially winnable at the time). On hearing his guff about FPTP providing "strong government" (), I then went and cast a protest vote for the Lib Dems at the 2001 election.

 

If given the chance, I'd still vote for the party to adopt PR as a policy - and would vote for that in any referendum. But political times move on and I wonder if changing Lab policy is still the best way of achieving PR?

 

I'm inactive, as I say, so not the best qualified to comment on thinking within the Lab membership but....

- Labour lost votes at recent elections due to the Tory idea of a Lab vote meaning a "coalition of chaos" with the SNP and others (bitterly ironic, given the 2010-15 Con/LD "coalition of austerity"). Maybe a Lab PR policy could become popular, particularly if the Tories continue to abuse power and discredit themselves. But for Labour there would obviously be a big risk of it providing ammunition for the Tory "coalition of chaos" argument.

- I also wonder if Labour memories of 2010-15 will still be too fresh? Because PR would be massively beneficial to the LDs, but what did they do on the one occasion they achieved power? They joined a Tory-led coalition that introduced savage public spending cuts, entrenching inequality and poverty & lack of opportunities for a substantial minority. I know there are valid arguments why an alternative centre-left coalition would've been potentially unstable in 2010 - and I'm sure you'll say that the LDs managed to moderate Tory policy......but the widespread opinion is that they didn't moderate it much at all, certainly not enough. An accurate opinion, in my view.

 

So, I wonder if PR - or at least a PR referendum - is more likely to be achieved through agreement between Lab, LDs and other pro-PR parties AFTER an election that produces a hung parliament?

Labour, Lib Dems & other sympathetic parties generally have the potential to challenge the Tories in different seats - and Labour currently looks incapable of winning a majority. But, depending on events, a hung parliament in 2023-24 is quite possible, so a decent wedge of LD MPs in a hung parliament would be in a strong position to push Labour over the line on PR....especially as many members/MPs are in favour.

 

As 99% of voters do not share our intense interest in electoral reform and 90%+ don't have any deep interest in politics, maybe the parties are better advised to focus on core arguments of wider interest - and on the seats they can win? 

Then, a hung parliament might offer a much better opportunity to achieve the PR goal.

I know there’s more to your post than just the bolded line but I think it’s worth mentioning: The idea of anyone in coalition with the SNP is a big put-off for me. Partly because I simply don’t think they’re very good and get a free pass due to “protecting Scotland from the Tories”, but mainly because of what they’d demand from coalition (and they explicitly did this before the last election when asked about coalitions) - an indyref2 and scrapping Trident. I’m not sure whether it’s worth going into exactly why at this point because it would be off at a tangent, but suffice to say both of these things are red flags to me.

 

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, bovril said:

I don't necessarily blame Conservative voters in 2019 based on what was the alternative, and I understand why Johnson's vison for the country sold well.

 

I have less empathy for people who are still sure they'll vote for them in the next election, even though there's a long time to go. I'd probably rather vote for whatever Farage's next party is than the current government. 

This is fair.

I’m still unsure where I’ll cast my vote at the next election and if I do vote conservative I’m due pelters, I accept that. I genuinely don’t want too. I hope Starmer can convince me, all the signs are good atm, because non of the others remotely interest me.

[Daggers]

On 04/11/2021 at 16:30, SecretPro said:

Starmer is definitely PART of the problem though. For instance, like him or not, if Andy Burnham was in charge of Labour they would be doing significantly better in the polls.

Nope. Burnham has no game. This isn’t about personality, it’s about strategy and both him, Starmer and Corbyn are woeful at it. 
 

It’s really quite simple: come up with five to seven policy catchphrases, engineer a list of key points to convey, hit the media with a story every day in relation to the first two. Keep doing this until the election is called and tie in everything you say about current issues to those points. Hit it again, and again, and again. 
 

They need to employ a competent presser. Comms not appearance is the issue - Starmer is a very sellable commodity because he is trustworthy. It’s shocking that this isn’t being acted on. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

That all seems reasonable and I'm sure will happen regardless (the part about focusing on winnable seats).  I was more referring to Blair having the chance and deciding instead he was quite happy running the country on 30 something percent of the vote. I won't hold my breath for proper electoral reform if and when someone manages to win one with Labour. 

 

I completely agree about Blair cynically reneging on his manifesto commitment to an electoral reform referendum in 1997. I was angry about that at the time, as I said.

 

As you used the present tense and didn't mention Blair, I assumed you were wanting Labour to back PR now. I'd agree with that, too, but was just highlighting the difficulties. Not least of which is that if Labour adopted an overtly pro-PR policy, it could actually make PR much less likely if the Tories successfully used it as ammunition for their "coalition of chaos" ploy at the election. In 2015, that played a significant part in ensuring Labour lost, the LDs got turfed out of the coalition, we got a Tory majority Govt, then Brexit & then Johnson. There needs to be good tactics and good awareness of where the electorate stands.

 

If the electorate ever get dismayed at the constant incompetence, apparent corruption & anti-democratic arrogance of the majority Tory Govt, campaigning for electoral reform might become a vote-winner & voters might see the prospect of coalition govt as a positive, not a negative......but that time doesn't seem to have arrived yet. It might not harm the LD vote, but if it harmed Labour, then the election of another Tory majority govt would certainly harm prospects for LDs and for PR.

 

Of course, there are obstacles within Labour, too: plenty support PR, but plenty also oppose it - not least most of the unions, the main funders of the party.

 

So, I agree again that you're right not to hold your breath for electoral reform from any majority govt, Con or Lab. Maybe the good news for you is that, because of SNP dominance in Scotland, it's now a massively difficult task for Labour to win a majority.

Hopefully a few more in Lab will realise that and swing behind PR, albeit for selfish tactical reasons not democratic idealism. The best scenario might be for Labour to have a low-profile, fudged stance going into the next election  - perhaps promising a commission to look at the pros and cons so as to improve democracy.......then, the election happens, Labour is the biggest party in a hung  parliament with a substantial wedge of Lib Dems, who are able to use their kingmaker position to push Labour to support PR or at least a referendum in exchange for a confidence & supply govt deal or similar....... Dreaming is good for the morale!  

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I know there’s more to your post than just the bolded line but I think it’s worth mentioning: The idea of anyone in coalition with the SNP is a big put-off for me. Partly because I simply don’t think they’re very good and get a free pass due to “protecting Scotland from the Tories”, but mainly because of what they’d demand from coalition (and they explicitly did this before the last election when asked about coalitions) - an indyref2 and scrapping Trident. I’m not sure whether it’s worth going into exactly why at this point because it would be off at a tangent, but suffice to say both of these things are red flags to me.

 

 

I don't know enough about the SNP in office to comment on that bit, though I'd strongly prefer to avoid Scottish independence - though I'd be fine with further devolution of power within the UK (and not just for Scotland).

 

As someone living in England, I don't really see it as my business whether Indyref2 happens, though I'd prefer it didn't. But the parties who hold a majority in the Scottish Parliament (SNP & Greens) were elected on a specific mandate to get Indyref2, so if that situation is maintained it will probably have to happen at some point, if we still believe in democracy.

 

Worth remembering, of course, that Indyref1 was not approved by a Labour "coalition of chaos" but by a Tory-LD coalition....

 

The SNP demand on Trident refers mainly to the scenario AFTER hypothetical independence, doesn't it? They'd be entitled to adopt that stance if they ever won independence - and presumably Rump-UK wouldn't want Trident in a foreign country!

 

But without independence, if Labour depended on SNP support as a minority UK Govt, I can't see them agreeing to be pushed around by the SNP on a crucial defence issue - though I could imagine Labour agreeing to Indyref2 (but opposing independence & making it as difficult as possible). Plus, if the SNP had that crucial influence, I'm sure it's Indyref2 they'd prioritise, not Trident. Indeed, I imagine they partly raise the Trident issue to make trouble for Labour as they see a Tory Govt in London as more beneficial to their chances of achieving independence via polarisation between "Tory England" and "Independent Scotland". 

[Dunge]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't know enough about the SNP in office to comment on that bit, though I'd strongly prefer to avoid Scottish independence - though I'd be fine with further devolution of power within the UK (and not just for Scotland).

 

As someone living in England, I don't really see it as my business whether Indyref2 happens, though I'd prefer it didn't. But the parties who hold a majority in the Scottish Parliament (SNP & Greens) were elected on a specific mandate to get Indyref2, so if that situation is maintained it will probably have to happen at some point, if we still believe in democracy.

 

Worth remembering, of course, that Indyref1 was not approved by a Labour "coalition of chaos" but by a Tory-LD coalition....

 

The SNP demand on Trident refers mainly to the scenario AFTER hypothetical independence, doesn't it? They'd be entitled to adopt that stance if they ever won independence - and presumably Rump-UK wouldn't want Trident in a foreign country!

 

But without independence, if Labour depended on SNP support as a minority UK Govt, I can't see them agreeing to be pushed around by the SNP on a crucial defence issue - though I could imagine Labour agreeing to Indyref2 (but opposing independence & making it as difficult as possible). Plus, if the SNP had that crucial influence, I'm sure it's Indyref2 they'd prioritise, not Trident. Indeed, I imagine they partly raise the Trident issue to make trouble for Labour as they see a Tory Govt in London as more beneficial to their chances of achieving independence via polarisation between "Tory England" and "Independent Scotland". 

It is quite possible that they raised Trident last time to put pressure on Corbyn that they thought they could win. Whether they’d do the same thing again next election remains to be seen - the question of coalition is inevitable for the SNP. Like you say, I’m sure the discussion behind the scenes is that a Tory government is good for their support in Scotland with independence the ultimate goal.

 

As for indyref2, I take a different view to you: It’s because I believe in democracy that I don’t want it, at least for another 30 or so years. I didn’t have the same issue with the original because it wasn’t a question that had been recently answered. (Although obviously I was happy with the returned Remain vote in it.)

[Daggers]

And seeing as someone forgot to post the latest Britain Elects polling…

 

 

[ealingfox]

22 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

I didn't say they were solely the responsible. Obviously the Tory party and their supporters got them elected, but they were already in power and only increased their vote by 1% - around 300,000 votes. Every poll had them way ahead - all they had to do was maintain what they'd already got, which they did. 

 

Every poll had Labour behind and there was a very obvious and vocal dislike and distrust of Corbyn throughout the country and in Labour/centre left circles. He consistently put himself above what was right for the party and the country - then Labour lost 8% of their 2017 number, more than 2 and a half million people voting for other left leaning parties or abstaining all together. Like I said in the other post, he should have gone after Brexit, after the 2017 defeat, after every scandal within the party, for the good of the party and the country. I'm blaming Corbyn for not being good enough and for not giving the electorate a better choice. And I say that as someone who has always voted Labour (except tactically the Lib Dems in 2010 to try to keep the Tories out, which backfired somewhat); despite living in Charnwood which is one of the safest Tory seats. 

 

I don't disagree that Corbyn should have stepped aside after 2017 and before 2019, but you are wilfully omitting 2 key facts from your argument. Firstly that Corbyn was also the leader for the 2017 election, in which he got 40% of the vote, more than respectable for any Labour leader, and I think its wishful thinking to suggest any other leader would have stepped aside after those results. Any sensible analysis concludes that the decline at 2019 went beyond Corbyn himself - indeed all things considered the change in Brexit policy (which was not driven by Corbyn), correct or not, was likely just as big a factor.

 

Secondly your assertion in your previous post that all the Conservative machine had on Ed Miliband in 2015 was his consumption of a bacon sandwich, and the manner of a specific policy announcement. It neglects the fact that the Conservatives won a majority in 2015. I presume that was as much Miliband's responsibility as 2019 was Corbyn's? I acknowledge that this is harder to accept in hindsight because it is clear now that Ed Miliband is one of our strongest Parliamentarians. 

 

21 hours ago, Dunge said:

I feel like there’s actually a lot to unpack here, so…

 

- Did I vote Conservative at the last election?  Yes.

- Knowing what I do now, would I vote the same way again if presented with the exact same situation?  Yes. It remains the easiest vote I’ve ever cast, in no small part because all of the alternatives were entirely unpalatable in the circumstances.

- Did Corbyn and his actions affect my vote?  Yes, in a sense. Not saying I wouldn’t have voted Conservative anyway but he made the vote vehement being the leader of the primary alternative.

- Should Corbyn take some responsibility for the current Conservative government?  Of course; he was the leader of the opposition. If he’s not going to take responsibility for an election result four years into his tenure as leader, what is he doing there?

- Should I take responsibility for the current Conservative government?  I guess. It is a democracy. But if you’re expecting me to traipse through Leicester holding a placard with the word “Shame” above my head then you’ll have a long wait. Frankly I’m not quite sure what this even means in practice, although I see it written a lot.

- If there was another election next month based on the situation now rather than the situation then, would I vote Conservative?  I don’t know. I like Starmer but fear Labour look a bit wet in general. Meanwhile the Conservatives are massively lacking integrity, particularly their leader. I’d say Labour are in the lead for me right now but it’s not decided. Greens are too far left and Lib Dems I don’t see the point.

 

You've unpacked a lot more than I packed in originally.

 

When I say you're responsible, obviously that is a in a tiny way because you're one of millions, but of course you're responsible for there being a Conservative government, you voted for them! That doesn't also mean you have to take the blame for all their decisions.

 

I'm sorry, but it's just at best simplistic, and at worst plainly incorrect to suggest that Jeremy Corbyn is responsible for the actions of the Conservative Party or a Conservative government. An election result is a different matter. His fault is in people not voting for Labour, but there were other candidates beyond Labour and Conservative ones and the option of abstention, not one person in the country was forced to vote Conservative as a result of not wanting to vote for Labour. And as you say, you'd have voted for the Conservatives anyway - shouldn't be any issue owning that decision.

 

20 hours ago, Izzy said:

Brave post my fellow cretin 

 

I do hope this was not also in reply to my post as I said nothing of the sort. 

 

19 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

If Labour really cared about ending Conservative dominance of British politics they would support PR. 

 

 

I assume you realise this means, realistically, that you and your fellow opposition parties would have to vote for Labour on at least a one-time basis to get it implemented. Would you do that?

[Carl the Llama]

21 hours ago, Dunge said:

I feel like there’s actually a lot to unpack here, so…

 

- Did I vote Conservative at the last election?  Yes.

- Knowing what I do now, would I vote the same way again if presented with the exact same situation?  Yes. It remains the easiest vote I’ve ever cast, in no small part because all of the alternatives were entirely unpalatable in the circumstances.

- Did Corbyn and his actions affect my vote?  Yes, in a sense. Not saying I wouldn’t have voted Conservative anyway but he made the vote vehement being the leader of the primary alternative.

- Should Corbyn take some responsibility for the current Conservative government?  Of course; he was the leader of the opposition. If he’s not going to take responsibility for an election result four years into his tenure as leader, what is he doing there?

- Should I take responsibility for the current Conservative government?  I guess. It is a democracy. But if you’re expecting me to traipse through Leicester holding a placard with the word “Shame” above my head then you’ll have a long wait. Frankly I’m not quite sure what this even means in practice, although I see it written a lot.

- If there was another election next month based on the situation now rather than the situation then, would I vote Conservative?  I don’t know. I like Starmer but fear Labour look a bit wet in general. Meanwhile the Conservatives are massively lacking integrity, particularly their leader. I’d say Labour are in the lead for me right now but it’s not decided. Greens are too far left and Lib Dems I don’t see the point.

You aren't sure between a party that seem "a bit wet" and one which has spent the past 2 years pushing the country ever deeper into crisis while they laugh it all off and line each-other's pockets, hiding from all accountability along the way?  How is it even close?  Genuinely curious what the thought process is because my brain simply cannot wrap itself around it.

[LiberalFox]

 

11 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

I assume you realise this means, realistically, that you and your fellow opposition parties would have to vote for Labour on at least a one-time basis to get it implemented. Would you do that?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Lib Dem MPs would always vote in favour of electoral reforms. 

[ealingfox]

Just now, LiberalFox said:

 

I'm not sure I understand the question. Lib Dem MPs would always vote in favour of electoral reforms. 

 

The only way a change in the electoral process could realistically be implemented is with a Labour government, so providing that was part of their manifesto, Labour would have to be voted into being at least the largest party. That would inevitably mean people voting for them who wouldn't otherwise. My question was whether, hypothetically, you would side with Labour over the Conservatives if it was required in your constituency to make this happen.

[LiberalFox]

14 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I completely agree about Blair cynically reneging on his manifesto commitment to an electoral reform referendum in 1997. I was angry about that at the time, as I said.

 

As you used the present tense and didn't mention Blair, I assumed you were wanting Labour to back PR now. I'd agree with that, too, but was just highlighting the difficulties. Not least of which is that if Labour adopted an overtly pro-PR policy, it could actually make PR much less likely if the Tories successfully used it as ammunition for their "coalition of chaos" ploy at the election. In 2015, that played a significant part in ensuring Labour lost, the LDs got turfed out of the coalition, we got a Tory majority Govt, then Brexit & then Johnson. There needs to be good tactics and good awareness of where the electorate stands.

 

If the electorate ever get dismayed at the constant incompetence, apparent corruption & anti-democratic arrogance of the majority Tory Govt, campaigning for electoral reform might become a vote-winner & voters might see the prospect of coalition govt as a positive, not a negative......but that time doesn't seem to have arrived yet. It might not harm the LD vote, but if it harmed Labour, then the election of another Tory majority govt would certainly harm prospects for LDs and for PR.

 

Of course, there are obstacles within Labour, too: plenty support PR, but plenty also oppose it - not least most of the unions, the main funders of the party.

 

So, I agree again that you're right not to hold your breath for electoral reform from any majority govt, Con or Lab. Maybe the good news for you is that, because of SNP dominance in Scotland, it's now a massively difficult task for Labour to win a majority.

Hopefully a few more in Lab will realise that and swing behind PR, albeit for selfish tactical reasons not democratic idealism. The best scenario might be for Labour to have a low-profile, fudged stance going into the next election  - perhaps promising a commission to look at the pros and cons so as to improve democracy.......then, the election happens, Labour is the biggest party in a hung  parliament with a substantial wedge of Lib Dems, who are able to use their kingmaker position to push Labour to support PR or at least a referendum in exchange for a confidence & supply govt deal or similar....... Dreaming is good for the morale!  

Well there you go. The Unions would prefer Conservative dominance in a system that also gives them a little more power than they deserve. 

[LiberalFox]

5 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

The only way a change in the electoral process could realistically be implemented is with a Labour government, so providing that was part of their manifesto, Labour would have to be voted into being at least the largest party. That would inevitably mean people voting for them who wouldn't otherwise. My question was whether, hypothetically, you would side with Labour over the Conservatives if it was required in your constituency to make this happen.

Of course. I think it would be highly likely that there would be some official backing from the Lib Dem leadership in a scenario where Starmer actually made PR a manifesto pledge. 

 

[Dunge]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

You aren't sure between a party that seem "a bit wet" and one which has spent the past 2 years pushing the country ever deeper into crisis while they laugh it all off and line each-other's pockets, hiding from all accountability along the way?  How is it even close?  Genuinely curious what the thought process is because my brain simply cannot wrap itself around it.

The general explanation is that I don’t think the Conservatives are as bad as some say. I understand their position and argument on a lot of things where others condemn them absolutely. That doesn’t mean everything of course, and I’ve mentioned a serious issue with integrity that drags them down. But I still think the pandemic was a bum hand for any government; they did get things wrong but weren’t catastrophic like Bolsonaro. I think they have a better grip on long-term economics, although they do regularly need a boot up the backside to help out something that’s wrong in the short term. Essentially, while they could be doing better, I feel we can go on living our lives in what’s a basically good country under a Conservative government. I suppose an area I’m watchful is Climate Change and what they’re doing about that - but frankly seeing where loads of other countries are at COP26 has been downright miserable.

 

Labour will have the opportunity to present their vision in the months to come. I don’t really sense they have one at the moment, at least not one they’re sharing, but there’s still time. That’s partly why I say “wet” - I don’t get a sense of them having a clear vision for the future of the country, more that they’re tiptoeing around trying not to upset anyone. That’s not to say that I want them to upset anyone of course, more that I feel I need to know what their plan is:

- How are they going to deal with Climate Change, including energy, economy and social challenges? (question for both parties)

- What’s their long-term plan for Britain’s economy? If they represent change, what change do they represent?

- How do they see Britain’s influence in the world? What sort of country do they want us to be? A military power? An economic power? A scientific power? A Scandinavian-type country that looks to create a good life for its citizens but “knows it’s place”? Voting Conservative on the other hand means maintaining the status quo on this question, which is a considerable positive to me.

- Can they keep the hard left at bay? (Starmer’s done a very good job on this so far)

If Labour don’t demonstrate a plan for such things, it becomes harder to vote for them. If they demonstrate a plan I don’t like (as Corbyn did) then it becomes impossible for me to vote for them, but on this latter point I don’t believe they will under Starmer.

 

I can live with another Conservative election victory, essentially. Labour can represent significant social change, which I see as long-term and sometimes with unwanted, unexpected consequences. Some want that change, and fair enough. It’s your vote after all. But I need a lot of convincing to bear left from my centre/centre-right bunker of safety, which is where the Tories tend to sit naturally. So Labour do have to be more convincing to me than the Tories need to be in that regard. Me saying that Labour are currently favourites for my next vote is an indication that:

- They’re relatively centrist;

- They’re looking a better prospect than the Conservatives as a party of potential government.

 

I appreciate that’s probably a bit of a ramble but hopefully it gives you a sense of my position.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

12 hours ago, Daggers said:

And seeing as someone forgot to post the latest Britain Elects polling…

 

 

Turnout  22% 

 

LDEM 1,180 votes

CON 893 votes

GREEN 178 votes

LABOUR 25 votes

 

LIB DEMS PREPARE FOR GOVERNMENT ! 

 

 

Anyway Daggers my darling, I've not been on their page for a couple of days so as you're keen to have the latest polling from Britain Elects I'll just go and check and see what's happening.

 

Oh.....

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

51 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Well there you go. The Unions would prefer Conservative dominance in a system that also gives them a little more power than they deserve. 

 

I don't understand their analysis myself, though it's not all unions, to be fair.  

 

I presume they have an expectation that, under FPTP, Labour will form majority govts on a reasonably regular basis - giving the unions significant influence.

In which case, perhaps someone should alert them to the fact that Labour has been in power for 13 years out of the last 42 - and that it will find it even more difficult now that its prospects are diminished in Scotland (for now, at least).

 

The unions might still have some power within the Labour Party. But, aside from negotiations or industrial action, they have limited power to influence national politics when, 29 years out of 42, the country is under Tory rule (occasionally assisted by LDs). 

 

Do the LDs have any sort of meaningful relationship with the unions? If not, it might be advisable. If the unions thought that, in future coalition govts, the LDs would be more sympathetic to workers' interests than they were in the 2010-15 coalition, that might encourage them to be less of an obstacle to electoral reform. If the union perception is that half the time the LDs would act as handmaidens to slash-and-burn Tory Govts, maybe the reluctance to help them improve their electoral chances is understandable?

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

The general explanation is that I don’t think the Conservatives are as bad as some say. I understand their position and argument on a lot of things where others condemn them absolutely. That doesn’t mean everything of course, and I’ve mentioned a serious issue with integrity that drags them down. But I still think the pandemic was a bum hand for any government; they did get things wrong but weren’t catastrophic like Bolsonaro. I think they have a better grip on long-term economics, although they do regularly need a boot up the backside to help out something that’s wrong in the short term. Essentially, while they could be doing better, I feel we can go on living our lives in what’s a basically good country under a Conservative government. I suppose an area I’m watchful is Climate Change and what they’re doing about that - but frankly seeing where loads of other countries are at COP26 has been downright miserable.

 

Labour will have the opportunity to present their vision in the months to come. I don’t really sense they have one at the moment, at least not one they’re sharing, but there’s still time. That’s partly why I say “wet” - I don’t get a sense of them having a clear vision for the future of the country, more that they’re tiptoeing around trying not to upset anyone. That’s not to say that I want them to upset anyone of course, more that I feel I need to know what their plan is:

- How are they going to deal with Climate Change, including energy, economy and social challenges? (question for both parties)

- What’s their long-term plan for Britain’s economy? If they represent change, what change do they represent?

- How do they see Britain’s influence in the world? What sort of country do they want us to be? A military power? An economic power? A scientific power? A Scandinavian-type country that looks to create a good life for its citizens but “knows it’s place”? Voting Conservative on the other hand means maintaining the status quo on this question, which is a considerable positive to me.

- Can they keep the hard left at bay? (Starmer’s done a very good job on this so far)

If Labour don’t demonstrate a plan for such things, it becomes harder to vote for them. If they demonstrate a plan I don’t like (as Corbyn did) then it becomes impossible for me to vote for them, but on this latter point I don’t believe they will under Starmer.

 

I can live with another Conservative election victory, essentially. Labour can represent significant social change, which I see as long-term and sometimes with unwanted, unexpected consequences. Some want that change, and fair enough. It’s your vote after all. But I need a lot of convincing to bear left from my centre/centre-right bunker of safety, which is where the Tories tend to sit naturally. So Labour do have to be more convincing to me than the Tories need to be in that regard. Me saying that Labour are currently favourites for my next vote is an indication that:

- They’re relatively centrist;

- They’re looking a better prospect than the Conservatives as a party of potential government.

 

I appreciate that’s probably a bit of a ramble but hopefully it gives you a sense of my position.

What makes you think the Conservatives are better for the economy in the long run? Is there any data on this which guides your thinking?

[Claridge]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

What makes you think the Conservatives are better for the economy in the long run? Is there any data on this which guides your thinking?

The experience of labour governments

[Carl the Llama]

15 minutes ago, Claridge said:

The experience of labour governments

That's why I'm asking quite frankly

[StanSP]

How much has the national debt changed since Tory government came in to power? 

 

Over a decade in power, that is...