Jump to content
king canary

New Labour Leader

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm always amused - it must be a genetic failing - why some labour supporters always seem to find time to criticize and put the boot in on their own party when very clearly it's doing well in the polls and looks very electable. Last I heard 12 points ahead?

It's almost as if some of their membership has a built in self-destruct policy to keep the Tories in power so they can have something to moan about. SKS wants to win, to change things for the better and no, no hostages to fortune.

Is Labour doing well or is it just a consequence of the Tories ineptitude? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herman said:

A small step in the right direction.

 

Agreed, the dramatic changes in public policy between Governments is very counter productive imo, we are even getting it now within the same term of office. 

Edited by Van wink
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

That hits the nail on the head. The reality is neither Labour nor the LibDems can go into the next election trying to stitch seats up to achieve a coalition. They have to declare an overt intention to win each seat, and the GE outright. It is the electorate that has to initiate tactical voting to rid particular seats of a Tory majority. I sincerely hope that a non-aligned pressure group is formed to inform voters how to vote tactically in each constituency to maximise the chances of removing a Tory. That would then also give constituency non-Tory parties the information required to know where to concentrate their resources and quietly maximise the opportunity for a non-Tory to win. A resulting coalition would then be given a very obvious mandate for voting reform.

There won’t be any kind of public agreement by the leaders of the parties, but equally I don’t think it will entirely up to the electorate to initiate tactical voting. If I have understood correctly, in some by-elections there has already been a successful de facto agreement by the local Labour and LibDem parties to push the candidate of one party and not try very hard on behalf of the other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's dead easy to scale. You just don't put money into seats where you're quietly letting the other one get on with it, and you encourage your campaigners on the ground to give a nod and wink to the other party on the doorstep. 

That's all very well except it completely ignores how a mutual decision is reached as to who adopts the active and who takes the passive role in each of several hundred seats - there is the practical problem, granted once you've sorted that out then its plain sailing.

But as far as I can see there is no template or indeed even suggested process for how those decisions are to be reached centrally or then implemented at the local level - particularly difficult in the case of local Labour parties I would imagine.

What is going to happen in the seats which are 3-way splits, of which there are quite a few - how are you going to 'quietly' agree who is going to stand aside when both of you think (probably correctly) you can beat the Tories if if the other steps aside?

Will it extend to seats where parties other than Labour and Lib Dem are significant challengers?

It seems to me it is an idea which sounds simple and attractive but in practice will prove problematic and largely unsuccessful but that is just my take on it.

Edited by Creative Midfielder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Great news. Long way to go of course. But I reckon it's a vote winner (based on reading many views on here over the last few years).

Yes, there are pitfalls to it but I don't think we can carry on down the route we are going. Just hope the leadership can see which way the wind is blowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

That's all very well except it completely ignores how a mutual decision is reached as to who adopts the active and who takes the passive role in each of several hundred seats - there is the practical problem, granted once you've sorted that out then its plain sailing.

But as far as I can see there is no template or indeed even suggested process for how those decisions are to be reached centrally or then implemented at the local level - particularly difficult in the case of local Labour parties I would imagine.

What is going to happen in the seats which are 3-way splits, of which there are quite a few - how are you going to 'quietly' agree who is going to stand aside when both of you think (probably correctly) you can beat the Tories if if the other steps aside?

Will it extend to seats where parties other than Labour and Lib Dem are significant challengers?

It seems to me it is an idea which sounds simple and attractive but in practice will prove problematic and largely unsuccessful but that is just my take on it.

CM, there is never going to be any kind of formal deal at the national level, or even more locally. And, yes, in many constituencies, for the reasons you outline, there will not be even a de facto local deal. But apparently there have already been such deals in a few by-elections. And the absolute necessity of kicking out the Tories is such that I can see that happening in the next general election. I do not believe there has been a postwar government/party so reviled for immoral decisions and which at the same time is spectacularly incompetent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

There won’t be any kind of public agreement by the leaders of the parties, but equally I don’t think it will entirely up to the electorate to initiate tactical voting. If I have understood correctly, in some by-elections there has already been a successful de facto agreement by the local Labour and LibDem parties to push the candidate of one party and not try very hard on behalf of the other.

Absolutely. There were some pretty good tactical voting websites in 2017 and 2019, but Corbyn's desire to attack the Lib Dems as much as the Conservatives completely undermined it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sonyc said:

Agree. One of my hopes (mini fantasy) is that there might be a strong coalition of centre / left parties who work together really well to slowly and surely restore trust in the UK economy, strengthen our international reputation and bring in progressive policies.

In such a way that a serious discussion begins on forms of PR. This gets put into legislation and we never have to see a far right Tory party and entitled Etonians / lunatic fringe grotesques ever again.

 

 

#back to your bed now mr sonyc.

You've had centre/left governments ever since 1990. Why do you think one more would be any different?

And if you don't want to see lunatic fringe grotesques ever again, I suggest you don't support PR because that is exactly what you'll get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

That's all very well except it completely ignores how a mutual decision is reached as to who adopts the active and who takes the passive role in each of several hundred seats - there is the practical problem, granted once you've sorted that out then its plain sailing.

But as far as I can see there is no template or indeed even suggested process for how those decisions are to be reached centrally or then implemented at the local level - particularly difficult in the case of local Labour parties I would imagine.

What is going to happen in the seats which are 3-way splits, of which there are quite a few - how are you going to 'quietly' agree who is going to stand aside when both of you think (probably correctly) you can beat the Tories if if the other steps aside?

Will it extend to seats where parties other than Labour and Lib Dem are significant challengers?

It seems to me it is an idea which sounds simple and attractive but in practice will prove problematic and largely unsuccessful but that is just my take on it.

This might come as a bit of a shock to a few posters so if you are of a genteel disposition you better sit down if you're are going to read my hare-brained plan. Anyways, here goes:

What you could do is come up with an amazing manifesto of brilliant policies for improving the lives of each and every citizen, while maintaining our national security and creating a sense of fairness and justice with our dealings with the outside world. This manifesto would be so dazzingly brilliant it would secure a huge majority of seats, there would be no need for backroom deals and we would all live happily ever after.

Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

You've had centre/left governments ever since 1990. Why do you think one more would be any different?

And if you don't want to see lunatic fringe grotesques ever again, I suggest you don't support PR because that is exactly what you'll get.

We're getting them now under FPTP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

This might come as a bit of a shock to a few posters so if you are of a genteel disposition you better sit down if you're are going to read my hare-brained plan. Anyways, here goes:

What you could do is come up with an amazing manifesto of brilliant policies for improving the lives of each and every citizen, while maintaining our national security and creating a sense of fairness and justice with our dealings with the outside world. This manifesto would be so dazzingly brilliant it would secure a huge majority of seats, there would be no need for backroom deals and we would all live happily ever after.

Amen.

The problem is that manifestos are largely works of fiction these days. It used to be that the manifesto was at least a rough guide of the thrust of a government in the term of office, but we have a new PM who has thrown the last Conservative manifesto out of the window while refusing to go to the public. She could not do this if she was relying on the support of other smaller parties.

Post-election in Germany, coalition agreements take some time to hammer out, but each party is attempting to produce something that will go some way to satisfying its voters. The agreement is published and the public and all the parties in it can measure against it.

FPTP was okay when you could count on politicians behaving with a modicum of honour and decency, and some still do, but the days where that could be relied on ended decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

This might come as a bit of a shock to a few posters so if you are of a genteel disposition you better sit down if you're are going to read my hare-brained plan. Anyways, here goes:

What you could do is come up with an amazing manifesto of brilliant policies for improving the lives of each and every citizen, while maintaining our national security and creating a sense of fairness and justice with our dealings with the outside world. This manifesto would be so dazzingly brilliant it would secure a huge majority of seats, there would be no need for backroom deals and we would all live happily ever after.

Amen.

So you're voting Labour then. Pleased we got that sorted out.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/09/2022 at 12:10, Herman said:

You're probably right although if he has to go into a coalition it could be one issue that comes to the fore. (Saying that, the LibDems record as a coalition partner is appalling.)

That was very much the narrative spun by Ed Milliband at the time. The Lib Dems got a lot of progressive policies into the coalition agreement:

  • Green investment bank
  • Pupil premium
  • 3 million of the lowest earners lifted out of paying income tax entirely
  • Increased tax on the wealthiest (£381k more a year for someone on £1m a year)
  • Stopped and even reversed some of Labour's intrusions on civil liberties between 1997 and 2010 (permanent storing of DNA, detention of children for immigration, cutting maximum detention without trial to 14 days)
  • Kept government austerity cuts to a level smaller than those proposed in even Labour's 2010 manifesto
  • Introduction of same-sex marriage

https://www.markpack.org.uk/liberal-democrat-achievements-coalition-government/

Sadly, Labour did a good job of ensuring that the Lib Dems took most of the blame for the worst elements of the coalition,  allowing the Conservatives to take most of the credit and opening the door for the subsequent Conservative majority, paving the way for the Conservatives to scrap much of the good stuff that the Lib Dems did. D'oh!

 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

And if you don't want to see lunatic fringe grotesques ever again, I suggest you don't support PR because that is exactly what you'll get.

You've typed this in a country with Liz Truss as PM and Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor. It wasn't PR that delivered us those lunatics.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The reality is that, in the event of a hung parliament, the Lib Dems will work with Labour if the numbers work for a coalition, but there's no sense in either party openly acknowledging that. 

To be honest, that would be my preferred outcome over a Labour majority given that it's the best chance of electoral reform, but equally it would be a bit weird for Labour not to pull out the stops to try and get a majority and parties publicly talking about pacts will probably do more harm than good; a bit of under the table stuff on a constituency by constituency basis makes more sense. 

Second paragraph is spot on - I'd prefer to go LDs, but there's no chance in Bolton West so unless something incredibly radical happens, I will be voting Labour. Wouldn't be that surprised if the Greens decided not to put a candidate in - or indeed maybe even the LDs so that the vote is less fractured.

The more people who have to vote "second-best" or worse still, the lesser of two perceived "evils", the more the democratic model fails as it increasingly becomes less representative of what the electorate genuinely wants.

I think that's how an agreement will work, it probably won't be formal but if there are seats that some parties really have no history of doing much in at all, they could just sit out. Just reckon that's more likely to be the Greens.

Edited by TheGunnShow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The more people who have to vote "second-best" or worse still, the lesser of two perceived "evils", the more the democratic model fails as it increasingly becomes less representative of what the electorate genuinely wants.

I think this is what terrifies people like SKS. Millions of people vote Labour because they are the best of the worst. Some people even become members on that basis; they're not massive fans of the party's approach but stomach it because the alternative is much worse. They (Starmer, Blair, possibly even Corbyn who shamefully ignored electoral reform) know this.

We'll never be short of two things; self-interested rich people and idiots. Therefore there will always be a solid base of people that vote Tory whether in PR or FPTP. Labour, however, have a more informed demographic of voters and in PR they would abandon them in their droves for parties more aligned to their viewpoint.

I voted Labour under Blair and will almost certainly vote for them under Starmer but I despise the pair of them; pro-establishment shills more interested in preserving a status-quo that has served them both very well thank you very much rather than actually instigating the reform our anarchic systems that routinely dumps on the majority desperately need. If they wanted my vote under PR, they'd need to come up with proper policies that will make lasting and meaningful change, rather than just shifting one gear down from what the current Tories are doing. Corbyn had the policies, but a leader of the opposition needs to act like they're more than a sixth-form activist to earn the trust of the nation in order to enact the policies we needed.

Yes, there's a lot of talk now about how there is clear daylight between the Tories and Labour, but that's got f-all to do with Starmer's radicalism and everything to do with the fact that two actual idiots in Truss and Kwarteng have gone in a direction that even a Blair-idolising Knight of the Realm won't follow.

Edited by canarydan23
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I think this is what terrifies people like SKS. Millions of people vote Labour because they are the best of the worst. Some people even become members on that basis; they're not massive fans of the party's approach but stomach it because the alternative is much worse. They (Starmer, Blair, possibly even Corbyn who shamefully ignored electoral reform) know this.

We'll never be short of two things; self-interested rich people and idiots. Therefore there will always be a solid base of people that vote Tory whether in PR or FPTP. Labour, however, have a more informed demographic of voters and in PR they would abandon them in their droves for parties more aligned to their viewpoint.

I voted Labour under Blair and will almost certainly vote for them under Starmer but I despise the pair of them; pro-establishment shills more interested in preserving a status-quo that has served them both very well thank you very much rather than actually instigating the reform our anarchic systems that routinely dumps on the majority desperately need. If they wanted my vote under PR, they'd need to come up with proper policies that will make lasting and meaningful change, rather than just shifting one gear down from what the current Tories are doing. Corbyn had the policies, but a leader of the opposition needs to act like they're more than a sixth-form activist to earn the trust of the nation in order to enact the policies we needed.

Yes, there's a lot of talk now about how there is clear daylight between the Tories and Labour, but that's got f-all to do with Starmer's radicalism and everything to do with the fact that two actual idiots in Truss and Kwarteng have gone in a direction that even a Blair-idolising Knight of the Realm won't follow.

I appreciate you're much further left than I  - I could actually be slightly right on many issues (poll tax, get rid of triple lock, pensioners pay NI same as everybody else and so on if they have enough income).

However I think you badly underestimate Starmer. He's acting as a top general successfully winning a war rather than a local hot head battle field commander. He's picking which battles he'll fight and which are just diversions or outright electoral traps.

Frankly he's playing a blinder as the polls suggest. Yes the largely right wing media like to say he's bland, grey etc - anything to try to make him seem less popular and undermine him - especially amongst his more leftward constituency. It's really a sign of their concern and a clever attack line upon him. Much better the 'clown' they would say! 

Many of the slightly more radical policies - PR (with which I agree) are far better argued from a position of strength in/or going for a 2nd term 😉. Let him win this 'war' first.

Edited by Yellow Fever
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I think this is what terrifies people like SKS. Millions of people vote Labour because they are the best of the worst. Some people even become members on that basis; they're not massive fans of the party's approach but stomach it because the alternative is much worse. They (Starmer, Blair, possibly even Corbyn who shamefully ignored electoral reform) know this.

We'll never be short of two things; self-interested rich people and idiots. Therefore there will always be a solid base of people that vote Tory whether in PR or FPTP. Labour, however, have a more informed demographic of voters and in PR they would abandon them in their droves for parties more aligned to their viewpoint.

I voted Labour under Blair and will almost certainly vote for them under Starmer but I despise the pair of them; pro-establishment shills more interested in preserving a status-quo that has served them both very well thank you very much rather than actually instigating the reform our anarchic systems that routinely dumps on the majority desperately need. If they wanted my vote under PR, they'd need to come up with proper policies that will make lasting and meaningful change, rather than just shifting one gear down from what the current Tories are doing. Corbyn had the policies, but a leader of the opposition needs to act like they're more than a sixth-form activist to earn the trust of the nation in order to enact the policies we needed.

Yes, there's a lot of talk now about how there is clear daylight between the Tories and Labour, but that's got f-all to do with Starmer's radicalism and everything to do with the fact that two actual idiots in Truss and Kwarteng have gone in a direction that even a Blair-idolising Knight of the Realm won't follow.

By definition, a monolithic big-tent party has most to lose from PR so they're least likely to push that hard for it and especially when FPTP is the model in use - that is why the two you mention are preservers of the status quo as any potential third party will more than anything take votes away from voters of the big hat party with which it is ideologically closer - and to the benefit of the big tent party that is not. Over time with FPTP what - usually - happens is a hard-fought scrap over the middle ground. As you said at the end, the thing here is that Truss and Kwarteng have financially lurched a long way right and worse still, under very little scrutiny. Which is more reason IMO to stay relatively central, leave a few hints of a shift (that tax reverse is a start), but try not to scare people with too radical a shift too soon. After all, that's basically what Truss and Kwarteng did, but the other way.

@Yellow Fever has nailed it for me. Let's hope and do our best to make sure they get in and push for the PR hard later on. Otherwise you may be running the risk of letting the decent be the enemy of the very good, and to the benefit of those who really don't care about us.

Edited by TheGunnShow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I think this is what terrifies people like SKS. Millions of people vote Labour because they are the best of the worst. Some people even become members on that basis; they're not massive fans of the party's approach but stomach it because the alternative is much worse. They (Starmer, Blair, possibly even Corbyn who shamefully ignored electoral reform) know this.

We'll never be short of two things; self-interested rich people and idiots. Therefore there will always be a solid base of people that vote Tory whether in PR or FPTP. Labour, however, have a more informed demographic of voters and in PR they would abandon them in their droves for parties more aligned to their viewpoint.

I voted Labour under Blair and will almost certainly vote for them under Starmer but I despise the pair of them; pro-establishment shills more interested in preserving a status-quo that has served them both very well thank you very much rather than actually instigating the reform our anarchic systems that routinely dumps on the majority desperately need. If they wanted my vote under PR, they'd need to come up with proper policies that will make lasting and meaningful change, rather than just shifting one gear down from what the current Tories are doing. Corbyn had the policies, but a leader of the opposition needs to act like they're more than a sixth-form activist to earn the trust of the nation in order to enact the policies we needed.

Yes, there's a lot of talk now about how there is clear daylight between the Tories and Labour, but that's got f-all to do with Starmer's radicalism and everything to do with the fact that two actual idiots in Truss and Kwarteng have gone in a direction that even a Blair-idolising Knight of the Realm won't follow.

Agree with every bit of that, thanks for posting. It chimes with so much of my view. Some of Corbyn's policies were exciting but were rather suddenly announced pre election from memory. In such a way it freaked some people out and the right wing press went on the attack. Probably that is why the policies were held back for that reason! Agree that Corbyn was just not anywhere near being a convincing leader. My partner used to say he would be better as a politics lecturer in a 1970s  polytechnic. 

I always felt Blair was a kind of conservative too. His domestic policies though did some good. Likewise, Brown was a decent chancellor too. Starmer's speech will be interesting but again I have to agree with your take. I think he has to remain acceptable to vast swathes of the centre. And to be a safe bet. 

On your point about the rich and idiots I believe (having spoken over so many years to those who vote Tory) that many have a very narrow view of society. Their life experiences have not been so broad and if they do visit places of deprivation (to give an example) they tend to be appalled. People are easily labelled. Look at the comments about Blackpool on the football thread to see examples.

Understanding poverty or having an empathy about people struggling seems less important than labelling. There are exceptions. Local  councillorTories (working in inner city areas) can be very empathetic and I've met many who work for their constituents and who've genuinely cared. Often, such people might say, "well my upbringing was hard and look at me! I got out" ... And they did and it is a great story. They want the best for people.

It is a challenge not to sound condescending but I believe (rightly or wrongly) that the broader education folk manage to get then the greater chance for more understanding of people. Again there are exceptions but I still maintain that it is view of general validity.

It's possibly why the north tends to be more left of centre than the more affluent south?  Peoples' lives are so different. It's not that there is more compassion in tougher social environments but probably more understanding. And that changes one's politics. 

If we had the kinds of policies and continuity you hint at then the hope is that deeper social and economic issues could be better understood. Policies implemented could properly be focussed and targeted and for the long term. Our politics often seems infantile (the yah boo of parliament). Will it change? It would help to have (at least) better governments than those of the greed and cruelty of Cameron, the tone deafness of May, the hubris and immorality of Johnson and the lunacy of Truss. We have had bad leader after bad leader. And here we are, a country with bigger problems than at the turn of the century and a more divisive one. Our recent governments have not been states'man' like at all. We've been failed at every turn and as you've said folk have been dumped on.

Time for a change isn't it. I will be doing the same as you and voting Labour to try and get rid of our sitting MP. His record speaks for itself.

 

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

@Yellow Fever has nailed it for me. Let's hope and do our best to make sure they get in and push for the PR hard later on. Otherwise you may be running the risk of letting the decent be the enemy of the very good, and to the benefit of those who really don't care about us.

If Starmer gets in with a majority, PR will be temporarily dead and buried. There is zero chance, however much progressively-minded people, push for it, that a sitting Labour PM will ever, ever implement PR. He's a politician, hungry for power and will absolutely not undermine the system that delivered him that power. There is little I admire about the US electoral system, but the two-term presidential limit has merits for this very reason. Whereas a UK PM will never be that turkey voting for Christmas, a second term US President ceases to be a turkey so can vote for all the Christmas's they want.

There are only two viable routes for PR;

1) An opposition Labour party shows a little bit of courage and a little less self-interest (two things we emphatically will not get under Starmer) and nails their colours to the PR mast

2) A Labour-led coalition with electoral reform as the price for Lib Dem support (as then, Starmer's self-interest is aligned with PR)

Remember the 1997 Manifesto? It would have made a fantastic blue-print for a better country, and indeed was evidently a massive vote-winner given the landslide it delivered. That included a pledge for a referendum on electoral reform. Sadly, the deceitful, faux-progessive who fronted the manifesto decided to turn it into toilet paper as soon as he crossed the threshold of 10 Downing Street. Again, the manifesto was useful for Blair's self-interest and once it became a hindrance to it, it was abandoned. But my point is, if a Labour Party that gets elected on a manifesto that broadly in support of electoral reform doesn't change a damn thing, then what hope is there for one that categorically states they are against it?

Hoping Labour get in power and then pushing for PR once they're in is a complete and total exercise in futility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I appreciate you're much further left than I  - I could actually be slightly right on many issues (poll tax, get rid of triple lock, pensioners pay NI same as everybody else and so on if they have enough income).

However I think you badly underestimate Starmer. He's acting as a top general successfully winning a war rather than a local hot head battle field commander. He's picking which battles he'll fight and which are just diversions or outright electoral traps.

Frankly he's playing a blinder as the polls suggest. Yes the largely right wing media like to say he's bland, grey etc - anything to try to make him seem less popular and undermine him - especially amongst his more leftward constituency. It's really a sign of their concern and a clever attack line upon him. Much better the 'clown' they would say! 

Many of the slightly more radical policies - PR (with which I agree) are far better argued from a position of strength in/or going for a 2nd term 😉. Let him win this 'war' first.

I'm an economic socialist, I'll give you that, but there's the odd issue that I find myself aligning with the right.

Conversely, I think you overestimate Starmer. Boris Johnson was dreadful, but it wasn't until we were deep into Partygate that the polls started to give him even a slender lead. He just doesn't resonate with the electorate at all. All he is currently doing is profiting from exceptional Tory incompetence; if you're presented with a choice of being force-fed 10 litres of animal excrement or 1 litre of animal excrement, you take the litre. It doesn't mean that cow dung becomes a gourmet meal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

If Starmer gets in with a majority, PR will be temporarily dead and buried. There is zero chance, however much progressively-minded people, push for it, that a sitting Labour PM will ever, ever implement PR. He's a politician, hungry for power and will absolutely not undermine the system that delivered him that power. There is little I admire about the US electoral system, but the two-term presidential limit has merits for this very reason. Whereas a UK PM will never be that turkey voting for Christmas, a second term US President ceases to be a turkey so can vote for all the Christmas's they want.

There are only two viable routes for PR;

1) An opposition Labour party shows a little bit of courage and a little less self-interest (two things we emphatically will not get under Starmer) and nails their colours to the PR mast

2) A Labour-led coalition with electoral reform as the price for Lib Dem support (as then, Starmer's self-interest is aligned with PR)

Remember the 1997 Manifesto? It would have made a fantastic blue-print for a better country, and indeed was evidently a massive vote-winner given the landslide it delivered. That included a pledge for a referendum on electoral reform. Sadly, the deceitful, faux-progessive who fronted the manifesto decided to turn it into toilet paper as soon as he crossed the threshold of 10 Downing Street. Again, the manifesto was useful for Blair's self-interest and once it became a hindrance to it, it was abandoned. But my point is, if a Labour Party that gets elected on a manifesto that broadly in support of electoral reform doesn't change a damn thing, then what hope is there for one that categorically states they are against it?

Hoping Labour get in power and then pushing for PR once they're in is a complete and total exercise in futility.

There's a sizeable "if" in that, especially as the SNP take up a fair chunk of seats you'd expect to slide more towards Labour than the Tories compared to the Blair years. What you'd hope would be the obvious goal, namely vote for the party that is more likely to take a sitting Tory MP out, might not result in a majority at all. As for the rest of the first paragraph, we're agreeing and sorta repeating. I also think only 2 (maybe the SNP/Greens might join in with the Lib Dems too when it comes to electoral reform?) is feasible. If Corbyn didn't seem to mention PR or electoral reform much, then a centrist like Starmer definitely won't. Put into perspective, the SNP won 6 seats in 1997. They won 56 in 2015, 35 in 2017 and 48 in 2019. As you essentially said in your previous post but did not say explicitly, the centre/centre-left vote is naturally more fractured.

Realistically, a coalition with Labour at the helm is the only chance for electoral reform. But they've got to get the most seats first!

The 1997 manifesto was very nice and no doubt devolution promises and greater representation of women in Parliament were going to sell very well as their time had come, but don't forget how badly mired in sleaze, economic and leadership issues the Tories were at that point in time. Blair promised the world in a pretty bow, and it was manna from heaven for a populace tired of the then mishaps and pratfalls the Tories under Major were clocking up then - Black Wednesday for starters. So, I wouldn't be surprised if much of the electorate is sceptical if Starmer started making too many promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:



@Yellow Fever has nailed it for me. Let's hope and do our best to make sure they get in and push for the PR hard later on. Otherwise you may be running the risk of letting the decent be the enemy of the very good, and to the benefit of those who really don't care about us.

This is exactly why PR went by the wayside in 1997... and why we are where we are now. Electoral reform is a lot like climate change: There's always something more immediate to consider. 

At the end of the day, so long as first past the post remains, a future Conservative majority is inevitable along with the inevitable rightward economic drift. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This is exactly why PR went by the wayside in 1997... and why we are where we are now. Electoral reform is a lot like climate change: There's always something more immediate to consider. 

At the end of the day, so long as first past the post remains, a future Conservative majority is inevitable along with the inevitable rightward economic drift. 

I'd say actually winning the election is a much more immediate thing to consider - especially when you look at your second paragraph! We didn't have much of a choice in the AV referendum, that's for sure.

Edited by TheGunnShow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

I'd say actually winning the election is a much more immediate thing to consider - especially when you look at your second paragraph!

Which proves my point: There's always something more immediate than electoral reform to consider, even though the failure to reform lies at the heart of the decay of UK politics. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

even though the failure to reform lies at the heart of the decay of UK politics. 

We agree on something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No, but one way or the other, Labour have not achieved a majority since they were routed in Scotland by the SNP; they need to do everything they can to maximise swing to them rather than simply expecting swing away from the Conservatives to be all to their benefit. 

SNP are painting the next GE as an independence referendum should the courts not award one. Plently will see voting Labour as the best way of getting rid of the Tories, but getting rid of the Tories is independence. Not voting SNP would highlight support against this . Scotland for the forseeable future is voting SNP.  They will attempt to broker an independence referendum or the usual more powers for any coalition otherwise they will vote with the goverment when they want to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually - I think the inevitable Scottish independence makes it much more likely Labour will go for PR - without the Scottish seats and with a new replacement sane centre right party it would be very difficult for Labour to form a majority government in England alone. So I think PR will be on the agenda - but for now Labour has to concentrate on winning the current FPTP election.

What was Mandy's comment about Blair getting across the line - something like carrying a fragile priceless vase across a slippery floor. That applies to Starmer at present. No slips. No hostages to fortune. No pointless 'risks'.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Actually - I think the inevitable Scottish independence makes it much more likely Labour will go for PR - without the Scottish seats and with a new replacement sane centre right party it would be very difficult for Labour to form a majority government in England alone. So I think PR will be on the agenda - but for now Labour has to concentrate on winning the current FPTP election.

What was Mandy's comment about Blair getting across the line - something like carrying a fragile priceless vase across a slippery floor. That applies to Starmer at present. No slips. No hostages to fortune. No pointless 'risks'.

We've been there before. PR was explicitly mentioned in Labour's 1997 manifesto, but it didn't happen over 13 years of Labour majority rule. Labour will never adopt PR as a majority government because it's against the interests of the party.

A cynical voice in the back of my mind wonders if the Conservative self-destruction we're seeing is a calculated move to give Labour a majority, avoid a Labour-led coalition, and keep the electoral system in place.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

You've typed this in a country with Liz Truss as PM and Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor. It wasn't PR that delivered us those lunatics.

Don’t often agree on politics but spot on in this case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...