|
Post by sirnorfolkpassmore on Jun 24, 2022 21:42:58 GMT
Wafer thin if you ask Month Python I believe there are also two MPs elected as Tories who no longer receive the party whip. Theoretically - were they to be assigned to the Opposition - that lowers the majority to 68! I know David Warburton is one. Who is the second? Anne Marie Morris and Julian Lewis both had it restored following suspensions for a rebellion on VAT and undermining Chris Grayling respectively (quite why Grayling needs undermining by others I have no idea - he does it perfectly well enough to himself). I also know one has been asked not to attend Parliament following serious allegations, but he's not technically had the whip removed as he is complying with that request as far as I'm aware. Indeed, he was entitled to and did vote in the Johnson confidence vote (for Johnson, I believe). I think it's probably a bit much to assign the one (or two) to the opposition as they are likely to be very reliable Government votes nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by aidypiez on Jun 24, 2022 21:59:25 GMT
I believe there are also two MPs elected as Tories who no longer receive the party whip. Theoretically - were they to be assigned to the Opposition - that lowers the majority to 68! I know David Warburton is one. Who is the second? Anne Marie Morris and Julian Lewis both had it restored following suspensions for a rebellion on VAT and undermining Chris Grayling respectively (quite why Grayling needs undermining by others I have no idea - he does it perfectly well enough to himself). I also know one has been asked not to attend Parliament following serious allegations, but he's not technically had the whip removed as he is complying with that request as far as I'm aware. Indeed, he was entitled to and did vote in the Johnson confidence vote (for Johnson, I believe). I think it's probably a bit much to assign the one (or two) to the opposition as they are likely to be very reliable Government votes nonetheless. It's Rob Roberts, I'd forgotten too!
|
|
will
Non-Aligned
Posts: 211
|
Post by will on Jun 24, 2022 23:01:35 GMT
The contentless all-things-to-all-people cynical anti-politics the Lib Dems frequently trade in, especially in by elections, does often infuriate me. But I do have to admit that their ability to be a "kick the bastards" protest vote to unpopular governments both Labour and Conservative in their heartlands is the party performing a valuable role in the British electoral ecosystem. We'd be much the poorer in a two-party system like in the US, where disaffected voters have nowhere to express their frustration except their ideological opposites.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 24, 2022 23:16:26 GMT
The Labour bastions of Aylesbury and, errrrr, Banbury going red, while Hazel Grove stays Tory! Well, at least Labour are a clear second in Banbury, and have councillors, whereas Aylesbury is typical of a seat where the LD's fell behind post-coalition at a national level, but retain local strength. The idea of Labour winning Aylesbury is fanciful even though they always do worse locally in the Bucks towns than their national position indicates Yeah, the issue as John Chanin highlights in many South Eastern seats with a medium sized town as the main constituent is that the rural areas will always outvote the Labour/Liberal voting town, unless they pile up votes there. Your native Wycombe and Basingstoke are some of the most egregious examples to me. We both know Aylesbury has Labour potential as well due to its demographics, but the Liberals were formerly popular there as a result of localist politics. This is an inherent issue with the constituency naming system we use, but I am not aware of a superior system.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 24, 2022 23:20:28 GMT
The Labour bastions of Aylesbury and, errrrr, Banbury going red, while Hazel Grove stays Tory! South Norfolk is another fun one! While Waveney and Basildon S are still Conservative?
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,353
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jun 24, 2022 23:34:20 GMT
I suppose this could be down to the rookie error of thinking that regional polling samples have any value in GB, but some of the oddness doesn't even align with that so...
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 25, 2022 0:08:20 GMT
Is having a pact, which you deny having, not a tad dishonest? Even undemocratic? How do you sell this pact which you deny having to the local party? Do you think the electorate are stupid? There is no pact, so there is nothing to deny. There will be a Lib Dem candidate and a Labour candidate in all by-elections (can't speak for the Greens). HQ support for each candidate will be allocated on a case by case basis. And the evidence so far is that the electorate is prepared to take its cue from the behaviour of the parties. This also seems to be working to some extent at a local level. I fail to discern what is disingenuous about any of this. There are a small number of thick people in the Conservative Party (e.g. Suella Braverman) who cannot get their heads round the idea that the voters are capable of making their own autonomous decisions about the parties and candidates for whom they wish to vote, and that they do so in numbers which are large enough to defeat Conservative candidates in elections. This thickness manifests itself in a form in which the only explanation for losing an election must therefore be a dishonest and secret conspiracy by the opposition parties.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jun 25, 2022 6:21:23 GMT
I hope that Labour will realise that the LibDems are currently in a stronger position and stop being so tribal! The LibDems will have to do the same elsewhere in seats they have won before. So far you have appeared to suggest that it should always be the LibDems who give Labour a clear run. I am not suggesting that Labour should be given a clear run in Wimbledon. Of course, the LDs will target the seat but Labour should also campaign actively in a seat it held until 2005.Labour remains better placed to day in Wimbledon than it appeared to be in Portsmouth South in 2010. Many thought Labour's success there in 2017 to be a fluke - yet it now seems pretty secure for the party. Much the same might be said re-Cambridge. if you'd actually campaigned for Labour in the last few years in Wimbledon, as I have, you wouldn't say all that. There is literally no belief in Wimbledon CLP that the Lib Dems' momentum can be arrested in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jun 25, 2022 6:24:32 GMT
Wafer thin if you ask Month Python I believe there are also two MPs elected as Tories who no longer receive the party whip. Theoretically - were they to be assigned to the Opposition - that lowers the majority to 68! that only becomes remotely meaningful if the MPs concerned actually voted with the Opposition. The only yardstick which makes any political sense is the extent to which the government can win votes in the Commons, whether certain Tory MPs currently have the Whip or not is not relevant otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 25, 2022 6:39:00 GMT
The one thing that could have caused the Lib Dems to have lost Tiverton was a pact with Labour. There won't be official pacts, but in reality there was something unspoken which had the same effect. Previously it's often not worked but the electorate appear to be becoming more aware of what to do if they want to dislodge a Tory. You’ll recall our discussing this a while back. You argued then that formal pacts were essential. I argued for what appears to be happening. That is not to say that this will be problem-free! First, even in the seats so far, there’s been evidence of local party unhappiness, probably in both parties. At some stage that will flare into a newsworthy row. Secondly the seats so far have been fairly easy to classify. While Labour has actually been in second place in instances allocated for Lib Dem effort they’ve been too far off to be anything like potential winners and there have been few arguments for long-term strategic investment of effort. However there are a few seats where both parties are genuine competitors for a currently Tory seat or where there are strategic arguments. And there’ll be a few where the Greens or Plaid have an ambition. The final point may have been missed. This sort of thing works well in by-elections where the campaigns are mostly local. However in a General Election much of the campaign is national and media-based producing generalised messages even in seats not targeted. So, for example, it will take significant effort in Tiverton and Honiton (and especially after boundary changes) to hold the “lent” votes in place against that background. It can be done but the natural effect will be for some of this vote to drift back to its normal home.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 25, 2022 7:25:29 GMT
There won't be official pacts, but in reality there was something unspoken which had the same effect. Previously it's often not worked but the electorate appear to be becoming more aware of what to do if they want to dislodge a Tory. You’ll recall our discussing this a while back. You argued then that formal pacts were essential. I argued for what appears to be happening. That is not to say that this will be problem-free! First, even in the seats so far, there’s been evidence of local party unhappiness, probably in both parties. At some stage that will flare into a newsworthy row. Secondly the seats so far have been fairly easy to classify. While Labour has actually been in second place in instances allocated for Lib Dem effort they’ve been too far off to be anything like potential winners and there have been few arguments for long-term strategic investment of effort. However there are a few seats where both parties are genuine competitors for a currently Tory seat or where there are strategic arguments. And there’ll be a few where the Greens or Plaid have an ambition. The final point may have been missed. This sort of thing works well in by-elections where the campaigns are mostly local. However in a General Election much of the campaign is national and media-based producing generalised messages even in seats not targeted. So, for example, it will take significant effort in Tiverton and Honiton (and especially after boundary changes) to hold the “lent” votes in place against that background. It can be done but the natural effect will be for some of this vote to drift back to its normal home. The problem is that what is happening now may not work at a general election. I think this is currently the only practical option but my aim is change of the electoral system. You have a touching faith in the current party set up which I don't share.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 25, 2022 7:41:50 GMT
You’ll recall our discussing this a while back. You argued then that formal pacts were essential. I argued for what appears to be happening. That is not to say that this will be problem-free! First, even in the seats so far, there’s been evidence of local party unhappiness, probably in both parties. At some stage that will flare into a newsworthy row. Secondly the seats so far have been fairly easy to classify. While Labour has actually been in second place in instances allocated for Lib Dem effort they’ve been too far off to be anything like potential winners and there have been few arguments for long-term strategic investment of effort. However there are a few seats where both parties are genuine competitors for a currently Tory seat or where there are strategic arguments. And there’ll be a few where the Greens or Plaid have an ambition. The final point may have been missed. This sort of thing works well in by-elections where the campaigns are mostly local. However in a General Election much of the campaign is national and media-based producing generalised messages even in seats not targeted. So, for example, it will take significant effort in Tiverton and Honiton (and especially after boundary changes) to hold the “lent” votes in place against that background. It can be done but the natural effect will be for some of this vote to drift back to its normal home. The problem is that what is happening now may not work at a general election. I think this is currently the only practical option but my aim is change of the electoral system. You have a touching faith in the current party set up which I don't share. Entirely understandably you don't recall our exchanges! I support electoral reform and would be happy to see a greater diversity in electoral choice. To achieve that a more balanced parliament is required together with some recognition among enough of Labour that, while strong majorities may be achievable from time to time, the system is itself undesirable and unfair regardless of occasional party advantage, and probably is a mild impediment to better governance of our country generally.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jun 25, 2022 7:54:20 GMT
There won't be official pacts, but in reality there was something unspoken which had the same effect. Previously it's often not worked but the electorate appear to be becoming more aware of what to do if they want to dislodge a Tory. You’ll recall our discussing this a while back. You argued then that formal pacts were essential. I argued for what appears to be happening. That is not to say that this will be problem-free! First, even in the seats so far, there’s been evidence of local party unhappiness, probably in both parties. At some stage that will flare into a newsworthy row. Secondly the seats so far have been fairly easy to classify. While Labour has actually been in second place in instances allocated for Lib Dem effort they’ve been too far off to be anything like potential winners and there have been few arguments for long-term strategic investment of effort. However there are a few seats where both parties are genuine competitors for a currently Tory seat or where there are strategic arguments. And there’ll be a few where the Greens or Plaid have an ambition. The final point may have been missed. This sort of thing works well in by-elections where the campaigns are mostly local. However in a General Election much of the campaign is national and media-based producing generalised messages even in seats not targeted. So, for example, it will take significant effort in Tiverton and Honiton (and especially after boundary changes) to hold the “lent” votes in place against that background. It can be done but the natural effect will be for some of this vote to drift back to its normal home. mostly very good points, though there are very few seats currently where both Labour & the LDs can claim to be anything like equally main challengers to the Tories. Exclude London and there are hardly any at all. Mostly, it's fairly clear-cut which party, if any, could possibly beat the Tories.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 25, 2022 8:04:59 GMT
You’ll recall our discussing this a while back. You argued then that formal pacts were essential. I argued for what appears to be happening. That is not to say that this will be problem-free! First, even in the seats so far, there’s been evidence of local party unhappiness, probably in both parties. At some stage that will flare into a newsworthy row. Secondly the seats so far have been fairly easy to classify. While Labour has actually been in second place in instances allocated for Lib Dem effort they’ve been too far off to be anything like potential winners and there have been few arguments for long-term strategic investment of effort. However there are a few seats where both parties are genuine competitors for a currently Tory seat or where there are strategic arguments. And there’ll be a few where the Greens or Plaid have an ambition. The final point may have been missed. This sort of thing works well in by-elections where the campaigns are mostly local. However in a General Election much of the campaign is national and media-based producing generalised messages even in seats not targeted. So, for example, it will take significant effort in Tiverton and Honiton (and especially after boundary changes) to hold the “lent” votes in place against that background. It can be done but the natural effect will be for some of this vote to drift back to its normal home. mostly very good points, though there are very few seats currently where both Labour & the LDs can claim to be anything like equally main challengers to the Tories. Exclude London and there are hardly any at all. Mostly, it's fairly clear-cut which party, if any, could possibly beat the Tories. Those two words (“exclude London”) are huge! Our media is desperately London-focused and almost all parties are larger in London making tough decisions tougher to sell.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 25, 2022 8:07:31 GMT
The problem is that what is happening now may not work at a general election. I think this is currently the only practical option but my aim is change of the electoral system. You have a touching faith in the current party set up which I don't share. Entirely understandably you don't recall our exchanges! I support electoral reform and would be happy to see a greater diversity in electoral choice. To achieve that a more balanced parliament is required together with some recognition among enough of Labour that, while strong majorities may be achievable from time to time, the system is itself undesirable and unfair regardless of occasional party advantage, and probably is a mild impediment to better governance of our country generally. I recall all that - but do you think the current party structures work? I think they are fatally flawed, and that applies to both of the major parties. In consequence no smaller party is really very credible. Labour do appear to be, slowly, recognising that the current system benefits the Tories, but it is going to take a long time before tribalism and majoritarianism stops being so central to Labour's identity. Since I left the party, I have even less of a sense of tribal 'belonging' , and that applies to the ever more irrational left-wingers who departed from the party but appear to have done their best to fulfil the exaggerated picture that many had of them beforehand! It appears to be a choice between the profoundly depressing and content-free Starmer approach, and a hysterical and rather angry left outside the party - those who remain within are simply being internally expelled again as the recent shortlists have indicated, where loyalty to Starmer's Labour appears to be the only criteria. It belies the entire notion of the broad church, the main reason to support the behemoth model, and leaves us with two very unsatisfactory choices. It doesn't matter how I vote in this seat, but should I choose to do so, it will be on the basis of what would make electoral reform more likely.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 25, 2022 8:10:12 GMT
mostly very good points, though there are very few seats currently where both Labour & the LDs can claim to be anything like equally main challengers to the Tories. Exclude London and there are hardly any at all. Mostly, it's fairly clear-cut which party, if any, could possibly beat the Tories. And in many of those seats the LD's may be in third place. Take the neighbouring seats of Windsor and Maidenhead. Currently Labour are placed second in both. But does anyone doubt that only the LibDems could ever come close to beating the Tories - and have done before in Maidenhead.
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jun 25, 2022 8:47:32 GMT
There is no pact, so there is nothing to deny. There will be a Lib Dem candidate and a Labour candidate in all by-elections (can't speak for the Greens). HQ support for each candidate will be allocated on a case by case basis. And the evidence so far is that the electorate is prepared to take its cue from the behaviour of the parties. This also seems to be working to some extent at a local level. I fail to discern what is disingenuous about any of this. There are a small number of thick people in the Conservative Party (e.g. Suella Braverman) who cannot get their heads round the idea that the voters are capable of making their own autonomous decisions about the parties and candidates for whom they wish to vote, and that they do so in numbers which are large enough to defeat Conservative candidates in elections. This thickness manifests itself in a form in which the only explanation for losing an election must therefore be a dishonest and secret conspiracy by the opposition parties. There are, and To be fair there a small number of similar people on the left of British politics which think that too and most of them seem to be on Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 25, 2022 9:14:01 GMT
Entirely understandably you don't recall our exchanges! I support electoral reform and would be happy to see a greater diversity in electoral choice. To achieve that a more balanced parliament is required together with some recognition among enough of Labour that, while strong majorities may be achievable from time to time, the system is itself undesirable and unfair regardless of occasional party advantage, and probably is a mild impediment to better governance of our country generally. I recall all that - but do you think the current party structures work? I think they are fatally flawed, and that applies to both of the major parties. In consequence no smaller party is really very credible. Labour do appear to be, slowly, recognising that the current system benefits the Tories, but it is going to take a long time before tribalism and majoritarianism stops being so central to Labour's identity. Since I left the party, I have even less of a sense of tribal 'belonging' , and that applies to the ever more irrational left-wingers who departed from the party but appear to have done their best to fulfil the exaggerated picture that many had of them beforehand! It appears to be a choice between the profoundly depressing and content-free Starmer approach, and a hysterical and rather angry left outside the party - those who remain within are simply being internally expelled again as the recent shortlists have indicated, where loyalty to Starmer's Labour appears to be the only criteria. It belies the entire notion of the broad church, the main reason to support the behemoth model, and leaves us with two very unsatisfactory choices. It doesn't matter how I vote in this seat, but should I choose to do so, it will be on the basis of what would make electoral reform more likely. If you are asking me to concede that the Labour party, as it is and always has been, is a messy compromise with a variety of organisational implications flowing from that then I'd say yes straight away (but with mild surprise that you'd feel it worth asking!). Those flaws aren't "fatal" in the sense that they bring about the party's doom - our electoral system guarantees a space for a left-of-centre party and Labour, under that system, would occupy that position in almost any circumstance (and we've managed to test a few over the years!). As to its attitude to electoral reform, there has been progress, and 100 per cent conversion isn't necessary. You exaggerate the enforced compliance within Labour. However there is certainly a focus on message management, common in oppositions. And there's been a desire to keep the policy profile low, so as to maintain focus on the opposition role and to shorten the period of scrutiny that inevitably precedes a General Election and is scarcely an objective affair in our media environment! I'm less sympathetic to that because I'm interested in policy and can see that this approach both focuses inevitably on personalities, which I dislike, although Johnson's particular style makes some of that inevitable, and can be (and has been) criticised as negative nit-picking. You've always placed far more weight on individuals than I do (as your focus above on Starmer as an individual reinforces). Yup, I think your vote (and mine, as it happens) will make no difference. But we can do other things than vote.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 25, 2022 9:24:39 GMT
I recall all that - but do you think the current party structures work? I think they are fatally flawed, and that applies to both of the major parties. In consequence no smaller party is really very credible. Labour do appear to be, slowly, recognising that the current system benefits the Tories, but it is going to take a long time before tribalism and majoritarianism stops being so central to Labour's identity. Since I left the party, I have even less of a sense of tribal 'belonging' , and that applies to the ever more irrational left-wingers who departed from the party but appear to have done their best to fulfil the exaggerated picture that many had of them beforehand! It appears to be a choice between the profoundly depressing and content-free Starmer approach, and a hysterical and rather angry left outside the party - those who remain within are simply being internally expelled again as the recent shortlists have indicated, where loyalty to Starmer's Labour appears to be the only criteria. It belies the entire notion of the broad church, the main reason to support the behemoth model, and leaves us with two very unsatisfactory choices. It doesn't matter how I vote in this seat, but should I choose to do so, it will be on the basis of what would make electoral reform more likely. If you are asking me to concede that the Labour party, as it is and always has been, is a messy compromise with a variety of organisational implications flowing from that then I'd say yes straight away (but with mild surprise that you'd feel it worth asking!). Those flaws aren't "fatal" in the sense that they bring about the party's doom - our electoral system guarantees a space for a left-of-centre party and Labour, under that system, would occupy that position in almost any circumstance (and we've managed to test a few over the years!). As to its attitude to electoral reform, there has been progress, and 100 per cent conversion isn't necessary. You exaggerate the enforced compliance within Labour. However there is certainly a focus on message management, common in oppositions. And there's been a desire to keep the policy profile low, so as to maintain focus on the opposition role and to shorten the period of scrutiny that inevitably precedes a General Election and is scarcely an objective affair in our media environment! I'm less sympathetic to that because I'm interested in policy and can see that this approach both focuses inevitably on personalities, which I dislike, although Johnson's particular style makes some of that inevitable, and can be (and has been) criticised as negative nit-picking. You've always placed far more weight on individuals than I do (as your focus above on Starmer as an individual reinforces). Yup, I think your vote (and mine, as it happens) will make no difference. But we can do other things than vote. I think individuals do matter, and I don't particularly welcome that, but I think its unrealistic to pretend otherwise. I'm sure Labour can continue as it is, but the flaws are becoming ever more obvious - same with the Conservatives. And I don't think I am exaggerating the enforced compliance but its inevitable when the party contains people who have nothing much in common other than dislike of the Tories and party membership. At the moment I'm observing, and don't feel a great deal of motivation to do very much while the political structures remain as they are.
|
|
|
Post by aidypiez on Jun 25, 2022 9:49:21 GMT
mostly very good points, though there are very few seats currently where both Labour & the LDs can claim to be anything like equally main challengers to the Tories. Exclude London and there are hardly any at all. Mostly, it's fairly clear-cut which party, if any, could possibly beat the Tories. And in many of those seats the LD's may be in third place. Take the neighbouring seats of Windsor and Maidenhead. Currently Labour are placed second in both. But does anyone doubt that only the LibDems could ever come close to beating the Tories - and have done before in Maidenhead. Lib Dems are second in both Windsor and Maidenhead
|
|