Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 19:04:58 GMT
The Coalition is formed by two separate parties, running two candidates is perfectly acceptable. It would be madness if the Conservatives stood down, ditto the Liberal Democrats. It wouldn't be madness at all. It's possible to imagine a coalition agreement including an arrangement whereby in Parliamentary by-elections the Coalition government was represented by one candidate - either from whichever of its constituent parties obtained more votes in the seat in question at the previous General Election, or a candidate chosen explicitly as a Coalition candidate by both local parties meeting together. Please explain how I have compromised my sanity by making this post. ;D The Coalition was formed by two parties, and those two parties haven't sold their independence for the clunk of ministerial car doors. The Conservatives are independent, and so are we. This isn't Finland, there's no National Coalition Party. Your proposal would only work in a UK system whereby parties were part of a 'list' system common in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 29, 2012 19:14:30 GMT
No the proposal worked duing previous peacetime coalition governments in this country. Parties don't lose their independence if they don't contest a particular seat but instead endorse anothe party - everyone's done it at some point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 19:36:08 GMT
No the proposal worked duing previous peacetime coalition governments in this country. Parties don't lose their independence if they don't contest a particular seat but instead endorse anothe party - everyone's done it at some point. Well okay, I concede that there have been times in the past when there has been Coalition candidates in one form or another. And very recently (Tatton, Wyre Forest, Haltemprice) there has been explicit agreements. I agreed with the decision not to stand against David Davis. I wouldn't agree with not standing against a Labour candidate just on the basis that we've agreed some kind of nudge-and-wink deal with the Conservatives. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 20:04:02 GMT
Croydon North by-election 1940
C 14163 90.7% +23.6%
Ind 1445 9.3%
C maj: 12718 (81.4%)
C hold
Croydon North by-election 1948
C 36200 54.0% +13.9%
Lab 24546 36.6% -3.5%
L 6321 9.4% -9.4%
C maj: 11664 (17.4%)
Swing: +8.7%
C hold
Sigh...
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 29, 2012 20:06:12 GMT
No the proposal worked duing previous peacetime coalition governments in this country. Parties don't lose their independence if they don't contest a particular seat but instead endorse anothe party - everyone's done it at some point. It hasn't happened on a major level since WW2, and it is slightly disingenuous to imply otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 29, 2012 20:24:56 GMT
True, but we hadn't had a coalition since WW2 up until 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Oct 29, 2012 20:41:56 GMT
Well okay, I concede that there have been times in the past when there has been Coalition candidates in one form or another. And very recently (Tatton, Wyre Forest, Haltemprice) there has been explicit agreements. I think Tim is probably referring to Conservatives not contesting by-elections where there were National Liberal, National Labour etc candidates (and vice versa) but it's not an auspicious precedent owing to the degree those parties relied on the Tory election machine in the 1931 and 1935 General Elections. The situation is rather different with the Lib Dems. Croydon North by-election 1948 C 36200 54.0% +13.9% Lab 24546 36.6% -3.5% L 6321 9.4% -9.4% C maj: 11664 (17.4%) Swing: +8.7% C hold Sigh... Funnily enough I was reading Harold Nicolson's diaries last night. The Croydon North of 1948 is a different world - demographic change. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786 
|
Post by john07 on Oct 29, 2012 20:52:39 GMT
I think Tim is probably referring to Conservatives not contesting by-elections where there were National Liberal, National Labour etc candidates (and vice versa) but it's not an auspicious precedent owing to the degree those parties relied on the Tory election machine in the 1931 and 1935 General Elections. The situation is rather different with the Lib Dems. Yopu could also add the 1918 election won by the Lloyd George coalition. Tickets were given to (all?) Conservative candidates some Liberals, and independents including former Labour MPs. A pre-election coalition agreement (not under PR) would probably require some selective standing down (or paper candidates). We have a postr election coalition which is a totally different thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 29, 2012 21:07:15 GMT
Well okay, I concede that there have been times in the past when there has been Coalition candidates in one form or another. And very recently (Tatton, Wyre Forest, Haltemprice) there has been explicit agreements. I think Tim is probably referring to Conservatives not contesting by-elections where there were National Liberal, National Labour etc candidates (and vice versa) but it's not an auspicious precedent owing to the degree those parties relied on the Tory election machine in the 1931 and 1935 General Elections. The situation is rather different with the Lib Dems. Croydon North by-election 1948 C 36200 54.0% +13.9% Lab 24546 36.6% -3.5% L 6321 9.4% -9.4% C maj: 11664 (17.4%) Swing: +8.7% C hold Sigh... Funnily enough I was reading Harold Nicolson's diaries last night. The Croydon North of 1948 is a different world - demographic change. Maybe it would be true to say Croydon South today is the same type of area as Croydon North was in 1948. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 29, 2012 21:14:22 GMT
On the current boundaries Croydon North would have been a Labour seat in 1945. Obviously demographic change has been the major factor in turning this into a safe Labour seat, but at the time of the by-elections cited the seat did not include areas like Broad Green and Selhurst which are probably the worst parts of the seat and were pretty strong for Labour even then (they would have accounted for Labours majority in the then Croydon South in 1945)
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 31, 2012 12:39:42 GMT
Back to the present day, for a moment - Lee Jasper is apparently trading quite shamelessly on his Livingstone connections in his early campaigning  Which has led to calls for the former Mayor to come to Croydon and publicly campaign for the Labour candidate once they are selected in a few days. He has apparently said he would be happy to do so...... |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Oct 31, 2012 12:40:48 GMT
Back to the present day, for a moment - Lee Jasper is apparently trading quite shamelessly on his Livingstone connections in his early campaigning Which has led to calls for the former Mayor to come to Croydon and publicly campaign for the Labour candidate once they are selected in a few days. He has apparently said he would be happy to do so...... And will he be calling for second preferences for Jasper? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 31, 2012 12:41:23 GMT
Heh, very good. I am sure he would if he could  |
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,773
|
Post by andrea on Oct 31, 2012 13:17:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Nov 1, 2012 9:52:52 GMT
Parties don't lose their independence if they don't contest a particular seat but instead endorse anothe party - everyone's done it at some point. It's true; but the only party that would benefit from such an arrangement would be yours. I don't mean at the by-election, I mean nationally. |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Nov 1, 2012 9:54:15 GMT
an arrangement whereby in Parliamentary by-elections the Coalition government was represented by one candidate - either from whichever of its constituent parties obtained more votes in the seat in question at the previous General Election, or a candidate chosen explicitly as a Coalition candidate by both local parties meeting together. Please explain how I have compromised my sanity by making this post. ;D Oh, for a moment there, I thought we were back in the Alliance days.  |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,844
|
Post by Crimson King on Nov 1, 2012 11:19:42 GMT
The Coalition is formed by two separate parties, running two candidates is perfectly acceptable. It would be madness if the Conservatives stood down, ditto the Liberal Democrats. It wouldn't be madness at all. It's possible to imagine a coalition agreement including an arrangement whereby in Parliamentary by-elections the Coalition government was represented by one candidate - either from whichever of its constituent parties obtained more votes in the seat in question at the previous General Election, or a candidate chosen explicitly as a Coalition candidate by both local parties meeting together. Please explain how I have compromised my sanity by making this post. ;D I don't think it is your sanity that is being questioned, it would be the sanity of the Lib Dems and the conservatives that would be in serious doubt if they followed that suggestion. The crucial point is that governments don't fight election, political parties do. |
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,773
|
Post by andrea on Nov 2, 2012 22:06:16 GMT
Here's local paper take on Labour selection www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Croydon-North-election-Labour-candidates-prepare/story-17216879-detail/story.htmlThey see it as a 2 way fight between London Assembly member Val Shawcross and Lambeth council leader Steve Reed. Croydon Cllr Louise Woodley is said to have run a low profile campaign (some Labour supporters on ukpollingreport Croydon North thread feared she could have been at a disadvantage against 2 professional campaigners like Shawcross and Reed). Simon Burgess argues that he's many people's second preference. It can make sense but I think he will be far too behind in terms of first preferences to have a chance. On an another article, it is said that Reed's supporters started canvassing members before Wicks' funeral and that has upset some members. Result expected tomorrow afternoon at 2-3pm |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 2, 2012 22:20:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Nov 2, 2012 23:12:05 GMT
Aside from how undesirable Galloway's politics are, the strategy is also just a nonsense. Croydon is not Bradford, and Jasper is not Galloway. Respect will be doing exceptionally well to save their deposit.
|
|
