|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 20:34:33 GMT
Have to say I agree more with matureleft regarding this one - I'm old enough to recall the 1980s discussions about formal anti-Tory electoral pacts. And the reasons why they were ultimately rejected, which IMO haven't really gone away. Depends whether you think you can win on your own. I don't think voter distribution suggests you can. Also, it would be a pact to ensure the electoral system changed and that would almost inevitably mean farewell to the current party delineation. Many would rather stick with the behemoths. Another loss may shift their thinking. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2021 20:34:41 GMT
And for all the complaints about Labour "tribalism", they maybe didn't do anything come the last GE as egregious as what the LibDems got up to in Kensington.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 20:35:37 GMT
If there was a joint candidate then I think most voters would back them. Evidence suggests tactical voting is never enough. It would be a pre election agreement agreed by all parties involved that they would contest a limited number of seats with a clear aim to change the electoral system, if elected. No referendum. Decreasing tribal affiliation makes this more likely to be backed by the voters. The problem is Labour's tribalism. Honestly, no. And your reference to "most" betrays your own doubt. The difference between heavily facilitated tactical voting and actually removing choice from voters is probably rather small. You also, in your aversion to your most recent former party (but not the one before that!) attribute any "non-compliance" to "Labour tribalism". Perhaps you need a history lesson from your own neck of the woods? Surely you recognise that there are many Lib Dems who wouldn't vote Labour in any circumstance? I've certainly met them quite frequently. Indeed quite a number would probably rather vote Tory.
You also assume that a "grand plan" of the two parties is bought by most of the electorate as the main purpose of that General Election. No. Voters choose the issues that concern them and they won't regard this as an election merely to decide one thing. And they'd rather resent an attempt to hijack their choices.
I'll remind you of this when you lose the next election and Labour pick a leader committed to electoral reform and any means to achieve it to succeed Starmer. Or maybe you would rather lose - at least you'll be comfortable with no real change in our political structures. Anything else would be much more of a risk. I'm pretty much equally averse to all parties given the past year! Only a guarantee of change in the electoral system would persuade me to vote at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 20:42:25 GMT
And for all the complaints about Labour "tribalism", they maybe didn't do anything come the last GE as egregious as what the LibDems got up to in Kensington. They appeared to have become so engrossed in the revoke promise that nothing else mattered. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,452 
|
Focaldata
Jan 3, 2021 20:44:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by iain on Jan 3, 2021 20:44:41 GMT
Then the Tories win again Labour need to abandon majoritarian politics and accept the need for electoral reform. If they don't they lose because of voter distribution If we end up with a hung parliament because lots of Tory seats go LibDem, the Tories win again anyway, just in coalition If there was a hung Parliament after a Starmer v Boris election then the Lib Dems would almost certainly back Labour. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2021 20:48:37 GMT
Have to say I agree more with matureleft regarding this one - I'm old enough to recall the 1980s discussions about formal anti-Tory electoral pacts. And the reasons why they were ultimately rejected, which IMO haven't really gone away. Depends whether you think you can win on your own. I don't think voter distribution suggests you can. Also, it would be a pact to ensure the electoral system changed and that would almost inevitably mean farewell to the current party delineation. Many would rather stick with the behemoths. Another loss may shift their thinking. No its not really about that, its possible to agree an outright Labour win next time is a stretch without seeing any formal pact as the best solution. I certainly recall LibDems saying back in the 1990s they actually preferred to be "opposed" by a token Labour candidate in their blue targets as it blunted Tory attacks. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 20:52:42 GMT
Depends whether you think you can win on your own. I don't think voter distribution suggests you can. Also, it would be a pact to ensure the electoral system changed and that would almost inevitably mean farewell to the current party delineation. Many would rather stick with the behemoths. Another loss may shift their thinking. No its not really about that, its possible to agree an outright Labour win next time is a stretch without seeing any formal pact as the best solution. I certainly recall LibDems saying back in the 1990s they actually preferred to be "opposed" by a token Labour candidate in their blue targets as it blunted Tory attacks. And that's what might happen in some areas. But first Labour have to finally come round to believing in electoral reform. Once they do that, I think the next step of a way of achieving it will be far more tangible and attractive. It may take a further defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 20:54:42 GMT
If we end up with a hung parliament because lots of Tory seats go LibDem, the Tories win again anyway, just in coalition If there was a hung Parliament after a Starmer v Boris election then the Lib Dems would almost certainly back Labour. They would want something in return, and I for one do not want any more bloody referendums! Can't see the LibDems doing coalition again unless it -electoral reform - was guaranteed |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,683
|
Focaldata
Jan 3, 2021 20:54:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by pl on Jan 3, 2021 20:54:59 GMT
If we end up with a hung parliament because lots of Tory seats go LibDem, the Tories win again anyway, just in coalition If there was a hung Parliament after a Starmer v Boris election then the Lib Dems would almost certainly back Labour. And they could then watch their local government base in the shires implode. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2021 21:00:44 GMT
Well maybe, but the Tories might expect to make gains in those areas if there is a Labour (led) government anyway.
Of course, bringing in PR for English/Welsh local elections (something that maybe should have happened post 2010!) might be a way round this.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Jan 3, 2021 21:09:05 GMT
The fact the data for this was taking over the whole of December, says it all ready, ignore it.
Exactly
Its utter ****
I mean Sheffield Hallam Labour 39.7% Conservative 27%
Liberal Democrats 20.4%
This isn't a traditional poll though - my understanding is that it's an analysis of various demographic groups' views eg young renters or older retired owner occupiers which are then overlaid with each constituency 'mix' - it doesn't reflect the political strengths on the ground - councillor numbers, historic election results, voter squeezes etc. It's more an 'other things being equal' here's how these constituencies would vote with the demographics they have. So it is possible that given the subterranean profile of the Lib Dems at the moment people who vote for them in Hallam are saying Labour or Conservative at the moment - they may well revert to their usual preference once a campaign is underway. Or have I picked up the methodology wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 21:09:53 GMT
Well maybe, but the Tories might expect to make gains in those areas if there is a Labour (led) government anyway. Of course, bringing in PR for English/Welsh local elections (something that maybe should have happened post 2010!) might be a way round this. Electoral reform would cover both national and local government. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jan 3, 2021 21:26:29 GMT
Honestly, no. And your reference to "most" betrays your own doubt. The difference between heavily facilitated tactical voting and actually removing choice from voters is probably rather small. You also, in your aversion to your most recent former party (but not the one before that!) attribute any "non-compliance" to "Labour tribalism". Perhaps you need a history lesson from your own neck of the woods? Surely you recognise that there are many Lib Dems who wouldn't vote Labour in any circumstance? I've certainly met them quite frequently. Indeed quite a number would probably rather vote Tory.
You also assume that a "grand plan" of the two parties is bought by most of the electorate as the main purpose of that General Election. No. Voters choose the issues that concern them and they won't regard this as an election merely to decide one thing. And they'd rather resent an attempt to hijack their choices.
I'll remind you of this when you lose the next election and Labour pick a leader committed to electoral reform and any means to achieve it to succeed Starmer. Or maybe you would rather lose - at least you'll be comfortable with no real change in our political structures. Anything else would be much more of a risk. I'm pretty much equally averse to all parties given the past year! Only a guarantee of change in the electoral system would persuade me to vote at all. Losing alone, which is perfectly possible anyway, will prove nothing. If you can show me, say, a critical 20 seats determined by a few hundred votes that could clearly have been shifted by one candidate or another standing down I'll be both (very) surprised and acknowledge your view. But your approach simply ignores actual voter behaviour, the dynamics of elections and the principles of democracy in local parties (of any kind). My approach would deliver much the same effect but with a recognition of all these things. Thus, as is typical in our debates, the pragmatic approach! |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 21:29:20 GMT
I'll remind you of this when you lose the next election and Labour pick a leader committed to electoral reform and any means to achieve it to succeed Starmer. Or maybe you would rather lose - at least you'll be comfortable with no real change in our political structures. Anything else would be much more of a risk. I'm pretty much equally averse to all parties given the past year! Only a guarantee of change in the electoral system would persuade me to vote at all. Losing alone, which is perfectly possible anyway, will prove nothing. If you can show me, say, a critical 20 seats determined by a few hundred votes that could clearly have been shifted by one candidate or another standing down I'll be both (very) surprised and acknowledge your view. But your approach simply ignores actual voter behaviour, the dynamics of elections and the principles of democracy in local parties (of any kind). My approach would deliver much the same effect but with a recognition of all these things. Thus, as is typical in our debates, the pragmatic approach! In that case, the Tories will win again. The problem with your approach is that it ends up achieving nothing much of any worth, which I think is a reasonable summary of the last Labour government, a few good things, a few very bad, but largely nothing much which endured or really changed anything. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2021 21:45:17 GMT
If we end up with a hung parliament because lots of Tory seats go LibDem, the Tories win again anyway, just in coalition If there was a hung Parliament after a Starmer v Boris election then the Lib Dems would almost certainly back Labour. They said that last time in the same breath as calling Labour communists and advocating ridiculous things like permanent 1% budget surpluses. It was blindingly obvious that what the LibDems (or at least the people making decisions for them) would have really wanted if possible last last time was brexit to be stopped and the Tories to remain in power, even if that meant Johnson as PM |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,456
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jan 3, 2021 22:02:19 GMT
Honestly, no. And your reference to "most" betrays your own doubt. The difference between heavily facilitated tactical voting and actually removing choice from voters is probably rather small. You also, in your aversion to your most recent former party (but not the one before that!) attribute any "non-compliance" to "Labour tribalism". Perhaps you need a history lesson from your own neck of the woods? Surely you recognise that there are many Lib Dems who wouldn't vote Labour in any circumstance? I've certainly met them quite frequently. Indeed quite a number would probably rather vote Tory.
You also assume that a "grand plan" of the two parties is bought by most of the electorate as the main purpose of that General Election. No. Voters choose the issues that concern them and they won't regard this as an election merely to decide one thing. And they'd rather resent an attempt to hijack their choices.
I'll remind you of this when you lose the next election and Labour pick a leader committed to electoral reform and any means to achieve it to succeed Starmer. Or maybe you would rather lose - at least you'll be comfortable with no real change in our political structures. Anything else would be much more of a risk. I'm pretty much equally averse to all parties given the past year! Only a guarantee of change in the electoral system would persuade me to vote at all. a change to PR might put me off conversely-government building behind closed doors semi permanently |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,456
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jan 3, 2021 22:04:15 GMT
Have to say I agree more with matureleft regarding this one - I'm old enough to recall the 1980s discussions about formal anti-Tory electoral pacts. And the reasons why they were ultimately rejected, which IMO haven't really gone away. Depends whether you think you can win on your own. I don't think voter distribution suggests you can. Also, it would be a pact to ensure the electoral system changed and that would almost inevitably mean farewell to the current party delineation. Many would rather stick with the behemoths. Another loss may shift their thinking. voter distribution can be changed over time-might be a long time though! |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,452
|
Focaldata
Jan 3, 2021 23:10:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by iain on Jan 3, 2021 23:10:07 GMT
If there was a hung Parliament after a Starmer v Boris election then the Lib Dems would almost certainly back Labour. They said that last time in the same breath as calling Labour communists and advocating ridiculous things like permanent 1% budget surpluses. It was blindingly obvious that what the LibDems (or at least the people making decisions for them) would have really wanted if possible last last time was brexit to be stopped and the Tories to remain in power, even if that meant Johnson as PM Last time it is highly unlikely the Lib Dems would have backed anyone (and said as much). Starmer, though, is not Corbyn and Lib Dem strategy is clearly to hope for a hung Parliament where they can back Labour at the moment. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 3, 2021 23:17:52 GMT
Well maybe, but the Tories might expect to make gains in those areas if there is a Labour (led) government anyway. Of course, bringing in PR for English/Welsh local elections (something that maybe should have happened post 2010!) might be a way round this. Electoral reform would cover both national and local government. But the best way to get it is to start at the bottom and work upwards, not start by imposing something at the top. The vast majority of councils have multi-member seats. In almost all cases you can introduce a new voting system overnight with a couple of minor tweeks for localised specifics, and leave it a while to bed in, then restructure properly at the next scheduled local boundary review. Almost all voting reform at Parliamentary level needs to restructure the entire country all at once. The sole redeeming feature of the AV proposal was that it involved no change to the electoral setup, just a different ballot paper and an updated training session for the count staff. This was also the flaw with the Son Of Zombie Review Mark Two Electric Boogaloo. Let's equalise the electorate. Hey, and let's change the number of seats at the same time. Hey, and let's tighten the quota as well. Ooo, here's one, let's introduce voter ID as well. ALL. AT. THE. SAME. TIME. |
|
|
|
Focaldata
Jan 3, 2021 23:25:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 23:25:54 GMT
Electoral reform would cover both national and local government. But the best way to get it is to start at the bottom and work upwards, not start by imposing something at the top. The vast majority of councils have multi-member seats. In almost all cases you can introduce a new voting system overnight with a couple of minor tweeks for localised specifics, and leave it a while to bed in, then restructure properly at the next scheduled local boundary review. Almost all voting reform at Parliamentary level needs to restructure the entire country all at once. The sole redeeming feature of the AV proposal was that it involved no change to the electoral setup, just a different ballot paper and an updated training session for the count staff. This was also the flaw with the Son Of Zombie Review Mark Two Electric Boogaloo. Let's equalise the electorate. Hey, and let's change the number of seats at the same time. Hey, and let's tighten the quota as well. Ooo, here's one, let's introduce voter ID as well. ALL. AT. THE. SAME. TIME. I think that has already happened via the devolved institutions and there is no need to start with local government - which frankly,has hardly any power and could quite easily be disposed of and replaced by non elected local functionaries without anyone noticing |
|
