|
|
Post by owainsutton on Sept 25, 2021 19:21:32 GMT
OK, ta. I'd been misguided by local Lib Dems who defend Clegg's choice by saying "he could argue for that because it was because it was in the GE2010 manifesto". Which, now I've checked, is bollocks. It was chosen because that’s what could be agreed with the Tories, and because it was in the Labour manifesto ( so it was foolishly assumed they would campaign in favour). Had they never met the Labour Party? |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Sept 25, 2021 21:32:03 GMT
Party Policy for Westminster is STV and has never been AV. That was just Clegg's policy for one referendum. OK, ta. I'd been misguided by local Lib Dems who defend Clegg's choice by saying "he could argue for that because it was because it was in the GE2010 manifesto". Which, now I've checked, is bollocks. Oh yes it was. Section 9. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 25, 2021 22:09:09 GMT
OK, ta. I'd been misguided by local Lib Dems who defend Clegg's choice by saying "he could argue for that because it was because it was in the GE2010 manifesto". Which, now I've checked, is bollocks. Oh yes it was. Section 9. Oh yes what was? STV is on P88 of the 2010 manifesto, so yes it was bollocks.. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Sept 25, 2021 22:24:41 GMT
Party Policy for Westminster is STV and has never been AV. That was just Clegg's policy for one referendum. OK, ta. I'd been misguided by local Lib Dems who defend Clegg's choice by saying "he could argue for that because it was because it was in the GE2010 manifesto". Which, now I've checked, is bollocks. We've gone through this before but it predated Clegg. It was a consensus amongst the electoral system change campaign elite around Westminster and Whitehall and settled on by 2004 at the latest but without either a strategy or much being down to bring wider bodies on board. e.g. ERS lobbied for it privately whilst publicly criticising it. Come 2010 it was simply the going rate. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Sept 25, 2021 23:05:14 GMT
Oh yes it was. Section 9. Oh yes what was? STV is on P88 of the 2010 manifesto, so yes it was bollocks.. Crossed wires, I think. I assumed the point being made was that Clegg thought an AV Referendum would be the one to suggest because that was in the 2010 Labour manifesto, It turns out that most of them wanted it in the manifesto just so that they could vote against it. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Sept 26, 2021 10:38:11 GMT
Oh yes what was? STV is on P88 of the 2010 manifesto, so yes it was bollocks.. Crossed wires, I think. I assumed the point being made was that Clegg thought an AV Referendum would be the one to suggest because that was in the 2010 Labour manifesto, It turns out that most of them wanted it in the manifesto just so that they could vote against it. Ahhh, now that *would* explain it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 26, 2021 16:02:43 GMT
OK, ta. I'd been misguided by local Lib Dems who defend Clegg's choice by saying "he could argue for that because it was because it was in the GE2010 manifesto". Which, now I've checked, is bollocks. We've gone through this before but it predated Clegg. It was a consensus amongst the electoral system change campaign elite around Westminster and Whitehall and settled on by 2004 at the latest but without either a strategy or much being down to bring wider bodies on board. e.g. ERS lobbied for it privately whilst publicly criticising it. Come 2010 it was simply the going rate. It is vaguely possible I suppose that there were fifth columnists in both the ERS and the Lib Dems. But AV has never been the policy of either organisation in the 30 plus years I have been a member of them (minus the 5 years of coalition when I was not a member of the Lib Dems, when I suppose it was the policy of Clegg and some of the MPs) |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Sept 26, 2021 16:44:49 GMT
Well that was a problem as the elites of both were pushing it whilst the organisations as a whole weren't discussing if it was the best way forward and were also undermining it. Presumably this was out of fear of another civil war in the ERS.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonseal80 on Oct 2, 2021 13:59:40 GMT
A good result for Labour for that type of ward and area, (the parts of Worcester Park in Kingston (Old Malden) and Sutton are dire for Labour perhaps due to LD strength) they had a decent result there in 2015 locals under Milliband, before falling back in 2019 locals under Corbyn, and now this result (just under 20%) under Starmer. I wonder if Labour may be long term targetting it now they are in second place, maybe a soft left leader goes down well in remain voting 1930s mock tudor suburban wards like this. Obviously this ward for now is safe Residents but voting habits change as people move and demographics change. Epsom and Ewell now has a lower Conservative majority than seats won in 1997 (Dartford, Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Castlepoint) |
|
tim13
Non-Aligned
Posts: 71 
|
Post by tim13 on Oct 2, 2021 14:29:53 GMT
It is certainly misleading to suggest that AV was Lib Dem policy at any one time. As said above STV has for many years been the preferred system. The point about AV was that it was felt that no system of PR would be supported by the Labour Party, so if any electoral system change were to be made, Labour would ONLY go with AV at the time. As no doubt everyone here knows, AV has disadvantages for proportionality of outcome, occasionally being worse than FPTP. However, it does share with STV the concept that it is a preferential voting system, and that as I understood it was why Clegg and the Parliamentary Lib Dem group were prepared to support a referendum on it (they couldn't get enough support for a referendum on STV). It was noteworthy that the main Tory and allied attack on AV in the referendum campaign was a combination of "far too complicated, people won't understand it", and "candidates win who may be second or even lower among first preferences", which many people when asked see as "unfair". As a Lib Dem and a supporter of STV, I see no current way via a referendum to gain support for STV, the feeling against preferential systems seemed so strong. STV seems to work well on the island of Ireland, and for local government ion Scotland, and the basic idea is not at all "complicated"!
|
|
tim13
Non-Aligned
Posts: 71
|
Post by tim13 on Oct 2, 2021 14:43:33 GMT
Thinking about AV / STV policy further, it may have been one of those tacit agreements wound up in the 1997 Ashdown / Blair accords, which of course never actually saw the light of political day. Lib Dems at that time may have been told that AV was as far as Labour could go in a PR direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 4, 2021 9:48:56 GMT
It is certainly misleading to suggest that AV was Lib Dem policy at any one time. A party's policy is what its leading figures push and its government supports regardless of what some conference resolution says. The party leadership had been pushing towards an AV convergence for some years (remember Clegg arbitrarily coming out for AV+ on the way) such that it was now the only game in town. Whether it would be by referendum was another factor. Lib Dems usually want more hung parliaments and compromises yet oddly don't want to defend the consequences of those. "Miserable little compromise" didn't come from nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 4, 2021 9:57:10 GMT
Lib Dems at that time may have been told that AV was as far as Labour could go in a PR direction. It seems to have emerged some time during Charles Kennedy's leadership after the breakdown of the Jenkins proposals and was more focused on reform groups like LCER than the Labour leadership. And thus it became policy on the sly rather than the Lib Dems, ERS and the rest actually openly discussing if this was the right way forward. |
|
tim13
Non-Aligned
Posts: 71
|
Post by tim13 on Oct 4, 2021 10:08:23 GMT
It is certainly what the Tory party usually does, but in the Lib Dems, things don't become policy until Conference so resolves.
I do agree, however, that in this case it was all about what support could be garnered, and there wasn't enough for STV (IIRC). There was certainly some opposition from within the party to going for a referendum using AV as the single alternative to FPTP, with it not being proportional etc. I am unsure about support or otherwise from outside pressure groups. Certainly the interested media had accepted that AV was the route which could garner most support as an alternative. I speak as someone not involved in any discussions or support-gathering operation.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 4, 2021 12:27:13 GMT
It is certainly what the Tory party usually does, but in the Lib Dems, things don't become policy until Conference so resolves. Whatever the Lib Dem internal arrangements may be, to the world at large any party's policy is what the party is pushing. This was one of the mistakes of the Coalition era as Lib Dems thought they could hide behind conference resolutions when taking flak for what the Coalition delivered. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 4, 2021 17:33:08 GMT
It is certainly misleading to suggest that AV was Lib Dem policy at any one time. A party's policy is what its leading figures push and its government supports regardless of what some conference resolution says. The party leadership had been pushing towards an AV convergence for some years (remember Clegg arbitrarily coming out for AV+ on the way) such that it was now the only game in town. Whether it would be by referendum was another factor. Lib Dems usually want more hung parliaments and compromises yet oddly don't want to defend the consequences of those. "Miserable little compromise" didn't come from nowhere. AV+ is a PR system. AV is not. If the Labour Party had enacted the Jenkins Commision report as promised, I am sure the vast majority of Lib Dems would have swung behind it, as they did for the AM system in Scotland, while getting STV for local elections. We all recognise that getting PR will require compromise on the system. But AV, while a marginal improvement on FPTP, is not PR. Anyway, it seems unlikely that random Tories know more about what pre-coalition Lib Dem leaders thought than any of the Lib Dems on here.. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,012
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 4, 2021 17:56:15 GMT
It is certainly what the Tory party usually does, but in the Lib Dems, things don't become policy until Conference so resolves. Whatever the Lib Dem internal arrangements may be, to the world at large any party's policy is what the party is pushing. This was one of the mistakes of the Coalition era as Lib Dems thought they could hide behind conference resolutions when taking flak for what the Coalition delivered. The is a furrow you continue to plough, and I give you credit for being consistent. But transferring the way your party works onto others as to what is and isn't policy is naive at best, arrogant at worst. Being in government, especially coalition government is an exercise of compromise, a result of compromise doesn't change the party involved's policy. It is in the end only the policy of the government when policy is enacted that is not within the set out policy programme of any one party in the coalition. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 5, 2021 8:33:16 GMT
AV+ is a PR system. AV is not. If the Labour Party had enacted the Jenkins Commision report as promised, I am sure the vast majority of Lib Dems would have swung behind it, as they did for the AM system in Scotland, while getting STV for local elections. We all recognise that getting PR will require compromise on the system. But AV, while a marginal improvement on FPTP, is not PR. Labour in 1997 promised a referendum on a recommended system not to implement whatever chaos Jenkins came up with without one. The ERS civil war of the time suggests the Lib Dems would also have been divided on its merits. But looking back Clegg in 2009 didn't seem to be so much converting to AV+ bit rather getting the party away from STV and towards AV. Remember that soon afterwards Labour introduced a Bill for an AV referendum as a means to attract Lib Dem tactical votes and potential support in a hung parliament. Enough came out in the referendum aftermath or is now clear from statements and actions at the time that this had been going on for years and the referendum was on the system it was because of that and not because Conservatives pulled it out of nowhere & Clegg didn't refuse. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 5, 2021 8:44:03 GMT
But transferring the way your party works onto others as to what is and isn't policy is naive at best, arrogant at worst. It is not about the way a party works internally. It is about the way parties work in general. What their representatives and leaders do is what they are responsible for. No conference resolution exempts them. This forum went through this quite a bit at the time when other Lib Dems tried to avoid their government's record. And back in the 1990s I remember the annual mess as Paddy Ashdown had to tour journalists to distance the Lib Dem offer to the country from the basket case basket motions passed by your conference. Then there was 2009(?) when Clegg and Cable tried to drop the abolish tuition fees pledge even if the party bodies refused (and backed and shamelessly signed the NUS pledge). How many times has a Lib Dem conference had the leader and policy making bodies in this sort of turf war? It is irrelevant what it does to the policy file. It's what the party's leaders do. And the idea of compromise itself is little defended. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,012
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 12, 2021 15:31:56 GMT
But transferring the way your party works onto others as to what is and isn't policy is naive at best, arrogant at worst. It is not about the way a party works internally. It is about the way parties work in general. What their representatives and leaders do is what they are responsible for. No conference resolution exempts them. This forum went through this quite a bit at the time when other Lib Dems tried to avoid their government's record. And back in the 1990s I remember the annual mess as Paddy Ashdown had to tour journalists to distance the Lib Dem offer to the country from the basket case basket motions passed by your conference. Then there was 2009(?) when Clegg and Cable tried to drop the abolish tuition fees pledge even if the party bodies refused (and backed and shamelessly signed the NUS pledge). How many times has a Lib Dem conference had the leader and policy making bodies in this sort of turf war? It is irrelevant what it does to the policy file. It's what the party's leaders do. And the idea of compromise itself is little defended. Bearing in mind out party is our membership, not the leader's plaything to do what they will with, that's part of the job of Lib Dem leader, that they are as much subject to the will of conference as anyone else. Again projecting your party's approach to things is a bit useless in this context. You might think that there's a one size fits all approach and, while that's your individual opinion, it's not done kind of objective truth. |
|
