From both parties standpoint PR (or it’s variants) would be a disaster
I can see the drawbacks for labour but struggling to see the downside for the lib dems as a minority party, especially as they'd almost certainly be the king makers in a non-overall majority situation. The major risk of PR for anyone coming from on anti-tory standpoint is the inexcusable habit the lib dems have of allying themselves with the tories rather than labour. For me though the greatest benefit of PR would be greater influence for the greens and potential for parties like them to better represent the interests of the younger generation.
But if Labour had mounted a stronger/any kind of campaign, chances are the Tories would have taken the seat.
Labour did put resources into the campaign. If they'd run a paper candidate, or no candidate at all, I could've understood it. As it is, they've spent money they don't have to fall even further behind than Corbyn managed at what was supposedly their nadir.
I don't disagree @dazh, if the current Tory regime doesn't shows the voters that our present system is totally unfit for purpose, then we may as well all just give up now. I can't see the public having a different response to another offer of PR any more than they did last time, can you?
You can exclude me from that.
I do like binners whining about those nasty lefties. He really does regurgitate the hard rights attack lines with faultless precision.
I can’t see the public having a different response to another offer of PR any more than they did last time, can you?
So don't give them the choice (in a referendum that is). Instead slice away at FPTP with more minor, incremental electoral reforms. Start with local authorities, then the lords. Then when everyone's used to PR in those areas reform the commons to introduce a quota of MPs elected via party vote share, then reduce the number of constituency MPs to the point where it's 50-50. Then either stop there or move to full PR. There are loads of ways to erode FPTP, all it needs is labour, the lib dems and SNP cooperating to shut the tories out.
all it needs is labour, the lib dems and SNP cooperating
So don’t give them the choice (in a referendum that is). Instead slice away at FPTP with more minor, incremental electoral reforms. Start with local authorities, then the lords.
If we're talking about England, it already is, in a limited way. Mayoral elections are the supplementary vote system.
I can’t see the public having a different response to another offer of PR any more than they did last time, can you?
We have never had a offer of PR for westminster elections.
AV was a miserable compromise which is deeply flawed and so was difficult to rally support around.
A campaign for proper PR is more likely to meet with success although would have difficulty getting through the hard right media barons. However there is opportunity to target those on the right as well since many of those who think the tories are now a bit commie will have noticed how little their votes for farage and co counts.
Would it succeed. Maybe, maybe not but there would be opportunity.
But if Labour had mounted a stronger/any kind of campaign, chances are the Tories would have taken the seat.
Labour did put resources into the campaign. If they’d run a paper candidate, or no candidate at all, I could’ve understood it. As it is, they’ve spent money they don’t have to fall even further behind than Corbyn managed at what was supposedly their nadir.
I was happy with the result as I want to see tories out of power and am not interested in second places.
If labour had not fallen further behind (perhaps because of some mass campaign of corbynite volunteers bussed in from all over the country to knock on doors - not ideal timing, pandemic related but whatever) then the tories would have taken the seat. As it is they lost it, for now, and we can see just the faint, faint hope of a way to get them out at the next general election. This has Labour winning where it can, and lib dems, scot nats, greens winning where it can't. And then decide how to form a govt which would be a million miles from the current corrupt, antidemocratic, incompetent mess.
A campaign for proper PR is more likely to meet with success although would have difficulty getting through the hard right media barons.
Not to mention the Unions, who squashed any idea of their support for it at the last Labour conference.
If labour had not fallen further behind
What exactly do you mean by "further behind"? In the last couple of elections they were comfortably ahead of the libdems in North Shropshire.
So why exactly they brought into this myth of the libdems being the all conquering champions is unclear and not backed by the voting records prior to the election.
What johnx2 said
Once this Government finish their dodgy gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries, voter ID and whatever other anti democratic nonsense they cook up between now and the next election, the only conceivable way we’ll end up with a non-Tory government with a working majority is with some kind of party cooperation if not a full on coalition
I think the last by-election showed that the voters are ahead of the parties on this one and voted for the candidate most likely to defeat the Tory
What exactly do you mean by “further behind”?
The Tories, remember them?
The Tories, remember them?
Yes but that is irrelavant to the claim of the libdems being the best placed competition given the voting record of the constituency. To be equally patronising I am sure you have noticed 12,495 is larger than 5,643?
Admittedly given the appalling performance of Starmers forensic approach in old bexley it might be best for them to give up and go home it is still a bit early no?
binners Full Member
What johnx2 said
So as an alleged individual member of the Labour Party you are happy to see Labour come third in a seat that just 2 years ago they came second. No wonder the Labour Party is up electoral shit creek without a paddle**
And this is from someone who bangs on endless that the only thing that matters is "winning". Coming second is never acceptable. Even robbing the Tories of a majority isn't enough for you.
But coming third is...... after you have very conveniently moved the goalposts.
**Labour can't win by-elections in seats that last general election they came second, despite the Tories being in crisis. They can't even win a by-election in one of their own safe seats.
So you have given up on Labour winning the 150 seats necessary to form a majority government binners, despite hysterically demanding a majority government from Corbyn.
You are as slippery and vacillating as a Tory politician mate.
To be equally patronising
Sorry, wasn't meant to be. Quick post to mean that's the focus. Sure I'd prefer if Labour had won, but the Tories lost and it happens that a strong labour campaign would have stopped that. Kick Starmer by all means or say in an alternative Corbyn universe things would've been different (Lab a strong second...?), but I'm happy with that outcome.
And in the next GE/By-election in that constituency, the LibDems will point out that they were second this time and that it's therefore a waste of time voting Labour. Are you suggesting that Labour give up any hope of ever winning seats like these? Maybe you should compile a list of all the seats not worth contesting - ever - and see if the number remaining comes anywhere near to a Westminster majority. If it doesn't then Labour might as well pack up now.
What bizarro-world have we entered where Labour supporters are happy with Labour being utterly trounced in a by-election against a government in crisis, and by a party that are closer to the Tories than they are to Labour.
I thought it was supposed to be us lefties that didn't care about winning and crowed over 'moral victories' (which this doesn't even class as).
Still, as long as the right's grip on the party is strengthened to make Labour more electable, actually winning elections doesn't matter eh.
I thought it was supposed to be us lefties that didn’t care about winning and crowed over ‘moral victories’ (which this doesn’t even class as).
Dealing with the world as it is, moral victories mean zero; Tories losing is better than Labour coming second if we want a labour (or let's face it labour-led) government. Plenty of Labour activists would disagree with this analysis and entirely honorably so, as clearly so too do some of the too-left-for-labour folks here looking for any stick to beat Starmer. Hey ho.
And this is from someone who bangs on endless that the only thing that matters is “winning”. Coming second is never acceptable. Even robbing the Tories of a majority isn’t enough for you.
Bigger picture?
You can lose a battle, if you ultimately win the war.
That’s all that matters. A non-Tory government. How we get there isn’t of that much significance.
Those possessed of a zeal for idealogical purity obviously see things differently
Unfortunately for them ‘winning the argument’ means Jack shit if you just delivered the Tory’s an 80 seat majority. Has any politician ever made a more ridiculous statement? Winning the ****ing argument? Have a word with yourself FFS!
Tories losing is better than Labour coming second if we want a labour (or let’s face it labour-led) government.
So the way to achieve a Labour government is to let the LibDems win in seats where Labour came second, yeah that should work.
And I will remind you that the last time the LibDems were in a position to make a difference austerity rained down on the British people.
Btw the latest seat predictions has the LibDems on 8 seats, down from 11 at the last general election, based on LibDem support falling from 12% last general election down to 9% now.
You can lose a battle, if you ultimately win the war.
So what was all the excitement about the Tories losing a seat last Thursday?
You'll do your back in mate if you keep moving the goalposts with such speed.
A couple of years ago you were screaming with rage because Labour didn't have a 20 point lead over the Tories, today you are well chuffed because Labour has about a 5 point lead.
You can lose a battle, if you ultimately win the war.
and
Winning the ****ing argument? Have a word with yourself FFS!
Someone who wasnt arguing a massive drop in voting numbers is a good thing might actually be able to spot the disconnect here but someone who snears at the 6th formers on the grounds they never reached such heady heights isnt going to be the person for the job.
About the only good thing for Labour in this byelection is it eclipses just how badly they got their arses kicked in the previous one. I guess that good right in your eyes.
Keep forensically destroying the tories.
A couple of years ago you were screaming with rage because Labour didn’t have a 20 point lead over the Tories,
To lend some context to that statement ( Context is great, isn’t it?) IIRC Corbyns Labour Party was 18-20 points behind a self-destructing Tory party in the polls at the time. It was 28 points behind when he shuffled off to the allotment, having gift-wrapped Boris his huge majority, wasn’t it?
today you are well chuffed because Labour has about a 5 point lead.
Given where we were when Grandad finally, belatedly bowed out, I’ll take that now, yes. It’s all going in the right direction
I am aware how much this upsets you, comrades, but try not to be too glum. It’s Christmas 😃
To lend some context to that statement ( Context is great, isn’t it?)
Its better than moronic nicknames and pictures but somehow I suspect you wont be able to provide it.
IIRC Corbyns Labour Party was 18-20 points behind a self-destructing Tory party in the polls at the time.
And point proved. I dont know if you have noticed but the tories arent exactly in a great position right now? You know what with mishandling of a crisis, hypocrisy and corruption and the self destructing infighting.
. It’s all going in the right direction
As can be seen from every byelection result.
I mean ffs. You could sort of argue North shropshire but lets look at old Bexley shall we? I know the labour leadership went for fooling the simple minded by shouting about the swing to Labour but even the dimmest should have noticed the labour vote collapsed.
To lend some context to that statement ( Context is great, isn’t it?) IIRC Corbyns Labour Party was 18-20 points behind a self-destructing Tory party in the polls at the time
No, when they had a lead over the Tories you complained that they should be further ahead and it was all Corbyn's fault. Your lack of consistency is no surprise.
when they had a lead over the Tories you complained that they should be further ahead
That is exactly as I remember it. You were ranting that Labour should be 20 points ahead because the Tory government was apparently so appalling.
You certainly weren't celebrating this :
But perhaps you think that Johnson's government isn't as bad as Theresa May's government?
Is that your reason for moving the goalposts?
That’s all that matters. A non-Tory government. How we get there isn’t of that much significance.
Those possessed of a zeal for idealogical purity obviously see things differently
A non-Tory government can still be a right wing government hell bent on not turning things around.
Ideology purity groans are the echoes of a screaming centrist not grasping the ideological direction that the Right have engulfed on this country.
For the record in the UK no main party is ideologically pure. In the UK we have political parties sitting on a spectrum between what the market can fix and what the state can fix.
I'm saying the state can be tasked to fix a hell of a lot more than the profit sneering right-wing claim it can.
You just need the political will.
That doesn't make it ideologically pure.
Put the phrase to bed.
A non-Tory government can still be a right wing government hell bent on not turning things around.
Very true, I don't however think even under STarmer that the Labour party would be considered a right wing party
Ideology purity groans are the echoes of a screaming centrist not grasping the ideological direction that the Right have engulfed on this country.
The country have voted for the right for the last 50 years with exception of the New Labour years which were a more right wing Labour party than we would like. What is your conclusion from that?
A deep seated yearning for socialism, obviously.
I don’t however think even under STarmer that the Labour party would be considered a right wing party
The Labour Party under Starmer is most certainly right wing, which is of course precisely why it meets with binners approval.
Unless perhaps you can prove me wrong and list all those leftie policies being argued by Labour?
The country have voted for the right for the last 50 years with exception of the New Labour years which were a more right wing Labour party than we would like. What is your conclusion from that?
My conclusion is that you consider the Labour governments of the 1970s which were significantly to the left of Labour under Corbyn, as indeed were Tory governments, and were denounced by Blairites as left wing, weren't left wing.
My other conclusion is that you appear to believe that during New Labour the electorate had a choice between a right wing Labour Party and a left wing Labour Party and decided to choose the right wing one. I am not aware of any Labour MPs losing their seats because they were too left wing.
Edit : To help you list the left wing policies being argued by Labour here are Starmer's 10 socialist pledges (click on "10 pledges") just give the number of the pledges that he is currently pursuing.
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
A deep seated yearning for socialism, obviously.
The electorate have never been given the choice of socialism. The following Noam Chomsky quote applies equally well in the UK as it does the US:
'In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population.'
Well if thats the case, how come the majority keep overwhelmingly voting for what is clearly the worst of the two options available?
The electorate have never been given the choice of socialism.
could easily be mistaken for agreeing with this guy...
Labour can win again if we make the moral case for socialism
Keir Starmer
Maybe "socialism" means different things to you than it does to Keir?
Serious question and honestly not a debating point (well maybe a bit, but I'm still interested in the answer): what country/ies in say the last 10-15 years would you have the UK take as a model that we can try in our own way to emulate? I guess let's make it medium to large and industrialised, so not Iceland basically or an island in the pacific I've not heard of. NZ would be allowed.
Labour governments of the 1970s which were significantly to the left of Labour under Corbyn
As someone who wants a left wing government … please don’t draw people’s attention to the 1970s. Thank you.
Maybe “socialism” means different things to you than it does to Keir?
Have you heard him use the S word recently?
Have you heard him use the S word recently?
If I was in his position (ha ha) I'd probably avoid using it right now as it means very different things to different people. In the US it means availability of basic healthcare. To the labour leadership electorate it means something different, to the wider electorate to whom he now has to appeal it means a bunch of different things not all positive, and to dazh I don't know what it means in practice, hence my question as to what countries we could take as a model or at least learn from.
My guess is that starmer would prefer to have his level of socialism assessed by the outcomes of policies he's able to enact - are we a fairer more equal society?
So why was he proudly using it in his pledges etc at leadership election time? What's changed, other than the fact he won and doesn't need to bother pretending to be a unity candidate any more.
I've just said - different electorate, judge by actions. And which country?
All the Scandinavian countries for starters even the ones with what they consider right-wing governments are still way to the left of us.
Scandinavia apart, most other major European countries are considerably more socialist than us ie higher taxes, better public services, less inequality, better social security, etc etc
What's your point exactly?
different electorate, judge by actions
All we have to judge him on so far is what he says, which makes him look totally untrustworthy. Judging by the recent by-elction result we won't get to judge him on results. It's extremely generous of you to say we can't judge him until he's been in power for a few years.
please don’t draw people’s attention to the 1970s. Thank you.
I didn't, kerley did when referring to the last 50 years.
I'm assuming that you subscribe to the Thatcherite myth concerning how terrible things were in the 1970s, despite the fact that it is now proudly declared that we currently have the lowest unemployment rate for almost 50 years.
even the ones with what they consider right-wing governments are still way to the left of us.
The Swedish Democrats would probably want to have a chat about that.
Thatcherite myth concerning how terrible things were in the 1970s
The UK in the 70s was a mess for much of the people of Britain. You won’t find me claiming that what followed in the 80s was good for the population though. Unemployment is not the only measure of success. How people have to live in and out of work is just as important as whether they are in work. (To me anyway… insert vocal support of UBI rant here if you want).
Anyway, Labour can’t be seen to be stuck in the 1970… the electorate need to see that Labour are not swinging between old and new Labour, but are offering something else. The current leader is failing to make the case for that.
Well if thats the case, how come the majority keep overwhelmingly voting for what is clearly the worst of the two options available?
Sigh, to repeat again... (normally I have to say this to kerley)
In 2019 28% of the electorate voted for the tories. In what fantasy world can that be described as an overwhelming majority?
