To be clear, I'm not saying the Lib Dems would never go in to coalition with Labour. I'm simply saying don't be surprised, if the arithmetic works out a certain way, to see the Lib Dems work with the tories.
Tories close gap on Labour to 1 point
- Thread starter TeessideCleveland
- Start date
To be clear, I'm not saying the Lib Dems would never go in to coalition with Labour. I'm simply saying don't be surprised, if the arithmetic works out a certain way, to see the Lib Dems work with the tories.
Andy_W
Well-known member
I get what you're saying, but the way it is now, they're planning for 5 years of decisions/ support, where as with PR it's a sort of an anything can happen scenario, just with higher probabilities in your favour if you land more seats for that 5 year period.
It's just different circumstances now and what it would be with PR. There could be some who you really don't want a coalition with, but could see passed that when there are some common ground/ ideas, which is fine of course. With PR the parties would still be very much independent (great), where as with FPTP they are pretty much agreeing to buddy up on everything for 5 years (a little worse to me, seems more like a bribe). Suppose ultimately it ends up the same thing, except the right amount of votes for the number of voters, which is what we don't have now.
Lefty
Well-known member
PR produces different Parliaments, coalitions and policies than FPTP, which will take some getting used to by the electorate.
People getting in a tizz beliving the Corbynite/Corbynista cult complete extreme socialism or nothing..
fact is me like most just want a capable labour leader who can deliver Labour party values. I do not see that with Sir Keir Starmer.
You didn't get the capable bit with Corbyn and his cadre either.
McDonnell was capable, but Corbyn and Milne fell out with him because he wanted to get Labour in to power. He also moved on Brexit reflecting the mood of the membership and the country. Sadly Jeremy never came to a position and his weakness allowed Milne and co to put out conflicting messages in accordance with their own preferences, making a very confusing position for the electorate, many of whom had lent Labour their vote in 2017. Milne, Murphy and McClusky should have been jettisoned or disciplined, but Corbyn was too weak and too loyal to do that. Hence the current fiasco.
Andy_W
Well-known member
You can't deliver any values if you can't win. But the bigger problem is if you don't win, it doesn't mean it's a draw, or you get the next best thing, it means you end up being hammered with the exact opposite of what you want, for 5 years at least.
We've not had many labour values for the passed 12 years, largely as they've been sat on the opposition benches, so what makes you think you wouldn't get far more under Starmer, whose manifesto will be a Labour manifesto, and very different to the Tory one? It's not just one man, its the cabinet, the backbenchers and what the public want too.
newyddion
Well-known member
Stitched up by the PLP not backing the membership and stitched up by the Momentum types who didn't want Brexit
You win by winning, you win by having a strong team, you win by having purpose. For me at least I don't think you win by aping the likes of the Lib Dems and The Independent Group for Change. Him and his pals that worked hard to scupper the last two elections.. can they be trusted to deliver anything? Representation and Democracy is severely lacking in the Labour Party. There seems to be a sphere of influence that governs the party that has no self awareness.. or perhaps it is self destructive on purpose.
Lefty
Well-known member
Three quarters of the membership didn't want Brexit. Two thirds of Labour voters didn't want Brexit. Most of the country thought Brexit was a mistake - there hadn't been a poll with a majority in favour of Brexit for 18 months by the time of the second march for a People's Vote.
The country and the membership were stitched up by the Momentum types, but by those who wanted Brexit, that small influential number on the Left who were close to Corbyn and used their influence to put out their own messages as they saw fit, against the wishes of the membership and against agreed positions in shadow cabinet and with the other stakeholders. The Lexiters put Brexit ahead of the democratic wishes of the members, the voters and the best interests of the country and Corbyn's weakness, lack of interest and lack of understanding allowed it to happen.
A competent, ruthless leader, acting in the best interests of its members and the country might, might, have averted Brexit.
Andy_W
Well-known member
You win by appealing to where the voters are, not by trying to move them. They're unlikely to shift where they sit on the political spectrum by much, unless over a very long time. There's easily enough "good" people to appeal to, to do good things, yes you may not get it all, but you can't have it all as there are a large chunk of the population who don't want that unfortunately.
You also win, by not losing votes to your direct competitor.
You also win by controlling the centre (by that I mean those almost on the fence, between Labour and Tories), and whether you like it or not, there's loads of them, and loads of them make up LD and IGC. It's better pandering to those, and winning, rather than losing and ending up with a Tory majority, especially in the FPTP system (which is crap).
I disagree they were scuppering anything, but it's fine for people in the party to not agree or to have different ideas, especially when Labours support started drifting down after Corbyn's peak, which was the GE. I'm sure Corbyn had plenty of ideas which loads of the MP's and voters were not happy about, or did not think were working. Either way, Corbyn wasn't working, for one reason or another, even if a lot of those reasons were complete media horse****, but the party need to recognise that they need to win, and need to recognise when someone can't win. Then they either help them, if they're willing to take the help or change, or the party needs to go in another direction, with or without the leader.
Yes, Corbyn came fairly close in 2017 (in vote share anyway) up against a weak Tory leader, but still had comfortably less seats in a crap FPTP system, and we need to play to those crap rules. Then the decline started (even against declining Tories) and they got absolutely battered in 2019 against an even worse leader, not saying anyone else could have won with the brexit lingerers, but it shouldn't have been that big a gap, and would have been less voters to turn if the gap was smaller.
Labour haven't polled ahead of the Tories by this much since they last got elected. They had a 5% lead under Miliband in 2014, but they completely blew the election.
Otto42
Well-known member
Spot on there. McDonnell was a canny political operator, while Corbyn was and always will be a protestor. He ended up surrounding himself with too many who were more interested in controlling the labour party than the country. You can get progressive and radical change from a labour leader who appeals to the centre and when pushed a majority would probably go for a relatively left wing economic agenda, it's the other perceived weaknesses around identity politics that hurt such as Foot, Corbyn etc....As Clinton campaigned 'It's the economy stupid' and if Labour is seen as a safer option on the economy they should be able to gain power.
American_Mary
Well-known member
There's a massive omission on behalf of Corbyn that forced his hand, many of the Blair/Brown government refused to serve in his Shadow Cabinet, whether on principle or through petulance, it robbed Corbyn of a huge amount of political savvy and Westminster worldliness, plus it allowed Corbyn to be defined as being extreme left by the main stream media, a perception that no matter how closely his policies and manifesto resembled those of Miliband he was cast as being a Communist who was intent on destroying the fabric of British Government.
This also allowed other false and extremist narratives to be pinned to Corbyn, a man who had forever condemned violence on all sides was painted as a friend of terrorists and a pacifist who was willing to go to war but expressed grave concerns about the World being in a position where he would have to launch a nuclear attack, note not a retaliatory strike, but a nuclear offensive.
Would Corbyn have won an election with the full backing of his Party ? It's difficult to say, perhaps his performance of 2017 was a result of him being freed of the anti-Blair legacy and a move away from being an echo and becoming the shout, would a slicker more professional campaign alienated some that saw him as the underdog outlier intent on change, we will never know, but despite being a supporter of his by 2019 he did need to go.
I don't think Corbyn would have hung around for long as Prime Minister either, I think his age and idealism would have left him feeling compromised and he would have stepped down leaving a left leaning Social Democratic Labour government as his legacy, I honestly don't think the personal power interested him to the same degree as it does Kier Starmer but I do think he wanted to make a difference and improve life for the majority, and with that in mind it's difficult to be too critical of Corbyn, I think everything he did was for, in his mind, the right reason I just don't he recognised that others didn't always agree his reasoning.
This also allowed other false and extremist narratives to be pinned to Corbyn, a man who had forever condemned violence on all sides was painted as a friend of terrorists and a pacifist who was willing to go to war but expressed grave concerns about the World being in a position where he would have to launch a nuclear attack, note not a retaliatory strike, but a nuclear offensive.
Would Corbyn have won an election with the full backing of his Party ? It's difficult to say, perhaps his performance of 2017 was a result of him being freed of the anti-Blair legacy and a move away from being an echo and becoming the shout, would a slicker more professional campaign alienated some that saw him as the underdog outlier intent on change, we will never know, but despite being a supporter of his by 2019 he did need to go.
I don't think Corbyn would have hung around for long as Prime Minister either, I think his age and idealism would have left him feeling compromised and he would have stepped down leaving a left leaning Social Democratic Labour government as his legacy, I honestly don't think the personal power interested him to the same degree as it does Kier Starmer but I do think he wanted to make a difference and improve life for the majority, and with that in mind it's difficult to be too critical of Corbyn, I think everything he did was for, in his mind, the right reason I just don't he recognised that others didn't always agree his reasoning.
Last edited:
The_Unicorn
Well-known member
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Johnson also stole a few of Corbyn’s popular policies from 2017, such as levelling up and ending austerity and also was forced to backtrack on privatising the NHS.
Abel Tasman
Well-known member
Such is the blatent opportunism that propelled Johnson to victory the policies he may have stolen he has certainly played lip service to since.
Ben Houchen was on the news on BBC World last night alarmed that non of the candidates were even mentioning the policy of levelling up. Funny that. Why act surprised Ben?
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
He and Vickers trying to distance themselves from the Tory Party?
SmallTown
Well-known member
By becoming deputy Chairman?
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Last night the Lords voted on providing free school meals to pupils in all households receiving universal credit. Once again Labour were whipped to abstain.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
This is part of a much larger bill, one which would give the government control over such things like what children are taught in schools, Labour abstaining on this clause about free school meals (a Lib Dem ammendment) allows them to insert their own ammendments.
This is the back and forth of the HOL debating process that happens all of the time but ultimately the government will decide what it wants to do as it has a large majority.
To suggest they are against free school meals is very misleading.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
I missed that news, unbelievable. He put out a poster without reference to the party only last week.
Deputy chairman
BoroFur
Well-known member
BBG being as disingenuous as ever when it comes to Starmer.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
No, I just think he's a totally uninspiring leader and a liar. Anyone who thinks that Labour's recent poll lead has anything to do with him are deluding themselves.