domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on May 13, 2022 21:20:56 GMT
If a party needs more support then obviously it has to make itself appeal to those who didn't vote for it last time. It's only on getting into power via that extra support that it will actually be in a position to 'represent' those who always voted for it anyway. Politics, especially with our dysfunctional system, is compromise all the way. That rather assumes that the voters remain in the same place though. I have always believed that Labour would have won the 1997 election with a reprise of its 1992 manifesto. In the intervening years the electorate had moved away from the Tories and the acceptance of the Thatcherite settlement - and were ready for a more radical change than Blair was inclined to give them. The landslide majority would not have happened , but much of the later disillusionment might well have been avoided. I would not suggest that Labour fight the 2023/24 GE on a 2019 style programme - but it needs to be to the left of what Milliband was offering in 2015. This is why I genuinely am unsure of what meat the Corbynite left of the Labour party feel they need thrown to them. Is this actually about policy, or is it about personnel and internal party tribalism? We don't yet know what will be in the 2024 manifesto. Do you think it will be far to the right of the 2017 one for example and if so why? It seems to me very likely to be more 'to the left' than that of '92 which was from another era but I could be wrong. If, on the other hand the grievances are mainly about internal procedural tribalism then I'm pretty sure very, very few, even the vast majority of voters firmly on the left give a damn outside of a small coterie of activists. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on May 13, 2022 21:26:03 GMT
"Hunt warming up".
NICKP. The Minister for Murdoch? How quickly one forgets.
Except you didnt forget. Yes, The Leveson enquiry which showed us how Jeremy Hunt worked re the Sky bid. He was a committed bag carrier for James Murdoch in whose well-lined pocket Hunt chose to take up his ministerial abode.
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 13, 2022 21:28:55 GMT
But why someone who has Labour's best interests at heart and who might even be a member of the party would want to undermine its electoral prospects, is inexplicable. Starmer was elected by a clear majority of members and appears to be gaining traction for both his party and his potential premiership in the polls. Most members are behind him and he's reclaiming some lost support for the party. He's sort of doing OK and might well rid us of the Tories in time. He's not a Messiah nor an irresistible political personality but he's assembled a reasonable team who might well surprise with the radical policies that they put before the electorate come general election time. They've got to be better than the current government, haven't they?? so you were always urging everyone to get behind Corbyn were you? |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 13, 2022 21:35:44 GMT
@lakeland Lass - "I've never understood the logic that dictates a political party should represent the views of people who didn't vote for it, and ignore the people who did." I guess it's a numbers thing. If you won the last election, yes, by all means appeal to those who voted for you. If you lost the last four elections, you need to think a bit about thems that didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on May 13, 2022 21:43:32 GMT
Raf, as I posted upthread the selection rules were not changed late on, these are same ones used in North Shropshire, Birmingham Erdington and Old Bexley and Sidcup.
For GEs all candidates, unless a party is in special measures which might apply to a couple of seats, will be selected wholly by CLPs.
In By-Elections, local parties need, imo, to realise that the candidate becomes a face of the national party for the duration of the campaign.
An OK candidate in a GE may not be that good with the media or, whilst not unacceptable, hold views or have history that could distract from the national message the party wish to use the By-Election to convey.
Every leader since the rules changed under Kinnock (after Deidre Wood) have sought to have candidates they are comfortable with.
I get that it must be a dent to some peoples egos to realise that outside their pond they are not that highly regarded but to encourage the EC to act in this way is self-indulgent.
Both long list candidates who did not make the shortlist have shown the expected class and will support and campaign for the PPC once selected.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 13, 2022 21:48:20 GMT
Hi shevii I've only ever voted Labour (Blair/Brown/Miliband/Corbyn and will vote for the Party with Starmer as leader in the GE), campaigned for Labour until I had children and agree with what you write. KS is in danger of pushing natural Labour voters away - or not mobilising them. As I and other's have commented before he needs to get the balance correct between appealing to the left and the centre. However, I think some are in danger of overblowing what just happened in Wakefield. All parties and leaders have issues such as this from time to time. True. But while Wakefield may not be a huge example it is a repeating pattern and, whether right or wrong on this, shouldn't Labour be showing some signs of engaging with their local party rather than just bulldozing through whatever it is that the NEC wants? I don't really understand why Labour supporters on here can't see the problem. I know they are just local elections and people will vote differently in a two horse race at a General Election but isn't it obvious there is a potential problem when everyone was grabbing a piece of the Tory pie in England but Labour was behind Lib Dems, Greens and Aspire in the pecking order. 5 point lead mid term against the most incompetent and corrupt government in living memory with economic problems and public services problems that we've not seen the like of since 1945. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 21:49:55 GMT
But why someone who has Labour's best interests at heart and who might even be a member of the party would want to undermine its electoral prospects, is inexplicable. Starmer was elected by a clear majority of members and appears to be gaining traction for both his party and his potential premiership in the polls. Most members are behind him and he's reclaiming some lost support for the party. He's sort of doing OK and might well rid us of the Tories in time. He's not a Messiah nor an irresistible political personality but he's assembled a reasonable team who might well surprise with the radical policies that they put before the electorate come general election time. They've got to be better than the current government, haven't they?? so you were urging everyone to get behind Corbyn were you? Not only was he out campaigning for him in both ‘97 and ‘99, he also voted for him - as did I and just about every other typically Labour voter that I know. Which is rather more than can be said for you, with your, oh-so-bloody-sanctimonious and contrived affectation of: “I don’t vote for anyone” and thinking you’re somehow being being above it all. I’m sure I am not alone in being really tired of it. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 13, 2022 21:50:15 GMT
I do find the internal Labour wranglings amusing. The Tories are a similar broad coalition, which is why we have an essentially two-party system in England. That may be changing (it used to be so across the whole of GB), but that's another discussion.
The difference is that most Tories are pragmatists and realise that they need to get power first, and then disagree with each other if necessary. More Labour people are idealists, and this keeps tripping them up because they believe that even slightly different ideas within their own party must be attacked even when they're not in power. The famous Monty Python sketch comes to mind, though I won't bother linking to it yet again.
This isn't unique to Labour. It seems to be characteristic of left-wing movements in many countries. I'm by no means knowledgeable on these things, but am I right in thinking that Trotskyites and Marxists and Marxist-Leninists and others are all at daggers drawn?
I also find it strange that such ancient names are still used. It's almost like competing religions. Conservatives don't talk about being Peelites or Disraeli-ites. I know a few may still identify as Thatcherite, but she's relatively recent. There is no Churchillian wing as far as I know even if he's respected.
Anyway, as some of you say, it's popcorn time. 😄
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 13, 2022 21:54:26 GMT
so you were urging everyone to get behind Corbyn were you? Not only was he out campaigning for him in both ‘97 and ‘99, he also voted for him - as did I and just about every other typically Labour voter that I know. Which is rather more than can be said for you, with your, oh-so-bloody-sanctimonious and contrived affectation of: “I don’t vote for anyone” and thinking you’re somehow being being above it all. I’m sure I am not alone in being really tired of it. I just asked a question Paul. I didn’t claim anything for myself, you projected that. Thanks for yet another ad hom though. You barely discuss at all these days, just mostly snipe. and he can say he was out campaigning, but I was asking about what he said on this board. Because people are taking issue with views of people expressed on this board. Did you urge people to vote Corbyn on here too? |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 13, 2022 21:59:32 GMT
But why someone who has Labour's best interests at heart and who might even be a member of the party would want to undermine its electoral prospects, is inexplicable. Starmer was elected by a clear majority of members and appears to be gaining traction for both his party and his potential premiership in the polls. Most members are behind him and he's reclaiming some lost support for the party. He's sort of doing OK and might well rid us of the Tories in time. He's not a Messiah nor an irresistible political personality but he's assembled a reasonable team who might well surprise with the radical policies that they put before the electorate come general election time. They've got to be better than the current government, haven't they?? so you were always urging everyone to get behind Corbyn were you? Depends what you mean by "everyone". As a Labour member I never voted for him in either leadership election, but accepted the results of both of those contests and campaigned for, and voted for the party, at every election, local and national, during Corbyn's time as leader. I was never much enthused by him, to be honest, and became so disillusioned with him as a politician and the ludicrous cultism that grew around his leadership that I did ponder resigning from Labour circa 2018. But I have a perfectly easy conscience about it all. I did as much as I could to help Labour win and never dissuaded anyone from voting for Corbyn's Labour. In fact I did the opposite of that, quite often in the face, literally, of former voters who had utter disdain for him as a leader, politician and the direction he was taking the party they used to vote for. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 13, 2022 22:05:51 GMT
so you were always urging everyone to get behind Corbyn were you? Depends what you mean by "everyone". As a Labour member I never voted for him in either leadership election, but accepted the results of both of those contests and campaigned for, and voted for the party, at every election, local and national, during Corbyn's time as leader. I was never much enthused by him, to be honest, and became so disillusioned with him as a politician and the ludicrous cultism that grew around his leadership that I did ponder resigning from Labour circa 2018. But I have a perfectly easy conscience about it all. I did as much as I could to help Labour win and never dissuaded anyone from voting for Corbyn's Labour. In fact I did the opposite of that, quite often in the face, literally, of former voters who had utter disdain for him as a leader, politician and the direction he was taking the party they used to vote for. Thanks for your reply, Crossbat. I recall some complaint from you about Corbyn on here, rather than urging people to back him, and that’s the thing really. There was a lot of the right of the party on here complaining about Corbyn rather than urging people to vote for him. The right wingers within Labour weren’t often on here going “come on guys, let’s get behind Corbyn to stop the Tories!” So it would hopefully be inderstandable why the left of the party aren’t going wild to urge backing for Starmer, esp. given the way he has changed tack since winning the leadership. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on May 13, 2022 22:05:53 GMT
I do find the internal Labour wranglings amusing. The Tories are a similar broad coalition, which is why we have an essentially two-party system in England. That may be changing (it used to be so across the whole of GB), but that's another discussion. The difference is that most Tories are pragmatists and realise that they need to get power first, and then disagree with each other if necessary. More Labour people are idealists, and this keeps tripping them up because they believe that even slightly different ideas within their own party must be attacked even when they're not in power. The famous Monty Python sketch comes to mind, though I won't bother linking to it yet again. This isn't unique to Labour. It seems to be characteristic of left-wing movements in many countries. I'm by no means knowledgeable on these things, but am I right in thinking that Trotskyites and Marxists and Marxist-Leninists and others are all at daggers drawn? I also find it strange that such ancient names are still used. It's almost like competing religions. Conservatives don't talk about being Peelites or Disraeli-ites. I know a few may still identify as Thatcherite, but she's relatively recent. There is no Churchillian wing as far as I know even if he's respected. Anyway, as some of you say, it's popcorn time. 😄 Yes that’s right, this incarnation of the Tories are so pragmatic and broad church that they had to chuck those not prostrating themselves to the new religion of hard brexit out of the party, and do everything they can to antagonise and put distance between the UK and Europe despite the huge and long lasting diplomatic and economic damage that causes and for solely ideological reasons. They’re so pragmatic that the cabinet is full of nonentities who are in position solely due to being adherents to the new religion and loyalty to Jaba and not due to ability. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 13, 2022 22:12:04 GMT
domjg As I said, they fall out AFTER they get power. That's the difference. So far 30 of the last 43 years including the last 12 and counting. I'm not greatly enamoured of the latest incarnation and didn't vote for them at the last GE, but I just observe that they are more effective at getting and retaining power and if Labour want it they should try to discover why.
|
|
eor
Member
Posts: 1,845
Member is Online
|
Post by eor on May 13, 2022 22:14:41 GMT
Update from France - the first round of the legislative elections is a month away, the polling is sparse and the projections volatile, but a Macron majority is predicted. As some UK media has noted, the Greens, Socialists and Communists have formed an alliance with Melenchon's party, aiming to field their most viable candidate in each constituency. How well that will work remains to be seen, and whether voters whose normal parties drop off the ballot will stay home or turn out for another candidate from the alliance remains to be seen. Worth noting it's quite a lopsided alliance at least at a national level - Melenchon's party typically accounts for about 2/3rds of its electoral support. Such polling as there is seems to have the left alliance anywhere in the low 30s or high 20s, Macron's party on about 26-27%, Le Pen's mob in the low 20s and the Gaullists on about 10%. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_French_legislative_election#First_roundWhere this gets even messier is that it's a two-round election, on successive weekends, but it's not (necessarily) a straight run-off system. To get elected in the first round, a candidate needs 50% + 1 vote of those cast, and to have secured the support of 25% of registered voters. This was vanishingly rare last time out. If the leading candidate in a constituency doesn't meet both criteria, it goes to a run-off between all candidates who secured the support of 12.5% of registered voters in the first round. The second round is most votes wins, whether there are two candidates or more than two. So any first round apathy makes it harder for candidates to make the run-off in seats where the contest is split several ways (if only one, or indeed no candidates achieve 12.5% of registered voters in the first round then the top two have a run-off regardless). Of the few polls that have attempted seat projections, all have Macron's party retaining its overall majority, with anywhere from 300 to 376 seats (out of 577). The projections elsewhere are quite wild - the left alliance on somewhere between 70 and 165 seats, Le Pen's lot somewhere between 20 and 140, the Gaullists 35-70. I don't know if seat projections at this stage are normally remotely accurate, and I suspect "normally" doesn't help a great deal anyway in an election where the great established parties of right and left are polling so terribly; around 15% for the Gaullists and Socialists combined, compared to the 55-60% they averaged on the first round in these elections up to 2012, and even the 30% they managed in 2017. This election feels like it really could cement the shift from politics being a contest between centre-left and centre-right to being a three-way fight between centre, far left and far right. But we shall see. Four weeks is a long time, and with four parties in the mix for seats then it won't need much shift in electoral fortune (or voter apathy) to start changing who makes the run-off cuts. Looks good for Macron so far tho. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on May 13, 2022 22:20:35 GMT
domjg As I said, they fall out AFTER they get power. That's the difference. So far 30 of the last 43 years including the last 12 and counting. I'm not greatly enamoured of the latest incarnation and didn't vote for them at the last GE, but I just observe that they are more effective at getting and retaining power and if Labour want it they should try to discover why. “I just observe that they are more effective at getting and retaining power” - Well, yes there’s no arguing with that unfortunately. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,590
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 13, 2022 22:23:30 GMT
This isn't unique to Labour. It seems to be characteristic of left-wing movements in many countries. I'm by no means knowledgeable on these things, but am I right in thinking that Trotskyites and Marxists and Marxist-Leninists and others are all at daggers drawn? Interestingly the Greens, Socialists, Communists and Melenchon leftists in France have managed to agree a pact with a common platform for the assembly elections. So it can be done. Everybody gave up something (for example the LFI, Melenchon's party, have toned down their anti-EU stance) in exchange for agreeing a sensible manifesto of environmental, redistributive and progressive policies. The LFI is recognised as leading the alliance, but each of the other three parties has been allocated 15 winnable seats each. Oh for something similar between Lab, Green, PC and Lib Dem here. www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-socialist-party-hard-left-lfi-form-alliance-june-parliament-vote-2022-05-04/ |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 13, 2022 22:30:27 GMT
pjw1961"Oh for something similar between Lab, Green, PC and Lib Dem here." That might be the only route to a (combined) overall majority, but would such a coalition hold for long if they did win? Also, I think Labour often turn down these sort of arrangements because they are under the delusion that they can win on their own. And if they are already fighting amongst themselves how are they going to work with other parties?
|
|
eor
Member
Posts: 1,845
Member is Online
|
Post by eor on May 13, 2022 22:32:54 GMT
Yes that’s right, this incarnation of the Tories are so pragmatic and broad church that they had to chuck those not prostrating themselves to the new religion of hard brexit out of the party - personally I find that interpretation a bit uneven; I'd argue that the likes of Clarke and Grieve basically seceded from the Tory party when they got into all that stuff about taking control of the Order Paper. To me that's a lot more like refusing to back the government in a Confidence motion than it is say merely disobeying a three-line whip, and much like the Confidence scenario I'd say that if they didn't recognise that they were essentially resigning from the party in going down that route then they were probably being pretty arrogant about their importance. Of course, one could argue that having a Tory party that someone like Ken Clarke feels the need to leave (Ken Clarke!) is a pretty calamitous state of affairs in the first place, and of course the leadership bear a lot of responsibility for that. But putting those on the edge of one flank in a position where they feel the need to jump ship isn't really the same thing as purging the people that won't swear devotion. |
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on May 13, 2022 22:34:27 GMT
If any local activists were to 'wash their hands' of anything and support other candidates in reality there's only one candidate they're supporting and that's the Tory. Do you actually have any interest in Labour winning elections or are you just happy for it to be a playground for the power dramas of some to the detriment of the rest of us? Has everyone had their twitter accounts trawled through or just the left wing ones? Well, I don't know about everyone but several people were ruled ineligible to stand for election in my local LP due to ancient twitter and FB posts which were held to bring the party into disrepute. These were not Corbynistas or specially left wing, in fact more people who were slightly dim expressing views that were not i line with LP values - homophobic, anti-vacc or yes, anti-semitic. I did think some of this was disproportionate but it was very clearly done on a 'harm electability' basis rather than anything left/right. In fact 2 of the three I'm thinking of are certainly on the right of the LP and maybe further right. There was one stood down who is probably a lefty, and probably Momentum, but he was completely crass, joining Tories in criticism of council cabinet members who had been subject to death threats and calling for their resignation on that hot bed of socialist thought, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on May 13, 2022 22:37:32 GMT
Update from France - the first round of the legislative elections is a month away, the polling is sparse and the projections volatile, but a Macron majority is predicted. As some UK media has noted, the Greens, Socialists and Communists have formed an alliance with Melenchon's party, aiming to field their most viable candidate in each constituency. How well that will work remains to be seen, and whether voters whose normal parties drop off the ballot will stay home or turn out for another candidate from the alliance remains to be seen. Worth noting it's quite a lopsided alliance at least at a national level - Melenchon's party typically accounts for about 2/3rds of its electoral support. Such polling as there is seems to have the left alliance anywhere in the low 30s or high 20s, Macron's party on about 26-27%, Le Pen's mob in the low 20s and the Gaullists on about 10%. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_French_legislative_election#First_roundWhere this gets even messier is that it's a two-round election, on successive weekends, but it's not (necessarily) a straight run-off system. To get elected in the first round, a candidate needs 50% + 1 vote of those cast, and to have secured the support of 25% of registered voters. This was vanishingly rare last time out. If the leading candidate in a constituency doesn't meet both criteria, it goes to a run-off between all candidates who secured the support of 12.5% of registered voters in the first round. The second round is most votes wins, whether there are two candidates or more than two. So any first round apathy makes it harder for candidates to make the run-off in seats where the contest is split several ways (if only one, or indeed no candidates achieve 12.5% of registered voters in the first round then the top two have a run-off regardless). Of the few polls that have attempted seat projections, all have Macron's party retaining its overall majority, with anywhere from 300 to 376 seats (out of 577). The projections elsewhere are quite wild - the left alliance on somewhere between 70 and 165 seats, Le Pen's lot somewhere between 20 and 140, the Gaullists 35-70. I don't know if seat projections at this stage are normally remotely accurate, and I suspect "normally" doesn't help a great deal anyway in an election where the great established parties of right and left are polling so terribly; around 15% for the Gaullists and Socialists combined, compared to the 55-60% they averaged on the first round in these elections up to 2012, and even the 30% they managed in 2017. This election feels like it really could cement the shift from politics being a contest between centre-left and centre-right to being a three-way fight between centre, far left and far right. But we shall see. Four weeks is a long time, and with four parties in the mix for seats then it won't need much shift in electoral fortune (or voter apathy) to start changing who makes the run-off cuts. Looks good for Macron so far tho. Is there an official opposition in the parliament and would this be the Melenchon grouping (under current projections)? During some periods of CDU/SPD ‘grand’ coalition in the German Bundestag there’s been the awkward and uncomfortable situation where the AfD represented the main opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on May 13, 2022 22:39:46 GMT
But why someone who has Labour's best interests at heart and who might even be a member of the party would want to undermine its electoral prospects, is inexplicable. Starmer was elected by a clear majority of members and appears to be gaining traction for both his party and his potential premiership in the polls. Most members are behind him and he's reclaiming some lost support for the party. He's sort of doing OK and might well rid us of the Tories in time. He's not a Messiah nor an irresistible political personality but he's assembled a reasonable team who might well surprise with the radical policies that they put before the electorate come general election time. They've got to be better than the current government, haven't they?? so you were always urging everyone to get behind Corbyn were you? I believe he has said he was. I certainly was, though I never voted for nor wanted him to be leader. I wasn't arguing in his favour here (or the other place) because this is hardly a place to swing votes. I say what I think on here, part of which, as I now see Crossbat has said, is campaigning as hard as I can manage for whomever happens to be the elected leader of my party, or selected MP or council candidate, irrespective of whether I personally voted for them. I worked a damn sight harder to get Corbynvelected than the vast majority of Corbynistas. None of them are now seen campaigning for dust (and I know, because I've spent the last two months tramping the streets for the local elections). Not a single Momentum member was seen at any point, other than on social media slagging off Starmer or local labour politicians who were trying to get elected. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on May 13, 2022 22:43:17 GMT
Yes that’s right, this incarnation of the Tories are so pragmatic and broad church that they had to chuck those not prostrating themselves to the new religion of hard brexit out of the party - personally I find that interpretation a bit uneven; I'd argue that the likes of Clarke and Grieve basically seceded from the Tory party when they got into all that stuff about taking control of the Order Paper. To me that's a lot more like refusing to back the government in a Confidence motion than it is say merely disobeying a three-line whip, and much like the Confidence scenario I'd say that if they didn't recognise that they were essentially resigning from the party in going down that route then they were probably being pretty arrogant about their importance. Of course, one could argue that having a Tory party that someone like Ken Clarke feels the need to leave (Ken Clarke!) is a pretty calamitous state of affairs in the first place, and of course the leadership bear a lot of responsibility for that. But putting those on the edge of one flank in a position where they feel the need to jump ship isn't really the same thing as purging the people that won't swear devotion. Mm, jumped or pushed. It’s a pretty fine line in politics. Maybe they could have claimed ‘constructive dismissal’ 🙂 |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 13, 2022 22:45:43 GMT
so you were always urging everyone to get behind Corbyn were you? I believe he has said he was. I certainly was, though I never voted for nor wanted him to be leader. I worked a damn sight harder to get him elected than the vast majority of Corbynistas. None of them are now seen campaigning for dust (and I know, because I've spent the last two weeks tramping the streets for the local elections). Not a single Momentum member was seen at any point, other than on social media slagging off Starmer or local labour politicians who were trying to get elected. I know you weren’t happy with momentum! I recall several posts about that. Don’t recall so many pro-Corbyn posts talking about his plus-points and urging people to vote Corbyn to stop the Tories… did I miss any? What did you say to the board to sell Corbyn? Do you think it’s possible some of the right in the party tried to marginalise the new members, or maybe were not too pro-Corbyn on the doorstep when campaigning, given the hostility among some of the MPs, and how the right of the party in here did not necessarily complain about the MPs actions to sabotage? Did you complain about that or just about momentum? |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on May 13, 2022 22:52:20 GMT
pjw1961 "Oh for something similar between Lab, Green, PC and Lib Dem here." That might be the only route to a (combined) overall majority, but would such a coalition hold for long if they did win? Also, I think Labour often turn down these sort of arrangements because they are under the delusion that they can win on their own. And if they are already fighting amongst themselves how are they going to work with other parties? In Germany, where obviously (often multiple) coalitions are the norm people fight as much within their own parties as with their coalition partners or potential coalition partners. Whether on a federal or Land level there’s normally a love in period while the coalitions are formed and once in place the fun begins. the CDU and (Bavarian) CSU are supposed to be branches of the same party in effect but they have to have regular organised meetings to stop them taking too many chunks out of each other. I guess when coalitions are expected and are normally required people just get on with it. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 13, 2022 22:57:09 GMT
On the Labour candidate selection process -
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnC on May 13, 2022 23:01:21 GMT
Drawing firm lessons from an election as anomalous as 2019 is fraught with difficulty. Lab were crushed by Brexit. Perhaps the only viable lesson of the 2019 election is that divided parties (especially divided opposition parties) do not win elections. You would therefore have expected any new Labour leader to work towards internal peace and unity so Labour could then largely move forward as a cohesive unit. Unfortuntely, he is constantly seeking to accentuate these divisions. The Wakefield fiasco is another unforced error. Lab should just let local parties pick their own prospective parliamenrary candidates to ensure their overall candidates nationwide are genuinely representative of the country. Parachuting candidates in from other constituences and changing the selection rules late on in order to ensure a handpicked candidate wins selection, is clear not the right thing to do. It simply further alienates local constituency parties and members and results in that party speaking with a bland, monochrome and unrepresentative voice. Labour should be various shades of red. Possibly but I'm not sure that the voters are that much concerned about internal divisions at a local level provided the leadership is united and confident, has policies with wide appeal and shows its determination to keep the 'malcontents' (whom the majority of voters probably don't have much time for anyway) in check. |
|
eor
Member
Posts: 1,845
Member is Online
|
Post by eor on May 13, 2022 23:04:53 GMT
domjg - personally I find that interpretation a bit uneven; I'd argue that the likes of Clarke and Grieve basically seceded from the Tory party when they got into all that stuff about taking control of the Order Paper. To me that's a lot more like refusing to back the government in a Confidence motion than it is say merely disobeying a three-line whip, and much like the Confidence scenario I'd say that if they didn't recognise that they were essentially resigning from the party in going down that route then they were probably being pretty arrogant about their importance. Of course, one could argue that having a Tory party that someone like Ken Clarke feels the need to leave (Ken Clarke!) is a pretty calamitous state of affairs in the first place, and of course the leadership bear a lot of responsibility for that. But putting those on the edge of one flank in a position where they feel the need to jump ship isn't really the same thing as purging the people that won't swear devotion. Mm, jumped or pushed. It’s a pretty fine line in politics. Maybe they could have claimed ‘constructive dismissal’ 🙂 Heh that would have been an amazing EAT. "Management made it intolerable for me to continue" vs "it was your choice to walk away when you didn't like it". 20 years of shoo-in parliamentary salary at stake. |
|
eor
Member
Posts: 1,845
Member is Online
|
Post by eor on May 13, 2022 23:07:44 GMT
On the Labour candidate selection process - We should apply, as a board. We'd have far broader and more nuanced judgement than any one apparatchik they might otherwise hire. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 13, 2022 23:18:33 GMT
We should apply, as a board. We'd have far broader and more nuanced judgement than any one apparatchik they might otherwise hire. Oo, oo, can I join mister? I'd have great fun selecting the most unsuitable candidates possible! 🤣 |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 13, 2022 23:24:16 GMT
We should apply, as a board. We'd have far broader and more nuanced judgement than any one apparatchik they might otherwise hire. Oo, oo, can I join mister? I'd have great fun selecting the most unsuitable candidates possible! 🤣
Though, to be fair, all parties seem incapable of weeding out the real shits. |
|
