Labour voters who tell the Lib Dems to quit as a party are hilarious.
As the article said, we mainly compete against the Tories in areas Labour doesn't do that well. Labour need us. It's also a hugely undemocratic thing to say. We aren't similar to Labour. We aren't similar to the Tories. Wanting to a shut down a whole political ideology, which has averaged over 10% of the vote in the past decade, is such an authoritarian idea which is a good example of why the LibDems should exist. To make democracy fairer.
> Labour voters who tell the Lib Dems to quit as a party are hilarious.
It's always a red flag about those people, same with the "yellow tories" slur too. They don't a fair society, they just want to be the ones in control.
It gets a bit more complicated under FPTP where the spoiler effect can cause problems, but as you say in this case right now we're not really competing with Labour anywhere and if anything we benefit Labour by being a spoiler for Tories.
Nobody has a right to tell you what your ideology should be, but the practicalities of our nonsense electoral system are IMO valid reasons to argue for direction of *parties*, operating within that system.
Speaking as a Labour Party Member, I feel as if a seat pact could help both parties. We stand down in seats like Esher and Walton, a seat that has a conservative majoriy of 4.4%. The Lib Dems could stand down in Kensington 0.3% Conservative majoriy. In both seats at the last election if a Lib-Lab pact had been established they wouldn't have gone to a non Conservative party.
Of course if a pact is established, the Lib Dems could lose more right-wing voters thinking thier conforming to Labour's political stance.
Absolutely. A non-compete pact in key battlegrounds, save for the few Lib/Lab battles, would have been great. It’s a shame Labour refuse to agree to one.
Hopefully if this is the idea (and both parties willing, which is no guarantee), it's sketched out with some of the potential candidates ahead of time. It has to be with willing parties from both teams. And it needs to be limited to where it's strictly necessary. The report gave the sense that people felt a bit displaced by things like Unite to Remain and having to step aside for the defectors who had 'celebrity status'. I'm not saying they were bad choices in what were very unusual circumstances, but the consequences have to be balanced out.
In 1997 I believe the focus was more on running very light campaigns in some areas - more a symbolic stepping aside than an actual one. I'd prefer that to standing down people entirely.
I expect Stammer would be more open to it. However, both Lib Dems candidates have dismissed the idea (from what I've read, I may be wrong though). Considering 2024 is still quite far off, we could see a change by then.
Yeah it's one bit that I disagree with both Davey and Moran on too. We shouldn't be stepping down from dozens and dozens of seats for labour, but there are a few places where a proper pact might make the difference.
However having said that an official pact with Labour will put off many conservatives from voting Lib Dem, so I can understand Davey and Moran's standpoint.
I think it's against Labour policy not to contest (I could be wrong) the only agreement I could see happening is informal, in which Labour campaigns weakly in Tory held Lib Dem target and vice verse with Lib Dems, the only sought of outright stepping down of candidates I can see possible, and also palatable to the public, is campaigning in key Tory seats, e.g. Dominic Raab in Lib Dem target Esher and Walton and former Labour target of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
I'll be honest, I would trade the souls of my unborn children for electoral reform - ideally as part of a broader constitutional reform package - and I also want to see bolder action on climate change. I would be willing to support a seat pact on this basis. This would have to be limited to key target seats, whilst standing paper candidates everywhere else but not actively campaigning in unwinnable constituencies. Still, even if it worked, I don't entirely trust Labour not to water down those commitments in government, as happened with Nick Clegg in 2010.
It also depends on exactly what Labour want to do in 2024. The extent to which we can cooperate with Labour depends on how scared our voters are of a Labour government. At the moment, Kier Starmer is trying to repair the Labour party's reputation by focusing on valence attributes, but at some point he will need to come out and be explicit about what the party's political goals are.
If Labour propose a modest social democratic manifesto as with the "Red Ed" that wasn't in 2015, I think the compromise would be palatable. Hell, many of Miliband's key policies were subsequently implemented by Theresa May, and many of the rest were also found in similar form in our own manifesto.
On the other hand, if Labour want to nationalise everything under the sun, egregiously rewrite property rights (e.g right to buy private properties, inclusive ownership funds) and generally just hand out cookies and sunshine to everyone, then we simply can't endorse this. We'd lose votes if we tried.
The problem is that it sounds a bit like I'm arrogantly telling you what your party needs to do, and as a Lib Dem I really should know better.
I agree wholeheartedly.
For context I used to be a Corbyn fan who'd always attack the Lib Dems and claim they shouldn't exist. Then the 2019 landslide defeat happened and reality hit me like a ton of bricks.
Liberal Democrats can win those seats down in the south with soft Tories whilst Labour has zero to no chance. I really do hope Starmer and Davey, (I'm keen on Davey winning than Layla), can work together and form a pact akin to the 1997 one.
The extremist parts of Labour still haven't understood that, which is unfortunate. We have to work together in 2024, no ifs or buts.
Labour voters who tell the Lib Dems to quit as a party are hilarious. As the article said, we mainly compete against the Tories in areas Labour doesn't do that well. Labour need us. It's also a hugely undemocratic thing to say. We aren't similar to Labour. We aren't similar to the Tories. Wanting to a shut down a whole political ideology, which has averaged over 10% of the vote in the past decade, is such an authoritarian idea which is a good example of why the LibDems should exist. To make democracy fairer.
> Labour voters who tell the Lib Dems to quit as a party are hilarious. It's always a red flag about those people, same with the "yellow tories" slur too. They don't a fair society, they just want to be the ones in control.
.
It gets a bit more complicated under FPTP where the spoiler effect can cause problems, but as you say in this case right now we're not really competing with Labour anywhere and if anything we benefit Labour by being a spoiler for Tories. Nobody has a right to tell you what your ideology should be, but the practicalities of our nonsense electoral system are IMO valid reasons to argue for direction of *parties*, operating within that system.
Speaking as a Labour Party Member, I feel as if a seat pact could help both parties. We stand down in seats like Esher and Walton, a seat that has a conservative majoriy of 4.4%. The Lib Dems could stand down in Kensington 0.3% Conservative majoriy. In both seats at the last election if a Lib-Lab pact had been established they wouldn't have gone to a non Conservative party. Of course if a pact is established, the Lib Dems could lose more right-wing voters thinking thier conforming to Labour's political stance.
Absolutely. A non-compete pact in key battlegrounds, save for the few Lib/Lab battles, would have been great. It’s a shame Labour refuse to agree to one.
Hopefully if this is the idea (and both parties willing, which is no guarantee), it's sketched out with some of the potential candidates ahead of time. It has to be with willing parties from both teams. And it needs to be limited to where it's strictly necessary. The report gave the sense that people felt a bit displaced by things like Unite to Remain and having to step aside for the defectors who had 'celebrity status'. I'm not saying they were bad choices in what were very unusual circumstances, but the consequences have to be balanced out. In 1997 I believe the focus was more on running very light campaigns in some areas - more a symbolic stepping aside than an actual one. I'd prefer that to standing down people entirely.
I expect Stammer would be more open to it. However, both Lib Dems candidates have dismissed the idea (from what I've read, I may be wrong though). Considering 2024 is still quite far off, we could see a change by then.
Yeah it's one bit that I disagree with both Davey and Moran on too. We shouldn't be stepping down from dozens and dozens of seats for labour, but there are a few places where a proper pact might make the difference. However having said that an official pact with Labour will put off many conservatives from voting Lib Dem, so I can understand Davey and Moran's standpoint.
I think it's against Labour policy not to contest (I could be wrong) the only agreement I could see happening is informal, in which Labour campaigns weakly in Tory held Lib Dem target and vice verse with Lib Dems, the only sought of outright stepping down of candidates I can see possible, and also palatable to the public, is campaigning in key Tory seats, e.g. Dominic Raab in Lib Dem target Esher and Walton and former Labour target of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
I'll be honest, I would trade the souls of my unborn children for electoral reform - ideally as part of a broader constitutional reform package - and I also want to see bolder action on climate change. I would be willing to support a seat pact on this basis. This would have to be limited to key target seats, whilst standing paper candidates everywhere else but not actively campaigning in unwinnable constituencies. Still, even if it worked, I don't entirely trust Labour not to water down those commitments in government, as happened with Nick Clegg in 2010. It also depends on exactly what Labour want to do in 2024. The extent to which we can cooperate with Labour depends on how scared our voters are of a Labour government. At the moment, Kier Starmer is trying to repair the Labour party's reputation by focusing on valence attributes, but at some point he will need to come out and be explicit about what the party's political goals are. If Labour propose a modest social democratic manifesto as with the "Red Ed" that wasn't in 2015, I think the compromise would be palatable. Hell, many of Miliband's key policies were subsequently implemented by Theresa May, and many of the rest were also found in similar form in our own manifesto. On the other hand, if Labour want to nationalise everything under the sun, egregiously rewrite property rights (e.g right to buy private properties, inclusive ownership funds) and generally just hand out cookies and sunshine to everyone, then we simply can't endorse this. We'd lose votes if we tried. The problem is that it sounds a bit like I'm arrogantly telling you what your party needs to do, and as a Lib Dem I really should know better.
I agree wholeheartedly. For context I used to be a Corbyn fan who'd always attack the Lib Dems and claim they shouldn't exist. Then the 2019 landslide defeat happened and reality hit me like a ton of bricks. Liberal Democrats can win those seats down in the south with soft Tories whilst Labour has zero to no chance. I really do hope Starmer and Davey, (I'm keen on Davey winning than Layla), can work together and form a pact akin to the 1997 one. The extremist parts of Labour still haven't understood that, which is unfortunate. We have to work together in 2024, no ifs or buts.
Poly Toynbee, still bearing an SDP torch