I’ve read some of the discussion on Lib Dem Voice about how Liberal Democrats should use their second preferences in the race for London Mayor with some interest. It should be stated up front that much of this speculation is fantastically irrelevant to how Liberal Democrat voters will actually choose. It will only permeate to the wider London electorate if Nick Clegg or another senior media spokesperson endorses Boris or Ken as number two, and even then, like the Green-pact it would be more likely to harm our candidate than influence the final outcome.
Articles like this then are directed at Liberal Democrat activists.
In that respect I don’t propose to dwell much on policy preference or people’s desire to express their personal problems when it comes to our political rivals. Bluntly it will not be a disaster if any of the mainstream candidates are elected. There will be winners and losers, but neither Boris nor Ken is a dangerous incompetent or extremist liable to make decisions so awful that the Capital will be beset by the ten plagues of Egypt in the next four years. At worst London’s voters will be embarrassed by gaffes or irritated by higher taxes and control freakery, while special interests wail and gnash their teeth as their funding is cut
The issue for Liberal Democrat activists then is what result will most likely benefit our future prospects in the unlikely event that our own candidate, Brian Paddick, doesn’t win.
On those criteria I have heard two schools of thought.
The first is that any win for the Conservatives would be the worst outcome. It is always better for the third party when the second party is performing dismally and a win in the race for London would be the start of momentum for Cameron that would improve his chances of a clean sweep in the 2010 General Election. A strong optimistic Conservative party is far more damaging to our prospects of holding or advancing in Parliament than a damaged but ‘popular-enough’ Labour party. Best for us if the Tories look like they’ve snatched a narrow defeat from the jaws of victory (with double-digit poll leads for most of the campaign), while Labour look weak having seen the majority of one of their few popular politicians collapse while losing seats to everyone in the GLA.
Liberal Democrats under those circumstances could claim the Tories can never win London, we are the only party that holds the Mayor to account, and the only party that can seriously challenge Labour in their Borough fiefdoms where Tories fear to tread.
The second is that the combination of an unpopular Labour government and error-prone Conservative Mayor represents a perfect storm. The case for putting Liberal Democrats on your Council, whether against Labour or the Conservatives ‘to keep them honest’, would be irresistible. The opportunities for the kind of anti-establishment campaigns in which the party specialises would be manifold. The Cameron momentum would not be enhanced by such a win, it would be derailed. People would get an unprecedented 18 month foretaste of what a Conservative administration might be like, represented by a Conservative who most people consider entertaining rather than competent, and panders to many of the stereotypes of elitism that Cameron is attempting to expunge from the Conservative image. Ken would blame his defeat on Brown, vocally, and after a short period of brooding would return to his traditional role of fermenting dissent and division within his own party, increasing the perception of Brown and Labour as inward-looking and out of touch.
Liberal Democrats under those circumstances could lead strongly as the face of change people really want. It would be an Obama narrative being neither the establishment nor the established alternative, and sold right, equally devastating.
There are merits to both points of view. In my own case I find the second more convincing in part because I agree with the analysis of the first. Labour are currently the leading party in name only. In every other respect they are already looking defeated with poll ratings akin to the early 1980s and an aura of despair that suggests they want a break, rather than five more years of government. I further don’t think narrow defeat for Boris will hurt Cameron’s momentum. An election result that leaves the political landscape unchanged is unlikely to alter perceptions that it’s time for a change, or that the Conservatives should be given a chance. And Cameron will simply point out that no serious commentator thought Ken would even come close to losing when the race started.
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them. For the Liberal Democrats to advance people need clear reasons not to vote for the other two. That is as true today as it has always been. Our positive vision is important, it’s why people choose us not the Greens or UKIP and why we’re often in second place. But stardust and good vibes alone are not an election-winning formula.
At the moment then all negative attention is on Labour. Only the London Mayoralty represents an opportunity to spread the pain before the general election. There is a risk I suppose that a Johnson regime during an economic downturn, in the build up to the Olympics, would in fact represent a new golden age for London’s reputation, and herald an era of effective low-cost administration that sees world leaders sending their staff on secondment to the GLA to learn how it’s done… you may decide for yourself how plausible that risk is against the regular prospect of David Cameron refusing to comment on the decisions or performance of the most high-profile Conservative in the country.
So, if you are a Liberal Democrat, you should not be thinking of ‘holding your nose’ and voting for ‘x’ number two, or taking the coward’s way out by wasting your vote on the Greens or other minor party with no hope of being in the run-off.
Whichever way you decide… you should be thinking… I’m making my second preference for the Liberal Democrats. Brian Paddick 1, our next best hope for our future 2. That is the best way to think about your second preference, not who do I disagree with least. Tribalism is not always helpful, but in respect of making difficult choices it can at least be comforting that you made a choice for a reason that advances something you believe in rather than against something you don’t.
* Andy Mayer is a London community campaigner and blogs here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
expats
Neil Hickman
Alex Macfie
Tom Walker
44 Comments
In narrow partisan terms one advantage of a Boris win is a by-election in Henley. The Tories might hold it, but “Tories hold Henley” would not be news. Or we might win it – which would be news, and would give us momentum. And Labour might lose their deposit, which would be funny.
It will only permeate to the wider London electorate if Nick Clegg or another senior media spokesperson endorses Boris or Ken.
Has Brian not in fact given a steer towards Boris?
Neither Boris nor Ken is a dangerous incompetent or extremist liable to make decisions so awful that the Capital will be beset by the ten plagues of Egypt in the next four years.
I don’t know. With Ken in charge, I would have thought there was always a small chance of the second plague.
But an excellent article nonetheless!
“irritated by higher taxes”
Ken Leavingsoon has shoved up his take of council tax by 300% where I live since he came to power. The word “irritated” doesn’t even come close.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
I agree with much of the article.
I think in addition that those of us who are Londoners will have to live with the choice we make.
For that reason I am against putting party political interests ahead of the interests of Londoners.
For me the environment is the most important issue. Lib Dems may find technicalities in what Ken proposes as to why his policies would not work on the environment, but at least he has the political will to take radical initiatives. I do not expect that from Boris, so out of the 2 I prefer Ken for my second preference.
I do not expect Brian Paddick or Nick Clegg to say how they would vote for a second preference, it is not in their or our interests that they do so.
In terms of the direction discussed I think we do have to work further to stand out as “the radical alternative”. We need to claim that ground and stick to it. (We also need to be a bit shinier, slick and more professional as a party too!)
The comparisson to the appeal of Obama was good and I think that we can build to a position as a party where people vote for that. At the moment I think too many people still see us as “just the same as all the rest” rather than a radical alternative.
When the time is right, we need to be able to conduct a campaign with the strength and impact of “we can change”… and until then we need to build towards that.
Too often as a party we play for third place. Although we may not expect to actually make first place for some years, unless we can campaign on “We will fight them on the beaches” kind of zeal now… we won’t ever get to a place where we can achieve all we want to. I’m looking forwards to seeing Cleggover speak with as much inspiration, as he bought across in the New Statesman artical he did a while ago. We need to all believe that he could take us all the way, even if that isn’t feasible in the short term. I really want to be convinced. I want to see a leader with BALLS! So far… I can’t help but feel that for all her shortcomings the person in the party with the most balls is probably Sarah Teather!
“Do you want somebody who is a really nasty little man in the shape of Ken Livingstone, very unpleasant and rather nasty, or somebody who just appears to be somewhat eccentric but otherwise really harmless as an individual, except I wouldn’t trust him to run anything for me?”
What on earth could have possessed Paddick to say that?
So here’s our candidate, presenting it as a choice between the other two, and sending a clear message that the Tory is preferable. It’s difficult enough to get up any enthusiasm for an election we clearly can’t win at the best of times, but really …
Chris Phillips
Brian’s said he won’t use his second preference – and I notice Lib Dem Voice readers split roughly a third each on that, Mr Livingstone or Mr Johnson – so I doubt he’s trying to ‘steer’ towards either of them, but for goodness’ sake, put your copy of Hello Magazine down for an instant and engage your brain.
In what celeb-obsessed excuse for politics is “very unpleasant and rather nasty” so ‘clear’ that it’s a worse indictment for a multi-billion pound chief executive running one of the world’s greatest cities than “I wouldn’t trust him to run anything for me”?
How did you know I read Hello magazine?
Alex Wilcock wrote:
“for goodness’ sake, put your copy of Hello Magazine down for an instant and engage your brain”
Oh, come on!
You really don’t think that contrasting a “really nasty little man” with “somebody who just appears to be somewhat eccentric but otherwise really harmless” conveys a preference for Johnson?
Perhaps you should engage your own brain and read the headline of that BBC report – “Paddick slams ‘nasty’ Livingstone”. But perhaps the BBC is also brainless – or biased – in your view?
Chris Phillips
Yes, it was an attack on Mr Livingstone. But again, you seem to be judging it purely by this Hello-style ‘are they nice or not’ criterion. I notice you didn’t quote Brian when he said Mr Johnson was incapable of running anything – ‘harmless but hopeless’ is hardly an endorsement, is it? And he didn’t attack Mr Livingstone’s ability.
And no, I didn’t say it was a preference for either of them. In fact, I explicitly pointed out the opposite. Or do you only read anybody selectively? Congratulations, you have a future in journalism 😉
Sod London, vote for Lib Dem franchise careers. Damning stuff. Geoffrey Payne is right. That is politically bankrupt. Bit like the jewel in the Lib Dem local government crown Liverpool.
Now… now… I think it fair to say that over the course of the campaign Brian has been fairly even-handed in his criticism of his opponents.
On Geoff’s point, if policy and ideas are crucial to you personally then I agree you must vote with your conscience. My party right or wrong is not a generally attractive position, but I think in this race it can be helpful for people genuinely stuck as which way to go and not wanting to waste their second vote.
On Miranda’s point being radical and different in itself is not the challenge, the BNP for example are radical, different and entirely loathesome, the Greens are radical, different and unlikely to be trusted to run a recycling project, let alone a Council. The Liberal Democrats have done best, I feel, when, like under Paddy, their critique of what was wrong with the status quo both captured public discontent and was slightly ahead of the thinking of the others.
I think, looking at many of our recent campaigns, we are often in danger of capturing only one part of that forumula. Or in other words we’re either so radical we are seen as a bold pressure group not a political party seeking power, or so tactical that we hark back to a better yesterday, rather than put forward workable alternatives. Neither are sustainable strategies for a party asking people to consider it a serious future government.
Alex Wilcock:
You seem rather confused.
I initially posted the whole paragraph, including the bit you later picked out yourself. All I was doing in my subsequent response was restoring the balance by reminding you of the parts you had omitted.
And I didn’t claim you had said Paddick _was_ expressing a “preference for either of them”. Quite the opposite. I said he had expressed a preference for Johnson – which surely only the most partisan apologist could deny. You disagreed. And I asked you whether you really thought that those words didn’t express a preference for Johnson.
Is it really so hard to read people’s posts properly before launching a misplaced stream of personal insults?
Chris Phillips
Chris, clearly you are incapable of understanding that anyone in the world might think for a moment that being hopelessly incompetent is a more damning indictment of someone’s ability to run a budget of tens of billions of pounds than being a nasty piece of work.
In my book, that makes you more confused than me.
And, as Andy has said, Brian has mounted plenty of attacks on each of the other two. It’s just bizarre that you reduce it all to one, and then fail to understand what half of it means anyway.
cgp, I must agree with Alex Wilcock. Brian Paddick is essentially saying, that the two mainstream candidates are “nasty but less incompetent” and “incompetent but less nasty”. Which one of such options would you pick? I don’t see any endorsement there, though it is possible that the Evening Standard wanted to present it that way.
I disagree – “nasty” is much worse. Before you call someone “nasty” you have to take a deep breath and think it over for a minute. What about Boris – is he nasty? No, he’s “harmless.” I think this is a clear an indication as we are going to get that Brian prefers Boris – rightly in my view.
Alex Wilcock
Blimey, it was ironic enough when you were accusing me of being “selective” after I’d posted the whole paragraph and you’d picked out the bit that suited you.
Now you’re making up things that Paddick didn’t even say! And Anonymous is even putting them into quotation marks for you…
Just so that people aren’t fooled into thinking Paddick really said Johnson was “hopelessly incompetent”, or any of the other stuff, I’m copying the whole paragraph from the BBC report again below.
People can make up their own minds whether this was intended to be a “more damning indictment” of Johnson than of Livingstone, as you’re trying to make out.
Chris Phillips
_________________________________
“Do you want somebody who is a really nasty little man in the shape of Ken Livingstone, very unpleasant and rather nasty, or somebody who just appears to be somewhat eccentric but otherwise really harmless as an individual, except I wouldn’t trust him to run anything for me?”
Well ummm…
I know its a probably bad thing to refer to matters of popular culture for these things… but whether the statement was meant to look bad for ken and better for boris or the other way round or neither, there is a certain way it could be percieved by the general public… (right ly or wrongly)
Ok, the popular culture reference: Big Brother. Probably I’ll get some criticism for siting it, but it was the first thing that popped into my head with the discussion of the word “nasty”… and it does involve the general population casting a vote of some discription based on how they percieve the participants.
Nasty Nick: Voted off
Harmless: Jonty, Craig, Brian…
Perhaps the London population take voting on political candidates more seriously than Big Brother and reality TV shows. Perhaps not…
Yet another article that bangs on what is to the advantage of the party, rather than who will actually procude a more liberal agenda; all about positioning and very little about ideas.
From my (completely biased) point of view I would have thought that Boris was a shoe in on the liberal side although I can see why the more SDP-y, and those who prefer bendy busses to cycling as a green solution, might want to cuddle up to Ken. However the sort of political introspective positioning advocated in the article is precisely why the general populus are so tired and fed up of politicians.
PT, unusually off the point for you. Andy says near the start: “Articles like this then are directed at Liberal Democrat activists.”
So yes, it’s about positioning, given that we’ve been doing lots of handwringing about policy and liberal agendas elsewhere (as linked in the piece).
I’d be rather surprised if an undecided member of the public found half the stuff on any activist site particularly edifying, to be honest. By definition we’re a bunch of weirdos.
Alix, even I have my off days 🙁
I just called it as I saw it (albeit after three hours kip in the middle of a coding binge). I have read and the piece is more balanced that on first reading, although I am still concerned by phrases such as:
“The issue for Liberal Democrat activists then is what result will most likely benefit our future prospects in the unlikely event that our own candidate, Brian Paddick, doesn’t win.”
which (ignoring the statistical anomoly that may indeed be sarcasm) ephasise that activists should be looking for an outcome that is best for the party, rather than what promotes the party’s ideals. For me this is an important distinction, and once activits and politians openly chase party glorification rather than seeting their sights on tackling problems then we should get concerned.
Irony is more what Andy’s doing with that sentence I think, rather than sarcasm – more in sorrow than in anger 🙂
It’s an interesting distinction you cite. I think it exposes a sub-conscious tendency to see the Lib Dems as an add-on with no independent role, much as your much more barking-mad frothy type colleagues consciously do. We are after ideals that simply aren’t represented anywhere on the two-party spectrum. It’s you lot who sustain amongst yourselves the myth that we’re an admix of ConLab.
Let us start from the simple proposition that the best way to advance Liberal Democrat ideals is to support the Liberal Democrat party. Fair enough. In this case, we probably aren’t going to get a chance to directly implement Lib Dem ideals in an executive sense. Given what I’ve said about the paucity of the two-party situation, the “next best thing” is not, as you assume, to support the candidate “closest” to our ideals but to support the candidate whose tenure will work out better for us as soon as possible, so that the point at which we *can* executively implement Lib Dem ideals is brought forward.
Now, if Boris was unequivocally the closer to us, I would agree with you that the above reasoning looks pretty self-interested and mean-spirited – if we genuinely could implement Lib Dem ideals with Boris as mayor, then why don’t we all second pref him? But there are two problems with him which preclude most of us from seeing him as an automatic second choice:
(1) Many Lib Dems are much stronger on a sort of socialistic liberalism than I am and will give their votes to a leftish candidate by default, particularly if the right-wing candidate in question is, to put it politely, a champagne quaffing toff. I think their emphasis is different to mine, but their reasoning is perfectly respectable. And I wouldn’t be a member of this party if it didn’t have that socialistic input informing its liberalism.
(2) Although I’m quite prepared to accept that Boris is, personally, liberal on many scales I would regard as important, I also know he’s a twerp. That means that if he gets in, other people will be running his office. The collective who de facto may be known as “the Mayor of London” are themselves unknown at the moment. That worries me – some of them might be barking mad paternalists, and yes I’d choose the competent-but-nasty-socialist over them every time. To put it into policy terms, I know why Brian is opposing the £25 charge, but I don’t know why Mr/Ms Tory on Boris’ team is opposing it.
Boris has to be a little bit liberal, if only because no military uniform will fit him quite properly, and he steadfastly refuses to get a proper haircut!
But it isn’t quite enough to be implicitly sympathetic or personally affable when his form of cuddly paternalism leads him to make explicit and offensive random outbursts.
Chauvinistic Ken, on the other hand, provides for his favoured cliques by imposing nannyish practises, which may work well in a limited scope and according to pre-defined politicised measurements, but are half-hearted attempts at appeasing your better-than-your-worst-nightmare fears.
It’s all annoyingly unsatisfactory for anyone with properly steadfast liberal and democratic ideals. I have to agree with the article that positive choices are the only way to all-round positive outcomes.
Alix – it’s not just us who are a bunch of weirdos – everyone has their own peculiarities, peccadillos, insecurities and eccentricities.
We, however, are the only ones who have admitted it to ourselves, come to terms with the ramifications, and are no longer in denial or trying to keep the world at bay with increasingly desperate attempts at pretence.
Honesty even cleared Mark Oaten’s conscience!
Excellent post, Alix at 6:01. I think there isn’t anything like as much of a division within the Lib Dems as everyone thinks. This whole thing about left-of-Labour social democrats and crypto-Tory Orange Bookers is basically a myth believed in by people who can’t understand liberalism.
The newmanias and Chris Pauls of this world think everything has to be black and white, socialist or conservative, and anyone who claims to be a liberal is just getting in the way. But in fact we’ve got a vision of a society that they can’t understand! 🙂
Sorry if the above isn’t the clearest of all time. I mean that we aren fact, united and nothing like as faction-ridden as certain other parties I could name…
I agree, asquith.
It’s why headlines from the newly interventionist and interfering Independent laying our leadership open to question election are so off the mark.
That Clegg/Huhne was so close showed how hard it was to separate the two because that’s how united we are.
The main event for us is about furthering our mutual aims, so whoever does become London Mayor will continue to see a large critical input from our side – and the same can be said in the rest of the councils around the country too.
All I really know at this point is that I’m really glad I left London already and don’t have a vote.
I would feel incredibly guilty not using my 2nd pref, so I’d need to choose, I think I’m currently veering towards Boris as I think a) he’s more liberal, b) he’d be better for us strategically and c) he’s Not Ken, which does matter, unfortunately.
But it’s only an academic position now, ah well. Nice article Andy, well reasoned.
“This whole thing about left-of-Labour social democrats and crypto-Tory Orange Bookers is basically a myth believed in by people who can’t understand liberalism”
Precisely. As an openly socialist Orange Booker I seem to confuse a whole lot of people. Well said.
I didn’t say anything about factions, only there being a spectrum of outlooks. Or is the Lib Dem party a political black hole that takes all its members views and sucks them into a singularity?
Oranjepan and MatGB know what it’s all about. I’m actually fairly knew to this party (I’ve been a liberal forever, though I didn’t actually realise it) and I’m finding it fascinating to swim the currents of thought within it. 🙂
Passing Tory, it could help if instead of a one-dimensional Left-Right spectrum you tried to imagine for instance a two-dimensional space with two axis, one for economic liberty and one for individul liberty. The axis for economic liberty would roughly correspond to the traditional Left-Right spectrum, but people move also on the individual liberty axis. Those people who support (at least to some extent) both economic and individual liberty, could be called liberals.
Traditionally the Conservative Party supports economic liberty, but not always individual liberty (Section 28, to mention only one example), while the Labour Party has at least to some extent supported individual but not economic liberty (this of course has changed during the last decade or so). People who support bot economic and individual liberty aren’t necessarily happy to choose which of the two they prefer to vote for.
Now, when you have imagined a two-dimensional space, you might begin to imagine even more axis…
In other words, PT, you need to add the political compass to your Facebook page!
No, The World’s Smallest Political Quiz!
I was on the exact border between left-liberal and libertarian, which is always nice 😉
You know my facebook page, Alix? I am impressed …
Well, I think trying to extend human outlook/ political positions to 2 axes is still a gross oversimplification although the number of people that you can talk about re-orthogonalisation of 7 dimension political space with is rather limited, for some strange reason 🙂
Nah, World’s Smallest Quiz is a push poll designed to promote libertarianism generally. Compass is OK, although I think it’s slightly biased.
Oh, I also disagree that economic freedom is the left/right scale, Compass and other theories have that best covered by belief in property/inheritance rights compared to redistributionary taxation.
I’m definitely very ‘left’ wing (Political Survey showed that and that used actual polling data and open standards), but I’m also incredibly pro-market, as should any informed liberal be.
“is the Lib Dem party a political black hole that takes all its members views and sucks them into a singularity”
That probably explains the weight of some of our policy documents, yes.
“is the Lib Dem party a political black hole that takes all its members views and sucks them into a singularity”
That probably explains the weight of some of our policy documents, yes.
A mass (surely) that is sadly beyond our event horizon …
Alix wrote: “In other words, PT, you need to add the political compass to your Facebook page!”
No Alix, I would never suggest that. Though I think there might be even more than two political axis, I don’t think that questions about astrology or modern art measure political views.
If you need, try this, but remember that it is made for americans, and therefore uses american political terminology.
“I don’t think that questions about astrology or modern art measure political views.”
You might’ve answered your own point there. The Compass is flawed, and its methodology is obscure, but attitudes to modern art are inherently part of your worldview. Given that it received public funding, it’s a political issue. Given that it frequently requires public space, planning permission, etc it’s inherently political.
And whether you can enjoy it, ignore it, or seek to ban it, does have an influence on your position on the social/liberal scale.
As for astrology? Same answers as above, but adding in reference to Quigley and the Reagan White House, as an example. I personally think it’s trash, but it’s a measure of your worldview.
Attack the Compass for being secretive about weighting and import, but for two specific questions within a massive question set? Irrelevent and wrong.
The quiz you link is much shorter, and appears to be identical to the World’s Smallest Quiz, which has already been discussed.
MatGB, my worldview is not the same thing as my political view. You seem to be incapable to distinguish private taste from political views, which is sad.
I have indeed worked in two art galleries selling modern art, but I don’t think that people who don’t appreciate modern art would necessarily be illiberal. I think it is a matter of taste. Likewise, if you have sexual preferences to Asians, for instance, and aren’t sexually interested in Europeans or Africans, that doesn’t make you a racist.
“Attack the Compass for being secretive about weighting and import, but for two specific questions within a massive question set?”
Those were just examples, to show its methodology is flawed. I could mention other examples, but I’m tired to do that each time someone suggests that the Political Compass is a good way to measure one’s political views. It might indeed measure something, but it shouldn’t suggest that it measures political views by using the word “political” in its name.
“The quiz you link is much shorter, and appears to be identical to the World’s Smallest Quiz, which has already been discussed.”
It IS World’s Smallest Quiz, not just identical to it. You might need to visit an optician. However, it wasn’t linked before during this discussion.
“my worldview is not the same thing as my political view”
Therein we have a fundamental worldview clash. Everything in life is political—it may not be party political, but it’s political. Politics is best described as the study of human interaction within society, and it’s all encompassing by necessity.
Ergo our view on the Compass is different—note that I much prefer the methodology of Chris Lightfoot’s Survey that I linked to above, but prefer the axes of the Compass. But then the smallest quiz uses very similar axes, just different labels. But as I said above, I find it too simplistic and has an inherent and deliberate bias. I didn’t link to it because I dislike the small question set, can’t speak for Asquith when he first mentioned it though.
“people who don’t appreciate modern art would necessarily be illiberal. I think it is a matter of taste”
As do I. But someone seeking to ban modern art would be illiberal, surely?
“Politics is best described as the study of human interaction within society, and it’s all encompassing by necessity.”
I define it differently. Politics is about making decision collectively, by the interference of the state, but one can also make decisions individually, for instance to decide what kind of painting to hang on one’s wall, or even not to hang any paintings.
“But someone seeking to ban modern art would be illiberal, surely?”
That wasn’t asked in the Political Compass.
“But then the smallest quiz uses very similar axes, just different labels.”
Yes, and the World’ Smallest Political Quiz is the original two-dimentional test, devised in 1969 by the political scientist David Nolan, Political Compass is only imitating it without fully understanding what it actually measures.
I define it differently. Politics is about making decisions collectively, by the interference of the state.
That’s very narrow, Anonymous. Politics is also about a national (and international) conversation. Indeed for Liberal Democrats, who are unlikely to hold power in Westminster for a little while yet, I would have thought that was the most important bit!
Still no nearer to deciding how to cast my 2nd pref . . . I may not even give one, such is my despair at the supplementary vote.
Give it to Boris. He’s a harmless idiot, London won’t go to the dogs, and, who knows, the “Jeremy Hargreaves effect” might just work.