Tag Archives: electoral pacts

Careful With That Progressive Alliance

It has concerned me for some time that as Liberal Democrats we spend an inordinate amount of time discussing pacts and electoral arrangements, and then complain the media is rarely interested in what we stand for, only in whom we will work with in the event of a hung Parliament.

The fantastic Chesham and Amersham by-election result will probably fuel this debate further.

Before discussing arrangements over who should stand down where, should we not consider what is likely to happen politically were such an endeavour to be successfully undertaken? I have a major concern about the Party going down the pacts route.

It is not our ability to give ground and surrender future opportunity that worries me most, we’ve been there before with the Liberal/SDP Alliance, and in more recent times single seat arrangements with the Greens, although they were hardly convincing examples of pacts delivering the expected success. The problem will be the Labour Party.

Posted in Op-eds | 30 Comments

Liberal Democrat electoral and policy pact with Labour, or not?

The party has been buzzing with pro and anti ‘pact’ debate, and some parliamentarians have been espousing contrasting views.

On 11th December the Guardian featured an article ‘Starmer Urged to Start Co-operating with the Lib Dems’ on the necessity of a pact for Labour. A Liberal Democrat branch of the ‘Compass Group’ has been formed.

Here I have a stab at synthesising the two Liberal Democrat arguments. The party as a whole needs to decide. Which view do you support?

View 1

The lurch to the right of the Conservative Party has changed the landscape for the Lib Dems. Since the Tories adopted the tool of encouraging anti-immigrant sentiment to undermine Labour in its heartlands, and since the rise of the SNP, it has become very difficult for Labour to achieve a parliamentary majority on its own. This is true however popular Keir Starmer becomes.

Posted in Party policy and internal matters | Also tagged and | 57 Comments

Members must decide!

Election pacts and participation in an Emergency Government need to be agreed by members.  

As a No Deal Brexit and a possible General Election get nearer there has been much talk of how we Remainers can stop it. The focus at the moment is on legislation to stop it but there are two other areas said to be under discussion: 

  • An emergency government to hold a referendum followed by a General Election 
  • A ‘Remain alliance‘ so that in key seats Remain parties don’t stand against each other (though  Alastair Carmichael has been reported as saying we would not stand down for the SNP).  

I believe that it is really important that we don’t abandon one of the fundamental principles of our Party – the primacy of members in taking key decisions  

If we participate in an emergency  Government then our Constitution is very clear about what needs to happen. Section 23 says that support for a government which contains other political parties applies

where the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons (‘the Commons Party’) enters into negotiations with one or more other political parties with a view to the formation of a government supported by the party and such party or parties; 

There are various provisions about consultations  etc but the key point is that  any agreement would have to be approved by  a 2/3rd vote at either a regular or special Conference.  

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , and | 11 Comments

Bar Charts!

I’ve had an idea about bar charts! It’s way outside my area of expertise, but indulge me.

Right, Northern Ireland has a unique set of parties and in Scotland and Wales the national parties have disrupted the ability of the LabCon duopoly to “game” First Past the Post. In England, though, LabCon game First Past the Post for all its worth. They do everything they can to maintain a dichotomy, “them or us”. Then they run a “project fear” on “them”.

Our campaigning tasks are to avoid being “them” and be an independent, viable, option.

I have previously suggested that we can avoid  being “them” by criticising neither duopoly party individually but only the duopoly as an unified entity.

As for establishing ourselves as real contenders, nationally this is going well.

Locally, though, I can see problems with the bar charts we use to make the case that we are a winning bet. Here we too often play exactly that “us and them” dichotomy that hurts us so much nationally. Nationally we need people to abandon voting for the least-worst-possible winner. Locally, though it’s all “only we can…” and “can’t win here”; straight out of the duopoly playbook. And all too often we dishonestly distort data to present the “story” we want to tell.

Now, after the elections for the European Parliament we have no need to distort as there is always some data that, fairly presented, will tell the story that we are in the race. In a constituency where we came second in 2017, that data can be presented. In my constituency, Lewisham and Deptford, we didn’t do so well in 2017 (to say the least). In the EU elections, though, we came first in Lewisham borough! That data can be used. In some areas of London we came third. Coming first in the region as a whole, though, allows that data to be used. What of a constituency where we did badly, in an electoral area where we did badly and a region where we didn’t do so well? The UK wide EU results put us in second place: those results will tell the story.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 10 Comments

Opinion: Progessive parties unite – for survival!

Through the grief and bereavement of last month’s election results, I have been trying to make some logical deductions about the future not just of the Lib Dems but the progressive forces in British politics. Try my logic and see if it works for you.

There may be about 8-12% of those who vote who are willing to support Lib Dem candidates (excluding protest votes). That percentage is fine as long as there’s PR. If there isn’t, we will struggle to have any influence, certainly at national level.

The only way we can get PR is if we have a main party in government willing to enact PR. And that main party has to get into government via first-past-the-post.

The Conservatives aren’t interested because they do very well without it, and will continue to do so. By contrast, Labour may be at the point of recognising that the only way a Labour prime minister can happen is via a coalition – and on that basis, Labour should be open to PR.

Posted in News | Also tagged and | 57 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • Merlene Emerson
    Update on my post: It has transpired that the last issue of Apple Daily will be 2 days earlier on Thursday 24 June. The reason given was that it is for the sa...
  • Michael 1
    @David Raw I clearly said that I admire much that the Labour party and the Labour movement has done over the past 150-200 years. I am I believe on the left o...
  • Nigel Hunter
    Interesting that court cases are going the rounds re Johnson,s govnt plus a shock loss of a 'safe' seat. Equally interesting that this OBON comes along AND a p...
  • David Raw
    Good for, Daisy. Is it too much to hope she succeeds to the full post of Leader asap to revitalise and re-energise this party ? Johnson must think it's cleve...
  • Peter Roberts
    ".... and tub thumping" Now there's a thought and it sums up Boriss' Brexit Britain very well, do you think Chumbawuma would object?...