Labour and Lib-Dems sign a non-aggression pact

Germanshepherdsmum

A local council election result isn’t evidence of anything else.

I disagree Germanshephersmum. Small gains show people's line of thinking.

Johnson told his new voters, "You may have only lent us your vote. You may not think of yourself as a natural Tory". He was right. His words will have prompted many voters to think about whether this Tory party is what they want.

He offered unity; we have civil war in the party governing the country. Johnson offered "power to the people" with his leveling up. We have watched while the dirtiest government in my memory has tried to subjugate democracy; change laws to save members of their party; broken laws they put through Parliament; faced an investigation of MPs and the Prime Minister by the police and lied to the Queen. Now this is to be followed by a poorer life for many.

There is a growing feeling of change within the electorate. Voters have watched the Tories disregard for the laws we all have and need to obey. We have noticed the increasing posing and strutting of the entitled and the infighting of factions. We have watched the MPs struggle, not with their consciences but with their hold on power as they override morality but still cannot find a leader who could have a cohesive effect on the party or the country. Changing the leader of a party which sees government, not as a responsibility but as a right to better things for themselves, will not change the tide of thinking. This Local Council election may just be a wave lapping on the shore but be assured, that is what happens when a tide is changing.

Dinahmo

Since 1918 there has only been 2 govts that won by a majority of the votes. Both Tory - in 1931 with 60% and 1935 with 53%.

This means, (for those who are perhaps too partisan) that the combined opposition votes were higher than the Tories in every other election, including 2019 when they got 43% of the vote.

Surely you would all agree that a different voting system would be preferable. At least it would ensure that the majority of the country had a say in their govt. Apart from the Tories of course, who would lose out.

Surely you would all agree that a different voting system would be preferable. At least it would ensure that the majority of the country had a say in their govt. Apart from the Tories of course, who would lose out.

The number of people, when discussing voting / politics, who say things like "what's the point" when they live in a safe-seat (whichever 'seat' it is) does make me think that too many are, or feel, disenfranchised by our system.

The referendum - regardless of the fact it didn't go the way I wanted it to - did at least mean the voter's vote counted. For many, it possibly meant that for the first time in their lives, their vote "mattered". I'm deliberately leaving aside all the implications of whether the Leave campaign was honest or not, or the rights / wrongs of Brexit, or whether it should've remained 'Advisory' only - I'm thinking of it as a 'principle'.

Since 1918 there has only been 2 govts that won by a majority of the votes. Both Tory - in 1931 with 60% and 1935 with 53%.

This means, (for those who are perhaps too partisan) that the combined opposition votes were higher than the Tories in every other election, including 2019 when they got 43% of the vote.

Surely you would all agree that a different voting system would be preferable. At least it would ensure that the majority of the country had a say in their govt. Apart from the Tories of course, who would lose out.

A local council election result isn’t evidence of anything else.

This byelection result in North Northamptonshire might just show voters waking up

"Oundle: Lib Dems take seat from Tories in by-election - BBC News" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-60432511.amp

DaisyAnne

I think it is probably the only way Dickens - which means the Tory press will trash it . It may not be very robust, or it may work for some time but if it gets us PR I will be happy.

It's an "informal" agreement and we have some way to go... but

Haven't seen any reaction yet from the RW media... but I think the response is predictable...

I think it is probably the only way Dickens - which means the Tory press will trash it . It may not be very robust, or it may work for some time but if it gets us PR I will be happy.

DaisyAnne

Of course Starmer has an agenda. It is the same as every party has and that is to be in a position where what he and his supporters think is best for the country can be enacted. Whether or not you disagree with what he thinks is "best for the country" I think we would be foolish not to recognise that this is the same aim every party has.

The Tories win, not because they are more in touch with the voter, not even because most of the media back the party but because those who oppose them fight one another. In a first past the post system, where the centre and left-leaning voter fight over every vote the Tories, who will hold their noses and work with anyone to get power, are going to keep winning. They are regularly voted into office in constituencies where the majority don't want them. The only way to get a more representative system is to work together to get it and then the country can decide if they want one or several parties. The Conservatives are already a coalition so it's not as if we haven't been governed in this way.

The only way to get a more representative system is to work together to get it

... and therein lies the problem. The 'pact' though is a good starting point I think?

Of course Starmer has an agenda. It is the same as every party has and that is to be in a position where what he and his supporters think is best for the country can be enacted. Whether or not you disagree with what he thinks is "best for the country" I think we would be foolish not to recognise that this is the same aim every party has.

The Tories win, not because they are more in touch with the voter, not even because most of the media back the party but because those who oppose them fight one another. In a first past the post system, where the centre and left-leaning voter fight over every vote the Tories, who will hold their noses and work with anyone to get power, are going to keep winning. They are regularly voted into office in constituencies where the majority don't want them. The only way to get a more representative system is to work together to get it and then the country can decide if they want one or several parties. The Conservatives are already a coalition so it's not as if we haven't been governed in this way.

M0nica

It is easy to criticise FPTP. it is very difficult to agree which of the many alternative ways of voting would be acceptable in its place. Every alternative has its vociferous supporters and opponents.

The alternatives also have their plus and minus. But IMO as long as we continue with FPTP, we will never have a true representation of "the people's" voice.

If - numerically - the majority of people did not vote for this government, then we are not really truly represented are we?

But both Conservatives and Labour stand to gain from this system so I can't see anything changing any time soon.

Starmer may appear to be more altruistic, but he has an agenda just the same. I might even vote for him - but in the full knowledge that he's not the political holy grail.

M0nica

It is easy to criticise FPTP. it is very difficult to agree which of the many alternative ways of voting would be acceptable in its place. Every alternative has its vociferous supporters and opponents.

I can't see how that now trite argument holds up. I might agree if we were the first country to suggest using proportional voting; we are far from that. Indeed, we already use it at different levels and in different parts of our country.

I cannot see how anyone can justify a system that means it takes a different number of votes to gain one seat in Parliament than another. I want my vote to count. Surely most people do? We have had election after election that has been gerrymandered and pork barrelled. Why would anyone, other than the Tories who are masters of both, want it to continue?

The only problem I have with Rayner is that she is somewhat of a loose canon. Her latest gaff “ Shoot first, ask questions later” shows a political naivety that should never be evident on a front bench.

The ony thing 'wrong' with Angela Rayner is what she says.

Saying something objectionable and then making the excuse Soozikinzi makes she made at a hustings meeting probably not expec it to be so widely publibised doesn't excuse it. What she said was totally unacceptable and saying what you really think and then apologising when it becomes known, is merely cosmetic damage limitation not a proper apology and too many politicians are prone to this.

It is like the way children are told to say 'sorry' after they do something wrong. They say 'sorry' in a sing-song voice and then rush off, glad to have got off with whatever they had done.

It is easy to criticise FPTP. it is very difficult to agree which of the many alternative ways of voting would be acceptable in its place. Every alternative has its vociferous supporters and opponents.

Soozikinzi

Germanshepherdsmum

Be careful what you wish for. Can anyone imagine the likes of Angela Rayner representing the country on the world stage?

What's the problem with Angela Rayner ? Is it that she's Northern ? Is it the notorious comment she made at a hustings meeting probably not expecit to be so widely publibised - which she has since apologised for . I would have thought it commendable to get yourself an education as a single parent.

It's odd, isn't it Soozikinzi*. I would have thought the life story of Angela Rayner was far more relatable to large numbers of the electorate than a bunch of old Etonians.

Some may see it as "just a label" Growstuff, but it appears they are important to others. If you are looking to encourage people to see the point of what has been suggested it's probably worth understanding that and possibly trying to understand what the "nebulous" terms mean to them.

Obviously, if you don't think it is the best way for the generally left of centre parties to go, you may see it as worth dismissing other peoples views as ill-defined.

Germanshepherdsmum

Be careful what you wish for. Can anyone imagine the likes of Angela Rayner representing the country on the world stage?

What's the problem with Angela Rayner ? Is it that she's Northern ? Is it the notorious comment she made at a hustings meeting probably not expecit to be so widely publibised - which she has since apologised for . I would have thought it commendable to get yourself an education as a single parent.

I think it's just a label. Historically, not all forms of socialism have been democratic. They're both nebulous terms anyway.

varian I would have thought that by definition, the leader of the Labour Party is a socialist. I am not a socialist, however, I would back this way forward if it gave us PR and moderated the moves by a Labour government.

He may see himself as a democratic socialist. I find it interesting that the LP has to define themselves as democratic. As that is how they define themselves, working with other democrats shouldn't be a problem. I do not see this Tory government as democrats.

Most members of the Labour Party support electoral reform but Keir Starmer may still be waiting for a poll showing him a win under FPTP. I'm sorry, but don't think he is a democrat. I hope I'm wrong.

varian

Why do we not all support electoral reform?

Are we happy being the only undemocratic country in Europe apart from Belarus?

Because it won't happen unless the two biggest political parties see an advantage?

Why do we not all support electoral reform?

Are we happy being the only undemocratic country in Europe apart from Belarus?

Indeed- where I lived, there was no chance that my vote would ever count- ever- whichever Party I chose to vote for, apart from the Tories.

Under our appalling FPTP voting system, many of us are effectively disenfranchised if we live in a "safe" where our vote may never count.

If we live in a marginal constituency, held by the party you dislike the most, it makes sense to vote for the other party most likely to win.

That is called "tactical voting"

At least Angela Rayner had the decency to apologise, unlike some people who lied in a much more malicious way.