This internecine strife is getting so irritating

Monica I confess to have little knowledge of politics, but like you say There is nothing more unedifying to the wider electorate than the constant abuse and character assasinations between the two Labour groups, wonderfully exemplified by threads like those on GN. The Conservative party, for its many sins, does appear to be more harmoniously together with less internal strife recently.
My uncle successfully left the Labour Party and became leader of the SDP. I've read his papers and memoirs and it seems to me that each party was thus clearer in its aims and policies. Less wrangling and backbiting within the party means less confusion and less exasperation felt by the electorate.
Now, more than ever, there needs to be streamlining and clear direction.

This is what happens when a political party is defeated badly; it happened in the Conservative party after Blair won in 1997 and continued for many years, and it happened in the Liberal party before that (the gang of four), can't remember the particular reasons. It seems to be an inevitable process, necessitating much painful soul-searching, possibly cathartic, possibly productive, possibly not.

It would be better to put all their energies into fighting covid, which really is attaining the status of a war, but sadly I don't think that will happen.

We need a much better opposition. Its a great pity the Labour Party seems in such disarray.

Perhaps because both sides, the socialist side and the more conservative side, each feel that Labour should be theirs. Each side unwilling to give up the original party (and the funding) and step out on their own, having seen what happened to the SDP and ChangeUK.
When Jeremy Corbyn became leader, those of us who agreed with his policies felt that we had got our party back. Now that Keir Starmer is leader, the more right wing now feel that they have got their party back.
If it did split, both sides would have to give up the name "Labour', and discuss who was going to get funding from where.
Both sides feel they are correct in their view of what the Labour party should do if it was in power, and that the other side is wrong.
But both sides feel that they should be the ones to keep the name.

Socialist Labour and Democrat Labour?
The Lib Dems will then be finally superfluous ( they pretty much are already.)

Or just join the Lib Dems?

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or
conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

It could be argued that the Liberal Democrats are the only party with a distinctive set of principles.

Both the Tory and the Labour parties seem to exist only to advance their own interests by manipulating a corrupt undemocratic voting system.

varian the LibDems were doing so well, and looking like the values that you state really were their values. Then they entered the coalition. Probably most members of the LibDems do still believe in those values that you listed. They were an attractive party, that looked to the left of New Labour. Ex Labour members were possibly thinking about joining or at least voting for them.
Then they joined the coalition and Nick Clegg showed a generation of young people that politicians can't be trusted even when they make a pledge.
He looked as if he junked all his principles for a ride in a limousine.
I don't know what his party members thought of him at the time, but his actions did, I believe, put off people who were disillusioned with New Labour from joining them.

Keir Starmer has made it pretty plain that he doesn't want socialist grannies like me in the Labour party, shall I turn to the LibDems do you think?
Or will that be another disappointment.

The LibDems put country before party when they entered that coalition.

I was, like most LD members, a very reluctant supporter of that move as we would have much preferred to go into coalition with the Labour Party but the numbers did not add up.

If it had not been for the coalition agreement we would almost certainly have had another election which the Tories would have won outright as they were the only party with the funds to fight another election.

Of course some dreadful mistakes were made - on tuition fees and on agreeing to the nonsense of an AV referendum instead of PR.

Even so some good LibDem policies were enacted- like the pupil premium and taking the lowest earners out of paying income tax.

It should now be obvious to everyone that the undiluted Tory policies of the last five years have been harsher and far more damaging than the policies of the coalition years.

I am centre left of the labour party and would never vote lib dems (tried it once and still regret it) those on the centre left hold fundamentally different views to the lib dems, I am not even debating which one is right or wrong, they just hold completely different views on how to build a fair and just society.

I've been trying to work this one out for most of my adult life.
No solution as yet.
I think the main reason is that the Tories have always had the upper hand is because of the capitalist landowning/wealth tradition in England. So their one aim is keep the wealth in their hands.
Any opposition needs to challenge this principle, which is too extreme for we English people.
Revolution?
So we have no clear, single aim.

The First Past the Post system makes the split impossible. In most countries with some form of PR system, as in France and Germany, parties are much more representative of their members, with both the left and the right separated into several different parties. In fact, in France, the Socialists and the Communists can't stand each other.

Ellianne

Monica I confess to have little knowledge of politics, but like you say There is nothing more unedifying to the wider electorate than the constant abuse and character assasinations between the two Labour groups, wonderfully exemplified by threads like those on GN. The Conservative party, for its many sins, does appear to be more harmoniously together with less internal strife recently.
My uncle successfully left the Labour Party and became leader of the SDP. I've read his papers and memoirs and it seems to me that each party was thus clearer in its aims and policies. Less wrangling and backbiting within the party means less confusion and less exasperation felt by the electorate.
Now, more than ever, there needs to be streamlining and clear direction.

But look at what happened to the SDP. After the party was formed we saw Shirley Williams at a meeting in Brixton and she was very impressive and I agreed with their politics because at that time the Labour Council under Ted Knight was too extreme for me. Sadly the SDP didn't last too long and now the Lib Dems aren't doing too well either.

Biba is right. We need a sensible voting system. Look for 'Make Votes Matter', they are making a strong effort in that direction. But the Tories will never agree unless forced into it, they do not want to negotiate with other parties on anything.

I wonder why these breakaway parties like the SDP and Change UK just disappear. The Green party doesn't have many members but it keeps on going, even though it must know it will never be in power. I wonder if this is because they have real conviction whereas the SDP and ChangeUK were a reaction away from their parties rather than a real desire for different policies.

I seem to remember a time in France when they changed their government more often than they changed their socks and had lots and lots of little parties that came and went overnight, rather like the Israelis, whether they had first past the post or some form of PR, I cannot remember. Italy was even worse. As for the Belgians.

I am all for PR but I really seriously doubt whether it will be the cure all everyone thinks it will be. It always sounds to me like pie in the sky, bemoan our current system, say PR would solve everything and then lean back and not bother with finding constructive ways of working with the current system.

I wonder why PR since 1947 has worked so well in Germany.

It sometimes difficult to remember that Angela Merkel is a conservative, when her attitude to refugees and her support for workers during the current Covid crisis is considered. The main socialist party in Germany (SPD) has almost disappeared.

There must be a minimum score for any party/politician to be elected- as in Germany- to avoid a ridiculous situation as in Italy, agreed.

I could kick myself that I threw it away when we moved. Years ago I wrote to Charles Kennedy, explaining my concerns that PR would give a voice to extreme parties like the National Front. To my surprise, he wrote back a 3 page personal letter stating clearly why it was a risk worth taking. I should at least have scanned it (silly things we do when we move).

RIP Charles Kennedy. Wish we had more like him about these days.

Charles Kennedy - that is when we had party leaders of quality. Even the LiB Dems have had a run of disappointments recently, starting with Vince Cable, who I thought would bring authority and gravitas to the job, but was a dead loss as everyone since.

In Germany, after the last election, Merkel had a dilemma. She didn't win an overall majority, so had to form a coalition (as most German governments since 1947 have been). Initially, the SPD refused, so the only alternative would have been the AfD (the German equivalent of UKIP). There is no way she would have formed a coalition with the AfD, so she was forced to make compromises and form a coalition with the SPD, which has resulted in a more centrist government. There are now 7 SPD ministers in government, including the Deputy Chancellor. PR resulted in more consensus and stability.

Paddy Ashdown was a remarkable leader.

When we look back at the "what ifs" of our recent history, one of the most significant was the Blair victory in 1997.

Had that not been so decisive, I believe there would have been a Lab/LibDem coalition which could have been a turning point in our history.