Lib Dems

[Joseph K]

I think the SDP's principles were more 'progressive' than the Liberals' (and than the Lib Dems'), but you seem to see politics in Manichaean terms of black and white: Progressives v Tories. What if neither meets the wishes of the electorate at any particular time?

At certain times, it is true that there is a stark black and white choice to be made - Foot vs. Thatcher or Corbyn vs. Johnson etc. Pretending that it is otherwise just enables the Tories to get in, it is never a case of either main political party 'meeting the wishes of the electorate', or at least, it doesn't amount to that.

TBH, and I am thinking of someone like Mitterrand here, even if Foot had got in (and I still think he would have been way better than Thatcher, obvs.) there is only so much a nation-state can do in a globalised (neoliberal) economy - what with Nixon removing the gold standard and bringing to the end the Bretton Woods agreement. Which is why, for example, Yanis Varoufakis & DiEM25 wants to work along transnational lines in implementing a Green New Deal for Europe.

[LMcD]

At certain times, it is true that there is a stark black and white choice to be made - Foot vs. Thatcher or Corbyn vs. Johnson etc. Pretending that it is otherwise just enables the Tories to get in, it is never a case of either main political party 'meeting the wishes of the electorate', or at least, it doesn't amount to that.

TBH, and I am thinking of someone like Mitterrand here, even if Foot had got in (and I still think he would have been way better than Thatcher, obvs.) there is only so much a nation-state can do in a globalised (neoliberal) economy - what with Nixon removing the gold standard and bringing to the end the Bretton Woods agreement. Which is why, for example, Yanis Varoufakis & DiEM25 wants to work along transnational lines in implementing a Green New Deal for Europe.

Granny was right!
I can't remember offhand in which play or book it occurs, but I seem to remember a lady of a certain age offering advice along the lines of 'Never vote for any of them, my dear - it only encourages them'.

[french frank]

At certain times, it is true that there is a stark black and white choice to be made - Foot vs. Thatcher or Corbyn vs. Johnson etc. Pretending that it is otherwise just enables the Tories to get in, it is never a case of either main political party 'meeting the wishes of the electorate', or at least, it doesn't amount to that.

I'm not sure what the last bit of that means? There was a stark difference between Foot and Thatcher, as there was between Corbyn and Johnson. Whether the choice is always as clear I'm not sure - only to those who support one or the other unconditionally. General Elections seldom boil down to the single issue of 'Who leads the party?' Holding your nose and voting for the option you dislike least is something that, on the whole, party purists (of any stripe) refuse to do, even if on the local constituency basis the 'stark choice' were to be between, say, Johnson and … Clegg. The UK is not a single constituency where the choice for everyone is Corbyn or Johnson.

I don't say it is for individual parties to 'meet the wishes of the electorate', but for the system to do so.

TBH, and I am thinking of someone like Mitterrand here, even if Foot had got in (and I still think he would have been way better than Thatcher, obvs.) there is only so much a nation-state can do in a globalised (neoliberal) economy - what with Nixon removing the gold standard and bringing to the end the Bretton Woods agreement. Which is why, for example, Yanis Varoufakis & DiEM25 wants to work along transnational lines in implementing a Green New Deal for Europe.

As you might predict, I'm all for cooperative 'cross-border' ventures!

[Serial_Apologist]

Granny was right!
I can't remember offhand in which play or book it occurs, but I seem to remember a lady of a certain age offering advice along the lines of 'Never vote for any of them, my dear - it only encourages them'.

How is that any sort of reply to Joseph K's post?

[LMcD]

How is that any sort of reply to Joseph K's post?

I was just reminding myself that she was right when she advised me (cf. above) not to get involved in pointless and often increasingly fractious discussions about certain subjects.

[Serial_Apologist]

I was just reminding myself that she was right when she advised me (cf. above) not to get involved in pointless and often increasingly fractious discussions about certain subjects.

We've managed to keep this one within reasonably civil terms, fortunately - a first, and hopefully not a last.

Which ineluctably leads me onto french frank's focussing on First Past The Post as one factor in the logjam blocking alternatives to the electoral realities in British politics. Leaving my own misgivings aside, it has been a fact for some time that those broadly on the left in the Labour Party have been coming around to considering possibilities for PR of some kind (which would itself have to be a choice between alternative schemes) which could facilitate the kinds of "progressive alliances" between Labour, the Greens, and any other fringe party encouraged to form by the ditching of FPTP. Before anybody quickly interjects that the Greens have only ever comprised a tiny proportion of electoral support, apart from in Brighton, the reasons, namely the feeling among many (such as me) that such a vote would be wasted under the present voting status quo, clearly speak for themselves. In fact it is the party leadership and top echelons which have steadfastly opposed getting rid of FPTP, rather than the grass roots, who have undoubtedly been wrong in neglecting the issue for other priorities. I may be wrong but I think much of the Left - in and out of the LP - is or would be in favour of some system of PR, which the leadership is too cocky in its repeated success in seeing off its left wing to consider.

[Joseph K]

I was just reminding myself that she was right when she advised me (cf. above) not to get involved in pointless and often increasingly fractious discussions about certain subjects.

Why do you feel the need to do this out-loud, as it were?

[Serial_Apologist]

Why do you feel the need to do this out-loud, as it were?

There's been a lot of post factum spleen venting in this discussion by those choosing to exonerate themselves for not voting. I've been more worried about those whose record on the forum has generally been exemplary in taking up and arguing with points raised on other subjects by those they disagree with, but who - when it comes to considering Jeremy Corbyn in particular, it has been noticeable - seem to prefer to circumambulate with generalisations and non-sequiturs of their own. With so many people posting normally willing to demonstrate their knowledgeability on so much one has profitably benefitted from learning about, it is hard not to conclude an element of bad faith as being involved.

[french frank]

In fact it is the party leadership and top echelons which have steadfastly opposed getting rid of FPTP, rather than the grass roots, who have undoubtedly been wrong in neglecting the issue for other priorities. I may be wrong but I think much of the Left - in and out of the LP - is or would be in favour of some system of PR, which the leadership is too cocky in its repeated success in seeing off its left wing to consider.

That's interesting, though of course it was Tony Blair who set up the Jenkins Commission, which duly reported on its recommended system of PR (disappointingly, not only for the 'liberal' faction but also for the Electoral Reform Society, not STV). Having then promised, if I remember, a referendum, he shelved it. A prime example of 'When you keep winning, you don't want to change the system'.

It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I do feel there's a natural centre/centre left/left majority in the country which would safeguard us from the right-wing coup such as we've apparently seen. But even a centre/centre right/right majority would hold it back from its worst excesses.

I'm pretty sure that a centre/centre left/left majority is not what socialists would be wildly happy with, but it may be what voters want.

[LMcD]

Why do you feel the need to do this out-loud, as it were?

We should all be unafraid to honour our grannies in public, don't you think?
I agree that this particular thread has been, if not completely free of the odd rancorous outburst, pretty civilized on the whole.
Getting back to the original subject: For years I voted for the Lib Dems and their predecessors, and admired them for going into coalition with DC, rather than shouting from the sidelines, like parents at a school football match, in an attempt to appear to be contributing while maintaining their ideological innocence and purity. It was their refusal to really move on from Brexit, and Jo Swinson's laughable delusions of grandeur, that left me with nothing to do on future election days except write in ' NOTA - HRH Prince Andrew the Duke of York', and that was only mildly satisfying. I really don't know what they stand for, although I understand they're pro-HS2 except in any constituency in which it's really unpopular. My absence at the polling station won't affect their prospects, at least in this constituency, where whey might as well save time and money at the count and just weigh the votes.
(To be honest, I'm much more interested in seeing how Sean Bean gets on in Part 3 of Jimmy McGovern's 'Time' - an opinion which I've expressed out loud merely in order to draw people's attention to what is a real cracker (ho! ho!) of a TV drama).

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm pretty sure that a centre/centre left/left majority is not what socialists would be wildly happy with, but it may be what voters want.

Oh I think the thinking left has learned that principles can still be made to operate if they take on board the reality that compromises have to be made. It's a question of tactics rather than long-term strategies to get away from this capitalist system so well defined as being problematic by Joseph K and Richard Barrett in earlier posts. The sorts of practical compromise would be defined by the state of play pertaining at the moment of deciding suitable alliances, since it isn't possible let alone practicable to envisage what those might be in the present circumstances. One has to go back to historical examples and see where wrong decisions were made which led one way and another to where we now are.

There will always be the understanding that control over means of information dissemination and putting out messages is one of the things we are up against, power over the media being as it is in the hands of the wealthy and powerful. The difficulty is in fashioning and then flexibly applying a sophisticated analysis while at the same time uncovering lies and distortions without falling into simplistic moralistic traps of good versus malign, dependable versus untrustworthy - which can be sorted by making those elected more easily accountable - and making clear why and in what ways the system is inherently unstable. The old truisms concerning the need to build campaigns outside parliament which do not see parliamentary legislation as the end in itself but as empowering communities at the sharp end apply as much today as they always have, arguably more so.

[Joseph K]