A coalition looks nailed on but who will be the bed partners

[Colonel Cupcake]

Caddyshack said:

What would you propose happens if a majority tick “none of the above”?

My answer would be that none of those on the ballot paper would be eligible to stand again in that particular election.

[StescoG66]

Caddyshack said:

What would you propose happens if a majority tick “none of the above”?

Well, my principal thinking behind the thought is to avoid the situation where a ‘mandate’ can be claimed on 51% of the vote on a 30% turnout for example......... if nothing else it would give an accurate reflection of the true feelings of the population.
If the majority tick none of the above........ I dare say constitutionally we can’t allow for it but it becomes hung with no overall majority

[Mr Penguin]

It will be confidence and supply, not a coalition

[2xChevrons]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

It is now becoming clear to lots of people what some of us have said for years - the biggest barrier to a successful British conservative movement is the Conservative Party.

An interesting harmony to the voices saying "the biggest barrier to a successful British progressive movement is the Labour Party."

That has been a constant, albeit minority, view since the days of Ramsay Macdonald, became louder after the Clause Four Moment and New Labour and has, ime, become much more widespread post-2019 when it was revealed exactly how much internal sabotage and wish-fulfilment went on inside the Labour Party followed by Starmer's duplicitous leadership bid.

The sentiment being that 'The Labour Party is not, and cannot, be a vehicle for gaining progressive change in Britain and will actively work against any movement trying to do so.'

Swap the relevant words and you'll find similar views on the right. And they’re not new either - I remember it being one of Peter Hitchens' mantras in the early 2000s to refer to the 'formerly Conservative Party', and that was in the days of Hague and Howard.

It's probably the result of a political and electoral system that forces parties to be non-genuine and to triangulate. Under FPTP voting and a 50%+1 winner-takes all parliamentary system a Party with genuine aspirations to government has to find the 'sweet spot' to hold their core vote and enough of the rest of the electorate. They can't just say "this is what we believe, take it or leave it, let the chips fall where they may" so they have to go with platforms and policies that end up pleasing no one.

[Oliver Hardy]

Was watching a news program with a panel of voters a couple months ago and while labour were way in the lead amongst these who have decided who to vote for most were undecided.


Does anyone really know how labour are going to achieve any of their promises. Can you really vote for them either, no wonder so many people are undecided?

While the conservatives have done a crap job is labour a credible alternative? They will continue with rhe conservative policies (so someone thinks the conservative are doing a good job after all) but a green initiative which they scaled back will turn the fortune of the country round and will create lots of well paid jobs, like the SNP have in Scotland. They will solve the immigration problems round by making some sort of arrangement with the EU who can't agree anything on the problem anyway, they will send the police to all corners of Europe to break the gangs and send the failed asylum seekers back to?

I have decided not to vote, labour will win here anyway.

Edited by Oliver Hardy on Saturday 4th May 15:33

[Previous]

Oliver Hardy said:

Was watching a news program with a panel of voters a couple months ago and while labour were way in the lead amongst these who have decided who to vote for most were undecided.


Does anyone really know how labour are going to achieve any of their promises. Can you really vote for them either, no wonder so many people are undecided?

While the conservatives have done a crap job is labour a credible alternative? They will continue with rhe conservative policies (so someone thinks the conservative are doing a good job after all) but a green initiative which they scaled back will turn the fortune of the country round and will create lots of well paid jobs, like the SNP have in Scotland. They will solve the immigration problems round by making some sort of arrangement with the EU who can't agree anything on the problem anyway, they will send the police to all corners of Europe to break the gangs and send the failed asylum seekers back to?

I have decided not to vote, labour will win here anyway.

Edited by Oliver Hardy on Saturday 4th May 15:33

I don't think labour will achieve what they set out to do.

I just hope they'll be less corrupt than the Tories. That's it.

[Hants PHer]

Previous said:

I don't think labour will achieve what they set out to do.

I just hope they'll be less corrupt than the Tories. That's it.

Funny that you say that, because those two sentences exactly mirror the sentiments of my friends. For context, I'm describing a dozen white, middle class, home owning men and women who have always voted Conservative (I know, I need a wider group of friends, but hey). They are resigned to a Labour government but none of them will vote Labour at the next general election.

Nor do any of them believe that Labour will change anything much, but they also doubt Labour will totally mess things up. In short: "Meh".

One thing they do welcome is a government with a reasonable moral compass, unlike the Tories who appear to have become a mix of sex pests, with nepotist tendencies and a penchant for punching down. Bear in mind our current MP is Suella Braverman although there's a boundary change incoming so we'll have a new Blue to vote for.

For whom will they vote in the Autumn? They say they'll probably stay at home, or look for a good independent, although I suspect some will still vote Tory out of habit.

[Talksteer]

Oliver Hardy said:

Was watching a news program with a panel of voters a couple months ago and while labour were way in the lead amongst these who have decided who to vote for most were undecided.


Does anyone really know how labour are going to achieve any of their promises. Can you really vote for them either, no wonder so many people are undecided?

While the conservatives have done a crap job is labour a credible alternative? They will continue with rhe conservative policies (so someone thinks the conservative are doing a good job after all) but a green initiative which they scaled back will turn the fortune of the country round and will create lots of well paid jobs, like the SNP have in Scotland. They will solve the immigration problems round by making some sort of arrangement with the EU who can't agree anything on the problem anyway, they will send the police to all corners of Europe to break the gangs and send the failed asylum seekers back to?

I have decided not to vote, labour will win here anyway.

There was a mantra from the Regan era of US government people=policy.

What this meant was that the people chosen to implement the policy was actually more important than the policy itself. It has slightly more relevance in the US when the executive branch changes so do several thousand politically appointed civil servants and administrators. But the point was that you needed to put politically aligned to the policies you wanted capable people in charge of all those jobs and this was more important than the actual policy at the top level.

Ergo it may well be that Labour and the Conservatives actually have similar policy objectives, take leveling up as an example. The concept is popular and desirable, but Conservative attempts to do anything about it have be stymied by constantly changing ministers and an activist population in the party which is hostile to the concept in general.

A new administration with a popular mandate and serious leadership might actually get stuff done more effectively than the current lot where they actively chucked many of their most capable ministers and MPs at the last election.

[PugwasHDJ80]

can anyone exlpain how a sitting mp can switch from con to lab?

i could get behind going independent, but totally lost by just swapping between the major parties- in either direction. Makes a mockery of our political system.

[wisbech]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

can anyone exlpain how a sitting mp can switch from con to lab?

i could get behind going independent, but totally lost by just swapping between the major parties- in either direction. Makes a mockery of our political system.

Simple, they "cross the floor". WInston Churchill did it. It has always been a part of our political system. See SDP in the 80s, or the Liberals splitting into Liberal Unionists (who then joined Conservatives, which it is the Conservative and Unionist Party to this day) and Liberals over Irish Home Rule.

They stand as the MP for your constituency as your representative, and once elected represent the constituency as they best see fit. Arguably it is the whips forcing MPs to vote for things they don't support in the name of party unity that make a mockery of our political system, but the alternative (all votes being free votes) would be very hard for a government to manage.

[hidetheelephants]

Talksteer said:

Ergo it may well be that Labour and the Conservatives actually have similar policy objectives, take leveling up as an example. The concept is popular and desirable, but Conservative attempts to do anything about it have be stymied by constantly changing ministers and an activist population in the party which is hostile to the concept in general.

Constant change in minister is obvious enough, most ministers have changed more than once a year since 2015 and it's a wonder any of them have done any work at all; I don't see how party activists have any influence on anything, do you mean activist civil servants?

[Talksteer]

hidetheelephants said:

Talksteer said:

Ergo it may well be that Labour and the Conservatives actually have similar policy objectives, take leveling up as an example. The concept is popular and desirable, but Conservative attempts to do anything about it have be stymied by constantly changing ministers and an activist population in the party which is hostile to the concept in general.

Constant change in minister is obvious enough, most ministers have changed more than once a year since 2015 and it's a wonder any of them have done any work at all; I don't see how party activists have any influence on anything, do you mean activist civil servants?

Re: Leveling up what doesn't help the conservatives to implement it is that:

Ultimately the membership have a strong influence on who leads the party and which MPs are selected. As the membership is predominantly old and wealthy they are generally opposed to the money transfers that would be inherently part of a proper leveling up (even if these money transfers might have excellent returns on investment).

Many of the MPs in the party particularly the ones who represent parts of the country that have historically done well out of the current system are opposed to concept of leveling up, this is in addition to the ones who are against in as they are laisse fair extremists or are inherently against government action.

Given that divided support in governing party and the superficial leadership of Boris and the chaotic leadership of those that followed it's not a massive surprise that not much has happened in practice over the last 4 years since that policy was enacted.

Finally the civil service is structurally an obstacle to levelling up. The UK is so centralised that the way the levelling up funds have worked so far has been that areas compete for funding for which the criteria for success and the judging of the submissions is set centrally. The reason it's done that way is that there isn't the bodies at sub national levels with the competence to handle this and various departments (not least treasury) would not like to see these powers handed out to other bodies. The mayors are likely to be the best place to hand the authority and funding for leveling up.

Untangling all that requires committed people operating with the direction and approval of governmental power at the highest level. I happen to think that SKS is likely to be the sort of person who actually believes in "leveling up" and will put his likely massive authority after the next election behind it, the Labour party agrees with it so won't oppose it and there is a real chance that it will happen.

[hidetheelephants]

Talksteer said:

Finally the civil service is structurally an obstacle to levelling up. The UK is so centralised that the way the levelling up funds have worked so far has been that areas compete for funding for which the criteria for success and the judging of the submissions is set centrally. The reason it's done that way is that there isn't the bodies at sub national levels with the competence to handle this and various departments (not least treasury) would not like to see these powers handed out to other bodies. The mayors are likely to be the best place to hand the authority and funding for leveling up.

That's a crossparty matter, all govts since the 80s have taken autonomy away from local govt, handed down statutory obligations that squeezed out discretionary spending and are now just overwhelming budgets. I don't know about Wales but govts at Holyrood have done the same. It's notable the civil service is not any better at managing spending at national level(UK or Scotland), but they do now have all the money.

[Talksteer]

hidetheelephants said:

Talksteer said:

Finally the civil service is structurally an obstacle to levelling up. The UK is so centralised that the way the levelling up funds have worked so far has been that areas compete for funding for which the criteria for success and the judging of the submissions is set centrally. The reason it's done that way is that there isn't the bodies at sub national levels with the competence to handle this and various departments (not least treasury) would not like to see these powers handed out to other bodies. The mayors are likely to be the best place to hand the authority and funding for leveling up.

That's a crossparty matter, all govts since the 80s have taken autonomy away from local govt, handed down statutory obligations that squeezed out discretionary spending and are now just overwhelming budgets. I don't know about Wales but govts at Holyrood have done the same. It's notable the civil service is not any better at managing spending at national level(UK or Scotland), but they do now have all the money.

All this was on people like Cummings, Osbourne and Gove's radars for years (remember Northern Powerhouse), however it all comes back to my previous point about people=policy the Conservative government was incapable of delivering on these organisational changes despite easily being in government long enough to have accomplished it.

[S600BSB]

Talksteer said:

hidetheelephants said:

Talksteer said:

Finally the civil service is structurally an obstacle to levelling up. The UK is so centralised that the way the levelling up funds have worked so far has been that areas compete for funding for which the criteria for success and the judging of the submissions is set centrally. The reason it's done that way is that there isn't the bodies at sub national levels with the competence to handle this and various departments (not least treasury) would not like to see these powers handed out to other bodies. The mayors are likely to be the best place to hand the authority and funding for leveling up.

That's a crossparty matter, all govts since the 80s have taken autonomy away from local govt, handed down statutory obligations that squeezed out discretionary spending and are now just overwhelming budgets. I don't know about Wales but govts at Holyrood have done the same. It's notable the civil service is not any better at managing spending at national level(UK or Scotland), but they do now have all the money.

All this was on people like Cummings, Osbourne and Gove's radars for years (remember Northern Powerhouse), however it all comes back to my previous point about people=policy the Conservative government was incapable of delivering on these organisational changes despite easily being in government long enough to have accomplished it.

Quite right. One of the characteristics of this government is that they have been so poor at the processes of governing - policy development through to delivery. Mind you, they have also been wretched at the politics - Rwanda etc etc.