There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
Give us a quick TLDW. Got stuff to do shortly.
Have they made some sort of breakthrough in virtual representation ?
Very realistic avatars with full range of expressions. Discussion of having your avatar run by an AI representation of you so you can have personal one-to-one interactions with millions of people at the same time.
The sort of futuristic discussion that could have been had 30 years ago about the use of smartphones to have video conversations across the globe and how that would change things. This is sort of similar but the next step.
The avatars are still in the uncanny valley. Despite saying in the video the eyes are realistic, it still feels off. It needs to be a lot better than this for it to be not creepy. It looks like it has high novelty value, hence why Leon is shedding his load, but it's not ready for longevity, not yet.
Not yet just means soon. Imagine 100m MAGATs having their own personal Donald to talk to.
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
Give us a quick TLDW. Got stuff to do shortly.
Have they made some sort of breakthrough in virtual representation ?
Very realistic avatars with full range of expressions. Discussion of having your avatar run by an AI representation of you so you can have personal one-to-one interactions with millions of people at the same time.
The sort of futuristic discussion that could have been had 30 years ago about the use of smartphones to have video conversations across the globe and how that would change things. This is sort of similar but the next step.
The avatars are still in the uncanny valley. Despite saying in the video the eyes are realistic, it still feels off. It needs to be a lot better than this for it to be not creepy. It looks like it has high novelty value, hence why Leon is shedding his load, but it's not ready for longevity, not yet.
Not yet just means soon. Imagine 100m MAGATs having their own personal Donald to talk to.
With better hair.
Donald Trump will be long dead before 100m morons have access to this tech, even in its not-much-better-than-N64 guise
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Truly the idiocracy.
I do think democracy is quite fragile in the US, because there is such a long record of people resorting to violence and foul play to drive their enemies from power (eg the Redeemers in the South, or a lot of machine poliicians in big cities teeming up with organised crime).
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
Instead of a Teams call you can have a really, really creepy Teams call.
Is it going to be bigger than 3D television?
Yes. This is scratch-and-sniff television. You can lean forward with your tongue out and taste Mark Zuckerberg's chin. Feel his warm breath on your forehead. This is how it's going to be with working from home. Every Teams call will be a writhing festival of body heat and the touch of cotton on cotton.
I know some fairly nerdy sex workers who are experimenting with such things. Or had been until Unity knifed small developers.
But again, anything approaching photorealism is a drawback right now given the uncanny valley problem. It works much better for eg. furry or waifu.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
What an idiotic thing to say
“Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!”
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
That's exactly what it does.
In the old days, angry green pen letters would have been largely edited or filtered out of newspapers, and the editors allowed a spectrum of views in the letters page that represented readers.
That requires objectivity and integrity but I think most would be fair. The point is that good discussion in public - except in small groups in the pub where people largely self-moderate - requires a level of active moderation for the debate to be of a quality that facilitates breadth of expression and unlocks freer thought.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
And in the media in general ,"narrowcasting" has replaced broadcasting. People can now choose to only hear and see things they want to hear or see.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
As you agree with the numbers, the numbers (2015, 2017 and 2019 GEs) suggest that Labour is more likely than the LDs to beat the Tories in a two-way fight. As somebody once said:
As an aside, I think AI in video games is going to make a far bigger difference for far more people than Meta's joyous plan to try and become indispensable (and charge a slice for that by making every action/interaction go through their metaverse filter).
Meta and companies like it seek to exploit and control every aspect of people's lives to enrich on an unimaginable scale a very few people while refusing to contribute taxes to the societies in which they operate.
Naive and simplistic as this may sound to the breathlessly excited on here, they need taking down several pegs not enabling and praising.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
As you agree with the numbers, the numbers (2015, 2017 and 2019 GEs) suggest that Labour is more likely than the LDs to beat the Tories in a two-way fight. As somebody once said:
I agree with Nick.
No it's a completely simplistic view. There are many more voters who would NEVER vote Labour or Tory than voters would NEVER vote Lib Dem. And the turnout in a by-election is completely different to a general election.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
On this website we get really good debates and not echo chambers, which is part of what makes this site so good and much better to discuss politics on than the likes of Twitter.
Yebbut I don't see many changing their positions in the argument, despite one salient counterexample
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
Give us a quick TLDW. Got stuff to do shortly.
Have they made some sort of breakthrough in virtual representation ?
Very realistic avatars with full range of expressions. Discussion of having your avatar run by an AI representation of you so you can have personal one-to-one interactions with millions of people at the same time.
The sort of futuristic discussion that could have been had 30 years ago about the use of smartphones to have video conversations across the globe and how that would change things. This is sort of similar but the next step.
The avatars are still in the uncanny valley. Despite saying in the video the eyes are realistic, it still feels off. It needs to be a lot better than this for it to be not creepy. It looks like it has high novelty value, hence why Leon is shedding his load, but it's not ready for longevity, not yet.
Not yet just means soon. Imagine 100m MAGATs having their own personal Donald to talk to.
With better hair.
Donald Trump will be long dead before 100m morons have access to this tech, even in its not-much-better-than-N64 guise
First, that's hardly the point. Second, he's only 77, so probably not.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
As you agree with the numbers, the numbers (2015, 2017 and 2019 GEs) suggest that Labour is more likely than the LDs to beat the Tories in a two-way fight. As somebody once said:
I agree with Nick.
No it's a completely simplistic view. There are many more voters who would NEVER vote Labour or Tory than voters would NEVER vote Lib Dem. And the turnout in a by-election is completely different to a general election.
Fair enough, if you're right then the LDs will sail to victory. Seems odd that Labour are the bookies' favourites, though. We'll see.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Truly the idiocracy.
I do think democracy is quite fragile in the US, because there is such a long record of people resorting to violence and foul play to drive their enemies from power (eg the Redeemers in the South, or a lot of machine poliicians in big cities teeming up with organised crime).
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
Democracy of course began thousands of years ago with the Athenians. There will likely always be some form of representative democracy and of course there was for centuries even if the franchise was somewhat restricted
I’ve ‘sort of’ followed the discussion about Teams and Meta’s competitor, without experience of either, but with considerable experience of Zoom. As a ‘retired’, who can’t get about easily I use Zoom quite a lot. I attend talks on Zoom, which are also, sometimes, attended and contributed to by people from other countries and I also participate in, and sometimes host, meetings on Zoom, both socially and family. For example, tomorrow afternoon my wife and I will have our regular Zoom with her brother and his wife, whom we cannot now travel to see, nor they us. She also has regular Zoom meetings with friends from far away. Works very well.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
The LDs started from third in both North Shropshire and Tiverton & Honiton.
Re the Sycamore tree. Has anyone identified a criminal offence which may have been committed yet? Did it have a TPO?
I'm not querying the awfulness of the destruction. Just wondering what someone could be charged with?
Also I hope the wood from the felled tree is used to create something beautiful - perhaps a carving in miniature of the tree itself, made out of its own wood.
(Edited: I see @JosiasJessop has asked the same question. That'll teach me to comment before reading the thread.)
Criminal damage for starters, it was owned by the National Trust
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Well that is up to Americans.
Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and not rely on Americans not electing isolationist Presidents
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
Yet we're all still here.
I see Nato's weakness has led to Russia taking more chances around the Romanian border. Ought they to be so relaxed about this?
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Truly the idiocracy.
I do think democracy is quite fragile in the US, because there is such a long record of people resorting to violence and foul play to drive their enemies from power (eg the Redeemers in the South, or a lot of machine poliicians in big cities teeming up with organised crime).
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
Democracy of course began thousands of years ago with the Athenians. There will likely always be some form of representative democracy and of course there was for centuries even if the franchise was somewhat restricted
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Well that is up to Americans.
Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and not rely on Americans not electing isolationist Presidents
If it was Europe v Russia, without America involved, Russia wouldn't stand a chance.
Re the Sycamore tree. Has anyone identified a criminal offence which may have been committed yet? Did it have a TPO?
I'm not querying the awfulness of the destruction. Just wondering what someone could be charged with?
Also I hope the wood from the felled tree is used to create something beautiful - perhaps a carving in miniature of the tree itself, made out of its own wood.
(Edited: I see @JosiasJessop has asked the same question. That'll teach me to comment before reading the thread.)
Maybe if the tree falling damaged a bit of Hadrian’s Wall, even minor damage, the culprit could be done for damaging a listed monument if they can’t get them for cutting the tree down itself.
Wasn't the tree part of a C18 plantation? In that case it is arguably part of the contemporary response to the Wall - and the evolution of the Wall landscape, and therefore relevant to EH protection. Normally trees that close to ancient monuments would have been cut down long ago, because of root damage. But this one wasn't.
Sir Norfolk Passmore (IIRC) came up with another possible charge, but I forget what the technical term is - to do with assault on public feelings.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
As you agree with the numbers, the numbers (2015, 2017 and 2019 GEs) suggest that Labour is more likely than the LDs to beat the Tories in a two-way fight. As somebody once said:
I agree with Nick.
Given that it starts as a safe Tory seat, winning is far less to do with how many people voted for you last time, and mostly to do with who disgruntled previous supporters of the government are inclined (and indeed willing) to vote for this time. The LibDems can win from third because, often, unhappy Tories simply aren't prepared to vote Labour.
The question is whether Starmer has jettisoned so much of what Labour has previously stood for, and signed up to keeping so much of the Tories' stuff, that he's now seen as essentially harmless. The risk being that harmless isn't a long way from pointless.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Truly the idiocracy.
I do think democracy is quite fragile in the US, because there is such a long record of people resorting to violence and foul play to drive their enemies from power (eg the Redeemers in the South, or a lot of machine poliicians in big cities teeming up with organised crime).
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
Democracy of course began thousands of years ago with the Athenians. There will likely always be some form of representative democracy and of course there was for centuries even if the franchise was somewhat restricted
Mary Beard as I live and breathe
Athenian democracy wasn't representative (except in the sense that a lot of public business was done by the randomly selected Boule) as I understand it.
They could of course exile or execute particularly obnoxious politicians or failed politicians.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Well that is up to Americans.
Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and not rely on Americans not electing isolationist Presidents
Or indeed the British not electing useless Tory governments.
I’ve posted it before and I’ll post it again. The LibDems won’t win in Mid-Beds. The demographics are all wrong, especially with a NIMBY Tory flavour independent in the mix in the big town. Nick Palmer is correct - their main contribution is to make it winnable for the Tories.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
Yet we're all still here.
I see Nato's weakness has led to Russia taking more chances around the Romanian border. Ought they to be so relaxed about this?
This website is better than most.
By no means is it confined to politics.
I once wrote a short article in which I criticised a popular fan theory in relation to a TV series, and got responses on the lines of "You're damaging other peoples' mental health", "shitting on other peoples' creativity", and "nobody wants to read what you think about this" (begging the question, why did they bother reading it?"
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
As you agree with the numbers, the numbers (2015, 2017 and 2019 GEs) suggest that Labour is more likely than the LDs to beat the Tories in a two-way fight. As somebody once said:
I agree with Nick.
Given that it starts as a safe Tory seat, winning is far less to do with how many people voted for you last time, and mostly to do with who disgruntled previous supporters of the government are inclined (and indeed willing) to vote for this time. The LibDems can win from third because, often, unhappy Tories simply aren't prepared to vote Labour.
The question is whether Starmer has jettisoned so much of what Labour has previously stood for, and signed up to keeping so much of the Tories' stuff, that he's now seen as essentially harmless. The risk being that harmless isn't a long way from pointless.
There’s a popular (in some parts of the constituency - same flavour as the indies that run the council) local independent (ex-Tory obviously). That changes a lot of the balance you are talking about. You can start from 60% leak 20%, and still win, so long as it doesn’t go to your main rival.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
As you agree with the numbers, the numbers (2015, 2017 and 2019 GEs) suggest that Labour is more likely than the LDs to beat the Tories in a two-way fight. As somebody once said:
I agree with Nick.
Given that it starts as a safe Tory seat, winning is far less to do with how many people voted for you last time, and mostly to do with who disgruntled previous supporters of the government are inclined (and indeed willing) to vote for this time. The LibDems can win from third because, often, unhappy Tories simply aren't prepared to vote Labour.
The question is whether Starmer has jettisoned so much of what Labour has previously stood for, and signed up to keeping so much of the Tories' stuff, that he's now seen as essentially harmless. The risk being that harmless isn't a long way from pointless.
There’s a popular (in some parts of the constituency - same flavour as the indies that run the council) local independent (ex-Tory obviously). That changes a lot of the balance you are talking about. You can start from 60% leak 20%, and still win, so long as it doesn’t go to your main rival.
Not really. Candidates like that almost always just bring in a few hundred votes, a thousand at most.
Re the Sycamore tree. Has anyone identified a criminal offence which may have been committed yet? Did it have a TPO?
I'm not querying the awfulness of the destruction. Just wondering what someone could be charged with?
Also I hope the wood from the felled tree is used to create something beautiful - perhaps a carving in miniature of the tree itself, made out of its own wood.
(Edited: I see @JosiasJessop has asked the same question. That'll teach me to comment before reading the thread.)
Maybe if the tree falling damaged a bit of Hadrian’s Wall, even minor damage, the culprit could be done for damaging a listed monument if they can’t get them for cutting the tree down itself.
Wasn't the tree part of a C18 plantation? In that case it is arguably part of the contemporary response to the Wall - and the evolution of the Wall landscape, and therefore relevant to EH protection. Normally trees that close to ancient monuments would have been cut down long ago, because of root damage. But this one wasn't.
Sir Norfolk Passmore (IIRC) came up with another possible charge, but I forget what the technical term is - to do with assault on public feelings.
I have seen a suggestion that so many ashes are scattered there, it might be desecration or a grave, which gets you to those offences.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
You are both right.
Btw, I used to be a constituent in Guildford and I can remember voting for Sue Doughty, the LD candidate. I once spoke to the Labour candidate there about this and he approved wholeheartedly, though unofficially! The problem of course is FPTP, so you kind of have to game the system if you can.
It shouldn't be carried to extremes though, and in Mid-Beds, where the LDs have a squeak, they certainly should go flat out, and if it hands the seat to the Tories, so be it.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Truly the idiocracy.
I do think democracy is quite fragile in the US, because there is such a long record of people resorting to violence and foul play to drive their enemies from power (eg the Redeemers in the South, or a lot of machine poliicians in big cities teeming up with organised crime).
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
Democracy of course began thousands of years ago with the Athenians. There will likely always be some form of representative democracy and of course there was for centuries even if the franchise was somewhat restricted
Mary Beard as I live and breathe
Athenian democracy wasn't representative (except in the sense that a lot of public business was done by the randomly selected Boule) as I understand it.
They could of course exile or execute particularly obnoxious politicians or failed politicians.
Well, it did exclude women, metics, men under 30, and slaves, about 85% of the adult population in total. Greek democracy was essentially the assembly of the army (and navy, in the case of Athens), minus the younger soldiers.
It's real problem was - as with the US - the resort to violence and foul play.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Truly the idiocracy.
I do think democracy is quite fragile in the US, because there is such a long record of people resorting to violence and foul play to drive their enemies from power (eg the Redeemers in the South, or a lot of machine poliicians in big cities teeming up with organised crime).
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
As you agree with the numbers, the numbers (2015, 2017 and 2019 GEs) suggest that Labour is more likely than the LDs to beat the Tories in a two-way fight. As somebody once said:
I agree with Nick.
Given that it starts as a safe Tory seat, winning is far less to do with how many people voted for you last time, and mostly to do with who disgruntled previous supporters of the government are inclined (and indeed willing) to vote for this time. The LibDems can win from third because, often, unhappy Tories simply aren't prepared to vote Labour.
The question is whether Starmer has jettisoned so much of what Labour has previously stood for, and signed up to keeping so much of the Tories' stuff, that he's now seen as essentially harmless. The risk being that harmless isn't a long way from pointless.
There’s a popular (in some parts of the constituency - same flavour as the indies that run the council) local independent (ex-Tory obviously). That changes a lot of the balance you are talking about. You can start from 60% leak 20%, and still win, so long as it doesn’t go to your main rival.
Not really. Candidates like that almost always just bring in a few hundred votes at most.
You’re usually right on this. You’re not in this case. He won’t get the 20+% in some polls (sampling error) but he will get thousands.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
I agree with your first 2 paras completely Nick, but that wasn't the point I was making. This started with me challenging your post where you thought the LDs were the spoilers and I disagreed. The argument could be put that Lab are the spoilers. It is a matter of opinion, probably highly biased by whom you and I support. I'll repeat what I said so you don't have to find it:
"Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour."
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
Yet we're all still here.
I see Nato's weakness has led to Russia taking more chances around the Romanian border. Ought they to be so relaxed about this?
"nobody wants to read what you think about this" (begging the question, why did they bother reading it?"
This means they have read it, disagreed with you and are angry you are broadcasting a view different to theirs.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Nick is quite right here and it does labour no good if the Lib Dems are always going to be seen as challengers in by-elections in seats where labour were a comfortable second. Labour want to govern on their own. Not hamstrung by the yellow NIMBY machine. They are right to go for it.
In 2019 Labour were "a comfortable second" in a fair number of seats because a number of voting sites told people that Labour were the best option to reverse the disastrous Brexit the Tories were creating.
That particular scenario is now dead and buried, especially since Labour are so timid of even mentioning the EU. Worse than that - Labour are scared of saying what they think on any important issue at all.
What Labour really want, as Mr Taz says, is to grab all power unto themselves and impose a dictatorship of the proletariat, which does not have to pay any attention to what ordinary people want. Cue... Labour sneers about NIMBYs. Big Brother knows best.....
People are disgusted by the incompetent and self-serving dictatorship the Conservatives are busy creating, but that is no reason to head for a Socialist dictatorship instead.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
Yet we're all still here.
I see Nato's weakness has led to Russia taking more chances around the Romanian border. Ought they to be so relaxed about this?
"nobody wants to read what you think about this" (begging the question, why did they bother reading it?"
This means they have read it, disagreed with you and are angry you are broadcasting a view different to theirs.
The notion of don't like, don't read/watch/listen to really is alien to some people.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
It might help Labour that their conference comes last so perhaps if that goes well it could help them in Mid-Beds .
It gave me some restored faith in our democracy that the change of order arose from Labour wanting a block booking in that venue, 2023 not being available, and the Tories agreeing to move for them.
Mr. Alan, a lot of 'narrowcasting' happens naturally online. When people read an actual newspaper or browse a Christmas gift catalogue it's common to flick through the pages, which may find a surprisingly interesting item. But when checking online, people tend to check out categories they mostly like, which, for the most part, cuts out the extra-curricular (as it were) items they might have find when using physical media.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
That might happen but the current system is grossly unfair , forcing many to be forced into either tactical voting or not voting at all.
Re the Sycamore tree. Has anyone identified a criminal offence which may have been committed yet? Did it have a TPO?
I'm not querying the awfulness of the destruction. Just wondering what someone could be charged with?
Also I hope the wood from the felled tree is used to create something beautiful - perhaps a carving in miniature of the tree itself, made out of its own wood.
(Edited: I see @JosiasJessop has asked the same question. That'll teach me to comment before reading the thread.)
Maybe if the tree falling damaged a bit of Hadrian’s Wall, even minor damage, the culprit could be done for damaging a listed monument if they can’t get them for cutting the tree down itself.
Wasn't the tree part of a C18 plantation? In that case it is arguably part of the contemporary response to the Wall - and the evolution of the Wall landscape, and therefore relevant to EH protection. Normally trees that close to ancient monuments would have been cut down long ago, because of root damage. But this one wasn't.
Sir Norfolk Passmore (IIRC) came up with another possible charge, but I forget what the technical term is - to do with assault on public feelings.
Why do we not designate particular iconic trees as national monuments, as they do in Korea ?
Mr. Farooq, don't worry. You'll soon be able to make an AI Morris Dancer that says the exact same things but replies to people using the quote function.
[To be honest, I mostly forget the function exists. But the disgruntled condemnation of others isn't exactly an encouragement to try and remember.]
Morris Dancer, please use the quote function because it gives your pearls of wisdom context and makes them even more lustrous.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
It’s an academic debate anyway. Labour, in Government, will always find an excuse to avoid PR. Too many, by that stage, sitting MPs would lose jobs because of it. The best they might do is the crappy AV model.
NB: Were they ever to get a majority, the LibDems would stop wanting PR too. It’s human nature.
It might help Labour that their conference comes last so perhaps if that goes well it could help them in Mid-Beds .
Yes, going last was often credited with giving the Tories a boost back in the Cameron era.
Speaking of which, does anyone know why Labour are going last this time round? It doesn't seem to be a matter of taking turns, as the Tories have been last every year of the century so far.
ETA: Never mind - @biggles answered my question in the previous post!
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
That might happen but the current system is grossly unfair , forcing many to be forced into either tactical voting or not voting at all.
Re the Sycamore tree. Has anyone identified a criminal offence which may have been committed yet? Did it have a TPO?
I'm not querying the awfulness of the destruction. Just wondering what someone could be charged with?
Also I hope the wood from the felled tree is used to create something beautiful - perhaps a carving in miniature of the tree itself, made out of its own wood.
(Edited: I see @JosiasJessop has asked the same question. That'll teach me to comment before reading the thread.)
Maybe if the tree falling damaged a bit of Hadrian’s Wall, even minor damage, the culprit could be done for damaging a listed monument if they can’t get them for cutting the tree down itself.
Wasn't the tree part of a C18 plantation? In that case it is arguably part of the contemporary response to the Wall - and the evolution of the Wall landscape, and therefore relevant to EH protection. Normally trees that close to ancient monuments would have been cut down long ago, because of root damage. But this one wasn't.
Sir Norfolk Passmore (IIRC) came up with another possible charge, but I forget what the technical term is - to do with assault on public feelings.
Why do we not designate particular iconic trees as national monuments, as they do in Korea ?
If only there were some sort of, what can we call it, meta-universe? Inside which they could create a virtual tree, which would look and feel real in 3D, and then we could just install a headset that people visiting that spot could put on to enjoy the original view. Resolving their grief, as it were....
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
As you agree with the numbers, the numbers (2015, 2017 and 2019 GEs) suggest that Labour is more likely than the LDs to beat the Tories in a two-way fight. As somebody once said:
I agree with Nick.
No it's a completely simplistic view. There are many more voters who would NEVER vote Labour or Tory than voters would NEVER vote Lib Dem. And the turnout in a by-election is completely different to a general election.
Fair enough, if you're right then the LDs will sail to victory. Seems odd that Labour are the bookies' favourites, though. We'll see.
Bookies may be over-estimating the likelihood of the one poll we've seen (from some organisation called 'Labour Together) being any way reflective of the views of the people who will actually vote.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Truly the idiocracy.
I do think democracy is quite fragile in the US, because there is such a long record of people resorting to violence and foul play to drive their enemies from power (eg the Redeemers in the South, or a lot of machine poliicians in big cities teeming up with organised crime).
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
Democracy of course began thousands of years ago with the Athenians. There will likely always be some form of representative democracy and of course there was for centuries even if the franchise was somewhat restricted
Mary Beard as I live and breathe
Athenian democracy wasn't representative (except in the sense that a lot of public business was done by the randomly selected Boule) as I understand it.
They could of course exile or execute particularly obnoxious politicians or failed politicians.
Well, it did exclude women, metics, men under 30, and slaves, about 85% of the adult population in total. Greek democracy was essentially the assembly of the army (and navy, in the case of Athens), minus the younger soldiers.
It's real problem was - as with the US - the resort to violence and foul play.
So, it was a little bit like here before the Great Reform Act then, just more military based?
Ours was more land-based, I suspect, largely because the peace of the realm was by and large assured with a decent navy.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Well that is up to Americans.
Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and not rely on Americans not electing isolationist Presidents
Or indeed the British not electing useless Tory governments.
Boris of course played a key role in providing Ukraine with initial support
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Well that is up to Americans.
Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and not rely on Americans not electing isolationist Presidents
If it was Europe v Russia, without America involved, Russia wouldn't stand a chance.
Outside the UK, France and Poland I don't see much martial spirit in Europe.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
And your point is? Not everyone wants PR just so they can win. They want it to make stuff more fair. One of the main reasons I got involved many decades ago was for constitutional reform. You do it because it is right. Not for self interest.
I'm also not centre-left or left at all. In fact as a (proper) Liberal I would expect the views I stand for to lose votes under PR because what I stand for would both lose some current support to a Social Democrat party and a Centre Right party. But I support it because it is right.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
That might happen but the current system is grossly unfair , forcing many to be forced into either tactical voting or not voting at all.
Be careful what you wish for.
I understand where you’re coming from but at the end of the day our politics would be more representative and also more interesting .
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Indeed, Italy has PR. Who is in power? The hard right Meloni.
Germany has PR and the hard right AfD is surging. Sweden has PR and a government reliant on the Sweden Democrats for confidence and supply.
New Zealand has PR and the governing Labour party looks headed for defeat
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
I'm hoping LD and Lab are doing this so they can have a bit more bargaining power when they do negotiate who is priority in which seats.
With the coalitions of support for each party changing, I think it's hard to say where Lab or LD are strongest. 2019 result is probably the best evidence, but still likely to be wrong in different ways in different seats.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Well that is up to Americans.
Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and not rely on Americans not electing isolationist Presidents
If it was Europe v Russia, without America involved, Russia wouldn't stand a chance.
Outside the UK, France and Poland I don't see much martial spirit in Europe.
The Danes don’t shy away from military endeavours, the Finns would certainly fight their ground, the Swedes have a big military as well as a large urban auxiliary force who have been practising recently with their firearm and explosives skills. If you include Turkey you have another large, well equipped army.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Well that is up to Americans.
Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and not rely on Americans not electing isolationist Presidents
If it was Europe v Russia, without America involved, Russia wouldn't stand a chance.
Outside the UK, France and Poland I don't see much martial spirit in Europe.
Uk, France, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Romania, the 3 Baltics, all taking significant active military steps both at home and in supporting Ukraine to counter Russia. A bunch of other countries less martial spirited but still supporting Ukraine. And a handful, notably Italy and of course Hungary, somewhat nonplussed.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
That might happen but the current system is grossly unfair , forcing many to be forced into either tactical voting or not voting at all.
Be careful what you wish for.
That is the point of elections. You might not get what you want. They should be fair.
To take it to its extreme we could always go for a dictatorship and remove the risk of not getting what you wish for.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
The argument is that it's a fairer, more representative voting system.
Not that it guarantees a majority for a particular viewpoint.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Indeed, Italy has PR. Who is in power? The hard right Meloni.
Germany has PR and the hard right AfD is surging. Sweden has PR and a government reliant on the Sweden Democrats for confidence and supply.
New Zealand has PR and the governing Labour party looks headed for defeat
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
That might happen but the current system is grossly unfair , forcing many to be forced into either tactical voting or not voting at all.
Be careful what you wish for.
That is the point of elections. You might not get what you want. They should be fair.
To take it to its extreme we could always go for a dictatorship and remove the risk of not getting what you wish for.
"We are a nation of drivers". Is "driver" going to end up as a protected characteristic?
We've gone over this a number of times, but in my own group of friends and family there are a number of people who this new "British value" excludes:
1) Challenges with diabetes - isn't able to drive all the time. 2) Epilepsy. Particularly tricky in the north of Scotland. 3) Old age/problems with hands 4) Entry costs are too high (lessons, test etc) - about a third of my friends
This isn't to comment on the political effectiveness of this messaging. It may well be a good move by Sunak. But there are openings to exploit for Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Indeed, Italy has PR. Who is in power? The hard right Meloni.
Germany has PR and the hard right AfD is surging. Sweden has PR and a government reliant on the Sweden Democrats for confidence and supply.
New Zealand has PR and the governing Labour party looks headed for defeat
Even you have to admit that in 2005 a decent Labour majority on what? Circa 36% was grossly unfair to 64% of the electorate. A Labour Government, in the unlikely event they ever got as high as 49% would remain grossly unfair to the 51% who voted elsewhere.
And the Tories have been governing on a minority of votes cast for most of the last 70 plus years
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
That might happen but the current system is grossly unfair , forcing many to be forced into either tactical voting or not voting at all.
Be careful what you wish for.
That is the point of elections. You might not get what you want. They should be fair.
To take it to its extreme we could always go for a dictatorship and remove the risk of not getting what you wish for.
Agreed. I can start tomorrow.
Oi, I was pitching for that job and I seem to remember @TheScreamingEagles has been touting for it for sometime. Get in the queue.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
And your point is? Not everyone wants PR just so they can win. They want it to make stuff more fair. One of the main reasons I got involved many decades ago was for constitutional reform. You do it because it is right. Not for self interest.
I'm also not centre-left or left at all. In fact as a (proper) Liberal I would expect the views I stand for to lose votes under PR because what I stand for would both lose some current support to a Social Democrat party and a Centre Right party. But I support it because it is right.
If a PR system didn't deliver the political outcome its proponents advocated for I suspect we'd see far more of them give up on the people and start arguing for a benign dictatorship, run by people just like them, instead.
I expect very right-wing governments to start being elected under this system in Europe soon that will make the Conservatives look like Mother Theresa.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
It’s an academic debate anyway. Labour, in Government, will always find an excuse to avoid PR. Too many, by that stage, sitting MPs would lose jobs because of it. The best they might do is the crappy AV model.
NB: Were they ever to get a majority, the LibDems would stop wanting PR too. It’s human nature.
The last Liberal Government was in the middle of changing the voting system over to PR, when it was interrupted by the First World War.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
The argument is that it's a fairer, more representative voting system.
Not that it guarantees a majority for a particular viewpoint.
The argument is, in reality, though, precisely the other way round.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
And your point is? Not everyone wants PR just so they can win. They want it to make stuff more fair. One of the main reasons I got involved many decades ago was for constitutional reform. You do it because it is right. Not for self interest.
I'm also not centre-left or left at all. In fact as a (proper) Liberal I would expect the views I stand for to lose votes under PR because what I stand for would both lose some current support to a Social Democrat party and a Centre Right party. But I support it because it is right.
If a PR system didn't deliver the political outcome its proponents advocated for I suspect we'd see far more of them give up on the people and start arguing for a benign dictatorship, run by people just like them, instead.
I expect very right-wing governments to start being elected under this system in Europe soon that will make the Conservatives look like Mother Theresa.
We’ve already had a borderline fascist head of state in the US, and are possibly about to get him again, in a system that makes FPTP look positively proportional.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
It’s an academic debate anyway. Labour, in Government, will always find an excuse to avoid PR. Too many, by that stage, sitting MPs would lose jobs because of it. The best they might do is the crappy AV model.
NB: Were they ever to get a majority, the LibDems would stop wanting PR too. It’s human nature.
The last Liberal Government was in the middle of changing the voting system over to PR, when it was interrupted by the First World War.
So I think you are wrong on that one, Mr Biggles.
Interesting, so we have that little man Princip to blame for the last 13 years of Tory rule.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
That might happen but the current system is grossly unfair , forcing many to be forced into either tactical voting or not voting at all.
Be careful what you wish for.
I understand where you’re coming from but at the end of the day our politics would be more representative and also more interesting .
I think fundamentally the route to better quality politics in this country is the selection of candidates on the basis of exceptional talent, and nothing else. We have lots of lickspittles, toadies and non-entities atm.
I am essentially agnostic these days about voting systems, although I detest STV, but don't think it really delivers better politics one way or another.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
That might happen but the current system is grossly unfair , forcing many to be forced into either tactical voting or not voting at all.
Be careful what you wish for.
I understand where you’re coming from but at the end of the day our politics would be more representative and also more interesting .
I think fundamentally the route to better quality politics in this country is the selection of candidates on the basis of exceptional talent, and nothing else. We have lots of lickspittles, toadies and non-entities atm.
I am essentially agnostic these days about voting systems, although I detest STV, but don't think it really delivers better politics one way or another.
Just do away with professional politicians altogether, and elect ordinary people by sortition.
@Casino_Royale for its time and place, it made sense. The political issue that mostly exercised adult Greek males was whether to go to war, and with whom. War was considered a fair way of resolving disputes between city states, in the Greek world, and hoplite warfare was intended to ensure that a dispute could be settled in a single battle, with minimum harm to non-combatants.
Those who fought were those who voted, and all adult males were expected to fight. There was no such thing as a conscientious objector. A man who shirked military service - “a trembler” - would face full loss of citizen rights, and possible execution.
The system broke down once Sparta and Athens made their bids for imperial power.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Truly the idiocracy.
I do think democracy is quite fragile in the US, because there is such a long record of people resorting to violence and foul play to drive their enemies from power (eg the Redeemers in the South, or a lot of machine poliicians in big cities teeming up with organised crime).
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
Democracy of course began thousands of years ago with the Athenians. There will likely always be some form of representative democracy and of course there was for centuries even if the franchise was somewhat restricted
Athenian democracy was rather limited in kind. Democratic forms of governance (more democratic than Athens) probably predated Athens, as David Graeber argues.
"We are a nation of drivers". Is "driver" going to end up as a protected characteristic?
We've gone over this a number of times, but in my own group of friends and family there are a number of people who this new "British value" excludes:
1) Challenges with diabetes - isn't able to drive all the time. 2) Epilepsy. Particularly tricky in the north of Scotland. 3) Old age/problems with hands 4) Entry costs are too high (lessons, test etc) - about a third of my friends
This isn't to comment on the political effectiveness of this messaging. It may well be a good move by Sunak. But there are openings to exploit for Labour.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
"Past performance is no guide to future returns". The Lib Dems also have to fight the seat for reasons noted earlier. However, if the Tories came through as a result it will concentrate minds for the next GE. So even a Tory victory could be somewhat Pyhrric..
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
It’s an academic debate anyway. Labour, in Government, will always find an excuse to avoid PR. Too many, by that stage, sitting MPs would lose jobs because of it. The best they might do is the crappy AV model.
NB: Were they ever to get a majority, the LibDems would stop wanting PR too. It’s human nature.
The last Liberal Government was in the middle of changing the voting system over to PR, when it was interrupted by the First World War.
So I think you are wrong on that one, Mr Biggles.
See, they found an excuse not to…
More seriously, the rise of the Labour Party was by then predictable and baked in. PR would have saved more seats that it lost. Pure self interest.
In my hypothetical, the LibDems would have risen to power via FTP so they’d stick with it.
"We are a nation of drivers". Is "driver" going to end up as a protected characteristic?
We've gone over this a number of times, but in my own group of friends and family there are a number of people who this new "British value" excludes:
1) Challenges with diabetes - isn't able to drive all the time. 2) Epilepsy. Particularly tricky in the north of Scotland. 3) Old age/problems with hands 4) Entry costs are too high (lessons, test etc) - about a third of my friends
This isn't to comment on the political effectiveness of this messaging. It may well be a good move by Sunak. But there are openings to exploit for Labour.
"We are a nation of drivers". Is "driver" going to end up as a protected characteristic?
We've gone over this a number of times, but in my own group of friends and family there are a number of people who this new "British value" excludes:
1) Challenges with diabetes - isn't able to drive all the time. 2) Epilepsy. Particularly tricky in the north of Scotland. 3) Old age/problems with hands 4) Entry costs are too high (lessons, test etc) - about a third of my friends
This isn't to comment on the political effectiveness of this messaging. It may well be a good move by Sunak. But there are openings to exploit for Labour.
Ahahahahahahahaha. I was joking earlier when I said their new policies were centred on bus lanes and bollards... and now:
That's hilarious. Dogshit Rishi is Prime Minister.
When is a bus lane “not in use”? Will they be open during the middle of the night when the other lanes are notoriously rammed?
Londons ones used to be temporary until covid when it changed to mostly 24 hrs. It is not at all unusual to be able to avoid a 3 minute queue waiting for traffic lights by using a clearly available but empty bus lane legally. So I am in favour of the change, but it probably impacts central London and hardly anywhere else. That the PM is bothering with it shows he can't cope with his day job.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
The argument is that it's a fairer, more representative voting system.
Not that it guarantees a majority for a particular viewpoint.
The argument is, in reality, though, precisely the other way round.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
The argument is that it's a fairer, more representative voting system.
Not that it guarantees a majority for a particular viewpoint.
The argument is, in reality, though, precisely the other way round.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
You're posting about a hypothetical world where Labour and LibDems effectively stand down for each other - as you know, neither party is up for that. However, there is a degree of unofficial understanding that if one of them are clearly the closer challenger, the other one won't try *too* hard. It's that understanding, which benefits the LibDems in places like Guildford, that they are breaking by trying hard in a seat where they are clearly third, and aggressively attacking the Labour candidate.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
That's wrong too. If the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning (and the polling suggests that they do) they should go for it.
Particularly as Labour promised to change the voting system that forces voters into these unwholesome considerations in the first place, and then broke that promise, out of what at the time they saw as their naked self-interest (in the alternative promise-kept universe, the Tories never got a majority again).
But, that's very naïve too.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Not necessarily, and I certainly wasn't saying there'd be centre-left government for ever. But there wouldn't be parties handed majority power on the back of 38-42% of the vote.
The argument is that it's a fairer, more representative voting system.
Not that it guarantees a majority for a particular viewpoint.
The argument is, in reality, though, precisely the other way round.
In your reality, perhaps.
No, that is the motive.
You have no idea of, for example, my motives. You speak for yourself.
Comments
Imagine 100m MAGATs having their own personal Donald to talk to.
With better hair.
Fucker lives in the uncanny valley already.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
But again, anything approaching photorealism is a drawback right now given the uncanny valley problem. It works much better for eg. furry or waifu.
In the old days, angry green pen letters would have been largely edited or filtered out of newspapers, and the editors allowed a spectrum of views in the letters page that represented readers.
That requires objectivity and integrity but I think most would be fair. The point is that good discussion in public - except in small groups in the pub where people largely self-moderate - requires a level of active moderation for the debate to be of a quality that facilitates breadth of expression and unlocks freer thought.
And in the media in general ,"narrowcasting" has replaced broadcasting.
People can now choose to only hear and see things they want to hear or see.
I agree with Nick.
Second, he's only 77, so probably not.
As a ‘retired’, who can’t get about easily I use Zoom quite a lot. I attend talks on Zoom, which are also, sometimes, attended and contributed to by people from other countries and I also participate in, and sometimes host, meetings on Zoom, both socially and family.
For example, tomorrow afternoon my wife and I will have our regular Zoom with her brother and his wife, whom we cannot now travel to see, nor they us. She also has regular Zoom meetings with friends from far away.
Works very well.
Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and not rely on Americans not electing isolationist Presidents
I see Nato's weakness has led to Russia taking more chances around the Romanian border. Ought they to be so relaxed about this?
Sir Norfolk Passmore (IIRC) came up with another possible charge, but I forget what the technical term is - to do with assault on public feelings.
We all have hardcore types who will go all-out in any election even if they started on 1%, but sensible parties encourage a bit of restraint and focus on winnable seats. By making it harder for second-place Labour to win in mid-Beds, it makes it more difficult for us sensible types to keep the "fight everything everywhere" school of thought in check.
I do recognise that in a month where there are three by-elections, it's understandable that the LibDems want to make a serious effort somewhere rather than just sitting them all out. But a degree of restraint in the face of the polls showing Labour within an inch of beating the Tories would be appreciated.
The question is whether Starmer has jettisoned so much of what Labour has previously stood for, and signed up to keeping so much of the Tories' stuff, that he's now seen as essentially harmless. The risk being that harmless isn't a long way from pointless.
They could of course exile or execute particularly obnoxious politicians or failed politicians.
By no means is it confined to politics.
I once wrote a short article in which I criticised a popular fan theory in relation to a TV series, and got responses on the lines of "You're damaging other peoples' mental health", "shitting on other peoples' creativity", and "nobody wants to read what you think about this" (begging the question, why did they bother reading it?"
Btw, I used to be a constituent in Guildford and I can remember voting for Sue Doughty, the LD candidate. I once spoke to the Labour candidate there about this and he approved wholeheartedly, though unofficially! The problem of course is FPTP, so you kind of have to game the system if you can.
It shouldn't be carried to extremes though, and in Mid-Beds, where the LDs have a squeak, they certainly should go flat out, and if it hands the seat to the Tories, so be it.
It's real problem was - as with the US - the resort to violence and foul play.
Local factors.
"Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win
If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour."
That particular scenario is now dead and buried, especially since Labour are so timid of even mentioning the EU. Worse than that - Labour are scared of saying what they think on any important issue at all.
What Labour really want, as Mr Taz says, is to grab all power unto themselves and impose a dictatorship of the proletariat, which does not have to pay any attention to what ordinary people want. Cue... Labour sneers about NIMBYs. Big Brother knows best.....
People are disgusted by the incompetent and self-serving dictatorship the Conservatives are busy creating, but that is no reason to head for a Socialist dictatorship instead.
The Lib Dems and Labour teaming up for PR or a change in the voting system wouldn't guarantee centre-left government forever, anymore than it does in Europe.
In fact, it would be more likely to bring radical fringe parties to power.
Behind all the crap, we still aren’t America.
How does that work for ye?
NB: Were they ever to get a majority, the LibDems would stop wanting PR too. It’s human nature.
Speaking of which, does anyone know why Labour are going last this time round? It doesn't seem to be a matter of taking turns, as the Tories have been last every year of the century so far.
ETA: Never mind - @biggles answered my question in the previous post!
Ours was more land-based, I suspect, largely because the peace of the realm was by and large assured with a decent navy.
I'm also not centre-left or left at all. In fact as a (proper) Liberal I would expect the views I stand for to lose votes under PR because what I stand for would both lose some current support to a Social Democrat party and a Centre Right party. But I support it because it is right.
in power? The hard right Meloni.
Germany has PR and the hard right AfD is surging. Sweden has PR and a government reliant on the Sweden Democrats for confidence and supply.
New Zealand has PR and the governing Labour party looks headed for defeat
With the coalitions of support for each party changing, I think it's hard to say where Lab or LD are strongest. 2019 result is probably the best evidence, but still likely to be wrong in different ways in different seats.
That is the point of elections. You might not get what you want. They should be fair.
To take it to its extreme we could always go for a dictatorship and remove the risk of not getting what you wish for.
Not that it guarantees a majority for a particular viewpoint.
We've gone over this a number of times, but in my own group of friends and family there are a number of people who this new "British value" excludes:
1) Challenges with diabetes - isn't able to drive all the time.
2) Epilepsy. Particularly tricky in the north of Scotland.
3) Old age/problems with hands
4) Entry costs are too high (lessons, test etc) - about a third of my friends
This isn't to comment on the political effectiveness of this messaging. It may well be a good move by Sunak. But there are openings to exploit for Labour.
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1708067400820687265?t=Ewfyp1XZO-02ZwvrxzPEtw&s=19
I’m voting Rishi now.
And the Tories have been governing on a minority of votes cast for most of the last 70 plus years
I expect very right-wing governments to start being elected under this system in Europe soon that will make the Conservatives look like Mother Theresa.
So I think you are wrong on that one, Mr Biggles.
I am essentially agnostic these days about voting systems, although I detest STV, but don't think it really delivers better politics one way or another.
Those who fought were those who voted, and all adult males were expected to fight. There was no such thing as a conscientious objector. A man who shirked military service - “a trembler” - would face full loss of citizen rights, and possible
execution.
The system broke down once Sparta and Athens made their bids for imperial power.
Ridiculous hyperbole.
At worst they are a mild inconvenience.
That's hilarious. Dogshit Rishi is Prime Minister.
My understanding is that you are allowed 10% plus 2 over the limiti, so the 20 is effectively 24.
Just curious, nothing else.
More seriously, the rise of the Labour Party was by then predictable and baked in. PR would have saved more seats that it lost. Pure self interest.
In my hypothetical, the LibDems would have risen to power via FTP so they’d stick with it.
You speak for yourself.