My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Would be better if the Labour Party came to their senses and appointed a leader that had a chance of winning an election without some sort of ridiculous, un-democratic, stitch up.
How is it un-democratic or a stitch-up? It is just recognition that first past the post voting systems are undemocratic if you have more than 2 credible choices.
If the Labour and Lib-Dems were to formally merge before the next election would that be un-democratic?
Colluding with other parties is clearly a stitch up. Quite why the SNP would enter into this little scheme is unclear, if the SNPs goal is independence then a Tory government in Westminster is the quickest way to achieve that.
Now if Labour and the Lib-Dems want to amalgamate their parties then that would be fair, but having a carve up between parties is desperation personified.
It's astonishing that despite a few years of austerity and clear dissatisfaction with the establishment from Labours traditional northern working class vote they appear so far away from winning an election that someone would even suggest this sort of thing.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Labour lost the last election. So if labour only contest seats they already hold, the best they can do is get the same amount of seats & lose again ?
Am I missing your point, or does your point make no sense ?
Labour's only hope of getting any where near power again, or this country of having a non-Tory government in the next 30 years, is for Labour, Lib Dems and SNP to form coalition governments.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Labour lost the last election. So if labour only contest seats they already hold, the best they can do is get the same amount of seats & lose again ?
Am I missing your point, or does your point make no sense ?
Labour's only hope of getting any where near power again, or this country of having a non-Tory government in the next 30 years, is for Labour, Lib Dems and SNP to form coalition governments.
I think I'm being incredibly thick, because I still don't understand.
I understand a 3 party coalition beating the Tories, but surely Labour can't achieve that by ONLY contesting seats they already hold ? Surely, you're suggesting Labour don't contest any of the Tory seats ?
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Labour lost the last election. So if labour only contest seats they already hold, the best they can do is get the same amount of seats & lose again ?
Am I missing your point, or does your point make no sense ?
Labour's only hope of getting any where near power again, or this country of having a non-Tory government in the next 30 years, is for Labour, Lib Dems and SNP to form coalition governments.
I think I'm being incredibly thick, because I still don't understand.
I understand a 3 party coalition beating the Tories, but surely Labour can't achieve that by ONLY contesting seats they already hold ? Surely, you're suggesting Labour don't contest any of the Tory seats ?
The Torys only have 16 seat majority at the moment (or something close to that). If Labour were to retain all their seats (which would be more achievable if they were only contesting the Tory party in those seats) and the Lib-Dems won an extra 15 - 25 seats in the south of England (which would be more achievable if they were only contesting the Tory party in those seats) and the SNP retained all their seats (which is very likely), then the Tory Party would not be able to win a majority.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Labour lost the last election. So if labour only contest seats they already hold, the best they can do is get the same amount of seats & lose again ?
Am I missing your point, or does your point make no sense ?
Labour's only hope of getting any where near power again, or this country of having a non-Tory government in the next 30 years, is for Labour, Lib Dems and SNP to form coalition governments.
I think I'm being incredibly thick, because I still don't understand.
I understand a 3 party coalition beating the Tories, but surely Labour can't achieve that by ONLY contesting seats they already hold ? Surely, you're suggesting Labour don't contest any of the Tory seats ?
The Torys only have 16 seat majority at the moment (or something close to that). If Labour were to retain all their seats (which would be more achievable if they were only contesting the Tory party in those seats) and the Lib-Dems won an extra 15 - 25 seats in the south of England (which would be more achievable if they were only contesting the Tory party in those seats) and the SNP retained all their seats (which is very likely), then the Tory Party would not be able to win a majority.
Ah, I see. I was being thick.
Decent theory, but I think it highly unlikely to work in practice.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Labour lost the last election. So if labour only contest seats they already hold, the best they can do is get the same amount of seats & lose again ?
Am I missing your point, or does your point make no sense ?
Labour's only hope of getting any where near power again, or this country of having a non-Tory government in the next 30 years, is for Labour, Lib Dems and SNP to form coalition governments.
I think I'm being incredibly thick, because I still don't understand.
I understand a 3 party coalition beating the Tories, but surely Labour can't achieve that by ONLY contesting seats they already hold ? Surely, you're suggesting Labour don't contest any of the Tory seats ?
The Torys only have 16 seat majority at the moment (or something close to that). If Labour were to retain all their seats (which would be more achievable if they were only contesting the Tory party in those seats) and the Lib-Dems won an extra 15 - 25 seats in the south of England (which would be more achievable if they were only contesting the Tory party in those seats) and the SNP retained all their seats (which is very likely), then the Tory Party would not be able to win a majority.
But many LD votors in parts of the South and South West probably dislike Labour more than the Tories. And the SNP don't want to be a minority party in a UK Labour government, as to them Labour are the enemy
Labour reminds me of the Starks from Game of Thrones.
They focused all their resources on the better-supplied and in power Tories (Lannisters) in the South that they did not realise the danger of the SNP (Ironborn) taking their seats North of the border until it was too late. Soon their House faced internal rebellion and their traditional strongholds faced a schism and only a bloody war between the loyalists and rebels will sort this out.
I see the Scotland thing in a wider context than only the referendum. Angus Robertson in the House of Commons was pretty blunt and angry after the referendum as was the Scottish Euro MP. Now it may be true that Sturgeon has no authority with regard to the EU as things stand, however as circumstances are, with the Scottish independence vote, followed by the virtual takeover by the SNP, followed by the referendum, it is hardly a sign that Scotland are comfortably reconciled to the United Kingdom. I remember Cameron going on about how the Queen (god bless you ma'am) was 'purring' after the independence result, I would like to know how Theresa May will get the Queen (god bless you ma'am) to purr again with regard to Scotland.
Cameron is a traditional Etonian Unionist, he really cared that the Union stayed together for emotional reasons.
I doubt that May will feel so strongly, she'll want the Union to survive, but politically and economically it wouldn't be the end of the world if Scotland did leave
I see the Scotland thing in a wider context than only the referendum. Angus Robertson in the House of Commons was pretty blunt and angry after the referendum as was the Scottish Euro MP. Now it may be true that Sturgeon has no authority with regard to the EU as things stand, however as circumstances are, with the Scottish independence vote, followed by the virtual takeover by the SNP, followed by the referendum, it is hardly a sign that Scotland are comfortably reconciled to the United Kingdom. I remember Cameron going on about how the Queen (god bless you ma'am) was 'purring' after the independence result, I would like to know how Theresa May will get the Queen (god bless you ma'am) to purr again with regard to Scotland.
Cameron is a traditional Etonian Unionist, he really cared that the Union stayed together for emotional reasons.
I doubt that May will feel so strongly, she'll want the Union to survive, but politically and economically it wouldn't be the end of the world if Scotland did leave
Until you factor in holding on to Northern Ireland....
If that's the outcome, I expect the Horsemen will be saddling their mounts as we speak.
Comments
Now if Labour and the Lib-Dems want to amalgamate their parties then that would be fair, but having a carve up between parties is desperation personified.
It's astonishing that despite a few years of austerity and clear dissatisfaction with the establishment from Labours traditional northern working class vote they appear so far away from winning an election that someone would even suggest this sort of thing.
I understand a 3 party coalition beating the Tories, but surely Labour can't achieve that by ONLY contesting seats they already hold ?
Surely, you're suggesting Labour don't contest any of the Tory seats ?
Decent theory, but I think it highly unlikely to work in practice.
They focused all their resources on the better-supplied and in power Tories (Lannisters) in the South that they did not realise the danger of the SNP (Ironborn) taking their seats North of the border until it was too late. Soon their House faced internal rebellion and their traditional strongholds faced a schism and only a bloody war between the loyalists and rebels will sort this out.
I doubt that May will feel so strongly, she'll want the Union to survive, but politically and economically it wouldn't be the end of the world if Scotland did leave
If that's the outcome, I expect the Horsemen will be saddling their mounts as we speak.