So, Labour kept the Brexit Party out in Peterborough. Thank goodness. And the Tories came third.
But should anyone be celebrating? I doubt it.
The LibDems and Green suffered as tactical voting came into play: I would have had to vote Labour in Peterborough, with all my reservations about their policy. And they remained way behind the Tory / Brexit vote in combination, which is worrying. I'd strongly suggest Labour can take little comfort from this at anything other than an immediate level.
Whilst we should all worry that the Brexit Party said the Labour Party won because the Peterborough Pakistani community supported them, playing a deeply racist card in a dangerous way when doing so.
At least the Brexit Party did not win. But there was little other comfort to be had last night, I suggest.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Agreed, but what I see in Peterborough is an advert for PR.
FPTP is finished and the centre now belongs to all political parties pushing and pulling to create policies that are fair and balanced – the centre does not belong to any one party.
Tactical voting might keep out the racist BREXIT party but it is not really a choice for a better world is it if you have to vote for the Timid Party (Labour)?
BTW Raab’s assertion about Corbyn being ‘the first anti-Semite leader since WWII’ – this is awful politics – the Tories just seem these days to know how to play nasty and dirty – they should be called ‘The Foul Party’. As long as we have politics being played out like this the country will remain a mess.
Raab should have been censured for that in my view.
Anyway, that was Churchill
Churchill – you’re not far wrong there either.
I tell you what though Richard, with all this D-Day Commemoration, Steve Bell is right: Where are the Russians? Hopefully our men who manned they North Sea convoys are still meeting up with their comrades in Russia to honour each other.
God forbid…………….and on Channel 4 News last night, 2 old soldiers (bless them) basically said that war is not worth it and that victory comes at too high a cost – choose peace!
They – and the woman they interviewed who was quite worried about what she was seeing around BREXIT – should have been addressing the bloody politicians about this – not the other way around.
If you want to really honour the dead, then your job as a politician is to make sure that their numbers are not increased.
The Murmansk run did for my grandfather who gave me my name
Where are the Russians, indeed?
Strictly speaking of course the Russians (Soviets) were not involved in the Second World War. They were fighting their own ‘Great Patriotic War’ against Hitler’s Germany. Greatly to European and American advantage, as it happens, but had it not been so, would the UK or US have assisted the Soviets? I doubt it somehow. In so far as there was an alliance it was purely one of convenience against a common enemy.
So much of our collective view of history is the ‘bunk’ that Henry Ford is alleged to have said it is.
As for the D-Day commemorations, Her Majesty has said ‘Thenk ya’ to all those who died or put their lives on the line, so that’s alright isn’t it? All sorted now. Pah !
Until next time the elites need bailing-out again with more than just cash.
It was not Raab, but Hancock who said …
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, has claimed that if Jeremy Corbyn won a general election he would be “the first antisemitic leader of a western nation since the second world war”.
from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/05/majority-of-voters-think-boris-johnson-would-make-bad-pm-polling-expert
I stand corrected. Yes indeed. But it is still an awful thing to say. Hancock or Raab? What a choice – both are odious in their own way – Raab strutting his Thatcher credentials everywhere and Hancock who has all the wiliness of a used car salesman selling you a car whose odometer has been clocked without you knowing it.
Absolutely fair assessment.
Crumbs of comfort: it shows that peak Farage is about 30% of the electorate. Which is very beatable in Westminster elections with tactical voting.
So long as Farage indulges his ego and puts up Brexit Party candidates in every constituency (and he will because he’s too stupid to realise the harm he is causing to the one issue he is all about), the right is split right down the middle. This is nothing less than existential for the Conservative Party for the upcoming General Election.
Brexit is unlikely to happen. The Tory leadership contest has exposed the total lack of any hidden ideas about how to achieve it beyond staging a parliamentary coup. So the issue will continue to corrode the right wing in this country for many months ahead.
For Labour, we should be in Blair pre 1997 territory. But we’re not. The Labour leader is uninspiring and carries too much baggage. So we get results like last night’s – Labour squeaking through on less than a 1/3rd of the vote.
As much as I am cock-a-hoop at puncturing the Farage balloon, that’s hardly democratic.
“So long as Farage indulges his ego ………. he’s too stupid to realise the harm he is causing to the one issue he is all about”. Mmmmmmm. I agree he is indulging his ego – but I’m not too sure he is stupid. I think he is sufficiently intelligent to keep his Brexit show on the road, get himself re-elected to the European Parliament, keep himself in the public eye and the centre of attention, and stay a hero to a substantial section of the (gullible) electorate. He gets a fat salary by being an MEP, the promise of a nice fat pension far beyond the dreams of his naive supporters,has little to do in the EP beyond loudmouth insults , stays in posh hotels, private jet flights to Brussels, tea and sympathy with Trump, and in general has the life of Reilley. He’s on to a good thing. Let’s face it – he has charisma, the gift of the gab, the ability to inspire and lead. He knows full well what he is doing. My suspicion is that his secret wish is that the whole Brexit “crusade” he leads will actually not succeed. He would secretly be appalled if Britain left the EU with no deal, or a softer withdrawal agreement. Then he would cease to have all the privileges he currently enjoys. Much more fun, and much more profitable, and much more a masturbatory pleasure, to be stroking his ego and enjoying the adulation of the footsoldiers of the Brexit campaign, the “little people”, and to be the holy blessed martyr sacrificed by the “elite” and “establishment”.
Agree with much of what you wrote Ben, but not your conclusion.
‘peak Farage is about 30% of the electorate’
I agree, It is fair to assume in my opinion, that ALL these who would ever vote for the Brexit Party Ltd, did so. None of these supporters voted tactically or stayed at home (which explains the high-ish turnout for this one)
So, given the turnout was about 50% and 30 percent of these are the ones who would vote for a Brexit candidate again in a General Election. It calculates as 15% of the electorate in absolute terms.
A 75% turnout at a GE would give them a 20% vote share – not enough!
So in a general election i would put money on the Brexit Party Ltd not winning the seat in Peterborough (let alone anywhere else).
Please also keep in mind how Labour went from 20% behind within 4 weeks last time at the sneaky hit and run 2017 gamble to derail the Corbynites. As such writing off the Labour prospects is i suggest premature.
I am also certain the status quo needing establishment is as aware of that prospect and has done everything to avoid that contest.
Not a single Tory would be ‘flag raisers’ have mooted they would take their new prime ministerial manifesto to the people. Why?
Agree with you Richard, had I also been a Peterborough resident then it would have been a labour vote with absolutely zero enthusiasm. Purely to try and prevent the Brexit party taking the seat. I am actually amazed that given the circumstances the Lib Dem and Green votes were so high. You would have thought that the majority of those voters would have reluctantly voted for Labour.
What the results clearly show is that Peterborough is a tory/brexit seat but if they both stand they both lose.
But Labour is unlikely to pay any attention to that
I’m sure you would Richard. I’m not singling you out for attack I’m just trying to point out the counter-productivity of infighting when we share so much.
What I find saddest is that we don’t criticise as friends, the criticism of Labour, in general, and the leadership in particular, is harsh and constant throughout the supposedly left leaning parts of the media and internet let alone the Tory press. The single biggest shock to me since becoming involved in a political party is the bitterness expressed between people on the same side when they disagree. It is a truism that people don’t vote for divided parties and warring factions, so if we want to win we need to play nicely with each other. I know there is frustration but can we afford to give in to it right now?
Jo says they would vote Labour with “absolutely zero enthusiasm”. I can see that might be true of a Tory remainer but for anyone on the progressive side of the line surely it’s an easier choice. To me Labour at their worst will still be better than the Tories or Brexit party at their best. I was never a fan of Blair but I would have him back in government tomorrow if it was a straight choice with Farage or Johnson.
PSR calls Labour the “Timid Party”. Is that fair? The Peterborough campaign didn’t look like a timid surrender to me. Portillo on Andrew Neil’s ‘This Week’ program last night told Stella Creasy he hoped Labour would come out fully for Remain as he thought they would lose northern seats by doing so. Portillo thought Corbyn had the better approach but that the Remainers would win the argument and Labour would pay the price. I’m inclined to agree. Drawing support from only one side of the Brexit debate won’t bring anyone back together. The divide between remainers on other areas of policy is just as great as between lefties on Brexit. Personally I feel more affinity to a Lexit leaver than a Neoliberal Remainer. Brexit is not the most important thing for me.
I urge people to use this tool to play out different scenarios. No good for the left will come from division and virtue signalling protest votes.
https://flavible.com/politics/map/user_predictions.php?sid=14
The Greens need fantasy changes to start winning anything and the returns on the Lib Dems are worse than Labour in any realistic situation. Look at the polls here. Even with a five point lead the Lib Dems get less seats.
https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls.php?sid=2050
Until we get PR Labour remains the most obvious vehicle to fight for progressive change in the UK. Maybe the vehicle needs work but repair is easier than building from scratch. If Labour can’t be saved then the road is looking much longer.
I just wish Labour could present some credible and coherent ideas then…..
For all those not celebrating today I ask why not? Is Lisa Forbes such a terrible candidate? Is she an arch brexiter? Were most of the activists fighting for a Labour win bad people? Or were most of them ardent progressives fighting hard to build the kind of better country we all want to live in?
Given a choice between the Conservatives, Labour and the Brexit party, how is there even a moment’s doubt for anyone politically progressive? If a few hundred more voters had switched to the Greens or Lib Dems we would be waking up to a Brexit Party win today. How would that be a good thing? Isn’t that just the martyrdom of ideological purity that those who voted for Corbyn were repeatedly accused of? What’s happened to the mantra of winning is all important? Is thumbing our noses at Corbyn so important that we will tolerate Brexit MPs to do it? At worst for remainers a Corbyn led Labour government would take us to some sort of Norway option and I doubt they would even be able to achieve that against the will of the majority of their MPs and voters. They will definitely be to the remain side of the Conservatives and even more so than the No Deal fanatics of the Brexit Party. The Labour party is not the plaything of Jeremy Corbyn, it decides policy at Conference and he isn’t the Stalin like parody figure the media like to pretend. Do we really believe in the Marxist bogeyman nonsense of the Daily Mail? Corbyn might be the leader, he might be a bad leader but he is still better than the ROC alternatives and splitting the vote will just let them win under a FPTP system.
The Greens I have sympathy for but they are politically irrelevant at a nation level. If all the Greens joined the Labour party and promoted their agenda from within they would be more effective and tip more seats to the progressive side than they do as a separate party. In a recent Opinium poll the Greens got a staggering high of 11% nationally but predictions based off this gave them just two seats. Switching that 11% to Labour made would see their seat count jump from 188 to 336 seats and the combined Conservative and Brexit seats fall from 309 to 172. If just a handful of those new Labour MPs were committed Greens the representation in parliament for Green issues would be hugely increased. With the same votes we go from seeing Nigel Farage as PM to a Labour majority government capable of actually enacting Green policy. I do despair of having to spell out the strength of unity to my socialist comrades.
As for the Lib Dems! Have we so quickly forgotten the austerity facilitation they did in power? Is Vince Cable’s sell off of the Post Office so it could be asset stripped all forgiven as long as we can get another kick in on Corbyn? The sell out on tuition fees and PR, are they forgotten too? I don’t want another neoliberal government whether it calls itself Liberal, one nation Tory or whatever. Do you?
Factionalism and infighting are always our downfall, so when the right has never been more divided we must be pragmatic and use this amazing chance to actually win.
I made clear, I would have voted Labour in Peterborough
Alberto
First of all I have always had empathy with Labour’s situation i.e. that they like the rest of us have been caught up in the most senseless, ill advised, irrational and reckless referendumb (sic) ever devised(!?) in modern politics. They are victims just like the rest of country.
Labour’s history over Europe is also one of division within the ranks and BREXIT has exacerbated that, let alone trying to solve the problem for the Tory party. Stupid Cameron may have wanted that to happen, but he also underestimated the effect on Parliament itself and the resulting stalemate. So I have always acknowledged that Corbyn’s Labour could have done without BREXIT too. BREXIT has muddied the water when our country needs relief from Tory cruelty. I feel for Corbyn but also for my country and I am looking at Corbyn for that relief. Because that is his job as HM Opposition. He has me worried on many levels.
This is Larry Elliott pointing a few things out in what seems a pro-Corbyn way and I have time for it :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/06/corbyn-labour-leavers-remainers-second-referendum-eu
I call Labour ‘The Timid Party’ because it is. And Larry is really talking about party unity and to me I think that the Tories and Labour need to split into smaller parties. Now is the time.
Labour’s tribalism has prevented it from acting as a focus for other progressive parties to the point where you have to ask ‘Are you REALLY bothered about the country or just yourselves?’. Labour still thinks like a monolith. The ground is moving beneath their feet and instead of capitalising on this they try to dig deeper – into what? The future is co-operation – not FPTP. The future is a shared centre – not absolute power. Labour could take a lead on this – they really could.
The real Left also has a tradition of encouraging ‘critical consciousness’ as a means to unlock the concepts of unfairness and inequality in the people to vote for change yet look for example at Labour’s attitude to MMT; look at how they recoil from any form of criticism from those who want them to succeed. They bruise too easily. Critical consciousness is for everyone else – not us say Labour! Really? What sort of party thinks like that? A Stalinist one perhaps?
On this blog you can read of Richard’s relationship with Labour – it makes for interesting and disturbing reading. Had Richard been a card carrying party member would he have been treated differently? Where do new ideas come from? If Labour is relying on internal talent from card carrying members then the gene pool can only get smaller and smaller from what I have seen. An indifference to outsiders like Richard is really worrying.
I have voted for Labour nearly all my life. And I did not vote at all in 2005 (?) because of the Iraq war as a protest to Blair deciding to help the evil Bush empire. In 2010 I started to vote Green. I gave my support to Ed Miliband because I thought that he deserved a chance and his treatment at the hands of the press
was terrible.
But really Alberto the problem is that the major parties are all in my opinion finished. Politics now is much more complicated and the mainstream is appealing to fewer and fewer people. FPTP has had its day because we have seen since 2010 how badly abused it can be by a manic party hell bent on destroying things (the Tories – just to be clear); illusory third way politics has been proven as a way of laundering greed and power.
Politics needs more parties and it needs a new model of Governance in this country that once taught the world about how democracy could work. The power of the king – appropriated by Parliament – now needs to be shared by many political interests and not be a tool for one party. In fact the power of the king probably needs to quietly disposed of and all royal links severed once and for all.
I see none of this discussed by Labour. Instead they toy at the edges, give us little titbits without any real depth. Things might be really bad in the Tory party Alberto in terms of the quality of its MPs, but Labour is not much different in my view.
Much to agree with there PSR
Hi PSR,
You and Richard are still talking about Labour as if it is a single monolith and something other to yourselves. I know you aren’t members but if you want the party to be better, who do think is going to make it better? Labour is still currently the party of the left and under our current FPTP system there is no point having more than one party of the left. Splitting the left vote just hands victory to the usually less divided conservatives. To destroy Labour and take it’s place as the main progressive party could take decades of conservative rule.
I actually agree with most of what you and Richard write here and I would love to see these ideas implemented. I’m also not the life long Labour loyalist or the die-hard Corbynista you probably imagine. My problem is I can’t see who else to support who is better and might get elected. I only joined Labour a few years ago and I spent most of my life before that voting for smaller parties for all the ideologically pure reasons you name and more. After the Con-Dem Coalition I started to realise that was pointless. I have always believed in PR as the only way we will be able to vote for what we believe in rather than against what we don’t. Sadly, division and factionalism into multiple parties will probably never achieve PR because we will never be in power to implement it. I gave you the numbers and showed how much more effective the Green vote would be for Green causes if they joined the Labour party instead of undermining it. The same is true for much of the other progressive vote. If the Lib Dems and Greens had voted Labour in Peterborough it would have been no contest against a divided right. Our electoral system rewards unity. The Labour/SDP split gave us Thatcherism. Both sides were at fault then and we all are still paying the price now. If the party of the left isn’t good enough then only those of us that care can make it better. I think the arguments we need to have are better done within a single party than across parties. Would you ever vote Conservative or Brexit over Labour? If the answer is no, then what is the point of having your own party?
Maybe a federation of progressives with a new party name and badge etc. would be better but which path is easier to achieve? If the Greens joined Labour wholesale then Labour policy would become more Green and Labour might actually get to enact some of it. Isn’t that better than getting 11% and two seats in a general election? It’s strategy and pragmatism over idealistic martyrdom.
“The Greens I have sympathy for but they are politically irrelevant at a nation level. If all the Greens joined the Labour party and promoted their agenda from within they would be more effective and tip more seats to the progressive side than they do as a separate party. In a recent Opinium poll the Greens got a staggering high of 11% nationally but predictions based off this gave them just two seats. Switching that 11% to Labour made would see their seat count jump from 188 to 336 seats and the combined Conservative and Brexit seats fall from 309 to 172. If just a handful of those new Labour MPs were committed Greens the representation in parliament for Green issues would be hugely increased. With the same votes we go from seeing Nigel Farage as PM to a Labour majority government capable of actually enacting Green policy. I do despair of having to spell out the strength of unity to my socialist comrades”
If you really want to increase the representation in parliament for green issues then why not campaign for electoral reform, instead of trying to co-opt smaller parties into joining Labour? If the Green Party is, as you say, “politically irrelevant at a national level” then that is the result of a skewed voting system that Labour continues to benefit from and support.
Hi Peter,
While campaigning for electoral reform we would have more right wing governments. I spent years trying to convince people that PR was what we needed and when we finally had the opportunity the Lib Dems blew it and the country heavily voted for no change. Until the voting system is changed there is no point in lesser parties.
I have heard some deeply anti-democratic arguments before but that takes some beating
You really think we can trust all thinking to Labour?
And nationalists should all vote for the archly Unionist Labour?
Really?
How about Labour stops being so stupidly tribal and enter electoral alliances?
I’m not being tribal at all. It doesn’t bother me if we all unite behind the Greens instead of Labour. Lucas would probably be a better PM than Corbyn for starters. My point is that to win we need to unite. That’s a fairly normal tenant of left wing thinking.
As for trusting Labour to do the thinking that’s irrelevant. As I keep saying the Labour Party isn’t a single entity with one mind. If we all joined Labour or the Greens or whoever, assuming the party is democratic, then we could be involved in making policy. Look at the changes to Labour under Corbyn and Blair. The party can change its mind. I only suggested Labour because they have more national infrastructure, heritage and tribal following. Those are advantages it seems daft to throw away. However if there are better reasons to abandon Labour and go Green I’m open to persuasion. How will the Greens win over the Northern Cities? How do you suggest we get to the 326 MPs needed for a majority?
The nationalists I assume are a lost cause. At least for the foreseeable future. Nationalism saddens me as it’s too much like I’m alright jack so **** you. I feel solidarity for the left in Scotland, it’s a pity they don’t for me.
None of this is anti-democratic in the slightest. I didn’t say I wanted to ban the other parties, I just said splitting the vote is counter productive so I’m suggesting we all unite. Where is the force? I don’t have an army. If you disagree please explain to me how you think multiple progressive parties can win more seats under FPTP than one united party. Divide and rule is what let the Conservatives radically change Britain in the 80s. Do we want that again?
Look at the numbers. Using the latest YouGov poll and predictions those 9% of Green voters can have 2 Green MPs or 145 Labour MPs to represent them. I’m assuming a common ground can be found. If it can then surely 145 MPs will further our progressive political goals more? Do you think Labour members and voters are against Green policies? So why not team up and win instead of bickering?
I find it hard to believe you can’t see the advantage of unity. Also I find it depressing how hostile supposedly left wing people are to the idea. I want to believe I haven’t been an idiot my whole life for believing people can find compromise and cooperate.
Alberto
I am afraid that your incomprehension of nationalism suggests you are very much part of the Labour problem
Sorry, but it has to be said
Richard
Wow! You really know how to win friends and influence people don’t you Richard. I’ve been following this blog for years and tried to contribute with encouraging and intelligent comment. I have learned a lot and always been polite and respectful. I also thought I was mostly in tune with your ideas, more so than just about anyone I know. I’ve read your posts virtually daily, bought and read your books and tried to spread the knowledge among friends and colleagues. I am, as far as I can tell, just the sort of person you need if these ideas are ever to be more than academic curiosities. Yet all I get from you is short condescending reprimands. You clearly regard me as a tiresome fool, so I won’t be returning in future. I understand you receive a lot of abuse online but never from me and I was always very much on your side. You don’t seem to be able to tell friend from foe though.
Don’t bother publishing this on the blog as I have no interest in being seen to have the last word or trying to make you look bad. I’m only submitting this because you seem to have no comprehension how you come across and I don’t know how to contact you personally.
Best of luck for the future.
Alberto
I responded to what you said, which I thought deeply tribal and precisely why Labour alienates so many in England and beyond who it could, if only it could show some imagination, persuade to work with it. If you didn’t like it now think about those who Labour and you patronise and wonder how they feel.
I am not trying to win elections. I am commenting. And I think my comments were entirely fair. The problem is all yours, and Labour’s. You shouldn’t be getting grumpy. You should be wondering how to change, and fast.
Richard
More figures:
Latest YouGov seat projection
https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls.php?sid=2060
BRX 278
Lab 141
Lib 113
Con 41
Grn 2
SNP 52
PC 4
If Greens vote Labour
BRX 148
Lab 286
Lib 105
Con 38
Grn 0
SNP 52
PC 3
If Greens vote Lib Dem
BRX 220
Lab 132
Lib 209
Con 13
Grn 0
SNP 48
PC 4
Do see how dramatically voting Green benefits the leading right wing party? Also how much less effective supporting the Lib Dems is over Labour? I don’t disagree with the ideals expressed here just the tactics.
Please tell me why it is wrong to vote Green
WHat would happen if all Labour supporters voted Green?
In reply to Alberto:
“I find it hard to believe you can’t see the advantage of unity. Also I find it depressing how hostile supposedly left wing people are to the idea. I want to believe I haven’t been an idiot my whole life for believing people can find compromise and cooperate”
It depends what you mean by “unity”. If that means relinquishing any autonomy for ideas and policy to a larger party that many people see as lacking leadership and imagination, then where is the advantage in that?
Labour could instead fight the next general election as part of a one time coalition with the smaller parties, with a single policy manifesto: electoral reform based on an agreed system, such as STV. Effectively this would be a referendum on the UK electoral system. The next election would then be fought under those rules with every vote counting. It could be called immediately afterwards.
Labour would lose the advantage of being a large party under FPTP, but would gain trust by being seen as genuinely democratic. It would also prevent another Conservative victory, possibly forever. Labour could then enact progressive policies in parliament, either in coalition or as a part of confidence and supply arrangements with the smaller parties. This would be more flexible and accountable than trying to influence the leadership of a party that has gained power through FPTP.
If Labour are looking to others to compromise and co-operate then they could lead by example.
I agree Peter
Alberto has shown Labour’s likely response
These results are a relief, but how Labour interprets them, at least officially, is a sham.
When a 60% Leave constituency votes Labour in with a tiny majority, it cannot be interpreted as a mandate to carry on ‘delivering a jobs first Brexit’.
Corbyn should pay more attention to the significant numbers who voted for smaller parties than to the few who made Labour’s majority. But he won’t, as it doesn’t suit his pre-set blinkered agenda.
Watching all this from Brittany, where the focus these last few days has been to reinforce the need for continued dialogue between nations, especially including former enemy nations, even while disagreeing and competing, the state of the UK seems even more pathetic and saddens me beyond belief.
I agree
Corbyn’s reaction was antagonism to all but this was a record low winning basis for support in the post war era. He however used that to antagonise his own support. Lacking in wisdom at best. Foolish at worst.
Hi Alberto
Thanks for your response and there is much I agree with. But like Richard I have the concern that your suggestion is that somehow the other parties must somehow rally to Labour as ‘their King’.
The other parties can only do that when clear leadership is given. In Labour’s case it has not been. Labour – like the Tories – are riven with internal dissent about party matters and BREXIT. This is perhaps the great unravelling of the major parties before us. Larry Elliott is right to call this out but is wrong to try to justify it when the country is in the grip of Tory sado-economics.
I suggest that to fill the gap will be the politics of personality – Farage, Johnson – but who in Labour? Now think about that Alberto – WHO in Labour?
I can think of a few – but they aren’t men – I can tell you that. In Labour, the women must now be allowed to step forth.
But that would take a level of thinking that I am not sure the party has the capacity to take. More’s the pity – especially for us mere mortals out here.
Hi PSR,
If Richard chooses to publish this and you see it, then thanks for the reply. I hadn’t intended to write again but I received an email notification of your reply. As I have always found your posts interesting and informative, as well as respectful of others, I wanted to do you the courtesy of a last reply.
Regarding the matter, as I keep repeating to no avail, I am not tribal to Labour at all. As I said before, I am a newish member who has mostly voted for other parties in the past. I’m not expecting everyone to conform to the Labour leadership or their current set of ideas. All I was trying to point out was the hard reality of divided parties winning elections under FPTP. It therefore makes more tactical sense to me to unify the progressive vote into a single party. Once united the policies, leadership and direction of that joint party are open to change by the expanded membership. If that new direction includes the implementation of PR and a split I’m all for it. So, I don’t understand how my ideas can be seen as anti-democratic, restrictive of new ideas or limiting the ability to have better leadership.
Instead of replying to this simple point Richard has chosen to ignore it and project onto me all his own prejudices about the Labour Party. I notice he has also chosen to publish the last message I wrote to him privately.
So, goodbye all for last time and thanks for the education. No part of which is wasted.
I made a simple point Alberto. I said you can’t appeal for unity and then abuse nationalists, as you did. That is Labour tribalism at its worst – just ask the votes of Scotland and, increasingly, Wales. If you don;t like it, I’’m sorry. But that’s a fact. I will quote Carolyn Leckie from the morning’s National, in Scotland (of course):
[U]nless it has a revelation even more startling than Richard Leonard’s U-turn over Brexit, Labour will be left behind, high and dry, never forgiven nor forgotten for its role in trying to halt the march of progress. Other forces will emerge to replace it, because an independent Scotland will be a vibrant, multi-party democracy, a melting pot of ideas from across the whole spectrum of left, right and centre.
Or maybe it’s not too late for those left in the Labour Party with vision and intelligence to waken up and open a serious debate over independence in order to save the party from itself. I won’t hold my breath, but I’d love to see it happening.