I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Greens in Scotland are part of the government, so that's clearly not the issue.
What gets you elected in England is not the same as what gets you elected in Scotland (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter).
But the Greens in England and Wales still only have one MP, so why does their current strategy make them more electable?
The Greens have a reasonable cross over with the left. Also they are apparently a proper broad church party. This can attract those on the left who feel they no longer fit in Labour.
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Greens in Scotland are part of the government, so that's clearly not the issue.
What gets you elected in England is not the same as what gets you elected in Scotland (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter).
But the Greens in England and Wales still only have one MP, so why does their current strategy make them more electable?
The Greens have a reasonable cross over with the left. Also they are apparently a proper broad church party. This can attract those on the left who feel they no longer fit in Labour.
But this doesn't make sense when they're apparently not actually more left wing than Labour whereas the Scottish Greens are.
There's also the issue of splitting the vote. If you want to get the Tories out, then voting for a small party could backfire. Of course, this might be any party, including Labour, where LD are 2nd. And I realise some people refuse to vote Labour.
Those rotten lefties are complaining cos Starmer has dropped the commitment to get rid of tuition fees. How ridiculous, Starmer's raison d'etre is to do with having no policies. It makes sense, and it's slimline politics for the new age! Or, in the old slogan, keep the politics out of politics!
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Greens in Scotland are part of the government, so that's clearly not the issue.
What gets you elected in England is not the same as what gets you elected in Scotland (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter).
But the Greens in England and Wales still only have one MP, so why does their current strategy make them more electable?
The Greens have a reasonable cross over with the left. Also they are apparently a proper broad church party. This can attract those on the left who feel they no longer fit in Labour.
But this doesn't make sense when they're apparently not actually more left wing than Labour whereas the Scottish Greens are.
As has been alluded to on this thread the positions of the GPEW makes sense if you look at their membership base. A large number of their campaigns are dominated by local issues, not infrequently of a fairly NIMBY flavour. I don't think there's a big enough internal constituency to substantially change the party in the policy direction you indicate.
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Greens in Scotland are part of the government, so that's clearly not the issue.
What gets you elected in England is not the same as what gets you elected in Scotland (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter).
But the Greens in England and Wales still only have one MP, so why does their current strategy make them more electable?
One is still more than zero.
The point is that the English electorate, overall, does not elect socialist governments and has not done so for my entire lifetime (anyone claiming Blair as a socialist will be laughed at mercilessly). Starmer knows that, and so do the Greens.
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Greens in Scotland are part of the government, so that's clearly not the issue.
What gets you elected in England is not the same as what gets you elected in Scotland (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter).
But the Greens in England and Wales still only have one MP, so why does their current strategy make them more electable?
One is still more than zero.
The point is that the English electorate, overall, does not elect socialist governments and has not done so for my entire lifetime (anyone claiming Blair as a socialist will be laughed at mercilessly). Starmer knows that, and so do the Greens.
On how many occasions in your lifetime has a socialist led one of the two main parties and thus had a meaningful chance of winning?
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Greens in Scotland are part of the government, so that's clearly not the issue.
What gets you elected in England is not the same as what gets you elected in Scotland (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter).
But the Greens in England and Wales still only have one MP, so why does their current strategy make them more electable?
One is still more than zero.
The point is that the English electorate, overall, does not elect socialist governments and has not done so for my entire lifetime (anyone claiming Blair as a socialist will be laughed at mercilessly). Starmer knows that, and so do the Greens.
On how many occasions in your lifetime has a socialist led one of the two main parties and thus had a meaningful chance of winning?
I guess that depends on your views of Foot, Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn. Smith died before he could contest an election, of course.
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Greens in Scotland are part of the government, so that's clearly not the issue.
What gets you elected in England is not the same as what gets you elected in Scotland (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter).
But the Greens in England and Wales still only have one MP, so why does their current strategy make them more electable?
One is still more than zero.
The point is that the English electorate, overall, does not elect socialist governments and has not done so for my entire lifetime (anyone claiming Blair as a socialist will be laughed at mercilessly). Starmer knows that, and so do the Greens.
OK but that still doesn't change the fact that 1 MP still doesn't equal electability. I'm not arguing that socialism would make them electable (aside from anything else, surely you are capable of understanding that not all left wingers are socialist?). I'm arguing that a pivot to the right isn't going to make them electable, because then they have no USP.
Those rotten lefties are complaining cos Starmer has dropped the commitment to get rid of tuition fees. How ridiculous, Starmer's raison d'etre is to do with having no policies. It makes sense, and it's slimline politics for the new age! Or, in the old slogan, keep the politics out of politics!
I would have expected him to wait till after the election.
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Greens in Scotland are part of the government, so that's clearly not the issue.
What gets you elected in England is not the same as what gets you elected in Scotland (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter).
But the Greens in England and Wales still only have one MP, so why does their current strategy make them more electable?
One is still more than zero.
The point is that the English electorate, overall, does not elect socialist governments and has not done so for my entire lifetime (anyone claiming Blair as a socialist will be laughed at mercilessly). Starmer knows that, and so do the Greens.
On how many occasions in your lifetime has a socialist led one of the two main parties and thus had a meaningful chance of winning?
I guess that depends on your views of Foot, Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn. Smith died before he could contest an election, of course.
In what universe is Miliband a socialist? He was only labelled as such because of his father's views and arguably due to antisemitism.
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Greens in Scotland are part of the government, so that's clearly not the issue.
What gets you elected in England is not the same as what gets you elected in Scotland (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter).
But the Greens in England and Wales still only have one MP, so why does their current strategy make them more electable?
One is still more than zero.
The point is that the English electorate, overall, does not elect socialist governments and has not done so for my entire lifetime (anyone claiming Blair as a socialist will be laughed at mercilessly). Starmer knows that, and so do the Greens.
On how many occasions in your lifetime has a socialist led one of the two main parties and thus had a meaningful chance of winning?
I guess that depends on your views of Foot, Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn. Smith died before he could contest an election, of course.
In what universe is Miliband a socialist? He was only labelled as such because of his father's views and arguably due to antisemitism.
That and they wanted his even-more-right-wing brother.
The reality is that there have been 3 occasions in the last 40 years (and 10 general elections) when Labour has had a leader most people would agree was a socialist at the time of a general election and on all three occasions the right of the party has thrown an utter shit-fit and set up their own party and/or supported the tories. It's like telling someone they're no good at running when you've just shot them in the leg.
I’m not saying they’re no good at running. I’m saying there’s so little popular support for socialism in England that even the most well run left wing campaign will more than likely end in defeat.
I’m not saying they’re no good at running. I’m saying there’s so little popular support for socialism in England that even the most well run left wing campaign will more than likely end in defeat.
2017 suggests otherwise - Corbyn was far from being a great campaign runner, had the party machinery and several Labour MPs working against him, and still deprived the tories of a majority they had won just two years previously and increased the number of people voting Labour by over a third. A better leader with a united party could easily have won that election from the same policy position.
I’m not saying they’re no good at running. I’m saying there’s so little popular support for socialism in England that even the most well run left wing campaign will more than likely end in defeat.
Ok but as stated left doesn’t necessarily equal socialism. When you actually explain the policies of the left to people they generally have very little problem with them.
As far back as I can remember all Labour Party leader, but those to the left particularly, have been made to appear idiotic by the Con client media. One time the sun mocked up a picture of Kinnock as a turnip.
I’m not saying they’re no good at running. I’m saying there’s so little popular support for socialism in England that even the most well run left wing campaign will more than likely end in defeat.
2017 suggests otherwise - Corbyn was far from being a great campaign runner, had the party machinery and several Labour MPs working against him, and still deprived the tories of a majority they had won just two years previously and increased the number of people voting Labour by over a third. A better leader with a united party could easily have won that election from the same policy position.
The alternative view of 2017 is that for arguably the first time since Foot (and certainly this century) we had a genuine socialist leading Labour against a woefully incompetent Tory campaign, and they still couldn't find enough support amongst the electorate to win.
There seems to be an assumption in some parts that the public would enthusiastically back a left-wing/socialist party in droves if only such a party would actually come along. But if that was the case then that's what the Labour Party would be - and the Tories would be a lot closer to the centre as well. It may have been the case in the first few decades after WW2, but opinions, beliefs, and social norms change. And the major parties must follow the electorate as it shifts from left to right and back again, because to do otherwise is to risk electoral disaster.
I think parties act in conversation with the electorate, trying to convince them of the merits of their proposals, not just the old joke about the French Radical: "there go my people; I must find out where they are going so I can lead them". The electorate's ideas don't emerge ex nihilo [from nothing], they're informed by the public political discourse and the media. What happened in the last 40 years is the destruction of a lot of the old ways in which working people obtained political education - trade unions, Labour Clubs and the like - leaving no real counterpoint to the media owned by (what their grandfathers would have called) the boss class.
People won't automatically back a socialist party, but enough will back a united and well-led one. Labour, unfortunately, has been captured and steps taken to prevent another socialist being leader.
So Starmer has announced he is leaving behind (dropping) the last of his promises when running for leader. Uni Fees. I believe. Well that is just about the complete turn around.
So Starmer has announced he is leaving behind (dropping) the last of his promises when running for leader. Uni Fees. I believe. Well that is just about the complete turn around.
People won't automatically back a socialist party, but enough will back a united and well-led one. Labour, unfortunately, has been captured and steps taken to prevent another socialist being leader.
There was nothing much in either Foot or Corbyn's manifesto that would have been out of place on the slate of the average Social Democratic Party in the rest of Europe - socialist, not so much.
Labour, unfortunately, has been captured and steps taken to prevent another socialist being leader.
You make it sound like some kind of external attack, rather than the result of Labour MPs and members reacting to their electoral disasters in the 80s and early 90s by shifting their position to appeal to more of the electorate.
John Smith - the best Prime Minister we never had.
I was born just a couple of months before Labour's defeat in the 1951 GE, but the Attlee government - for all its shortcomings - achieved more good things than any government before or since.
Labour, unfortunately, has been captured and steps taken to prevent another socialist being leader.
You make it sound like some kind of external attack, rather than the result of Labour MPs and members reacting to their electoral disasters in the 80s and early 90s by shifting their position to appeal to more of the electorate.
It was an external attack, by people who entered the Labour Party despite not agreeing with its values (a bit like the con-evo takeover of the CofE). Members voted for Starmer on the basis of "socialism but, y'know, without the fuckups and civil war". I know because I was one of them. Members did not want and did not vote for Blair Mk II: This Time Without Charisma. Blair and chums have made it abundantly clear that they don't want Labour to win on a socialist platform. They're not making an unbiased assessment of the likelihood of winning, they're sticking their thumb on the scales in favour of the policies they prefer i.e. Thatcherism.
Admittedly I don't follow politics as closely as I should but I'm only aware of one specific Labour policy and that's ending the charitable status of private schools. Are there others I should be aware of?
So Starmer has announced he is leaving behind (dropping) the last of his promises when running for leader. Uni Fees. I believe. Well that is just about the complete turn around.
Admittedly I don't follow politics as closely as I should but I'm only aware of one specific Labour policy and that's ending the charitable status of private schools. Are there others I should be aware of?
The general election manifestos tend not to be published till the start of the campaign, and that’s what the crystallised form of policy looks like,
But if you want to see what Corbyn’s supposedly outrageous manifestos we’re like this is the one from 2017. Costings documents were produced to show how various policies could be funded.
They also did easy read versions like this one. This is summary of the same manifesto from The Guardian.
I’d be interested in knowing which bits of it people actually disagree with and why.
Admittedly I don't follow politics as closely as I should but I'm only aware of one specific Labour policy and that's ending the charitable status of private schools. Are there others I should be aware of?
John Smith - the best Prime Minister we never had.
I would have been happy with Smith as PM. I would rate him as sensible Labour.
Please outline his policies. Because I think you may be surprised how much the Overton window has shifted in the years since, as his policies would now be portrayed as dangerous radical communism by the media including GBNews.
John Smith - the best Prime Minister we never had.
I would have been happy with Smith as PM. I would rate him as sensible Labour.
Please outline his policies. Because I think you may be surprised how much the Overton window has shifted in the years since, as his policies would now be portrayed as dangerous radical communism by the media including GBNews.
I always liked Smith when he was interviewed. I can't recall his specific policies but I don't remember being against any of them.
John Smith - the best Prime Minister we never had.
I would have been happy with Smith as PM. I would rate him as sensible Labour.
Please outline his policies. Because I think you may be surprised how much the Overton window has shifted in the years since, as his policies would now be portrayed as dangerous radical communism by the media including GBNews.
I always liked Smith when he was interviewed. I can't recall his specific policies but I don't remember being against any of them.
So do policies matter less to you than whether you like a politician or not?
John Smith - the best Prime Minister we never had.
I would have been happy with Smith as PM. I would rate him as sensible Labour.
Please outline his policies. Because I think you may be surprised how much the Overton window has shifted in the years since, as his policies would now be portrayed as dangerous radical communism by the media including GBNews.
I always liked Smith when he was interviewed. I can't recall his specific policies but I don't remember being against any of them.
So do policies matter less to you than whether you like a politician or not?
I tend to like politicians when I agree with their policies.
John Smith - the best Prime Minister we never had.
I would have been happy with Smith as PM. I would rate him as sensible Labour.
Please outline his policies. Because I think you may be surprised how much the Overton window has shifted in the years since, as his policies would now be portrayed as dangerous radical communism by the media including GBNews.
I always liked Smith when he was interviewed. I can't recall his specific policies but I don't remember being against any of them.
So do policies matter less to you than whether you like a politician or not?
I tend to like politicians when I agree with their policies.
So surely you have examples of policies that you liked?
So let’s talk about Starmer not changing the two child only benefit. After he and several high profile Labour MPs said how bad it was. This could be the last straw for many normally Labour voting constituencies
So let’s talk about Starmer not changing the two child only benefit. After he and several high profile Labour MPs said how bad it was. This could be the last straw for many normally Labour voting constituencies
It ought to be but won't. FPTP forces people into making horrendous choices - do you vote Labour in the hope that they at least won't be as bad as the tories (though per Streeting we're not permitted hope these days) or do you vote for a party that wants improvement in the hope that you might jolt Labour into a better offer at the election following? There are no good choices, only weighing in the balance whether a (very) modest reduction in suffering in the short term outweighs the possibility of long term improvement.
My niece, her friends, along with my other younger relations, all vote - mostly Labour, or LibDem. She's 23.
As usual, a generalisation is, generally speaking, not a good idea.
That's a win for the Tories then.
No. As more millennials get to the age where they will regularly vote (the oldest millennials are in their 40s) they are not voting Cons and have no intention of voting Cons in the future. The Cons are doing nothing for them. They are giving them a reason to vote Con. The issues that are important to them are not generally important to Cons. So no the Cons are nit the natural party of power.
I think the issue, @Hugal isn't that the Conservatives 'are' the natural party of power, but that's how they see themselves. They have nothing if not tremendous self-belief.
They also have a strong resilience and the capacity to bounce back. If I've learned anything from my own political involvement it's not only that I could never be Conservative, but also how they should never be underestimated.
They did even better round here than I expected them to during the recent local elections and that despite both national and regional setbacks.
If I understand Martin54 correctly, it isn't that he's saying that the Conservatives ought to be the natural party of power, but that for all that we may wish otherwise, vast swathes of the electorate are naturally conservative/Conservative.
I'm not saying I agree with him but it's certainly the case that the Conservatives keep making comebacks despite messing up big time.
Whether that will change as demographics change remains to be seen.
Comments
The Greens have a reasonable cross over with the left. Also they are apparently a proper broad church party. This can attract those on the left who feel they no longer fit in Labour.
But this doesn't make sense when they're apparently not actually more left wing than Labour whereas the Scottish Greens are.
As has been alluded to on this thread the positions of the GPEW makes sense if you look at their membership base. A large number of their campaigns are dominated by local issues, not infrequently of a fairly NIMBY flavour. I don't think there's a big enough internal constituency to substantially change the party in the policy direction you indicate.
One is still more than zero.
The point is that the English electorate, overall, does not elect socialist governments and has not done so for my entire lifetime (anyone claiming Blair as a socialist will be laughed at mercilessly). Starmer knows that, and so do the Greens.
On how many occasions in your lifetime has a socialist led one of the two main parties and thus had a meaningful chance of winning?
I guess that depends on your views of Foot, Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn. Smith died before he could contest an election, of course.
OK but that still doesn't change the fact that 1 MP still doesn't equal electability. I'm not arguing that socialism would make them electable (aside from anything else, surely you are capable of understanding that not all left wingers are socialist?). I'm arguing that a pivot to the right isn't going to make them electable, because then they have no USP.
I would have expected him to wait till after the election.
In what universe is Miliband a socialist? He was only labelled as such because of his father's views and arguably due to antisemitism.
That and they wanted his even-more-right-wing brother.
The reality is that there have been 3 occasions in the last 40 years (and 10 general elections) when Labour has had a leader most people would agree was a socialist at the time of a general election and on all three occasions the right of the party has thrown an utter shit-fit and set up their own party and/or supported the tories. It's like telling someone they're no good at running when you've just shot them in the leg.
2017 suggests otherwise - Corbyn was far from being a great campaign runner, had the party machinery and several Labour MPs working against him, and still deprived the tories of a majority they had won just two years previously and increased the number of people voting Labour by over a third. A better leader with a united party could easily have won that election from the same policy position.
Ok but as stated left doesn’t necessarily equal socialism. When you actually explain the policies of the left to people they generally have very little problem with them.
As far back as I can remember all Labour Party leader, but those to the left particularly, have been made to appear idiotic by the Con client media. One time the sun mocked up a picture of Kinnock as a turnip.
The alternative view of 2017 is that for arguably the first time since Foot (and certainly this century) we had a genuine socialist leading Labour against a woefully incompetent Tory campaign, and they still couldn't find enough support amongst the electorate to win.
There seems to be an assumption in some parts that the public would enthusiastically back a left-wing/socialist party in droves if only such a party would actually come along. But if that was the case then that's what the Labour Party would be - and the Tories would be a lot closer to the centre as well. It may have been the case in the first few decades after WW2, but opinions, beliefs, and social norms change. And the major parties must follow the electorate as it shifts from left to right and back again, because to do otherwise is to risk electoral disaster.
People won't automatically back a socialist party, but enough will back a united and well-led one. Labour, unfortunately, has been captured and steps taken to prevent another socialist being leader.
Already mentioned by me pages ago.
There was nothing much in either Foot or Corbyn's manifesto that would have been out of place on the slate of the average Social Democratic Party in the rest of Europe - socialist, not so much.
You make it sound like some kind of external attack, rather than the result of Labour MPs and members reacting to their electoral disasters in the 80s and early 90s by shifting their position to appeal to more of the electorate.
I was born just a couple of months before Labour's defeat in the 1951 GE, but the Attlee government - for all its shortcomings - achieved more good things than any government before or since.
So there.
It was an external attack, by people who entered the Labour Party despite not agreeing with its values (a bit like the con-evo takeover of the CofE). Members voted for Starmer on the basis of "socialism but, y'know, without the fuckups and civil war". I know because I was one of them. Members did not want and did not vote for Blair Mk II: This Time Without Charisma. Blair and chums have made it abundantly clear that they don't want Labour to win on a socialist platform. They're not making an unbiased assessment of the likelihood of winning, they're sticking their thumb on the scales in favour of the policies they prefer i.e. Thatcherism.
I missed it sorry
The general election manifestos tend not to be published till the start of the campaign, and that’s what the crystallised form of policy looks like,
But if you want to see what Corbyn’s supposedly outrageous manifestos we’re like this is the one from 2017. Costings documents were produced to show how various policies could be funded.
They also did easy read versions like this one. This is summary of the same manifesto from The Guardian.
I’d be interested in knowing which bits of it people actually disagree with and why.
I think @Arethosemyfeet is specifically referencing the pledges Starmer made when he made his pitch for leadership, where are here: https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Please outline his policies. Because I think you may be surprised how much the Overton window has shifted in the years since, as his policies would now be portrayed as dangerous radical communism by the media including GBNews.
I always liked Smith when he was interviewed. I can't recall his specific policies but I don't remember being against any of them.
So do policies matter less to you than whether you like a politician or not?
I tend to like politicians when I agree with their policies.
So surely you have examples of policies that you liked?
I'm not aware of Starmer commenting on this before but it seems like something that could be a winner for Labour.
It ought to be but won't. FPTP forces people into making horrendous choices - do you vote Labour in the hope that they at least won't be as bad as the tories (though per Streeting we're not permitted hope these days) or do you vote for a party that wants improvement in the hope that you might jolt Labour into a better offer at the election following? There are no good choices, only weighing in the balance whether a (very) modest reduction in suffering in the short term outweighs the possibility of long term improvement.
Ho hum. 😢
I’m a member of the Green party, but if the Lib Dems have any hope here I’ll vote for them.
Let’s see what happens in Somerstown and Frome (next door to us)
We’ve been through this before. The Cons are not the natural party of government. Particularly for the up and coming generation.
Uh huh. They don't vote. In an aging society.
As usual, a generalisation is, generally speaking, not a good idea.
The UK is living through a second attempt to pretend that failing to fix something now won't turn out to be more expensive in the future.
WE'RE DOOMED! WE'RE A' DOOMED!
That's a win for the Tories then.
How so?
No. As more millennials get to the age where they will regularly vote (the oldest millennials are in their 40s) they are not voting Cons and have no intention of voting Cons in the future. The Cons are doing nothing for them. They are giving them a reason to vote Con. The issues that are important to them are not generally important to Cons. So no the Cons are nit the natural party of power.
They also have a strong resilience and the capacity to bounce back. If I've learned anything from my own political involvement it's not only that I could never be Conservative, but also how they should never be underestimated.
They did even better round here than I expected them to during the recent local elections and that despite both national and regional setbacks.
If I understand Martin54 correctly, it isn't that he's saying that the Conservatives ought to be the natural party of power, but that for all that we may wish otherwise, vast swathes of the electorate are naturally conservative/Conservative.
I'm not saying I agree with him but it's certainly the case that the Conservatives keep making comebacks despite messing up big time.
Whether that will change as demographics change remains to be seen.
Sorry @Pomona, I missed this tag back in May. It's probably old news now. I'm expecting Labour to win in 2024.