exactly!If youre in the labour party and are an active member of it, you must support it on some level surely, you must think that even if its policies are shit at the moment they "could" get better?
Labour leader Ed Miliband told the Yes to the Alternative Vote campaign at a private meeting that he would not share a platform with Nick Clegg during the referendum campaign. He said Clegg's name had become so toxic with Labour voters he would put off potential AV backers.
Miliband said at last week's meeting he was willing to share a platform with other Liberal Democrats, including Charles Kennedy, Lady Williams and Lord Ashdown. One source said: "His position is pretty well ABC – Anyone But Clegg."
A Lib Dem spokesman stated that he was surprised by the suggestion, saying that in private and public Miliband had told the party he would share a platform with Clegg. "It feels like this is a failure of leadership on his part and he has been defeated by the most tribalist elements in his party," the spokesman said.
But the Yes campaign director, Lord Sharkey, accepted Miliband's arguments at the end of the meeting attended by aides on both sides last week.
...it would have been a coup if the leaders of the two centre-left parties had shared a platform.
five out of six members of the Yes steering committee have worked for or supported the Liberal Democrat party in the past 12 months.
to be fair I don't think Mandelson was ever leader. How has Yes "changed tack"?
Socialism Today had an article opposing AV this month. Not that the SP or anyone else has a monoploy on being "the true voice of the left" but if all of these left wing organistions (and i mean real left wing organisations, and not green party shite etc) are coming out with oppoising views to it, do you not think it is time to at least listen to their concerns rather than dismissing any opposition to it as being supportive of tories?
i mean if the Labour representation committee etc have even come out against it as well ??
That's right, you attempted to engage the labour leader in taking part in a lib-dem/labour leader united front as part of your strategy because this was never part of the plan. In fact, the plan was for this not to happen. Hence the talks to make it happen.
I didn't ever say Clegg was in the driving seat - he's the main beneficiary of your hard working min wage (?) intern think tank pluralist idiocy though.
no-one attempted to engage him in that, expect EM himself who first advocated it and then backed off! I think the line he is taking now will be helpful rather than harmful.
I think you sitting a pluralist cabin with the people making the cuts talking about this meaningless shit is a good reason not to listen to you as regards ant-cuts stuff - or anything much else.
"We" for these purposes are people who want to see a radical left alternative emerge on the electoral field when none does at present. Do you?
I know Clive and debated both publically and privately with him - although the ST article appears not to be online . It is a shame that they are taking this stance. But I think they may be out of step with their own comrades in the PCS on it.
Frankly, I think the present state of the far left is a good reason not to take their strategic advice on pretty much anything. Of course, I don't think this is a bigger issue than fighting the cuts - and i spend more time in local anti-cuts meetings than in LP meetings. And it doesn't go as far and isn't as radical a change as we would ultimately like to see.
But if you want to campaign for an anti-cuts alternative, the reality is that it means surrendering your ability to punish the coalition parties, *unless you have the ability to transfer to Labour* as the least worst alternative in the immediate context.
"We" for these purposes are people who want to see a radical left alternative emerge on the electoral field when none does at present. Do you?
How will AV do this when it is more fucking regressive than FPTP?
They seriously think it's worth him doing it on here?You know he's paid to argue for AV by the Electoral Reform Society right FW?
Exactly. We is the good people. The arrogant thatcherite assumption of a position that speaks for all. Are you one of the good people? The LRC aren't. The GMB aren't. I'm not. Are you not? Who here is not?
.
"Regressive" in what sense? It allows for the disaggregation of 1st preferences so that people who have previously voted Labour or Lib Dem in order not to lose their chance to actually influence who gets elected could instead opt to give a 1st preference to the party they most support. Without that, there will be a inexorable squeezing of the left/Green vote.
The Greens - for example - simply have no idea how many supporters they have in England and Wales. They can infer it from PR elections, but the turnouts are so much lower that they don't really know it. At the last election the limited number who voted Green in some cases objectively helped the Tories (take Hendon which Labour lost by just over 100 votes when the Greens got 500). Is this really what Green voters intended?
Part of the LRC and GMB might want to see a left alternative emerge, but a good proportion think Labour already is that alternative. Or would be with a leader who didn't sell out. They don't want to see any structural challenge to Labour emerge. I'm talking about those inside (in LRC, Compass and neither) and those outside who want to see such a shift.
So basically even though in some cases it actually leads to larger parliamentary majorities and is more of a disadvantage than FPTP is, it's a good thing because parties can now tell how many votes supporters they have (Without being able to do anything about it?)
Part of the LRC and GMB might want to see a left alternative emerge, but a good proportion think Labour already is that alternative. Or would be with a leader who didn't sell out. They don't want to see any structural challenge to Labour emerge. I'm talking about those inside (in LRC, Compass and neither) and those outside who want to see such a shift.