UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[Alcibiades]

Interesting thread suggesting that the education divide at the last two elections was not merely a function of age, but was in fact still very much present even once you control for age (and indeed, the causation between age and education may actually be the other way around).

https://twitter.com/benwansell/status/1493892181051990019?cxt=HHwWhoCzhcLBr7spAA...

[Torrain]

Any thoughts on the informal Lib-Lab pact that Starmer seems to be forming, according to today’s Financial Times?

Personally, I think it’s a pretty solid strategy, and probably necessary if Labour are going to have any sort of chance in 2024. Making up a 130 seat deficit would be a historic achievement, so you need every seat you can get - letting the Lib Dems have a clear run at Tory seats they can’t win seems like a no brainer.

Beyond cutting the number of Tory seats though - if Labour were to become the largest party but end up a dozen seats short, it’s a decent strategy to have a ideologically-compatible party who is large enough to make up the gap, and whom you are already in good relations. (or at least friendly enough to work out electoral pacts - which sounds like the first draft of what could become coalition discussions?).

I’ll admit though - I’m exactly the kind of disenchanted centrist that Starmer’s entire strategy is built around reaching out to, so it may just be my personal biases that make this seem like a good plan. I imagine it won’t do Starmer any favours with segments of the Labour base (but they were already pretty unhappy with him, if the response to Corbyn’s suspension is anything to go by…). I guess you could argue it makes Labour look weak - but when they’ve been out of power for 12 years, and hold under 200 seats in Parliament, I think that threshold has already been reached.

Wonder if it could be beneficial to the Lib Dems in particular though. Beyond just the increased odds in a number of seats, an informal alliance with Labour could help erase the stigma of the last coalition. Or it could make them seem too ideologically flexible - and hurt both parties. I’d bet more on the former than the latter though - I doubt 2024 is going to be fought on Nick Clegg’s actions.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Any thoughts on the informal Lib-Lab pact that Starmer seems to be forming, according to today’s Financial Times?

Personally, I think it’s a pretty solid strategy, and probably necessary if Labour are going to have any sort of chance in 2024. Making up a 130 seat deficit would be a historic achievement, so you need every seat you can get - letting the Lib Dems have a clear run at Tory seats they can’t win seems like a no brainer.

I'm curious as well as to what the liberals are getting out of this ?, Electoral reforms seems like something that labour would be too divided to support and they don't really seem to have anything too concrete to ask for.

[YL]

Any thoughts on the informal Lib-Lab pact that Starmer seems to be forming, according to today’s Financial Times?

Personally, I think it’s a pretty solid strategy, and probably necessary if Labour are going to have any sort of chance in 2024. Making up a 130 seat deficit would be a historic achievement, so you need every seat you can get - letting the Lib Dems have a clear run at Tory seats they can’t win seems like a no brainer.

Beyond cutting the number of Tory seats though - if Labour were to become the largest party but end up a dozen seats short, it’s a decent strategy to have a ideologically-compatible party who is large enough to make up the gap, and whom you are already in good relations. (or at least friendly enough to work out electoral pacts - which sounds like the first draft of what could become coalition discussions?).

I haven't read the (paywalled) article, but outside a handful of constituencies, mostly in London, it's just common sense.  Most Tory held constituencies which are Lib Dem targets are hopeless for Labour and there's very little to be gained by running serious campaigns in them; furthermore, as you say, in a hung parliament scenario it's better for Labour if they're held by Lib Dems than by Tories.  Let the Lib Dems have their bar charts...

(I suppose that as someone who has voted for both parties -- and Greens sometimes in local elections -- my politics are such that I'm likely to be fairly receptive to this idea anyway.  But I think you'd have to really hate the Lib Dems to think that Labour should campaign seriously in Cheltenham or Cheadle or Chesham & Amersham.)

[Cassius]

Is there really any need for a pact? Most anti-Tory voters seem fairly aware of the concept of tactical voting these days and will vote accordingly, and given that both Labour and the Lib Dems are now led by fairly uncontroversial leaders there’s much more scope for this to happen than in 2019.

In giving tacit approval to some sort of pact, Labour risks getting pushed into a corner on electoral reform and possibly losing the ability to ever enact any meaningful change again. That should be born in mind before treating with a runt party like that the Liberal Democrats (especially since the prospect of the Lib Dems propping up the Tories in a hung Parliament is remote, and thus they don’t have much in the way of leverage, unlike in 2010).

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Is there really any need for a pact? Most anti-Tory voters seem fairly aware of the concept of tactical voting these days and will vote accordingly, and given that both Labour and the Lib Dems are now led by fairly uncontroversial leaders there’s much more scope for this to happen than in 2019.

In giving tacit approval to some sort of pact, Labour risks getting pushed into a corner on electoral reform and possibly losing the ability to ever enact any meaningful change again. That should be born in mind before treating with a runt party like that the Liberal Democrats (especially since the prospect of the Lib Dems propping up the Tories in a hung Parliament is remote, and thus they don’t have much in the way of leverage, unlike in 2010).

As well all know no German, Dutch, Kiwi or Australian Labour/S&D party has been able to survive and push through meaningful changes following electoral reform.

[EastAnglianLefty]

It's worth pointing out that Labour doesn't run serious campaigns in Con-LD marginals. It never has done, and that's especially unlikely to change when the party's finances are in a parlous state.

[Cassius]

Is there really any need for a pact? Most anti-Tory voters seem fairly aware of the concept of tactical voting these days and will vote accordingly, and given that both Labour and the Lib Dems are now led by fairly uncontroversial leaders there’s much more scope for this to happen than in 2019.

In giving tacit approval to some sort of pact, Labour risks getting pushed into a corner on electoral reform and possibly losing the ability to ever enact any meaningful change again. That should be born in mind before treating with a runt party like that the Liberal Democrats (especially since the prospect of the Lib Dems propping up the Tories in a hung Parliament is remote, and thus they don’t have much in the way of leverage, unlike in 2010).

As well all know no German, Dutch, Kiwi or Australian Labour/S&D party has been able to survive and push through meaningful changes following electoral reform.

Well, the ALP has traditionally operated in (broadly speaking) a more two party and majoritarian system than even the British Labour Party and has never participated in a Coalition at the federal level. As for the PvdA and the SPD, their most recent stints in government (stretching back thirty years) are primarily remembered for pushing through policies that their supporters mostly didn’t like. The New Zealand Labour Party remains the central pivot of the centre-left side of politics and thus is able to function on a semi-majoritarian basis (although you’d have to question whether they have been able to effect meaningful change in many areas).

The point is electoral reform towards a more proportional system will force Labour to take its manifesto to the cutting room floor after every election (flukes like the New Zealand 2020 general election notwithstanding). Whilst we don’t know what constellation of parties would be thrown up by a more proportional system, we do know that, initially, Labour would most likely have to partner with the Lib Dems, who are no friends of Labour, certainly as far as economic policy goes. I don’t know why a party that is currently showing that it has the capacity to win 40, 41, 42% of the popular vote at the next election (potentially getting it either a majority or near enough to), would throw away the opportunity to be the sole shaper of policy in government (now and forevermore) for the conditional support of a dwarf party that primarily represents England’s leafy suburbs.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Is there really any need for a pact? Most anti-Tory voters seem fairly aware of the concept of tactical voting these days and will vote accordingly, and given that both Labour and the Lib Dems are now led by fairly uncontroversial leaders there’s much more scope for this to happen than in 2019.

In giving tacit approval to some sort of pact, Labour risks getting pushed into a corner on electoral reform and possibly losing the ability to ever enact any meaningful change again. That should be born in mind before treating with a runt party like that the Liberal Democrats (especially since the prospect of the Lib Dems propping up the Tories in a hung Parliament is remote, and thus they don’t have much in the way of leverage, unlike in 2010).

As well all know no German, Dutch, Kiwi or Australian Labour/S&D party has been able to survive and push through meaningful changes following electoral reform.

Well, the ALP has traditionally operated in (broadly speaking) a more two party and majoritarian system than even the British Labour Party and has never participated in a Coalition at the federal level. As for the PvdA and the SPD, their most recent stints in government (stretching back thirty years) are primarily remembered for pushing through policies that their supporters mostly didn’t like. The New Zealand Labour Party remains the central pivot of the centre-left side of politics and thus is able to function on a semi-majoritarian basis (although you’d have to question whether they have been able to effect meaningful change in many areas).

Electoral reform doesn't guarantee the end of the two-party system, but that's another argument for it. If the electorate is broadly happy with their 2 major parties nothing about electoral reform would change that. And that is different from the British Labour parties last stint in office in what way?. A centre-left pivot is a requirement for any left-wing party wishing to govern today, regardless of electoral reform.

The point is electoral reform towards a more proportional system will force Labour to take its manifesto to the cutting room floor after every election (flukes like the New Zealand 2020 general election notwithstanding). Whilst we don’t know what constellation of parties would be thrown up by a more proportional system, we do know that, initially, Labour would most likely have to partner with the Lib Dems, who are no friends of Labour, certainly as far as economic policy goes. I don’t know why a party that is currently showing that it has the capacity to win 40, 41, 42% of the popular vote at the next election (potentially getting it either a majority or near enough to), would throw away the opportunity to be the sole shaper of policy in government (now and forevermore) for the conditional support of a dwarf party that primarily represents England’s leafy suburbs.

Getting the 40+% of the vote requires sacrificing a lot of the parties base policies in itself with no guarantee of getting into power. Rather electoral reform lets the labour concentrate it's police, getting rid of the spoiler effect and giving the hostility of most existing third parties to the conservatives let's it have some more breathing room to appealese the broader nation over a narrow focus on certain margin counsticues.

On another note, Lib dems have traditional represented more disaffected rural areas over leafy suburbs. Even the current lib dems  parlimentary cacus has almost half of it's members representing rural seats, rather than suburban seats

[Flyersfan232]

Is there really any need for a pact? Most anti-Tory voters seem fairly aware of the concept of tactical voting these days and will vote accordingly, and given that both Labour and the Lib Dems are now led by fairly uncontroversial leaders there’s much more scope for this to happen than in 2019.

In giving tacit approval to some sort of pact, Labour risks getting pushed into a corner on electoral reform and possibly losing the ability to ever enact any meaningful change again. That should be born in mind before treating with a runt party like that the Liberal Democrats (especially since the prospect of the Lib Dems propping up the Tories in a hung Parliament is remote, and thus they don’t have much in the way of leverage, unlike in 2010).

As well all know no German, Dutch, Kiwi or Australian Labour/S&D party has been able to survive and push through meaningful changes following electoral reform.

Well, the ALP has traditionally operated in (broadly speaking) a more two party and majoritarian system than even the British Labour Party and has never participated in a Coalition at the federal level. As for the PvdA and the SPD, their most recent stints in government (stretching back thirty years) are primarily remembered for pushing through policies that their supporters mostly didn’t like. The New Zealand Labour Party remains the central pivot of the centre-left side of politics and thus is able to function on a semi-majoritarian basis (although you’d have to question whether they have been able to effect meaningful change in many areas).

Electoral reform doesn't guarantee the end of the two-party system, but that's another argument for it. If the electorate is broadly happy with their 2 major parties nothing about electoral reform would change that. And that is different from the British Labour parties last stint in office in what way?. A centre-left pivot is a requirement for any left-wing party wishing to govern today, regardless of electoral reform.

The point is electoral reform towards a more proportional system will force Labour to take its manifesto to the cutting room floor after every election (flukes like the New Zealand 2020 general election notwithstanding). Whilst we don’t know what constellation of parties would be thrown up by a more proportional system, we do know that, initially, Labour would most likely have to partner with the Lib Dems, who are no friends of Labour, certainly as far as economic policy goes. I don’t know why a party that is currently showing that it has the capacity to win 40, 41, 42% of the popular vote at the next election (potentially getting it either a majority or near enough to), would throw away the opportunity to be the sole shaper of policy in government (now and forevermore) for the conditional support of a dwarf party that primarily represents England’s leafy suburbs.

Getting the 40+% of the vote requires sacrificing a lot of the parties base policies in itself with no guarantee of getting into power. Rather electoral reform lets the labour concentrate it's police, getting rid of the spoiler effect and giving the hostility of most existing third parties to the conservatives let's it have some more breathing room to appealese the broader nation over a narrow focus on certain margin counsticues.

On another note, Lib dems have traditional represented more disaffected rural areas over leafy suburbs. Even the current lib dems  parlimentary cacus has almost half of it's members representing rural seats, rather than suburban seats

if electoral reform is pass labour is going to implode

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Is there really any need for a pact? Most anti-Tory voters seem fairly aware of the concept of tactical voting these days and will vote accordingly, and given that both Labour and the Lib Dems are now led by fairly uncontroversial leaders there’s much more scope for this to happen than in 2019.

In giving tacit approval to some sort of pact, Labour risks getting pushed into a corner on electoral reform and possibly losing the ability to ever enact any meaningful change again. That should be born in mind before treating with a runt party like that the Liberal Democrats (especially since the prospect of the Lib Dems propping up the Tories in a hung Parliament is remote, and thus they don’t have much in the way of leverage, unlike in 2010).

As well all know no German, Dutch, Kiwi or Australian Labour/S&D party has been able to survive and push through meaningful changes following electoral reform.

Well, the ALP has traditionally operated in (broadly speaking) a more two party and majoritarian system than even the British Labour Party and has never participated in a Coalition at the federal level. As for the PvdA and the SPD, their most recent stints in government (stretching back thirty years) are primarily remembered for pushing through policies that their supporters mostly didn’t like. The New Zealand Labour Party remains the central pivot of the centre-left side of politics and thus is able to function on a semi-majoritarian basis (although you’d have to question whether they have been able to effect meaningful change in many areas).

Electoral reform doesn't guarantee the end of the two-party system, but that's another argument for it. If the electorate is broadly happy with their 2 major parties nothing about electoral reform would change that. And that is different from the British Labour parties last stint in office in what way?. A centre-left pivot is a requirement for any left-wing party wishing to govern today, regardless of electoral reform.

The point is electoral reform towards a more proportional system will force Labour to take its manifesto to the cutting room floor after every election (flukes like the New Zealand 2020 general election notwithstanding). Whilst we don’t know what constellation of parties would be thrown up by a more proportional system, we do know that, initially, Labour would most likely have to partner with the Lib Dems, who are no friends of Labour, certainly as far as economic policy goes. I don’t know why a party that is currently showing that it has the capacity to win 40, 41, 42% of the popular vote at the next election (potentially getting it either a majority or near enough to), would throw away the opportunity to be the sole shaper of policy in government (now and forevermore) for the conditional support of a dwarf party that primarily represents England’s leafy suburbs.

Getting the 40+% of the vote requires sacrificing a lot of the parties base policies in itself with no guarantee of getting into power. Rather electoral reform lets the labour concentrate it's police, getting rid of the spoiler effect and giving the hostility of most existing third parties to the conservatives let's it have some more breathing room to appealese the broader nation over a narrow focus on certain margin counsticues.

On another note, Lib dems have traditional represented more disaffected rural areas over leafy suburbs. Even the current lib dems  parlimentary cacus has almost half of it's members representing rural seats, rather than suburban seats

if electoral reform is pass labour is going to implode

Would that be such a bad thing, the labour right and left are at each other's throats constantly . An amicable divorce would be an improvement.

[CumbrianLefty]

There may well be a relatively (emphasis here on "relatively") small "left" party under PR. Whether or not that would amount to the "implosion" of Labour as we know it is a matter of definition really.

[Blair]

It's worth looking at the transfers in the recent Cambridge Metro Mayor race; it was something obscene like 70%+ Lib Dem voters giving Labour their second vote.

It's part of the toxicity but also the fact that a lot of ex-lib dem voters now vote Conservative and have done since 2015- so those who remain will be more willing to vote tactically.

The two parties will need to have grown up conversations about three seats in London- Wimbledon, Finchley & Westminster- as there were weird results in 2019 which mean you can't use the last election as a straight guide... but there's a good chance that these seats gets changed by the boundary review.

[Blair]

In Met news... seeing as the Met previously promoted officers who had bungled murder investigations I'm sure the social media account manager will get promoted.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/17/met-police-admit-tweet-critical-of-sadiq-khan-was-unacceptable

Also reported that there's another report set to come out about anti-corruption (or more so the lack of it) within the Met.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/cressida-dick-departure-sadiq-khan-priti-patel-met-police-b982876.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1645016337-1

[omar04]

Any thoughts on the informal Lib-Lab pact that Starmer seems to be forming, according to today’s Financial Times?

Personally, I think it’s a pretty solid strategy, and probably necessary if Labour are going to have any sort of chance in 2024. Making up a 130 seat deficit would be a historic achievement, so you need every seat you can get - letting the Lib Dems have a clear run at Tory seats they can’t win seems like a no brainer.

Beyond cutting the number of Tory seats though - if Labour were to become the largest party but end up a dozen seats short, it’s a decent strategy to have a ideologically-compatible party who is large enough to make up the gap, and whom you are already in good relations. (or at least friendly enough to work out electoral pacts - which sounds like the first draft of what could become coalition discussions?).

I’ll admit though - I’m exactly the kind of disenchanted centrist that Starmer’s entire strategy is built around reaching out to, so it may just be my personal biases that make this seem like a good plan. I imagine it won’t do Starmer any favours with segments of the Labour base (but they were already pretty unhappy with him, if the response to Corbyn’s suspension is anything to go by…). I guess you could argue it makes Labour look weak - but when they’ve been out of power for 12 years, and hold under 200 seats in Parliament, I think that threshold has already been reached.

Wonder if it could be beneficial to the Lib Dems in particular though. Beyond just the increased odds in a number of seats, an informal alliance with Labour could help erase the stigma of the last coalition. Or it could make them seem too ideologically flexible - and hurt both parties. I’d bet more on the former than the latter though - I doubt 2024 is going to be fought on Nick Clegg’s actions.

Didn't Labour keep their campaign mostly low energy in North Shropshire to let the Lib Dems have their best shot?

[Torrain]

Gonna be a crazy day out there. Actually listened to the Shipping Forecast tonight, and I’ve never heard the word “cyclonic” used so frequently and dispassionately before.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ShippingForecas/status/1494436593838567425

[Pericles]

Is there really any need for a pact? Most anti-Tory voters seem fairly aware of the concept of tactical voting these days and will vote accordingly, and given that both Labour and the Lib Dems are now led by fairly uncontroversial leaders there’s much more scope for this to happen than in 2019.

In giving tacit approval to some sort of pact, Labour risks getting pushed into a corner on electoral reform and possibly losing the ability to ever enact any meaningful change again. That should be born in mind before treating with a runt party like that the Liberal Democrats (especially since the prospect of the Lib Dems propping up the Tories in a hung Parliament is remote, and thus they don’t have much in the way of leverage, unlike in 2010).

It's near perfect for both parties-no LibDem seats are vulnerable to Labour while virtually all the LibDem targets are Tory seats.

[Sestak]

Is there really any need for a pact? Most anti-Tory voters seem fairly aware of the concept of tactical voting these days and will vote accordingly, and given that both Labour and the Lib Dems are now led by fairly uncontroversial leaders there’s much more scope for this to happen than in 2019.

In giving tacit approval to some sort of pact, Labour risks getting pushed into a corner on electoral reform and possibly losing the ability to ever enact any meaningful change again. That should be born in mind before treating with a runt party like that the Liberal Democrats (especially since the prospect of the Lib Dems propping up the Tories in a hung Parliament is remote, and thus they don’t have much in the way of leverage, unlike in 2010).

It's near perfect for both parties-no LibDem seats are vulnerable to Labour while virtually all the LibDem targets are Tory seats.

Yeah, but the point is there isn’t very much upside to spelling this out? People know this already, so just have Labour surreptitiously tank their campaigns in the Tory-LibDem seats and vice versa. Formalizing it just ties each party to the other party’s brand, which both ways is deeply unpopular with a notable subset of their own voters and potential new/returning voters.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Im not sure why people are debating this as if this is a novel idea rather than a key element of every Labour strategy since the Lib SDP Alliance first emerged? Aside from 2015, for obvious reasons, Labour have always id'd a few seats for the LDs and ran skeleton campaigns, while avoiding formal pacts which would run into various local problems and headaches.

[TheTide]

Labour went from 20% to losing their deposit in Esher and Walton in 2019, and still the usual suspects moaned on social media because the Tory majority was lower (by about 100 votes) than Labour's raw vote.

[CumbrianLefty]

Is there really any need for a pact? Most anti-Tory voters seem fairly aware of the concept of tactical voting these days and will vote accordingly, and given that both Labour and the Lib Dems are now led by fairly uncontroversial leaders there’s much more scope for this to happen than in 2019.

In giving tacit approval to some sort of pact, Labour risks getting pushed into a corner on electoral reform and possibly losing the ability to ever enact any meaningful change again. That should be born in mind before treating with a runt party like that the Liberal Democrats (especially since the prospect of the Lib Dems propping up the Tories in a hung Parliament is remote, and thus they don’t have much in the way of leverage, unlike in 2010).

It's near perfect for both parties-no LibDem seats are vulnerable to Labour while virtually all the LibDem targets are Tory seats.

Yeah, but the point is there isn’t very much upside to spelling this out? People know this already, so just have Labour surreptitiously tank their campaigns in the Tory-LibDem seats and vice versa. Formalizing it just ties each party to the other party’s brand, which both ways is deeply unpopular with a notable subset of their own voters and potential new/returning voters.

People like us know this already, I would bet most non-followers of politics don't. And even if there is the effect you state in a small way, a formal "alliance" would increase that sentiment much more.

[Blair]

Is there really any need for a pact? Most anti-Tory voters seem fairly aware of the concept of tactical voting these days and will vote accordingly, and given that both Labour and the Lib Dems are now led by fairly uncontroversial leaders there’s much more scope for this to happen than in 2019.

In giving tacit approval to some sort of pact, Labour risks getting pushed into a corner on electoral reform and possibly losing the ability to ever enact any meaningful change again. That should be born in mind before treating with a runt party like that the Liberal Democrats (especially since the prospect of the Lib Dems propping up the Tories in a hung Parliament is remote, and thus they don’t have much in the way of leverage, unlike in 2010).

It's near perfect for both parties-no LibDem seats are vulnerable to Labour while virtually all the LibDem targets are Tory seats.

Yeah, but the point is there isn’t very much upside to spelling this out? People know this already, so just have Labour surreptitiously tank their campaigns in the Tory-LibDem seats and vice versa. Formalizing it just ties each party to the other party’s brand, which both ways is deeply unpopular with a notable subset of their own voters and potential new/returning voters.

It's the opposite side of the coin but the Liberal Democrats were able to frankly bullsh**t about their chances in a number of seats in 2019 & convinced low-info voters that the Lib-Dems were the best chance of beating the Conservatives- such as in Kensington.

I'm interested how much tactical voting changes in 2024- there are signs (see my post above) that it's rising but equally an issue election like 2019 was always going to be one with huge levels- I know people who always voted Lib-Dem in Tory-Labour marginals who voted Labour in 2019 purely because they wanted to stop Brexit.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Im not sure why people are debating this as if this is a novel idea rather than a key element of every Labour strategy since the Lib SDP Alliance first emerged? Aside from 2015, for obvious reasons, Labour have always id'd a few seats for the LDs and ran skeleton campaigns, while avoiding formal pacts which would run into various local problems and headaches.

In fact we can stretch it back further and note that it is how Labour has tended to operate since 1918, with the only exceptions being during periods of exceptional Liberal weakness. And even then they've not exactly mounted serious assaults on most of the constituencies in question. A formal pact would be a terrible idea (and is not happening) because Lib/Con swing voters are amongst the most Labour-hostile sections of the electorate you'll find, but running dead where the LibDems are making an effort and there's little significant Labour presence? There's no serious downside: it means the Tories have to direct more resources away from contests with Labour (and, unlike Labour which has spent most of its history borderline broke and reliant on enthusiasm more than cash, Conservative campaigns are resource-driven to a huge extent) which is excellent and it might also mean a few less Conservative MPs when all the votes are counted, which is hardly bad news in terms of parliamentary arithmetic.

[CumbrianLefty]

Any thoughts on the informal Lib-Lab pact that Starmer seems to be forming, according to today’s Financial Times?

Personally, I think it’s a pretty solid strategy, and probably necessary if Labour are going to have any sort of chance in 2024. Making up a 130 seat deficit would be a historic achievement, so you need every seat you can get - letting the Lib Dems have a clear run at Tory seats they can’t win seems like a no brainer.

Beyond cutting the number of Tory seats though - if Labour were to become the largest party but end up a dozen seats short, it’s a decent strategy to have a ideologically-compatible party who is large enough to make up the gap, and whom you are already in good relations. (or at least friendly enough to work out electoral pacts - which sounds like the first draft of what could become coalition discussions?).

I’ll admit though - I’m exactly the kind of disenchanted centrist that Starmer’s entire strategy is built around reaching out to, so it may just be my personal biases that make this seem like a good plan. I imagine it won’t do Starmer any favours with segments of the Labour base (but they were already pretty unhappy with him, if the response to Corbyn’s suspension is anything to go by…). I guess you could argue it makes Labour look weak - but when they’ve been out of power for 12 years, and hold under 200 seats in Parliament, I think that threshold has already been reached.

Wonder if it could be beneficial to the Lib Dems in particular though. Beyond just the increased odds in a number of seats, an informal alliance with Labour could help erase the stigma of the last coalition. Or it could make them seem too ideologically flexible - and hurt both parties. I’d bet more on the former than the latter though - I doubt 2024 is going to be fought on Nick Clegg’s actions.

Didn't Labour keep their campaign mostly low energy in North Shropshire to let the Lib Dems have their best shot?

Yes, but they did actually run a meaningful campaign there, unlike in Chesham and Amersham. The Labour result there led to all sorts of gleeful "kIeTh" takes from the same sort of psephological ignoramuses who infest the Britain Elects twitter account every local byelection night/morning.

[Blair]

Any thoughts on the informal Lib-Lab pact that Starmer seems to be forming, according to today’s Financial Times?

Personally, I think it’s a pretty solid strategy, and probably necessary if Labour are going to have any sort of chance in 2024. Making up a 130 seat deficit would be a historic achievement, so you need every seat you can get - letting the Lib Dems have a clear run at Tory seats they can’t win seems like a no brainer.

Beyond cutting the number of Tory seats though - if Labour were to become the largest party but end up a dozen seats short, it’s a decent strategy to have a ideologically-compatible party who is large enough to make up the gap, and whom you are already in good relations. (or at least friendly enough to work out electoral pacts - which sounds like the first draft of what could become coalition discussions?).

I’ll admit though - I’m exactly the kind of disenchanted centrist that Starmer’s entire strategy is built around reaching out to, so it may just be my personal biases that make this seem like a good plan. I imagine it won’t do Starmer any favours with segments of the Labour base (but they were already pretty unhappy with him, if the response to Corbyn’s suspension is anything to go by…). I guess you could argue it makes Labour look weak - but when they’ve been out of power for 12 years, and hold under 200 seats in Parliament, I think that threshold has already been reached.

Wonder if it could be beneficial to the Lib Dems in particular though. Beyond just the increased odds in a number of seats, an informal alliance with Labour could help erase the stigma of the last coalition. Or it could make them seem too ideologically flexible - and hurt both parties. I’d bet more on the former than the latter though - I doubt 2024 is going to be fought on Nick Clegg’s actions.

Didn't Labour keep their campaign mostly low energy in North Shropshire to let the Lib Dems have their best shot?

Yes, but they did actually run a meaningful campaign there, unlike in Chesham and Amersham. The Labour result there led to all sorts of gleeful "kIeTh" takes from the same sort of psephological ignoramuses who infest the Britain Elects twitter account every local byelection night/morning.

I honestly think they need to turn the comments off; it improved when they announced the turnout but even the ones without Labour e.g random county council battle between the Lib-Dems & Tories, lead to a flood of awful takes and rather pointless arguments about what it all means.

We actually had one interesting result yesterday (in Bristol) but the vast majority are pointless & to sound like a campaigning snob the takes come from people who are so online that they don't understand just how weird voters behave in local council by-elections*!

There is also a very big divide in how local elections are ran; I've only ever lived in urban Labour strongholds where the party machine is strong, local media is dead & so forth- which means you don't get much actual competition, where as some of the smaller areas do have genuine fiefdoms & councillors/community groups who can swing the balance & vicious disputes on top.

*Labour are imho just as bad; I remember a very narrow lose in Devon being spoken of as if it was Enfield in 1997...