Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

[Francesca R]

The bolded concerns me. If it's a reality that such promises will be broken, how the hell do I know what I'm voting for?

You don't. You don't get to select a government that will do exactly what you want. And there is no reason why you should. But a country should be governed.

Manifestos say what a party will do if it is in sole power. It would perhaps be better if they indicated what compromises they might make but I am not convinced that would be any better. What would be better would be if voters did not inhabit cloud-cuckoo-land thinking a party with less than 10% of seats in a coalition should somehow be able to deliver its manifesto in full.

Many countries manage perfectly well with coalitions. The UK is not very used to it. Although it got a reprieve from worrying about it in 2015 I hope that doesn't last.

 

[MikeG]

......What would be better would be if voters did not inhabit cloud-cuckoo-land thinking a party with less than 10% of seats in a coalition should somehow be able to deliver its manifesto in full..........

Exactly. For instance, it was ridiculous to punish the Lib Dems for having a policy on University tuition fees in their manifesto which didn't make it into the Coalition Agreement.........albeit they had 50-odd seats in a coalition total of 364 seats, so some 15 ish percent.

 

[3point14]

You don't. You don't get to select a government that will do exactly what you want. And there is no reason why you should. But a country should be governed.

I understand the theory. I just think that, if one votes for a party that has made a promise and that party, once in power, shatters that promise, it's deeply undemocratic.

If one cannot form a coalition without keeping the promises one made in order to obtain enough seats to be able to form a coalition then one, quite simply, should not be part of a coalition. Hang the parliment and start again. There is a system for that.

I think coalition governments are dangerous as, by their very definition, they have neither a mandate from the people or a manifesto to adhere to. That's not democratic.

 

[MikeG]

I understand the theory. I just think that, if one votes for a party that has made a promise and that party, once in power, shatters that promise, it's deeply undemocratic.

If one cannot form a coalition without keeping the promises one made in order to obtain enough seats to be able to form a coalition then one, quite simply, should not be part of a coalition. Hang the parliment and start again. There is a system for that.

I think coalition governments are dangerous as, by their very definition, they have neither a mandate from the people or a manifesto to adhere to. That's not democratic.

You haven't thought that through. There are many hundreds of "promises" made in every manifesto. If you think that not being able to keep 100% of them, even if you have just a tiny part in a coalition, would mean triggering a new election, we could be permanently in campaign mode and having half a dozen general elections a year. What you are effectively saying is that there should never ever be a coalition government.

 

[Comrade Quixote]

I'm wondering what will happen to all these apparently "new" Labour supporters if Corbyn doesn't win - will they fade away or now their appetite for the political has been (again?) whetted stick around?

As I am one of them, I could answer for myself, but I don't know if that would be meaningful data...

 

[MCel58]

If they get involved with their local branch of the Labour Party, I hope their experience is more enjoyable than mine between 1985 and 2006. Instead of the cut and thrust of political debate it was mostly the interminable minutae of constituency politics and inter and intra-clique based infighting.

At least it was less dire than student politics I suppose.

Only marginally, I was a Labour Party member from 1975 until the point when they chucked all the militant out not because I was a member of militant but because the tactics used by Kinnock et al were deplorable. During my time I witnessed more infighting than a school playground mostly caused by the so called right of the party but not only.

 

[caveman1917]

Except then for Tony Cliff who also viewed the USSR as state capitalism. And who went on to found the British SWP.

Yes, and one organization in the US as well IIRC. The rest sticks with Trotsky himself who considered it a degenerated workers' state.

Initially, yes, but in the end anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism withered away there too.

It was strongly repressed as well.

Spain was the major exception, until Franco.

Also Ukraine, until Lenin.

 

[3point14]

You haven't thought that through. There are many hundreds of "promises" made in every manifesto. If you think that not being able to keep 100% of them, even if you have just a tiny part in a coalition, would mean triggering a new election, we could be permanently in campaign mode and having half a dozen general elections a year. What you are effectively saying is that there should never ever be a coalition government.

I'm saying that there should never be a coalition government where both parts of the coalition cannot keep the promises they made to garner the votes they did.

More realistic campaign promises on the part of politicians or a system that accounts for there being more than two parties would solve it.

We don't need to be stuck with governments that no-one wants which have no manifesto to stick to. There are other options. Unfortunately, politicians like the idea of not being burdened by any pesky promises they make to the electorate.

 

[caveman1917]

There are other options.

Such as voting for policies rather than for politicians.

 

[The Don]

I'm saying that there should never be a coalition government where both parts of the coalition cannot keep the promises they made to garner the votes they did.

More realistic campaign promises on the part of politicians or a system that accounts for there being more than two parties would solve it.

We don't need to be stuck with governments that no-one wants which have no manifesto to stick to. There are other options. Unfortunately, politicians like the idea of not being burdened by any pesky promises they make to the electorate.

From my own perspective there are manifesto promises and MANIFESTO PROMISES !!!!! In my view the former are a collection of positions that the party has accumulated as part of the election process whereas the latter actually defines the basic ethos of the party. Changing positions on the former is understandable in the context of coalition government (in particular if Party A's policy was formulated purely to be different from Party B's), changing position on the latter is, IMO, unacceptable.

In the case of the Conservatives for example I consider the latter to include their expectation that the private sector is best placed to run any enterprise so if, as part of some future hypothetical coalition government agreement they end up re-nationalising the water utilities I could understand their supporters getting p'd off. Reversing an election manifesto pledge to support/not support a particular road scheme OTOH is IMO neither here nor there.

In the case of the LibDems, IMO tuition fees was one of their cornerstone policies so I can understand how the electorate felt let down.

 

[MikeG]

I'm saying that there should never be a coalition government where both parts of the coalition cannot keep the promises they made to garner the votes they did. .......

In other words, there can never be a coalition.

The only way that there could ever be a coalition under your regimen is if two parties had identical manifestos. Coalition negotiations would fall over, according to you, if one party promised no rise in the price of a pint, and another said that prices would go up by a penny a pint. Your notion is ridiculous.

 

[GlennB]

There's an interesting take on the kerfuffle from George Monbiot in The Guardian. Among other things he reckons that Labour is forever doomed in Scotland as long as it puts up Tory-lite zombies as leadership candidates, in which case such zombie will require as much as a 106 seat gain in the rest of the UK to form a majority government. In which case, it's the anti-Corbyn crowd who are deluded. I think he has a point. Only a total change of course is going to save Labour in the long term and, of the candidates, Corbyn is the only one offering that even if his chances of winning in 2020 are negligible.

Full article here.

 

[shuttlt]

In other words, there can never be a coalition.

The only way that there could ever be a coalition under your regimen is if two parties had identical manifestos. Coalition negotiations would fall over, according to you, if one party promised no rise in the price of a pint, and another said that prices would go up by a penny a pint. Your notion is ridiculous.

Nonsense. It's not as if each parties positions on the key issue are unknown to each other. It would be perfectly possible to draft campaign promises that took into an account the possibility of coalition with one or more other parties. Whether it would be a good negotiating strategy to be so open is something else.

 

[MikeG]

.......Only a total change of course is going to save Labour in the long term and, of the candidates, Corbyn is the only one offering that even if his chances of winning in 2020 are negligible........

There's Labour's problem. Three over-coached talking heads with no vision and no charisma, up against a plausible, kindly, experienced chap who is wrong on just about every issue. They're choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea.

 

[3point14]

In other words, there can never be a coalition.

If that's what it takes to have politicians who actually do, after the election, what they said they would in advance

The only way that there could ever be a coalition under your regimen is if two parties had identical manifestos. Coalition negotiations would fall over, according to you, if one party promised no rise in the price of a pint, and another said that prices would go up by a penny a pint. Your notion is ridiculous.

Ridiculous only under an outdated electoral system that deals in a ridiculous way with there being more than two parties. A colaition government is an absolute demonstration that the system we have doesn't work when there are more than two parties with reasonable prospects.

That we allow the politicians to carve up government between them, without regard for any pledges they've made in order to get into government, due to this cock-up of a system is very anti-democratic.

There are better ways to deal with the issue.

 

[MikeG]

Nonsense. It's not as if each parties positions on the key issue are unknown to each other. It would be perfectly possible to draft campaign promises that took into an account the possibility of coalition with one or more other parties. Whether it would be a good negotiating strategy to be so open is something else.

So, you hadn't worked out that I was responding to 3point14's post.

 

[3point14]

Nonsense. It's not as if each parties positions on the key issue are unknown to each other. It would be perfectly possible to draft campaign promises that took into an account the possibility of coalition with one or more other parties. Whether it would be a good negotiating strategy to be so open is something else.

I would even accept two lists of campaign promises if we're to be stuck with a system that doesn't work.

One firm, one mutable. At least that would be honest.

 

[MikeG]

If that's what it takes to have politicians who actually do, after the election, what they said they would in advance



Ridiculous only under an outdated electoral system that deals in a ridiculous way with there being more than two parties. A colaition government is an absolute demonstration that the system we have doesn't work when there are more than two parties with reasonable prospects.

That we allow the politicians to carve up government between them, without regard for any pledges they've made in order to get into government, due to this cock-up of a system is very anti-democratic.

There are better ways to deal with the issue.

You have yet to give anyone any idea how two or more parties could enter a coalition with other parties and guarantee to deliver the entirety of each and every manifesto, even where they clash.

 

[MikeG]

........That we allow the politicians to carve up government between them, without regard for any pledges they've made in order to get into government, due to this cock-up of a system is very anti-democratic.........

When has this ever happened, anywhere in the world, ever?

 

[3point14]

You have yet to give anyone any idea how two or more parties could enter a coalition with other parties and guarantee to deliver the entirety of each and every manifesto, even where they clash.

Then there should be no coalitions. We need a different system.

Any system that puts any MP into a governing coalition that forces them to vote against that which they advocted for in order to be elected is undemocratic.

It's like voting for Alan and getting Bob. Those who voted for this coalition politician are actually not getting the fellow advertised.

How that's representative democracy, I cannot see. The representative, as a politician, is not the one voted for.