I’m a bit late responding to this one as I’ve been away working, but tardy though I may be, it’s worth a comment.
There’s been increasing talk of a progressive alliance to block a Conservative majority in the commons of late. Progressive really means nasty, dictatorial, prurient, busy-body, fussbucketing, nanny statism. People who think that your business is their business and they should have the power to tell you what to do, what to eat and how to live your life – even to the point of policing your thoughts. That these people are thoroughly nasty is obvious from every pronouncement they make – and the Greens are probably the most extreme example we have in British politics. They ain’t referred to as watermelons for nothing.
Caroline Lucas displays the contempt for the electorate that runs through these creatures like the name through Brighton Rock. They don’t trust us to deliver the “right” result. Therefore, we must be manipulated so that our betters can ensure that we deliver the “right” result. That is democracy, it seems…
Last night something remarkable happened in Brighton. Local party members from the Liberal Democrats stood aside in Brighton Pavilion, and the Greens stood down in Brighton Kemptown. People who have spent years campaigning in these places took the decision to put aside party allegiances and work together so we have the best possible chance of delivering a fairer voting system and beating the Tories on 8 June. These choices were not easy, indeed they are acts of political bravery.
It’s not brave at all, nor is it a fairer system. It is contemptible. It is denying the voter the choice they would otherwise have had. Sure, not all parties contest all seats as it may not be practicable. However, this is not what is happening here. These people are deliberately attempting to manipulate the voter so that the voter will vote tactically rather than simply asking them to do so. Sure, they might anyway, but that isn’t the point here. Caroline Lucas and her fellow denizens of the dark side are making damned sure that the democratic system is undermined. They display their misanthropy and utter contempt for the electorate and the democratic system for all to see.
There was a time when I was a Labour voter (yeah, yeah, I know) but I was younger then. However, I deplored the extreme left and deserted the party during the eighties, coming back briefly when it looked as if they were again occupying the centre ground. Had there been an attempt to form a progressive alliance then – for the Greens to be my local candidate rather than have a choice of them, Labour and LibDem – I would not have voted for them, for they are on the lunatic fringe of left-wing politics (the very extremism that caused me to desert the Labour party). I would never – even when at my most deluded – have cast a vote for these vile authoritarian scumbags. I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives sooner than vote for these people. Indeed, if they had pulled this stunt, I would have done so in defiance at their effrontery – a virtual two-finger salute.
These people are not democrats and the progressive alliance that is effectively ganging up on the electorate shows them up as such.
And if there is a Tory landslide? There will be riots on the streets and claims that it wasn’t democratic because the electorate defied the progressive alliance and returned the “wrong” decision. I don’t much like the Tories. Never have. But by God, they are paragons of virtue when compared to their opponents in the progressive alliance. And that’s saying something.
I’m sorry but I think you are wrong on this one. You cannot blog daily on the importance of freedom of choice to then complain at somebody else’s choice simply because you don’t approve. Nobody is forced to stand in an election and if one party thinks they stand little chance in a particular area why should they be forced to stand there? Especially if they see that putting a candidate there will work against them by splitting a vote and meaning they could lose their deposit. The fact is though that whatever reasons they choose not to stand is entirely down to them. If that means less choice for the electorate, well tough. Anyone that doesn’t like it can always stand themselves on the principle that they would change the law on such issues. I can’t see them getting many votes though.
You have managed to completely miss my point here. I am taking issue with political parties deliberately reducing the choice available to the electorate for their own advantage for the simple reason that they hold that electorate in contempt. It is perfectly reasonable of me to point out that such behaviour is contemptible – because it is.
Oh, and freedom means I have the freedom to complain about whatever I want. That’s how this freedom of speech thing works.
I don’t think I am missing the point. What I am trying to get across is that the parties have zero obligation to give people a variety of choices. Holding the electorate in contempt has nothing to do with anything. If it were a slew of centre right parties doing the same in the interests of what they think is best, I would not complain as it is no business of mine to tell all those parties that they must have a candidate. I don’t deny your freedom of speech over the issue or any other issue. What I’m pointing out is that your position is a tad hypocritical…which is fine too. We are all open to a little hypocrisy every now and then…it’s part of the human condition.
No, it isn’t. I’m being entirely consistent here. Nowhere have I said they can’t do it. I am, however, entirely correct in criticising their motives.
It has everything to do with it.
It seems to me that a good analogy here would be Tesco refusing to open a store next to Asda and you complain about it by stating that Asda products are slightly different to Tescos. As with shops political parties are private entities and have no obligation to give you the choice you want. The only way for you to rectify this situation is to stand yourself in a bid to change the law or to stand with a manifesto that clearly states the positions that you think the parties that are not standing would or should have. Best of luck with that…
No. It’s not a valid analogy. Tesco and Asda are providing a service people volunteer to pay for in a free market.
These people are planning to govern us. Huge difference.
You continue to miss the point I’ve been making. This is about motivation. I’ve made that pretty clear here. I covered the decision not to stand due to lack of resources, for example in the post. This is not about that. Their motivation is to undermine the process for the purposes of obtaining power – a deliberate attempt to manipulate that process; not to refrain from fielding a candidate in a hopelessly unwinnable seat, but to win by cheating the system. Supermarkets aren’t even on the same playing field when it comes to this type of mendacity.
I have no desire to stand for political office as I have no desire to hold power over others and despise those who do.
I was a member of the Labour Party very briefly in my mid-teens, but by the time I was old enough to vote, I was an enthusiastic voter for Saint Margaret Hilda.
I seem to recall Winston Churchill having something to say on the matter.
I think that I must be missing the point as well LR. If the opposition parties are all fairly minority parties and they know that the opposition vote is likely to be split between them thus rendering them totally ineffective, it makes sense to me for them to collaborate in this way and not field candidates against each other. In fact I don’t think they have any other choice. I do get the bit about reducing people’s choices but I can’t see what else they could do if they are going to create any kind of effective opposition.
The opposition parties have differing polices – for example, the Greens have a very different approach to defence than, say, Labour or the LibDems. Even as someone who has in the past supported the latter two parties, I would never – ever – vote Green. Yet they are trying to force that outcome by deliberately denying that alternative choice.
What they are doing here is deliberately manipulating the available choice to the electorate – not because they might lose their deposit; which would be a valid reason for smaller parties – but because they do not trust the electorate to vote the right way and deliver the right result. If the opposition vote is divided, then that is the way it is. They should be selling their policies and encouraging the electorate to vote for them rather than the alternatives. And, by all means campaign for tactical voting a la Blair recently. Instead, they are treating us like children who cannot be trusted.
It’s the motivation here that stinks.
your point is valid.
It should be for the electorate to make a choice, not for the local parties to do a deal to deny that choice.
Of course the political parties have the freedom whether to field a candidate or not, especially if they don’t have the resources, but not to do so to manipulate the result destroys any moral argument that they might make in favour of democracy. Indeed why not go full ‘Buggins turn’, have a get together, decide which party ‘should’ form the government and only put their candidate forward. That would save the plebs having to get out of bed.
This.
Half of LibDem voters are people whose second choice would be Tory, so these “progressive alliances” just don’t work in practice. It is a delusion to imagine there is much common ground between LibDems, Labour and Greens.
The one thing they do have in common is the desire to control the lives of those they consider their inferiors, ie those who don’t agree with them.
“The Greens are probably the most extreme example”. Neck and neck with the SNP I’d say.
It’s always possible, of course, that this bright idea might just backfire on them. They are, of course, assuming that everyone who might be considering voting for one of them absolutely despises the Tories, and will happily vote for Anyone Else At All. Although that may be true of some, I doubt that it’s true of all, or even the majority. Probably, given the low opinion the public has of pretty much all parties these days, all but the dyed-in-the-wool, “I’ve always voted for ….” types, to a greater or lesser extent, dislike all of them. So it’s not out of the question that moderate, floating, Labour-central voters, such as you used to be, denied the chance of voting for what they think is a New-Labour central-ish Labour candidate would actually feel that they have no option but to vote for the Tories – who are at a known quantity – rather than voting for a party which they wouldn’t have even considered in the past, simply because they’re part of this little scheme. Just a thought.
Yes, precisely. Especially if they are centrist and the alliance candidate is of the loony left.