👇On the misleading use of Labour rulebook as an alibi against collaboration with other parties.
In summary…
"There is no constitutional or procedural reason why the Labour Party cannot form a Progressive Alliance with the other Centre-Left parties." getprdone.org.uk/the-progressiv…
"The reason why Labour has only ever cooperated fleetingly, in a given seat for a single election, and never cooperated strategically, has not been for any constitutional or organisational reason but simply because the Labour Party did not wish to do so."
"Thankfully, the sobering reality of four successive election defeats and the near-certainty of a fifth defeat to follow in 2024 (or earlier) has started to move more and more Labour supporters to favour cross-party cooperation."
"Of course, the current Labour leadership doesn’t quite see it the same way, but that’s for another blog."
- an Alliance would "promote" the flexion of more Labour MPs as per rule 1.3
-there is no clause in the rule book which specifies that there must be an official Labour candidate in every seat
-Chapter 2, Clause 1.4 of the Rulebook does indeed forbid any Labour member from acting
in any way in opposition to an official Labour candidate and also from supporting any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate." Not a problem if Labour does NOT stand a candidate but a problem if Labour runs even a "paper candidate"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. At best the polls in the next GE will show the possibility of a hung Parliament 2. Without a plan & a common structured strategy, the Opposition parties will be destroyed by accusations of "coalition of chaos" & the Tories will win. For the public "hung Parliament"= chaos.
3.Unless the parties agree something like 👇 ( or a "lite" form of this) which would also provide an optimistic narrative of renewal and which must of course include PR, we are doomed.
An Alliance can take many forms. What I outlined in the tweet you commented on is a "lite Alliance" version. I should have added: 5. Coordinate attacks on Tories
Labour is not fit for purpose. It is anti-democratic & obsessed only with remaining the first Opposition party.
Why? Well in part because of ££££
FPTP helps Labour to get rich.
Every seat lost costs Labour £18,407
Every 200 votes lost cost £36.76
PR would be disastrous.
A 🧵
Labour, like other opposition parties receive what is called the Short money, i.e. public money : 1. General funding for Opposition Parties: the amount payable is £18,407.21 for every seat won at the last GE (£3.6M) + £36.76 for every 200 votes won.
The last GE cost Labour £1.2M
In contrast the @LibDems receive £220,000 for their 12 seats @the Greens, with one seat only must secure at least 150,000 votes & receive a pitiful amount. Both parties increased their vote share but not their seats - in fact the LD lost one (now back at 12 due to Chesham)
The scale of the electoral mountain Labour must climb is eye-watering. It would need the same sort of historic swing that achieved a landslide in 1945 or 1997 simply to eke out a bare majority of one (which would today require a gain of 124 seats).
With no sign of the SNP hold on Scotland weakening and the possibility of punishing boundary changes kicking in, outright victory would surely take an intellectual and organisational effort of a sort of which there is no sign around the Leadership.
It may turn out that the "long bad dream" of our non-EU membership could be about to start.
The bad dream David Frost did not dare mentioning in his speech of 4th October on.ft.com/3DCq9Mo via @FT
France, Germany, the Netherlands - traditionally a close ally of the UK- supported by Spain & Italy pressing the Commission to prepare a plan for retaliatory sanctions.
Such as "curbing UK access to the bloc’s energy supplies, imposing tariffs on British exports, or in extreme circumstances terminating the trade agreement between the two sides."
A few comments: 1. To see how something work, first it has to be implemented. The EU was waiting for the UK to implement. The UK delayed & made things as difficult as possible 2. The EU demands on data sharing & labelling were agreed by the UK in the December Declaration
So they are not just "reasonable", they are a sign of extreme patience: the WA was signed in January 2021! 3. Johnson agreed to & proposed border posts in the note appended to his letter of 2/10/2019 to the EU. Then halted the construction.
Why would the EU go to the trouble of drafting hellishy complicated customs rules before knowing if the UK is happy in principle?
Did the UK draft the legal text in its "command paper"? NO. It was very vague. Maybe the EU is tired of doing drafting work only to have it rejected?
A PA can take many forms & steps:
1.coordinate attacks on the Tories 2. Identify policies you can agree on 3. Publicly agree with the other parties on issues publicly, starting with working together in Parliament 4. Meet regularly at leaders level & set up a cross party
parliamentary group 5. Try to harmonise manifestos with different language but identifiable similar policies on key issues 6. Respect your differences & agree that you do not agree on everything but that crucially you agree to work together in good faith 7. Agree not to run
candidates in key marginals where the other party is well placed behind the Tories 8. Failing this, set up an "official" tactical voting site & ask your supporters to vote according to its recommendations.