A deeply depressing letter sent by @DavidHallam in response to @guardian article urging Labour’s supporters to back the @LibDems in North Shropshire. It contains everything which makes people despair of British politics. 🧵
2/First the naked tribalism. Asking Labour voters to vote LD isn't asking them to vote "against their own party". A Tory loss (see @MartinKettle in the Guardian today) would deal a devastating blow to the Conservatives & would advance Labour's interests.
3/Conversely, a Conservative victory, particularly in the circumstances of this seat - Patterson's corruption, the Downing Street parties' scandal- will allow Johnson to reassert his "Teflon" authority on his MPs. How does this serve Labour's interests?
4/Then the argument that Labour has the best chances & "there is no informal agreement" (because of people like you) between the 2 parties.But Mr Hallam, with or without informal agreement, Labour voters are free to vote as they choose, for the best placed candidate.
5/Publishing unreliable canvassing polls doesn't detract from the fact that a local candidate supported by her party leadership stands a better (albeit slim) chance. You do not own Labour’s voters (to your obvious frustration) & we are not in a Stalinist regime.
6/Then the inevitable reference to the 2010 coalition. You ignore the fact that Labour bears a significant responsibility for the fact Clegg chose coalition with the Tories rather than Labour. A significant Labour faction (likely including you) was dead against a coalition.
7/There was exhaustion in Labour after 3 terms & Cameron won more votes than Brown.The LD were stuck between two bad choices. There is no guarantee that a coalition with Labour headed by a famously uncollaborative PM would have worked. But above all, you pick a single exemple
8/which suits your purpose. There were many successful LD/Labour alliances in the past. In 1906 Labour formed a non-aggression pact with the Liberals to make its first serious breakthrough into parliament. In the 1920s Labour governments were only formed with Liberal support.
9/In 1945, Labour was only able to commission the Beveridge report with Liberal support.Facing a motion of no-confidence & with no parliamentary majority, in March 1977 the Labour government of Callaghan formed a C&S agreement with the Liberal Party,known as the Lib-Lab Pact.
10/Selective history is bad faith. It is also dangerous. Your Labour faction has -again & again- allowed Conservative victories, stopped a new kind of collaborative politics, electoral reform & thinks there is no virtue in dialogue. Sad & defeatist.
Apparently I tagged the wrong David Hallam. Apologies @davidhallam . I should have tagged @DJAHallam
Please untag poor David Hallam from your replies. Thanks!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
These are the reasons @DJAHallam gives for asking Labour voters not to vote for Helen Morgan:
She is he says "obsessed with nazis". This is because she:
- told Patel to "tear up her Goebbels'manual" because of her approach to propaganda around refugees
- compared the PM's attempts to prorogue Parliament as acting like "what Hitler did in 1933" & a "shameless power grab"
- compared the situation of Jewish people fleeing war and persecution to the situation of the refugees doing the same today
I am rather impressed by Mrs Morgan
Note that before posting this article, he started by implying she was pro-nazis. The honest Mr Hallam.
In @NewStatesman "To secure a majority of just one, Keir Starmer’s party needs to win 125 additional seats – an almost impossible task given its collapse in Scotland and the way its vote is concentrated in cities and university towns. Analysis suggests it would fall short
Hello @SteveBakerHW@DavidDavisMP
I am told you are "libertarians". Care to comment about this unbelievable bill in a supposed democracy?
This is tantamount to a ban on peaceful protests. It is draconian & tyrannical ( to use a word you are fond of).
-ban protesters from attaching themselves to another person (linking arms), to an object (holding on when dragged), or to land.Punished by 51 weeks’ imprisonment.
-ban any obstruction in any way of major transport works from being carried out. Maximum sentence of 51 weeks.
So a man lying in front of a bulldozer as Johnson said he would at Heathrow. Residents in England protesting against HS2. Jail sentence
The chorus for a dose of realism from Labour leadership is getting louder. Another voice in support of collaboration with other parties, this time the voice of @rafaelbehr
A🧵 & a 🙏
"A majority of one would require more than 120 gains & no losses. Nothing about the lay of the political land suggests it is poised to slide on that scale which makes the more feasible route to No10 look like collaboration with other parties."
"The obstacle is not so much a fetish for the existing voting system as emotional attachment to the idea that Labour and Conservative are equal contenders in a title race, while everyone else is scrapping in lower divisions."
Excellent article. One fact stands out: "This is not mentioned by the British popular media or the Government but the number of migrants reaching Britain — mostly from France — is not increasing. The opposite is true. 1/4 unherd.com/2021/11/the-ca…
There were 80,000 in 2002. That fell to 18,000 in 2010. There were 29,000 in 2020, after the boat traffic began.
Mainly due to the French efforts.
"France has, in effect, been protecting Britain from even a small amount of migration at Britain’s request. If Paris now chose to end that policy - to repudiate the Treaty of Le Touquet as many French politicians are demanding -
Punchy article packed with truths.
"Darmanin said cross-Channel migration was “first and foremost an English issue” and Britain must “accept its responsibilities”.
"Today, people who want to seek asylum in England have no other means than to cross the Channel. This is because there is no legal way for immigrants to go to Great Britain"
"He added that France accepted 150,000 asylum applications a year, compared with 30,000 in the UK."