WTF won't Labour, Lib Dems (& potentially the Greens) endorse tactical voting?

That's democracy. A legal party is a legal party.

People also vote differently when their vote counts. I think the ukip result would have been lower, but undoubtedly they would have got a chunk of seats.

YANBU - During the last general election the extent of my labour mp candidates campaigning was telling people to vote Lib Dem. They knew they wouldn’t get voted in and Lib Dem’s would be close. Thought that was a very smart strategy.

And I’ll vote for just about anyone to get the Tories out!

If we had PR in the general election of 2015 we would have had 83 UKIP Mp’s. Just dwell on that. Whilst PR is actually fairer the voice of the people as such it may not be the voice you want to hear.

As for PR if people vote for it I’ll accept it.

To show this I’ve even accepted Brexit where others haven’t even though it wasn’t my vote.

Let the democratic process play out.

This issue just isn't that important compared to others. No reason to keep Tories in

I have an emotional reaction to hypocrisy and undemocratic processes

PR is a major decision and it’s better to check beforehand how people feel about it.

Take the electorate with you otherwise they rarely just say fine but push back in other ways.

It may be possible but a bad decision.

On protest bill is Starmer reversing? If so you can vote for that

Especially not when in coalition. And coalition is always a possibility.

We've had our right to protest removed by the Tories with no asking first.

You have an emotional objection to PR, which you're entitled to, but the fact is governments are not bound by their manifesto.

This is true.

So have belief in what you are wanting and ask people how they feel about it first.

Make it a democratic process.

That's the safety valve, if the system put in place is more democratic, the public can vote to overturn it anyway.

What's your fear?

I didn't say I did or didn't want it. Your objections to the scenario I'm setting out seem to be based around you not being keen on it, but that's not the basis of my posts. I'm talking about what might happen, and it doesn't matter whether I'd choose it or not.

As for pushing through a major change with no mandate, in the event of Labour falling short of a majority, the two likeliest options for a coalition are the Lib Dems and SNP given that they would be the next most numerous left of centre parties then. The latter might very well insist on another referendum as their price. And we all know that the 2014 referendum was very significant in Scottish society, despite it not having passed. There could be a situation where the only majority government is one where the price of the junior party's involvement is major change that most people didn't vote for.

Re 2010, it's not about nice, it's about the Lib Dems having paid a high price since for that coalition.

You can put things through without it being in the manifesto.

Any move to PR would make our system more democratic, our system is pretty poor in terms of democracy.

How bad is that, people happy with an undemocratic outcome purely because it’s in their favour.

Maybe they can get their way but it tends to back fire if people feel pushed not asked.

For me the fact the Tories have effectively decriminalised rape is astounding. If a girl or woman is raped there is almost no chance anything will be done.

If the Tories really cared about transgender issues and the impact on women they'd do something, but it's a convenient distraction to just whip things up.

@SunnyEgg most of what Sunak is enacting now wasn’t in the last Tory manifesto. Things change. If one of the parties in a coalition had it in their manifesto it can be enacted. It can anyway if support can be put together in HoC and HoL. Regpferenda are not a necessary (or usual) part of our political system.

You can’t just push through a major change without mandate. I’m sure they were no nicer back in 2011 and if they could have would have done it.

Why would you want that system anyway? It’s undemocratic.

If it’s not in Labour’s manifesto all those votes are not automatically saying yes to it.

People seem all for democracy unless it’s what they don’t want then whatever goes.

So hypocritical.

I'm shocked to find that there are people out their that believe governments should be elected on their record in office, their policies, people connecting with them etc rather than fiddling the system to get who they want into power.

I pretty much hate all sorts of gerrymandering. Because once it starts where does it actually stop - let me guess, gerrymandering that puts who we want in power is good, but when it benefits people we don't want its bad.

@Hannahsbananas but the whole gender ideology mess like trans women in female prisons and trans women in female sport has happened under the tories.
Sunak and his cronies might say they know what a woman is but they say that they know how to run the economy and that they are for the most part brexit supporters but we can see how that’s gone.
Surely if you want to vote for them, do it.

YABU for assuming that Labour and the Lib Dems are on the same side. The last time the Lib Dems were a serious force, they went into coalition with the Conservatives. Several Labour insiders (who would of course be biased) saw Nick Clegg as politically much closer to the Conservatives.

I am anti-Tory but not displeased with the Uxbridge result. The electorate were swayed by a local issue because they disagree with Labour policy to extend the ULEZ. That's democracy in action! Also, from my anti-Tory viewpoint, the seat has been Conservative for the last 50 years so it's hardly a Labour target and should not affect their chances in the next election.

The thing that I found most interesting is the comparison between the Tory candidate who unexpectedly held Uxbridge, an ex-postman who became a manager for Royal Mail, and the victorious Labour candidate in Selby who went to private school followed by Oxford and has worked as a political advisor. The old Tory middle-class / Labour working-class dichotomy is dead, it would seem.

I want a wider range of candidates to choose from. We have a ridiculously limited number already. Withdrawing candidates doesn't lead to switch voting, it leads to apathy and disconnection of the electorate.

Practically speaking, this isn't how coalition government works. Coalitions enact policy that wasn't in the manifesto of all parties. Sometimes they even enact policy that one of the parties had a manifesto policy against. We saw that in 2010-15. The question is whether the Lib Dems would hold enough cards to be able to enforce it. That also depends on how the SNP do.

Utter bollocks.

There are some right weird fuckers on Mumsnet. I can’t believe certain posters think that the gender stuff is more important that the state of the NHS, the cost of living, the worst housing crisis since WW2, the fact people are getting poorer. You are all so obsessed with transgender people. Get a sodding grip and look at the real issues. Would you rather a child go hungry than a trans woman uses a woman’s loo?

They were. And in the year since, one of the people who beat her has already been booted out and the other is hardly assured in his position. Meanwhile, she quite clearly still wants the job.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Rishi hang on to the bitter end. Its plausible. But so is them booting him out. If they do, who do you think they'll go for if not her?