Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

A thread for progressives

34 replies

jenny60 · 09/05/2010 12:47

This is a serious thread. We know politicans take account of mumsnet and I cannot be alone in wanting my opinion on this deal making to be heard. This is my situation: I am a member of the Labour party but I voted tactically to keep the Tories out in my seat. It didn't work, BUT I feel outraged as a liberal left type of person that the party I voted for in good faith may now do a deal with the Tories. I know they never said they wouldn't, in fact the opposite, but I would like to hear from any LDems whether they feel part of a preogressive alliance or part of a Party which has more in common with the Tories. Surely I was not wrong to belive that we have more in common with the LDs than they do with the Tories.
This is not a thread for Tories: it is a thread for those of us on the progressive left. I have to go for a while but I want to hear what others think.

Thanks

OP posts:
FrakkinTheReturningOfficer · 09/05/2010 17:18

Last time 64% of the country didn't vote Labour, we don't have PR you can't compare % figures.

I waver between LD and conservative. I took the policy 'test' and I'm pretty much split down the middle but all I know is I didn't want Labour to stay.

Can you be a right-wing progressive?

Original poster
jenny60 · 09/05/2010 17:16

Why smug? It's not remotely smug to imagine onself a part of a collection of parties/people with similar though not identical ideas about social justice and equality. Perhaps plain wrong or inaccurate but smug?

OP posts:
Original poster
jenny60 · 09/05/2010 17:11

Interesting:

policywonk, I'm with you. If we got PR I'd think it had been worth it. This has got to be a once i n a century opportunity.

I agree, though it pains me, that the LibDems have a duty to go to the Party that got the most seats. but how would LibDems voters feel about a deal without PR? Would it be right to take it over a firm labour agreement on a PR referendum, especially when you remember that 63% of the population did not vote Tory?

Chill: I know you're right, but what sort of deal would be acceptable to LD voters?

Re. progressive. It's a term I like because it does I think descibe the non-Tory block. Historially, it meant an alliance of the voters/parties who opposed the Tories' emphasis on maintaining the status quo. It also makes it easier for me personally to vote LibDem.

Freebutton: I agree about the DUP, but there is now Alliance and Sylvia Hermon and the SDLP people. The fact that we now have NI liberals to deal with is very encouraging, whatever about the current deal brokering. It's worth remembering that the Conservative Party was offically allied with the UPP in Northern Ireland and they didn't get a single seat. Who does the Conservative Party speak for on NI, let alone Scotland?

Are there any LD mumsnetters who voted Tory to keep Labour out?

OP posts:
claig · 09/05/2010 17:06

vesela, I agree you shouldn't have used the word smug om its own. You should have prefaced it with the word very.

vesela · 09/05/2010 17:00

sorry, shouldn't have used the smug word. But heavy-handed, yes.

vesela · 09/05/2010 16:11

I'm a Lib Dem (member) but I hate the label "progressive" - I see it as a label applied by Labour in an effort to make the Lib Dems seem like Labour mini-me's. There's also something about the label that's very... Labour. I can't put my finger on it, but while I might describe myself as liberal or pro-reform or believing in fairness, I'd never use the term "progressive." Maybe it has overtones of smugness or heavy-handedness.

Re. overlap. The Lib Dems have some things in common with Labour, and some things in common with the Tories. And Labour have some things in common with the Tories.

FreeButtonBee · 09/05/2010 14:21

I voted Lib Dem, in order to remove a Labour candidate (unsucessful, as it turns out). I personally don't think that Labour is working anymore.

On a pragmatic basis, I think a coalition with the Conservatives could work better because they would all new to government. The risk of joining with Labour is that GB and co are so intrenched in power that they would be very reluctant to cede power to the Lib Dems. So you end up with lipservice to a coalition without actually handing over the reins.

Also, LibLab isn't enough. You'd have to get into bed with, for example, the DUP. And frankly, I couldn't handle giving bloody Jeffrey Donaldson or any of his hence-men any say in how the country is run. . I can't really comment on the Welsh and Scottish nationalists but having the country held to ransom by the regions isn't really, in my view, a helpful way forward. That's not a slur on their legitimate mandate - but a reflection on the likelihood that they would be punished by their electoral if they didn't put their regional interests ahead of national interests, particularly if they were unpopular in that area.

Plus I think that there is some helpful overlap between Lib Dems and Tories. Okay, maybe not as much as with Labour but it's not nothing.

policywonk · 09/05/2010 13:05

I voted LibDem. I don't want to see them get into bed with the Tories, but I'd swallow it if we got electoral reform. If Clegg does a deal that doesn't include electoral reform I'd be pretty reluctant to give them my vote again.

I can live with a confidence and supply arrangement though.

Chil1234 · 09/05/2010 13:03

"I know they never said they wouldn't, in fact the opposite"

I'm afraid that 'opposite' is what was democratically voted for. LDs do have more in common with Labour than Conservatives but the clear commitment from Clegg was to work first with the party that got the most seats. And that was always going to be the Conservatives.

Swipe left for the next trending thread