Labour/ Lib Dem coalition after next GE - possible?

It really is

Starmer is worried about SNP style blow up but if he wins that majority I expect he’ll shut down questions with no one cares

He already does but it’ll be worse

So depressing

I agree it's a fine balance.

I think all possible outcomes of the next election sound dire, to be honest.

Thinking about the majority issue I do take pp but one other element is confidence from a majority

You can see it with Drakeford’s response post local elections. Your question doesn’t matter, go away with your women’s issues

It’ll ramp up with an actual majority and it’s likely Starmer will be bolstered with a majority

The only way to undermine that is to show it in votes imo

By convention I mean the Salisbury Convention which applies to manifestos and the role of the HoL

Why would this be different?

Manifesto's are worth no more than last weeks shopping list, that's probably all crumpled, scribbled on and was left at home anyway. They are worthless @SunnyEgg .
That's why people make sarcy comments about them.
" By convention " ? eh?

The HOL is cross party, some members are of no particular party and will vote with conscience, some members have their own agendas, some just turn up for the £300 per day and subsidised food and drink and as a meeting place for them to wine and dine lobbyists. Some rarely vote at all.
The HOL is not a carbon copy of the HOC just with different coloured benches.

Why is it that people post these sarky sort of responses. I did not say anything was ‘nailed on’ 🙄

It’s not exactly the same if it is in the manifesto by convention. Why do people think the HoL would have particular issue with it?

@JohnnyMcGrathSaysFuckOff " Labour/ Lib Dem coalition after next GE - possible? "

Even more reason NOT to vote for them then!

@SunnyEgg " If it’s in the manifesto I don’t think the Lords can do much about it "

Why is it that people think a manifesto is some sort of nailed on guarantee of anything? Manifesto's aren't worth the fag packet that they're written on the back of!
The Lords, incidentally, can do what they like, manifesto, or no manifesto.

And I completely agree with that. It's one of the issues that I'm most uncomfortable with. People who say they are women and then behaving like aggressive men. Being a women isn't about dressing a certain way or wearing make up (many women don't). It is being conditioned by our place in relationship to men and how they have designed and continue to design the world (such as predominantly female organisations that still have predominantly male boards).
But you know all that.

That's it from me for now.

Posie Parker doesn't identify as a gender critical feminist. She doesn't even identify as a feminist.

I'm not 100% comfortable with everything she says and does either.

But do you know what I'm even less comfortable with? Trans activists assaulting her to try and stop her from speaking, whilst the police turn a blind eye and "progressive" politicians praise the trans activists for a job well done.

It's no good saying, "But look, her events attract Nazis!"

If you're turning up at her events wearing a balaclava and armed with weapons in order to intimidate women into silence, her events are indeed attracting Nazis. You are the Nazis. Rainbow-coloured, be-pronouned Nazis.

As I said, I'm conflicted. I hate seeing Labour tie themselves in knots (and I have centre left tendencies, not aligned to any political party). I don't like being called 'cis' as its not an identity I've chosen (but been given without assent) or feel aligned to. But equally when looking into it, I'm incredibly uncomfortable when doing my own research to see KJM/PP appearing on Fox news and then saying Tucker Carlson is great.

I don't know what the answer is. I avoid posting on here about this as I thought (rightly it seems) I would get jumped on and told I was talking 'bullshit'. But there are many conflicted people, who see both sides of this issue and I personally know someone whose kid is struggling with this (being trans) and whether it's actually poor mh (possibly) or they really are trans (?), I'm trying hard to look at this issue and gain greater understanding of trans issues and mine as a woman and to try and think if there is a less conflictful way forward.

Excellent post.

I can't see it happening, mostly because I think labour will end up with a big stonking majority in the next election.

If it does happen, then I can see one of the Lib Dems demands being a move away from First Past the Post voting to something like PR, in which case it might be worth dealing with Gender Woo for a few more years to be able to get rid of the stranglehold that labour and the Tories have over our politics.

Well then exactly who are you referring to?

Who do you believe is a gender critical feminist and also aligned with the far right?

The left uses its own extreme language - shrill, dinosaurs, bigoted, and beyond our politicians - turd, probably others

Women the target and words to provoke and denigrate

Agree with this post which is very good

I can also see where you’re coming from with buying time in pp, scandals are what damage this movement politically

I'm with you on that. Unfortunately the inability of Starmer to truly differentiate himself from Sturgeon, Drakeford, Greens radical policy on gender, and the whole left/centrist drift across the West to self ID, is a red line for me. As it is for many others.

And far right doesn't necessarily homophobia or anti abortion (there are some far right that are pro abortion) it means authoritarian. It means the type of language Bravermann uses.

Sorry, read that as on here. All I can say is that I only follow moderate voices on the GC side, no time for the anti abortionists etc. I think you'll find that applies to the vast majority of GCs.

Did I say mumsnet gc people anywhere in my post?

Maybe you should withdraw that accusation? And there the polarisation goes on.

I'm not seeing any aligning with far right tropes from any respondents on MN. You can criticise us for considering voting Conservative. But I don't see anyone aligning to anti abortion or homophobic concerns.

I think you should withdraw that accusation.

They don't have that kind of political capital. Last time the lib dems managed to wrangle free school meals for infant school children.

OK there are two major issues here.

Firstly, you warn about authoritarianism. And yes, for what it's worth, I agree that the Conservatives have done some worrying things, such as trying to restrict people's right to protest.

But the left is authoritarian too, especially on this issue.

"Trans women are women, no debate."

"[People who do not agree that trans women are women] must be educated. And those who do not respond to education should be expelled from the Labour Party."

If you stand up for women's rights, like Rosie Duffield, the Labour Party will hang you out to dry.

Politicians photographed smiling in front of a placard saying "decapitate TERFs".

Does this stuff not worry you?

Secondly, enough about "GC" and the far right.

Am I "aligned with the far right" if we both say water is wet?

Of course not.

If the far right says water is wet, must I then pretend I do not agree that water is wet, so as to not be aligned with them?

Of course not.

The left has played into the hands of the right in general by throwing women and girls under a bus. Obviously the political right is going to exploit that.

What do you want us to do about it?

Not fight for our own rights because some people who are arguing in bad faith or who haven't taken the time to actually understand our point of view say that fighting for our rights makes us aligned with the far right?

What kind of bullshit is that?

Women's rights is not, and has never been, a right wing position.

And if you want to argue that believing that biological sex is real and important is now a right wing position, that says far more about the political left than it does about the political right. Namely, that they are completely batshit and unfit to govern.

You do realise that the version of conservatism that is actually in power is the authoritarian. The one that actually doesn't want you to have any rights if you happen to disagree with them or at least not be able to express them. Quite honestly if we vote them back in they will be worse than they currently are, nothing will change and the country will be even more broken.
It feels to me that this conversation is like how we got into brexit - party before country and let's have a protest vote.
The bit that really puts me off GC is the quite happy alignment with the far right by some people. It's incredibly uncomfortable for someone with my centre left views and I just couldn't put aside my ethics. I think it makes the issue unsympathetic for many because of who the bedfellows are. A less polarised more constructive conversation would go further.

But and this is a big but, I do get it because the polarisation is on both sides and I'm deeply uncomfortable with people who say they are women (transwomen) displaying incredibly aggressive male behaviour to anyone who has a different view.

So I'm conflicted. But nothing will get me to vote conservative in the near future if they carry on as they are and certainly whilst the dog whistle politics/racism continues.

The reason nobody ever talks about the Greens in terms of a coalition is because they have only ever had one MP. The only time it would be useful to have the Greens in a coalition is if a proposed coalition between (most likely) Labour and the Lib Dems was one MP short of a working majority.

A coalition with the SNP would be undesirable because ultimately the SNP want to break up the UK, so their interests are too far apart from those of Labour. They're also on a downward trajectory in terms of popularity and Labour will be hoping to win many SNP seats back at the next election.

So that only really leaves the Lib Dems.

I don't think Brexit is a big issue for the Lib Dems anymore. I think they've accepted defeat on it, and even though I'm sure they would support any move to bring the UK back into greater alignment with the EU, I don't think they would try to lead the way on it.

Proportional representation maaaaaybe, I know it's something they want. They did get burnt last time though, making major concessions in exchange for a referendum on the AV system which was a total damp squib in the end.

But I don't think it even really matters what their red lines would be, in the sense that any coalition negotiations would start with, "OK, what do we agree on?"

The Lib Dems are really very committed to self ID, and so I think that would go straight on the table without the Lib Dems even needing to concede on anything else in exchange, because Labour have spent the last few years telling us all how committed to self ID they also are.

So it would probably be like, "OK, well, self ID is happening because we all agree that's important, so let's put that on the legislative agenda straight away and then get on to discussing what our other coalition priorities should be."

Whereas I think with Labour alone there's more of a chance of Starmer saying, "Yes of course we'll do self ID, but XYZ is more important so let's focus on that first" or "Yes of course we'll do self ID but Isla Bryson is still quite fresh in people's minds so let's wait a while for that to blow over so we have less pushback."

And every day this gets kicked into the long grass is a day when another trans scandal might break, making the issue even more politically difficult.

Let's not forget that the chair of Stonewall, Iain Anderson, has quit the Conservative Party after 40 years of being a member, and joined the Labour Party, with a source stating that he is “furious” that Rishi Sunak has blocked Scottish transgender self identification proposals.

He's totally committed to Self ID.