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

[Pipsquiggle]

This is obviously prompted by the by election result in Uxbridge. If there was no Lib Dem candidate, Labour could have won that seat (assuming their votes went to Labour).

I'll make no bones about it. I really dislike the Tories and want them out ASAP. Their policies have embedded generational poverty in so many parts of the UK. I reside in the home counties, a Tory stronghold seat - my middle class neighbours have zero clue how hard it is to grow up in a poor part of the country and thrive.

I want Labour to win a huge majority with other left leaning parties also getting seats. I would love electoral reform - PR and mandatory voting. The first past the post system is just shit and doesn't represent how the country voted.

YABU - Political parties should not endorse tactical voting, it's fine as it is

YANBU - Tactical voting should be encouraged as the FPTP voting system is shit

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Make it a democratic process.

This is true.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

Because there was a lot of dirty dealing going on during the leadership elections. As soon as Braverman was out of the race she started a smear campaign, joined by Badenoch. Mordaunt only just missed the final two and the field will be smaller next time, the rate at which they run through PMs has left them with few credible candidates.

I’ll vote tactically for whoever has the best chance of ousting the Tories. I’d vote for the devil if I thought it would get rid of them.

What do you mean by 'push back in other ways'?
Are you suggesting violence will result from a move to PR? I think that is very unlikely.

It could be reversed democratically anyway.

You’re right to point this out. People may or may not be fine with this, that’s up to them.

Ask first don’t just put systems on people. If political pundits think they can get a system to go their way and haven’t thought about how people react as a push back - see Brexit

Did I write violence?

Of course there are other ways to push back. If you ignore people they tend to not like that and find other routes to show dissatisfaction. Brexit is a good example

But they would have increased democratic power, so could reverse anything that way.

The reality is a manifesto is not required for this type of change under our system.

It could be reversed democratically anyway.

So ok to use a democratic system to reverse it but not install it.

Why wouldn’t you want it agreed democratically in the first place?

I don’t mind so much if parties want to say X candidate has no chance here, if you want to avoid this outcome then you need to vote this way. But I don’t agree with choice being taken away from the voters by parties forcing tactical voting. It seems undemocratic.

if the Lib Dem’s want to officially support labour then they either need to merge or withdraw candidates. What is the point of the public voting Lib Dem, for a Lib Dem manifesto, when you know it is going to be overturned. It’s one thing for the third party to accidentally end-up king maker and needing to negotiate on their manifesto to form a coalition as in 2010. It’s completely different to actively seek and expect that outcome but not be upfront about what parts of the manifesto will be dropped in the upcoming pact.

The UK system is known as an 'elected dictatorship' - that's the system we have. I didn't choose it, and no one was asked if this is the system we want.

People are just trying to explain the reality to you.

It is to this poster though. You decide what’s important to you. As does everyone else.

That’s the beauty of democracy.