A new Centre party?

Presumably that's the right of Labour and left of Tory. Be another SDP?

What is wanted is a coalition of the left. So Libs, Greens, and Labour left. Blimey it is all up in the air isn't it?

I can see trouble brewing if May gets in. She's going to find it hard going with the right of her party. Perhaps they'll join up within UKIP. If Banks has his way I guess that might happen

I've never understood how labour supporters could vote for UKIP, unless it's like a world map and you never really notice the bit where Russia nearly meets America.

Well it's the same question as to why people support any extreme party. I think initially the extreme party appeal by populist policies usually based on myth, but which appeal to the ordinary punter.

I suppose the ordinary voter doesn't vote as those more politically active/aware through the prism of an ideology, but simply through ideas that "make sense" or provide answers to the problems they might experience in their daily life like low wages, unemployment, lack of housing etc.

These "answers" are as we know frequently based on myths, but these myths must in many instances be something that makes sense to the voter.

'ordinary voter...' As opposed to?

Maybe because some Labour Party voters don't care that much about socialist principles, such as anti-racism and gay and women's rights. 'It's the ecomomy, stupid'. When some party promises more money in their pocket if immigrants don't take their jobs, many will believe it.

Labour Party voters look after themselves just as Conservative voters do. One of the arguments I hear is that Labour leaders in their metropolitan bubbles with champagne lifestyles can afford to have principles, but they can't.

The Marxist playwright, Bertolt Brecht, had Mother Courage say, "First comes eating, then the morality".

TYPO economy

Most voters are not politically aware, they vote for all kinds of reasons, the main one is self-interest and frequently what they consider self-interest is misguided. The number of reasons I have heard given for Brexit include; wanting the blue passports back, wanting a return to imperial measurements, because the retirement age for women has gone up five years and of course immigration.

People also vote against something they do not like. Voting labour because they didn't want a woman Prime Minister or conservative because they do not like Jeremy Corbyn.

UKIP gained votes from labour because it has campaigned to come out of Europe and reduce immigration. Beyond that voters have not thought.

It is nice to think that voters all reach their decisions after long mature and informed thought based on good knowledge and a commitment to a particular political philosophy. But they don't.

['clap clap' emoticon]

That's why Labour needs to offer something tangible.

theconversation.com/why-labours-gang-of-172-should-seek-an-alliance-with-the-liberal-democrats-62075

We would welcome them!!!!

sable.madmimi.com/click?id=50737.136963.994.1.a6d4008372e0704219821407cc83fda7

Caroline Lucas is putting forward a bill tomorrow to support PR.
This is to ask your MP to support it, for those who are interested.

dj, I am sorely tempted on that one.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-john-mcdonnell-proportional-representation-pr-make-votes-matter-protest-a7018056.html

leftunity.org/manifesto/

Coalition of the left.

To stand a chance- the centre should be united as divided they will not have a chance with the current voting system.

I have personally re-joined the Lib Dems, as the only possible way forward. Might be different again once PR has been adopted, but for now- dividing means they rule.

Good point, granjura. leftunity also want PR.

We had a referendum on alternative voting in 2011. Turn out was just over 40% and just under 70% of those who voted wanted to stay with the current first pass the vote system.

Those pushing for a more representative way of voting are the same old, same old, which includes me as a Lib Dem member supporter. I think there is very little support for change outside the group who have always wanted it and little or none in the wider general public.

The electorate have always been happy to vote for both the main parties and both of them have always been divided between right wing and left wing elements, so complete unity in a central party is probably not an essential, providing both wings can come together when it matters, which the Conservatives usually do, look at the recent change of leadership, with both EU leavers and remainers uniting to support a remainer candidate, but which, sadly Labour never quite manages. Hence the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the labour party and in the time the Tories managed a complete leadership election, Labour MPs couldn't even agree the rules for their leadership tussle.

Are you Theresa May in real life? She said exactly that in PMQs today.

Of course, the tories did not get to vote, did they? Just the tory MPs. I wonder if we will ever get to know how the party members feel?

www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda-2020/commissions/home-affairs/labour-believes-that-the-first-past-the-post-electoral-system-should-be-replaced-with-a-proportional-electoral-system-for-future-elections-to-the-uk-parliament

More wanting PR than you think, Monica.

What a sensible woman, she obviously realised how right I was.

dj I understood that the reason Andrea Leadsom stood down, or whoever was the second from last standing, did so because the message coming up from the constituencies was so solidly behind Teresa May that it was quite clear that she didn't stand the remotest chance of being elected by the party faithful so she decide to spare herself this further humiliation by conceding defeat early on.

The system the Tories use to elect their party leader was also the system Labour used until Ed Miliband introduced the new £3 vote so that just anyone, pretty much, could vote in the Labour leader. I don't really see the logic behind that and, as has been pointed out, the system is very open to abuse because, for instance, people who wanted to destroy Labour could pay the £3 sub and vote in someone quite unsuitable.

Which, on the face of it, seems to be what happened last September.

Not true. The labour party had an electoral college before the one member one vote system introduced by MILIBAND.
There were three groups in the electoral college, having different numbers of votes. But they all voted.

The tory MPs decide on the last two members, and the party members only get to choose between them.

Seems a very good idea. Most MPs consult their constituency parties before making their decisions and MPs are elected representatives.

The main purpose of a party leader is to lead their party in Parliament and Labour has shown us the problems that ensue when a party elects a leader completely incapable of doing this.