Lib Dems Leadership

Shoequeen

At what expense to their Core Voters/Members.

Plaid Cymru for example are all for Independence. If a General Election took place they could be out of Parliament for 5 years without a voice, unless a ' back room deal ' is done with the Lib Dems but the Lib Dems say they are a Unionist Party. They state there will be no Indepence Referendum in Scotland under their watch, so why Wales.

Of course the 'pact' could be on a ' principle' of equal footing/equal distribution of constituencies between the Lib Dems/Plaid Cymru/Greens but they will ironically have to join a Coalition/Supply and Demand government and they have carped/moaned/voiced against other parties doing the same for years.

Opportunity knocks but something /some one will have to give more than they may bargain for.

The 'deals' being agreed by Remain Alliance are there for all to see and seem transparent. The deal delivered, giving a voice to those who are anti-brexit.

Surely that indicates that a significant number of Welsh NO voters may have changed their minds and are happy with the stand declared by their new MP. (I apologise that have not examined the balance of yes/no voters in the constituency so may have misinterpreted).
Is this a microcosm, an indication of how Wales as a whole might vote in a 2nd referendum?

Despite the apparent openness of the parties' agreement, Tory party deputy Cleverly refers to them as dirty deals behind closed doors. (Well he would, wouldn't he?)
Ps I use Cleverly not as an adverb but only because it's his name!

The Remain parties seem to be doing exactly that, POGS, the Libdems and Greens seem to be entering into informal agreements in seats all over the country so as not to split the Remain vote in a GE.

Congratulations to the Lib Dems and they will win the Sheffield Hallem bi-election coming up due to the booted out of Labour MP Jared O'Mara resigning. To be fair it was a travesty the Lib Dems lost to him in the first place given his history.

I am however on records as saying I dislike the use of ' Pacts' and ' Tactical Voting ' irrespective of the political combination left/center/right.

How does the party/parties involved give their Core Voter / Member the opportunity to have their say if they do not stand?

How will PR help their Core Voter / Member if they do not stand?

If the one issue on the table is REMAIN why not form a Party of coalition to fight a General Election if the Brexit Referendum result has not been honoured?

Mind you Plaid Cymru is all about Welsh Independence and the Lib Dems (at the last time of speaking) were pro the Union, hence saying no (hypocritical) to Scotland having a 2nd Referendum.

Or lack thereof.

I am shocked by the Labour vote

The Labour Party with only 5% of the vote.

LibDems win Brecon. Yay !! [that was worth staying up for !!!]

Conservatives 307

Labour. 255

Libs. 59

Others 29

The numbers did add up for a second election that year

After the 2010 general election the numbers just did not add up for a Lib/Lab coalition.

growstuff

"There was no point in Clegg agreeing to a pact with Labour at that point."
----

I wish you had been Cleggs advisor!

Why did Labour and Lib Dems pursue the idea of a coalition or supply and demand government I wonder. Was it keeping in the limelight, enjoyed the sharade, what do you think as you state there was no point.?

I didn't actually say that there had been 'corruption'; I said that the result was corrupted by illegality, cheating and probable foreign interference.
I didn't include 'corruption' because words matter and I don't think I could defend a statement of 'corruption'. The other three are easy. The result itself wasn't corrupt; it was corrupted, made unsafe.

Additional to this was the role of Facebook and 'dark advertising'. you should watch Carol Cadwalladr's TED talk

www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy

I'm astounded that you haven't read about corruption. Some people and organisations have been fined. Undoubtedly, they're the tip of the iceberg. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but there are certainly some very serious questions which need addressing (at the very least).

I don’t know there was corruption

I'm not doubting that, Annie but I don't see how it is relevant to my question. In countries where referendums are more common, and are carefully carried out, 'irregularities' can cause the vote to be voided and the vote to be rerun.

I ask you again, would you have been happy to accept the result of a vote known to be corrupted as I detailed earlier?

Maizie there are very intelligent posters who voted and still support leave

If you had voted Leave, Annie, would you have been happy to let the result stand once it was revealed as having been corrupted by illegality, cheating and a high chance of foreign interference? Would 'winning' have been more important to you than the subversion of democracy?

The EU vote wasn’t accepted by many , so much huffing and
puffing, if I had voted to leave I would certainly think my vote didn’t count.

It matters not a jot as a ' principle ' is nothing to do with just this ruddy thread.

But it was in the question you asked; the one I pasted at the top of my response.

Again:
....if the ' principle' is to only accept it if it agrees with what individuals want, their political party in power.

Nobody except you mentioned a 'principle', POGS. I just wanted to know where it had been established.

It is nothing to do with the EU Referendum either.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear enough. The point being that when people think that their vote 'counts' (as in the EU ref.) they turn out and vote. Isn't it the perpetual complaint that we generally have low turnouts and that people should be encouraged to vote? Thinking that your vote doesn't count is discouraging. PR goes a long way to eliminating that discouragement.

There was no point in Clegg agreeing to a pact with Labour at that point. However, he could have refused to go into coalition with the Conservatives. As you say, Anniebach, that would have resulted in a new election and who knows what the result would be.

I think Clegg was extremely naïve in thinking he could "tame" the Conservatives, although LD influence did have some positive effect. The pupil premium (still worth over £2billion for poorer pupils) was one of them. The LDs' PR machine was also inexperienced in shouting from the rooftops what they did actually achieve. They were, after all, still the minor partner in the coalition.

I agree with Maizie. I hadn't read her post properly when I wrote my own, but we're saying the same thing.

You're avoiding the main issue, POGS.

With opinions as they are currently are (and have been for many decades), PR would almost certainly result in either Conservative or Labour as the main party, but with the more moderate parties (either singly or in combination) putting the brakes on more extreme policies. It would result in a very different composition of MPs in the first place.

FPTP produces a government which the majority of people dislike rather than one which the majority of people can tolerate.

"I'm not following where, in these posts, that 'principle' has been established."
--

It matters not a jot as a ' principle ' is nothing to do with just this ruddy thread.

When anybody moans/complains/whines about a combination of political parties in a Coalition/Supply and Demand government they do so because they do not like the combination of the parties involved. They are to my mind being ' Unprincipled ', a 'Hypocrite'.

FPTP or PR produces the almost guaranteed need for a Coalition / Supply and Demand government but PR is more likely to produce that form of government and some people will still complain/moan and whinge because their party is not in government.

It is nothing to do with the EU Referendum either.

That's why I ask the question what truly is gained by Proportional Representation if the ' principle' is to only accept it if it agrees with what individuals want, their political party in power.

I'm not following where, in these posts, that 'principle' has been established.

I think that the result of the 2106 referendum, according to the research that has come out of it, was partly because people in a FPTP election vote feel that their vote doesn't really count; voting 'leave' was one way of sticking it to a government they didn't want and hadn't voted for (however misguided that reason may have been). PR goes a long way to mitigating this and produces a legislature which is far more representative of the country as a whole.

Whether individuals like or don't like the result is really irrelevant. Individuals under the FPTP system don't always like the result; so no difference there. But at least PR is likely to produce something that pleases more of the people and feels more democratic to them.

There was a Lib Lab pact in 1977, Callaghan and Steel