My short video post for this morning addresses a key issue in this election, which is that absolutely no one's best interests are served by Labour having a large majority after 4 July, including Labour itself.
The video can be viewed here.
The transcript is:
Labour does not need a big majority in the upcoming general election.
Why? Because big majorities lead to bad government.
That's particularly true if, as some polls are suggesting, Labour might be facing an opposition with fewer than 100 seats in any one party.
That's bad for Labour, because nobody is holding it to account.
And it's bad for Labour, because there will be vast numbers of disaffected backbenchers within its ranks who will be causing trouble.
And it's bad for all the rest of us, because Labour won't bother to listen.
Yes, Labour might win this election, and a lot of people want that to happen, but critically, we do not need it to have a majority of 150 or more, because that is not going to help us with anything.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Totally with you on this Richard, I very much hope for a hung parliament with PR as a consequence.
FWIW I feel we are in a situation of massive change, with the development of an alternative global financial system built around BRICS, dedolarisation, the catastrophe in Ukraine and potential collapse of AMOC.
You said I had a rather grim view of things a couple of years ago. That view now looks ‘sunny’ in comparison to the direction of travel toward a nuclear winter and multiple bread basket failure. Ho hum.
You and your contributors keep me sane.
Thank you and thank you all.
Thanks
And apologies for my past optimism
You are such a Gentleman.
Changes to the world financial system are a matter of human choice, and the global reserve currency has changed more than once, but do we see much movement towards dedollarisation? In favour of what? Renminbi? Bitcoin?
Continuing changes to the climate a baked in for some decades but we can change the magnitude if not the direction. Disruption of the warm current in the North Atlantic would be catastrophic for the UK and other parts of Europe. As catastrophic would be a collapse of a major Antarctic ice sheet and resulting significant sea level rise of the order of several metres over a relatively short time frame.
@Marc Gibson – “dedolarisation” = “de-dollarization” ???
I just want to make sure I am on the correct page.
…and of course, no apology needed.
Much to agree with ref LINO (I just cannot bring myself to call them Labour).
Interesting factlet. There are 485 independent candidates standing. I am very puzzled as to where they have all popped up from.
One interpretation is that there are 5700 people who are fed up with the current situation. (485 candidates and 10 people per candidate that signed their application to stand).
I have no idea if this is a record. It would be nice to think that some tactical voting takes place.
I remain unconvinced that the current polls are painting the correct picture – keep in mind that from time to time I speak to candidates – the ones doing door knocking.
Quite a few Independents probably are as in the past, crusty right wingers or single issue demonstrators. What is new is the number of popular local figures who been deselected orcstanding against former colleagues. Alas, Corbyn excepted, I suspect they’ll go the way of Jamie Driscoll under FPTP.
More to the point what happens if a significant number of Independents do well?
One plea pretty please and for all comments not just this post.
No abbreviations – I only worked out what AMOC was from a subsequent comment, also a little explanation for some points eg De-Dollarisation, while I know what it means some first timers in particular who have just strayed in and are economics beginners might not understand it.
A week ago I would have agreed with this 100%, because here in Australia there are just enough Independents and Greens in the Senate to slow down legislation, even get a few amendments through, and needle the government in Committees and so on, and Labor’s majority is small in the House, so that the fewer Independents and Greens there can make a marginal difference.
But I stress, “marginal difference.”
This interview with Dr. Neema Parvini (Centre of Heterodox Studies, University of Buckingham) made me seriously question the strategy of voting Greens in the Senate to “keep the bastards honest” and Independents or Greens – whoever has best chance – in the House in the hope of a hung parliament or a slim majority.
Parvini thinks that a massive landslide to Labour would force the government to actually govern in the people’s interest. It’s definitely counter-intuitive!
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-duran-podcast/id1442883993?i=1000657830021
or
https://soundcloud.com/user-901836666/uk-elections-and-democracy-erosion-w-dr-neema-parvini-live
Thanks
But I will disagree
Mr P, you make a fair point (landslide/honest/counterintuitive). But it relies on the following:
1. vast number of LINO (Labour In Name Only) MPs elected.
2. a sufficient number are realistic to recognise they have no chance of getting a foot on the ministerial ladder – so vote based on conscience (and risk getting………deselected).
3. them plus other MPs form a majority.
Much though it would be nice for it to happen – it seems very unlikely, given human nature and the desire to conform.
The comments of Faiza Shaheen interviewed on novara media are relevant. Loyal Labour & only stood as independent in-extremis.
(LINO does not deserve people like Shaheen – and a bunch of other people who are recognisable human as opposed to ciphers like Streeting)
Thus the LINO intake of 2024 is likely to be very loyal and likely not to rock the boat – at all.