Pretty much gibberish reporting imo. Starmer is trying to deflect Tory comments by abstaining on something he cannot stop anyways. Labour and LD have done this many times this parliament. They know they cannot stop the crap the Tories are putting into legislation. The best they can do is show the public that no one can fight them with the majority they have. For McDonnell to choose this as a hill to die on seems stupid.
As for Lawson he has been given a chance to defend himself, and much like Johnson did with parliament he is refusing the opportunity. He really should take give a response. While I may disagree with how Lawson is handling the situation, I cannot help but agree with his motivation. Lawson is an ardent PR voting advocate. He feels he is being defenestrated for his comments on strategic voting as a means to quell his opinion on PR voting.
The irony is that he should be using strategic voting as a focal point to proof just how easy FPTP is to manipulate. The counter argument for keeping FPTP is that PR would allow more say from far right groups. I wonder how that argument stacks with the current government, who are just one step away from invading Poland. FPTP does not stop the far right from being elected, quite the opposite, with the cash being thrown at Tories atm, they can easily afford a good campaign to get anything they want in.
As for Lawson he has been given a chance to defend himself, and much like Johnson did with parliament he is refusing the opportunity.
The point about Neal Lawson is that he had advocated for Lab-Lib and Lab-Lib-Green cooperation as a Labour member for literally several decades. I’ve got a twenty year old book by him arguing the case for a Lab-Lib ‘progressive century’. For all the criticism New Labour got for its control freakery, Blair and Brown never tried to stifle people like Lawson or suggest what he was calling for was at odds with Labour’s values or goals.
So for Starmer to now go after him - for retweeting two years ago that progressive voters could vote Green in places where the Greens can win and Labour can’t - seems like an enormous overreaction by the Labour leadership and a sign of really deep insecurity.
Also, there’s still a good chance that Labour won’t get a majority. They’re polling huge vote shares but their FPTP starting position from 2019 is so weak (e.g. relative to what Blair inherited) that we shouldn’t assume a Labour majority is anything like inevitable. So Starmer’s Labour may find themselves needing to work with other parties, yet he’s purging the very people who advocate for pluralism and cooperation.
Pretty much gibberish reporting imo. Starmer is trying to deflect Tory comments by abstaining on something he cannot stop anyways. Labour and LD have done this many times this parliament. They know they cannot stop the crap the Tories are putting into legislation. The best they can do is show the public that no one can fight them with the majority they have. For McDonnell to choose this as a hill to die on seems stupid.
As for Lawson he has been given a chance to defend himself, and much like Johnson did with parliament he is refusing the opportunity. He really should take give a response. While I may disagree with how Lawson is handling the situation, I cannot help but agree with his motivation. Lawson is an ardent PR voting advocate. He feels he is being defenestrated for his comments on strategic voting as a means to quell his opinion on PR voting.
The irony is that he should be using strategic voting as a focal point to proof just how easy FPTP is to manipulate. The counter argument for keeping FPTP is that PR would allow more say from far right groups. I wonder how that argument stacks with the current government, who are just one step away from invading Poland. FPTP does not stop the far right from being elected, quite the opposite, with the cash being thrown at Tories atm, they can easily afford a good campaign to get anything they want in.
The point about Neal Lawson is that he had advocated for Lab-Lib and Lab-Lib-Green cooperation as a Labour member for literally several decades. I’ve got a twenty year old book by him arguing the case for a Lab-Lib ‘progressive century’. For all the criticism New Labour got for its control freakery, Blair and Brown never tried to stifle people like Lawson or suggest what he was calling for was at odds with Labour’s values or goals.
So for Starmer to now go after him - for retweeting two years ago that progressive voters could vote Green in places where the Greens can win and Labour can’t - seems like an enormous overreaction by the Labour leadership and a sign of really deep insecurity.
Also, there’s still a good chance that Labour won’t get a majority. They’re polling huge vote shares but their FPTP starting position from 2019 is so weak (e.g. relative to what Blair inherited) that we shouldn’t assume a Labour majority is anything like inevitable. So Starmer’s Labour may find themselves needing to work with other parties, yet he’s purging the very people who advocate for pluralism and cooperation.