Quote:
Originally Posted by fragment
3) if the Lib Dems were willing to work with Labour they could have done so as soon as BoJo lost his majority a few months ago
|
It's kinda hard to disentangle that from the LibDems being unwilling to work with
Jeremy Corbyn.
And I mean, I don't blame them that much - his approval rating, as noted, was toxic, and would he really be willing to compromise with the LibDems in a coalition when he didn't even have great relations with many of his own MPs?
Like, it would've been better to just do it anyway, but Corbyn probably deserves more blame. The LibDems should've stood down in seats where their candidates would split the vote and help the Tory win. But if Corbyn stepping down as Labour leader was the price to get an anti-BoJo agreement with the LibDems, then he should've done it. Given his rancid approval ratings and "preferred Prime Minister" margins vs. May and Johnson, it's hard to make the case that LibDems were the ones making an unreasonable request, other than by delusional denial of the polls because you don't like what they say.
But his cult, basically, viewed Corbyn, the man, as more essential than anything else, it seems to me.
Quote:
it seems to me like your speculations on this don't match up with the political reality.
|
You may be right about the LibDems being unreasonable. I don't know what they would've done if Corbyn had, in fact, stepped down a several months ago. Maybe they still would've hoped they could win more seats by refusing to ally with Labour and put that partisan interest above country. And I have less knowledge of what they would've done in 2015 or 2010 or earlier.
But I think probably the best opportunity for Labour to have done this was 1. without a referendum 2. before the 2010 election.
But they would've had to prioritize keeping the Tories out over being able to form a single party government. A change like that would pretty much guarantee they need to form coalitions to govern.
But had they read the movement towards the SNP in Scotland correctly, they would've realized that was going to be the case anyway. But maybe it was too hard to see where things were going then.
Likewise, it may be right that Obama couldn't have gotten DC statehood through Congress in 2009, or gotten the Democrats to blow up the filibuster, etc. but it remains the case that those would've been smart things for the Democrats to do. It's just not solely his failure, but also the failure of people like Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein and Blanche Lincoln, etc. I'm perfectly fine with saying that Nick Clegg was a dumbass back then too.