Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In Labour’s entire history just one general election winnin
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In Labour’s entire history just one general election winning leader was the choice of the membership
Looking at the current gulf between the Parliamentary Labour Party and its leader it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that party members had no say whatsoever in leadership elections until after the 1983 general election when the party, under Michael Foot, went down to its biggest defeat.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
My normally apolitical friend said yesterday, Labour under Corbyn are fecked aren't they.
Or if Gordon Brown hadn't metaphorically strangled every vaguely talented centre-left politician so everyone with a brain swiftly went elsewhere.
Or if the membership had bothered to do some research in their copies of the Morning Star...
It's a bit like the Titanic. What's depressing is not just that it happened, but how many things went wrong along the way that overcame every normal safeguard to make the entire gargantuan disaster possible.
John Smith still died.
He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.
These qualities make Corbyn likeable.
Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.
It's worth reiterating that Tony Blair was the only electable Labour MP of the last 40 years. Loads of 'PB Tories' like myself voted for him. Until Labour can find someone equally electable they won't be winning anything. Not that they seem to care too much at the moment.
It can't be long before the electable centrist careerists among the MPs - those who went into politics to win power and change things - realise that the current Labour Party isn't theirs any more.
The problem is that the party's rules included a very high nomination limit for what the party presumably thought was a good reason, and in part to screen the choices to be presented to the members (in an alternate fashion to the Tory's not even offering a member vote until the MPs have narrowed it down to the final two). So by ignoring the 35MP rule (in spirit anyway), MPs were essentially saying their own leadership contest rules were stupid. And if they felt that, why did they include that aspect in the first place?
Edit: that was the first over of the new ball as well, unlucky for bowler Chris Morris
47 (oops) 30%, 1992 34%, 2010 29%, 2015 30%).With Blair's spike taken out, they have been flatlining for a very long time. Indeed, arguably the Blair effect only really played in 1997, with a residual echo in 2001 (massively helped by the ineptitude of the Opposition under Hague - remember the Liberal Democrats made a significant advance in 2001). By 2005, Labour were bumping along in the mid-30s again, which is poor by any measure but shockingly, good by their own historical standards.
Yet they still seem convinced that their core vote is somewhere near 35%. Indeed, Ed Miliband's entire election-winning strategy (the one that succeeded so brilliantly he became the first opposition leader to have a net loss of seats in 32 years) was predicated on it. Corbyn's is too.
To answer your question directly, Labour have only won a working majority 5 times: 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005. You will notice therefore that Blair won 60% of those. Without him, only 3 Labour Prime Ministers have come top of a poll, and five periods in government (three of them periods of minority government).
A pretty damning indictment of the poverty of their electoral appeal, no?
A few years ago, an ITV chap helpfully informed us that avalanches rush downhill, powered by gravity. Even better, Richard Bilton (a BBC chap who once asked a Greek fireman whether the nearby forest fire was dangerous, and the mother of the Liverpudlian boy who got shot in crossfire whether she'd been affected 'that much' when she said in an interview the family was to move house) a few months ago, reporting on the migrant crisis, helpfully described the Mediterranean as a large expanse of water.
My feeling is that future opinions on this matter will be shaped by party discipline.
In the meantime, they should be knighted for services to Britain.
Allah bless Eric Joyce for getting pissed that night, punching some Tories, Unite trying to rig the Falkirk selection and Ed Miliband for giving us this new electoral system.
Scotland's interesting, because it's an area of potential red resurgence, but the possibility of the blues gaining many seats there is remote.
In ye olden days, when Ed Miliband won, the membership, unions and MPs each had a third of the voting weight each, so MPs had a proportionately far heavier weight than they do now.
To take a more modern example, in 1992 John Major had a majority somewhat larger than Cameron's official figure of 12 (21, if I remember rightly). However, the average age of his MPs was around 60. Therefore, simply via natural causes, it was likely that 21 would not be enough to last five years - as indeed it was not, with the Conservatives losing 10 seats through by-elections (and two via defections) before 1997.
Since then, the average age of Conservative MPs has dropped dramatically, helped by the fact they spent a long time out of power (therefore more work for less kudos) and a number of time-servers were cleared out in 1997 anyway. In fact, I think only one Conservative MP has died since 2005: Eric Forth in 2006. Therefore, while Major lost an average of 4-5 MPs a year in the 1997 Parliament, Cameron would be unlucky to lose more than 2-3 across the whole of it.
Even allowing for that, the Conservatives have a much better recent record at by-elections than they did in the 1990s (where they didn't win one from 1989 until Uxbridge in 1997). So it would not be unreasonable to expect any bereavements to not affect their majority.
Defections might also be a problem, as they were for Major - but can anyone honestly see any MPs joining Labour or the Liberal Democrats, or now joining UKIP following Reckless' demise?
So although on paper this is less than a 'working majority', in practice I think it's the equivalent of a 1970s majority of around 40.
One member and/or jester one Vote!!!
I still think though that 223-5 is not very impressive on a flat pitch on a hot day against a novice attack when you've won the toss. Kudos to Stokes and Bairstow for digging us out of that hole.
Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
One of the factors that PB Tories fail to appreciate and overlook is the enthusiasm for Corbyn from a genuinely large number of people.
It's not an enthusiasm I personally share, but its real and should not be dismissed in any analysis of the political situation.
Plumbing new depths!
I think many of them are going to be very disillusioned. Not sure how it will play out though.
Sorry to start the new year all negative. But. The enthusiasm for Corbyn has two issues IMHO. Firstly, a lot of it is almost certainly in the wrong places, electorally e.g. not in the south or midlands/nw marginals. A secondly, much of it frankly I suspect doesn't actually exist at all, except on twitter and in the minds of Labour rejoiners and student activists.
To really see how dire the Labour position is, to take one example, there's an article in this month's Fabian magazine about UKIP in the North and the number of 2nd places. Sobering reading for Labour members.
.@Salon https://t.co/JL256ve5j2
Islington upper mc public sector workers
The right on brigade
Greenies
Which begs the question - who would be left?
For example, in the staff room at school there is only one person who actually admires Corbyn, but he REALLY admires him. Thinks he is unfairly treated by the media and will be the one to break the mould of machine politicians. Now, this is obviously not true. But as we all actually like this guy and don't want to argue with him, we will nod and smile, and just feel sorry for the horrendous reality check awaiting him at some point when he's talking about Corbyn.
I appreciate that's purely anecdotal. But if, on another level, the price of dissenting from Corbyn is a death threat - well, it takes real courage to stand out against bullying like that.
The best way is to simply avoid socialism getting its tentacles on any form of power.
Now one may argue that this doesn't make a difference in the face of the general positioning of the party, the backstory of the current leadership and various splits, but the enthusiasm is real for many.
In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.
Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.
On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.
Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.
That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
http://www.fabians.org.uk/labour-party-membership-is-shifting-and-it-matters/
This is in line with what you have seen regarding Horsham, but leaves some very awkward problems for Labour if it is equally accurate elsewhere - not least, it would leave them vulnerable to UKIP or even the Conservatives in the north-east.
There is plenty of enthusiasm for Boris, and George Galloway, and Nigel Farage, and Donald Trump.
This is not to say that any of them should or will get their hands on power.
ENTJs are also pretty rare, from memory.
Writing like this would be considered preposterous in even the most clickbaity trot Guardian article.
Quite breathtakingly other worldly.
It is Labour's failure to have such a straightforward mechanism that is causing them angst now. If they had one, Corbyn would have gone already. But the only way to remove him is to mount a leadership challenge at the party conference - which everyone knows he would win. Even if Hyufd was right and Corbyn would have to be nominated to stand in that election, he would still be nominated and he would still win.
Basically, Labour are stuck with him unless he chooses to resign, and it's hard to see what would cause him to do so short of a major personal scandal.
A man unhappy about shooting suicide bombers dead and who wants to negotiate with Daesh crosses from idealism into the realm of appeasement, cowardice and pipe dreaming.
Fascinating!
JC was elected by and for people who don't want to do politics - who do not intend to sacrifice any of their principles, however peripheral, for the pursuit and retention of power.
Moreover, as others have pointed out, the record of leaders chosen in other ways isn't overwhelming. Nor is there any decisive reason why the people who happen to be MPs (for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily political acumen) should get to decide who leads the movement.
On the enthusiasm for Corbyn, it's certainly there, and nothing much to do with just being different or livening things up. Most of my political circle think he's the most refreshing, positive thing that's happened in politics for decades, including most of the Labour-leaning people I know in marginal Broxtowe, some of whom didn't vote for me and went Green or LibDem as they were so bored by Labour's offer. Note that this doesn't necessarily extend to every left-winger.
But of course there's a much stronger anti-Corbyn vote than opposition leaders usually get. So it comes down as usual to "Do you choose who will speak for you or who you think has the best chance of winning?" and most of us decided we wanted the former this time. If the MPs had prevented us having the choice that most of us actually wanted, that would IMO have been a stitch-up.
I've also read speculation that Portillo was so disillusioned with not getting stronger backing from MPs that he may have voted against himself in the last round. Certainly the story of that election was Portillo falling flat.
The one advantage the Tories had (and have) over Labour is the leader ejection mechanism. It was possible to elect IDS (or risk electing him) in order to stop the other two in the knowledge that if he proved successful then the party could run with him through to 2005/6, but if he didn't then he could easily be dumped and a fourth option - Howard, as it turned out - elected in his place.
Labour has no such simple ejection process.
wait for it-
Alloa Vs Falkirk (snork) live pretty soon.
Not even joking. I'll probs put it on in the background
In a church, or a campaigning group, or even a Rotary club you might choose that fourth candidate who guarantees ideological purity. But for a political party to be any use at all, it has to aim for power (this is what trapped the Liberal Democrats in 2010). Labour are the second-largest party in the House of Commons and the most electorally successful party of the last 25 years at all levels. You were certainly not out of contention for power. But then, you decided as a group that you didn't care about power, only about how you felt other people saw you. And you chose the candidate you thought would do that for you.
The irony of electing as a leader to show your egalitarian, democratic and inclusive credentials the privately educated son of a millionaire who has never actually had a job of any sort, who entered Parliament on the back of his family's wealth and connections and who has spent his life associating with violent revolutionaries and some actual criminals is also one that appears to have eluded the Labour party.
This has been the most grotesque and pointless act of political seppuku since the Judean People's Front. And that was at least quite funny.