This would imply about 60 Conservative gains from Labour.
Many would be seats that haven't voted Conservative for decades (eg Grimsby, Halifax, Hartlepool, NE Derbyshire, Stoke North and South). But, some ex-Conservative seats would remain Labour (eg Exeter, Crosby, Croydon North, Bristol West).
But, let's say Corbyn is thrown overboard next year, and replaced.
How much can a new Labour leader claw back in 2 years? All of it, so they're back to Milliband's position, or is the damage too great?
That's the question I'm trying to assess in betting on this.
I would expect a new leader to perform better than Milliband who was far too geeky and failed to connect .Circa 35% would be pretty likely.
Laughable.
The Tories have damaged Labour beyond repair this parliament and CR is right to ask if it will "only" be as bad as before.
From my perspective, the damage looks to have been self-inflicted. Not sure that many people take a lot of notice of what goes on in parliament, but Mr Corbyn's supporters seems to be very vocal on social media labelling everyone to the right of Karl Marx as 'Tories'.
When people who aren't at all right-wing hear themselves classed as Tories, it does have a drip-drip effect of making genuine Conservatives seem not so threatening as you've always perceived them.
So it's quite possible that Mr Corbyn's supporters are busily de-toxifying the Conservative brand quite directly themselves, never mind that Labour under Mr Corbyn is not very palatable.
Good afternoon, everyone; and thanks, @david_herdson, for an interesting article.
If Labour replaces Corbyn with a charismatic middle of the road figure (OK a big 'if') then they could be back in the game very quickly. Politics is extremely volatile and May's tories haven't had to make compromises yet.
Who? Who is this charismatic middle of the road figure? Forget the process of him or her actually getting elected to the leadership, just who is this person?
Dupont-Aignan's latest "coup de pub" (publicity stunt): starting on Wednesday, three of his party members have crisscrossed Europe, without the boot of their car ever being checked once. They went to Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, then back through Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Italy to France. All that happened was their passports got stamped both times they entered Serbia, which is outside Schengen.
One of his previous stunts involved bringing a Kalashnikov into France from Italy.
Dupont-Aignan promises to end Schengen, recruit 10000 border and air police and customs officials, and re-establish border controls.
Gibraltar is around an eighth of the size (by population) of a single inner London Borough. It's completely inconsequential to both the EU negotiation and the Scotland position.
There is no cost or consequence that the UK would be unable to comfortably absorb without batting an eyelid in relation to Gibraltar.
Dupont-Aignan's latest "coup de pub" (publicity stunt): starting on Wednesday, three of his party members have crisscrossed Europe, without ever being checked once. They went to Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Servia, Bulgaria, Romania, then back through Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Italy to France.
One of his previous stunts involved bringing a Kalashnikov into France from Italy.
Interesting they got in/out of the Schengen zone without being checked.
Which country is it, again, that has ensured that the Gibraltar-Spain border will be an external EU one?
Britgov and mophead are reminding me of nothing more than Scotgov and fishy. It's not EU27's fault that Britain is in a pickle over Gibraltar and that faced with a closed border the population might decide within 10 years that it wants shared sovereignty. It's not the "FEBs'" fault that Scotland's not independent and doesn't contain the British capital. FFS quit whingeing and GTFU.
Not sure of your point Cyan.
That the border between Gibraltar and Spain is going to be different now is inevitable. But the specific commons were that Britain would be forced to cede at least part of national sovereignty over Gibraltar to the Spanish, which is a completely different thing.
Dupont-Aignan's latest "coup de pub" (publicity stunt): starting on Wednesday, three of his party members have crisscrossed Europe, without the boot of their car ever being checked once. They went to Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, then back through Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Italy to France. All that happened was their passports got stamped both times they entered Serbia, which is outside Schengen.
One of his previous stunts involved bringing a Kalashnikov into France from Italy.
Dupont-Aignan promises to end Schengen, recruit 10000 border and air police and customs officials, and re-establish border controls.
Is he suggesting anti-EU nationalists need tighter monitoring?
"You do realise that was Spitting Image, not a real incident ?!"
Looking at those Spitting Image clips it is interesting how the programme used to portray the late Princess Diana. She was then a thick sloane and not at all the modern day saint that some like to pretend after untimely death.
That's £4million down the drain then. Apparently one of things that it will be spend some it on will be regional organizers who will get 1000s of volunteers to knock on doors. They will knock on doors and be told that Corbyn is the problem and unelectable. End of conversation.
"You do realise that was Spitting Image, not a real incident ?!"
Looking at those Spitting Image clips it is interesting how the programme used to portray the late Princess Diana. She was then a thick sloane and not at all the modern day saint that some like to pretend after untimely death.
She was a self obsessed thick Sloane
Princess Di "We'll call him Henry, all of my friends are called Henry."
"You do realise that was Spitting Image, not a real incident ?!"
Looking at those Spitting Image clips it is interesting how the programme used to portray the late Princess Diana. She was then a thick sloane and not at all the modern day saint that some like to pretend after untimely death.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
Well yes, but since that was (a) their second worst result in the age of universal suffrage and (b) also six seven years ago (a divisive and fractious seven years, at that) it would be extraordinarily alarming for Labour if there had *not* been a swing to them since.
Forget 1931, we'd be looking at 1900.
Edited to remove my strange confusion over what year we are in. It's been a long term...
Not so - Labour's 2010 result in London was significantly better than its performance there in 1983 /1987.It follows,therefore, that Labour is doing a good deal better there than at earlier elections despite having fallen back from 2015. To suggest it would be worse than 1931 is just daft. Moreover, in 1900 Labour only had 15 candidates in the field.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
Well yes, but since that was (a) their second worst result in the age of universal suffrage and (b) also six seven years ago (a divisive and fractious seven years, at that) it would be extraordinarily alarming for Labour if there had *not* been a swing to them since.
Forget 1931, we'd be looking at 1900.
Edited to remove my strange confusion over what year we are in. It's been a long term...
Not so - Labour's 2010 result in London was significantly better than its performance there in 1983 /1987.It follows,therefore, that Labour is doing a good deal better there than at earlier elections despite having fallen back from 2015. To suggest it would be worse than 1931 is just daft. Moreover, in 1900 Labour only had 15 candidates in the field.
I meant nationally. But even if I concede your point on London specifically, are you seriously suggesting that a slight improvement after seven years from their third worst result in the age of universal suffrage is 'not particularly bad' when one of the opposition parties has been literally annihilated and the other has conspired to take the pro-EU London out of Europe? Because I think, candidly, that if so you really are clutching at straws.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
Well yes, but since that was (a) their second worst result in the age of universal suffrage and (b) also six seven years ago (a divisive and fractious seven years, at that) it would be extraordinarily alarming for Labour if there had *not* been a swing to them since.
Forget 1931, we'd be looking at 1900.
Edited to remove my strange confusion over what year we are in. It's been a long term...
Not so - Labour's 2010 result in London was significantly better than its performance there in 1983 /1987.It follows,therefore, that Labour is doing a good deal better there than at earlier elections despite having fallen back from 2015. To suggest it would be worse than 1931 is just daft. Moreover, in 1900 Labour only had 15 candidates in the field.
In my post I did say based on recent pollong, specifically the poll, carried out by YouGov between 24 and 28 March, finds Labour at 37 per cent, just three points ahead of the Conservatives. A year ago the gap between the two parties was 16 points. Labour is now seven percentage points below its share in the 2015 general election.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
Apparently, the whole thing was a cock-up. From the 1997 version of The Economist
Britain, claims a Communist Party stalwart, Huang Wenfang, need never have had to hand Hong Kong back to China. Only when, with a humiliating and legalistic insistence, Britain pushed China into a corner during crucial negotiations in the early 1980s, did China feel compelled to insist on Hong Kong's full return on July 1st 1997. Before that, says Mr Huang, “we had no plan to recover Hong Kong”.
My understanding at the time was that the UK calculation was that Hong Kong without the New Territories was not viable and that the Chinese insisted on the reversion of the New Territories from the outset.
I am not sure quite what the Economist version is referring to. Sounds like only one half of the story.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
Well yes, but since that was (a) their second worst result in the age of universal suffrage and (b) also six seven years ago (a divisive and fractious seven years, at that) it would be extraordinarily alarming for Labour if there had *not* been a swing to them since.
Forget 1931, we'd be looking at 1900.
Edited to remove my strange confusion over what year we are in. It's been a long term...
Not so - Labour's 2010 result in London was significantly better than its performance there in 1983 /1987.It follows,therefore, that Labour is doing a good deal better there than at earlier elections despite having fallen back from 2015. To suggest it would be worse than 1931 is just daft. Moreover, in 1900 Labour only had 15 candidates in the field.
In my post I did say based on recent pollong, specifically the poll, carried out by YouGov between 24 and 28 March, finds Labour at 37 per cent, just three points ahead of the Conservatives. A year ago the gap between the two parties was 16 points. Labour is now seven percentage points below its share in the 2015 general election.
How far ahead do Labour need to be in London to have a realistic chance of taking power? In 2005 seven points was enough, in 2010 two points wasn't. I am guessing with the loss of Scotland, the de facto surrendering of southern England and the Midlands and demographic change within London itself the balance is now tipping even further. Any suggestions on how far ahead might translate to an overall national win? Because that would be a 'good' poll for Labour.
"You do realise that was Spitting Image, not a real incident ?!"
Looking at those Spitting Image clips it is interesting how the programme used to portray the late Princess Diana. She was then a thick sloane and not at all the modern day saint that some like to pretend after untimely death.
She was a self obsessed thick Sloane
I never met the lady but I'll take your word for it. She certainly always struck me as such. Let us be honest, if she had not been as you describe then she wouldn't have died as she did. The way she was portrayed in the media, especially after her death, I have always thought was very strange.
How long can Labour continue like this? Is now way, way beyond ridiculous.
Until 2020. If there are sensible people left then, they will not be able to pretend anymore.
Someone has to try and remove him. It's crazy. Yes, he might be re-elected, but so what - how could it be worse? What is there to lose? Dozens and dozens of Labour seats are going to fall.
My understanding at the time was that the UK calculation was that Hong Kong without the New Territories was not viable and that the Chinese insisted on the reversion of the New Territories from the outset.
I am not sure quite what the Economist version is referring to. Sounds like only one half of the story.
Yep its garbage. It was always recognised that Hong Kong Island was not viable without the New Territories and as such when the lease came up the whole lot would have to be returned. In fact it was also Chinese policy that all territories lost in 'unequal treaties' should be regained. There was never any question of Hong Kong remaining British after the New Territory lease ran out. The solution - although forced by circumstance - suited both sides.
How long can Labour continue like this? Is now way, way beyond ridiculous.
Until 2020. If there are sensible people left then, they will not be able to pretend anymore.
Someone has to try and remove him. It's crazy. Yes, he might be re-elected, but so what - how could it be worse? What is there to lose? Dozens and dozens of Labour seats are going to fall.
Take heart, Mr Borough, we have been told on here today that iff Labour elect a charismatic middle of the road leader then they could rack up, a potentially winning, 35% in 2020. That they haven't got a charismatic middle of the road candidate, let alone one who could be elected to the leadership, is, I grant you, a bit of a bugger.
How long can Labour continue like this? Is now way, way beyond ridiculous.
Until 2020. If there are sensible people left then, they will not be able to pretend anymore.
Someone has to try and remove him. It's crazy. Yes, he might be re-elected, but so what - how could it be worse? What is there to lose? Dozens and dozens of Labour seats are going to fall.
Take heart, Mr Borough, we have been told on here today that iff Labour elect a charismatic middle of the road leader then they could rack up, a potentially winning, 35% in 2020. That they haven't got a charismatic middle of the road candidate, let alone one who could be elected to the leadership, is, I grant you, a bit of a bugger.
If Labour had someone like Chuka Umunna leading them they could get up to around 37%, with many LD Remainers switching to Labour and a few Tories who voted for Blair. However there is no point electing someone like him as Labour leader until Corbyn or Corbynism and the left have been trounced at a general election and they can start afresh and Brexit is a done deal
to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
Well yes, but since that was (a) their second worst result in the age of universal suffrage and (b) also six seven years ago (a divisive and fractious seven years, at that) it would be extraordinarily alarming for Labour if there had *not* been a swing to them since.
Forget 1931, we'd be looking at 1900.
Edited to remove my strange confusion over what year we are in. It's been a long term...
Not so - Labour's 2010 result in London was significantly better than its performance there in 1983 /1987.It follows,therefore, that Labour is doing a good deal better there than at earlier elections despite having fallen back from 2015. To suggest it would be worse than 1931 is just daft. Moreover, in 1900 Labour only had 15 candidates in the field.
I meant nationally. But even if I concede your point on London specifically, are you seriously suggesting that a slight improvement after seven years from their third worst result in the age of universal suffrage is 'not particularly bad' when one of the opposition parties has been literally annihilated and the other has conspired to take the pro-EU London out of Europe? Because I think, candidly, that if so you really are clutching at straws.
I am not suggesting that Labour's performance in the national polls at the present time is anything other than abysmal - and is likely to remain that way whilst Corbyn is leader. To conclude from that, however, that the next election has already been decided is rash to put it mildly.As an historian you may well be aware that in the summer of 1961 - after ten years of Tory Government - Labour was behind in the polls and few commentators gave it much chance of success at the election expected in 1963/1964.I accept that the margin was much narrower - but on the other hand today's polls have had umpteen adjustments made and there is a distinct possibility that the Tory lead is being exaggerated a bit. At the end of April 2002 Labour enjoyed a 23% lead in a Mori poll - three years later it won the May 2005 election by 3%.
This would imply about 60 Conservative gains from Labour.
Many would be seats that haven't voted Conservative for decades (eg Grimsby, Halifax, Hartlepool, NE Derbyshire, Stoke North and South). But, some ex-Conservative seats would remain Labour (eg Exeter, Crosby, Croydon North, Bristol West).
But, let's say Corbyn is thrown overboard next year, and replaced.
How much can a new Labour leader claw back in 2 years? All of it, so they're back to Milliband's position, or is the damage too great?
That's the question I'm trying to assess in betting on this.
I would expect a new leader to perform better than Milliband who was far too geeky and failed to connect .Circa 35% would be pretty likely.
It's easy to forget that Ed was the worst Labour leader since WW2, until Corbyn came along.
Miliband did better in terms of both voteshare and seats than Foot and in terms of voteshare than Brown (he also won more seats than Kinnock did in 1987 but did worse in voteshare), he was the third worst Labour leader since WW2, Corbyn is now clearly the worst and on present polling will do worse than Foot
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
I'm not sure what Labour can do to get their act together. OK they'll pledge more money for the NHS, but people will know that means higher taxes and more borrowing. They are weak on immigration, a key factor. There doesn't appear to be anybody capable of communicating with floating voters.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
Well yes, but since that was (a) their second worst result in the age of universal suffrage and (b) also six seven years ago (a divisive and fractious seven years, at that) it would be extraordinarily alarming for Labour if there had *not* been a swing to them since.
Forget 1931, we'd be looking at 1900.
Edited to remove my strange confusion over what year we are in. It's been a long term...
Not so - Labour's 2010 result in London was significantly better than its performance there in 1983 /1987.It follows,therefore, that Labour is doing a good deal better there than at earlier elections despite having fallen back from 2015. To suggest it would be worse than 1931 is just daft. Moreover, in 1900 Labour only had 15 candidates in the field.
I meant nationally. But even if I concede your point on London specifically, are you seriously suggesting that a slight improvement after seven years from their third worst result in the age of universal suffrage is 'not particularly bad' when one of the opposition parties has been literally annihilated and the other has conspired to take the pro-EU London out of Europe? Because I think, candidly, that if so you really are clutching at straws.
You keep referring to Labour's 'third worst result in the age of universal suffrage'. You must know that that is not true at all in terms of number of seats won so I assume you are referring to the vote share received. However, care needs to be taken there to allow for the fact that in 1931 Labour only managed 31% despite the vast majority of seats having only two candidates . Had there been four or five major candidates offered to voters as has now become quite normal, Labour would probably have struggled to reach 25% in 1931. The same analysis applies to 1935 too. It is as ridiculous really as the suggestions that the Labour & Tory parties can aspire to the 45% - 50% votes shares obtained in the 1950s - and to a lesser extent the 1960s - when there were few other candidates in the field.
How long can Labour continue like this? Is now way, way beyond ridiculous.
Until 2020. If there are sensible people left then, they will not be able to pretend anymore.
Someone has to try and remove him. It's crazy. Yes, he might be re-elected, but so what - how could it be worse? What is there to lose? Dozens and dozens of Labour seats are going to fall.
Take heart, Mr Borough, we have been told on here today that iff Labour elect a charismatic middle of the road leader then they could rack up, a potentially winning, 35% in 2020. That they haven't got a charismatic middle of the road candidate, let alone one who could be elected to the leadership, is, I grant you, a bit of a bugger.
If Labour had someone like Chuka Umunna leading them they could get up to around 37%, with many LD Remainers switching to Labour and a few Tories who voted for Blair. However there is no point electing someone like him as Labour leader until Corbyn or Corbynism and the left have been trounced at a general election and they can start afresh and Brexit is a done deal
Mr Hyfud, 37% is enough for a GE win and a majority government, is it not? That would imply that, for example the West Midlands do an almost complete about face and many shire seats in the South likewise. Do you seriously expect that "someone like Chuka Umunna" could achieve that?
I ask the same question as I did a while back, who is this charismatic leader that will suddenly appear, get elected to the Labour Leadership and take them back to power?
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
I am not suggesting that Labour's performance in the national polls at the present time is anything other than abysmal - and is likely to remain that way whilst Corbyn is leader. To conclude from that, however, that the next election has already been decided is rash to put it mildly.As an historian you may well be aware that in the summer of 1961 - after ten years of Tory Government - Labour was behind in the polls and few commentators gave it much chance of success at the election expected in 1963/1964.
I am very aware of that. I am also aware of 1981, when the SDP hit 50% in the polls before polling half that two years later. I am aware of huge Labour leads of 64-21 in 1998 which were cut to 40-31 in practice.
However, it is not the size, it's the shape that should be causing Labour to panic. They are losing working class voters in the north. They have forfeited the suburban vote long ago. They have given up on Scotland. That leaves them the middle class urban voters and Wales. There are simply not enough of them to do well in an election on.
Moreover look at the context. Labour in the 1950s had destroyed its political credibility with infighting and a weird obsession with nuclear disarmament. But Gaitskell kept his head, sorted the policy problems out and reunited the party behind him, helped by his prestige and intellect. Corbyn's own shallowness and stupidity, plus his spitefulness and incompetence, are driving the current mess. Who can restore political credibility? You talk a lot about this candidate who might push them to 35%. But who is it? I cannot see one.
Even if they did restore political credibility - which is a huge ask, given how damaged Labour are in the country at large - has w do they restore economic credibility? Black Wednesday kept the Tories out for 13 years, the Winter of Discontent kept Labour out for 18 years. Both were comparatively minor blips compared to the crash of 2007-8, and in the case of Callaghan, arguably not his fault. Labour's gross incompetence and complacency was however a significant factor in the banking crash, one that they make themselves look ridiculous by refusing to acknowledge in a desperate bid instead to claim that everything was the fault of global forces outside their control. As a result, they have the economic credibility of the Hatton Garden robbers (well, maybe less).
It is true May's support is broader than it is deep. But that doesn't matter a lot if there is no opposition. Between 1906 and 1945 not one party other than the Conservatives (Unionists) won a majority in a general election, and they came a close second on the two occasions they were not the largest party (with one dead heat). A rerun seems a distinct and alarming possibility unless Labour faces up to its real faults.
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
How long can Labour continue like this? Is now way, way beyond ridiculous.
Until 2020. If there are sensible people left then, they will not be able to pretend anymore.
Someone has to try and remove him. It's crazy. Yes, he might be re-elected, but so what - how could it be worse? What is there to lose? Dozens and dozens of Labour seats are going to fall.
Take heart, Mr Borough, we have been told on here today that iff Labour elect a charismatic middle of the road leader then they could rack up, a potentially winning, 35% in 2020. That they haven't got a charismatic middle of the road candidate, let alone one who could be elected to the leadership, is, I grant you, a bit of a bugger.
If Labour had someone like Chuka Umunna leading them they could get up to around 37%, with many LD Remainers switching to Labour and a few Tories who voted for Blair. However there is no point electing someone like him as Labour leader until Corbyn or Corbynism and the left have been trounced at a general election and they can start afresh and Brexit is a done deal
Mr Hyfud, 37% is enough for a GE win and a majority government, is it not? That would imply that, for example the West Midlands do an almost complete about face and many shire seats in the South likewise. Do you seriously expect that "someone like Chuka Umunna" could achieve that?
I ask the same question as I did a while back, who is this charismatic leader that will suddenly appear, get elected to the Labour Leadership and take them back to power?
I remember there was a poll post election in 2015 (pre Brexit) which had an Umunna led Labour on exactly 37%. The next general election will be a Tory win whoever leads Labour in my view, to give May her mandate and confirm Brexit and departure from the single market to control EU immigration, however I could certainly see a Chuka Umunna led Labour winning in 2025, perhaps on a platform to return to the EEA, albeit not the full EU
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
I'm not sure what Labour can do to get their act together. OK they'll pledge more money for the NHS, but people will know that means higher taxes and more borrowing. They are weak on immigration, a key factor. There doesn't appear to be anybody capable of communicating with floating voters.
They are finished, for better or worse.
I don't think so. Personally I would never vote for them because I have a different political philosophy but I - and everyone else on the Right - really does need to recognise that the country is fairly evenly split - maybe 5% either way - between Right and Left and that the choice of Leader is vastly important in influencing which side is in the ascendency. Not least because it dictates to what extent each side is unified.
I think, barring something unforeseen that removes Corbyn from power, Labour will suffer until after 2020 but then I would see a rapid recovery. If Corbyn does go then that could happen all the sooner.
How long can Labour continue like this? Is now way, way beyond ridiculous.
Its terminal decline, their arguments have been lost.
If that were true the Tories would be on 80%. No, Labour are doing poorly for several reasons, but it isn't terminal unless someone replaces them, because there is nobody so popular to make them die.
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
I'm not sure what Labour can do to get their act together. OK they'll pledge more money for the NHS, but people will know that means higher taxes and more borrowing. They are weak on immigration, a key factor. There doesn't appear to be anybody capable of communicating with floating voters.
They are finished, for better or worse.
I don't think so. Personally I would never vote for them because I have a different political philosophy but I - and everyone else on the Right - really does need to recognise that the country is fairly evenly split - maybe 5% either way - between Right and Left and that the choice of Leader is vastly important in influencing which side is in the ascendency. Not least because it dictates to what extent each side is unified.
I think, barring something unforeseen that removes Corbyn from power, Labour will suffer until after 2020 but then I would see a rapid recovery. If Corbyn does go then that could happen all the sooner.
Would you say the same for Scottish Labour? Could a great leader revitalise them, or are they too far gone?
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
I agree it is not easy. But to try and suggest it is impossible or even extremely unlikely is, I think, very dangerous for the Tory planners. As someone who would be very unhappy with a Labour Government, I do hope that they are taking the threat seriously and not persuaded by the idea that Labour are 'finished'.
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
I'm not sure what Labour can do to get their act together. OK they'll pledge more money for the NHS, but people will know that means higher taxes and more borrowing. They are weak on immigration, a key factor. There doesn't appear to be anybody capable of communicating with floating voters.
They are finished, for better or worse.
I don't think so. Personally I would never vote for them because I have a different political philosophy but I - and everyone else on the Right - really does need to recognise that the country is fairly evenly split - maybe 5% either way - between Right and Left and that the choice of Leader is vastly important in influencing which side is in the ascendency. Not least because it dictates to what extent each side is unified.
I think, barring something unforeseen that removes Corbyn from power, Labour will suffer until after 2020 but then I would see a rapid recovery. If Corbyn does go then that could happen all the sooner.
Would you say the same for Scottish Labour? Could a great leader revitalise them, or are they too far gone?
The problem they have in Scotland is that they have another party there which has stolen much of their clothes. In England and Wales the alternative left of centre party are relatively weak and even at their height have never been in a position to seriously challenge Labour for leadership of the Left. In Scotland the Left wing alternative are not only serious challengers, they are ahead and ruling the country.
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
I'm not sure what Labour can do to get their act together. OK they'll pledge more money for the NHS, but people will know that means higher taxes and more borrowing. They are weak on immigration, a key factor. There doesn't appear to be anybody capable of communicating with floating voters.
They are finished, for better or worse.
I don't think so. Personally I would never vote for them because I have a different political philosophy but I - and everyone else on the Right - really does need to recognise that the country is fairly evenly split - maybe 5% either way - between Right and Left and that the choice of Leader is vastly important in influencing which side is in the ascendency. Not least because it dictates to what extent each side is unified.
I think, barring something unforeseen that removes Corbyn from power, Labour will suffer until after 2020 but then I would see a rapid recovery. If Corbyn does go then that could happen all the sooner.
Would you say the same for Scottish Labour? Could a great leader revitalise them, or are they too far gone?
In Quebec the nationalists won 49% in the 1981 Quebec provincial elections following the 1980 referendum but lost power in 1985 and 43% in the 1998 elections following the 1995 referendum but lost power at the 2003 election. If Sturgeon keeps pushing independence above all else I could certainly see either Davidson or Dugdale as First Minister in 2021 or 2026
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
I'm not sure what Labour can do to get their act together. OK they'll pledge more money for the NHS, but people will know that means higher taxes and more borrowing. They are weak on immigration, a key factor. There doesn't appear to be anybody capable of communicating with floating voters.
They are finished, for better or worse.
I don't think so. Personally I would never vote for them because I have a different political philosophy but I - and everyone else on the Right - really does need to recognise that the country is fairly evenly split - maybe 5% either way - between Right and Left and that the choice of Leader is vastly important in influencing which side is in the ascendency. Not least because it dictates to what extent each side is unified.
I think, barring something unforeseen that removes Corbyn from power, Labour will suffer until after 2020 but then I would see a rapid recovery. If Corbyn does go then that could happen all the sooner.
Two issues: the message and the messenger, at the moment both are dire. Even if he is replaced I can't see what the message will be.
It is true May's support is broader than it is deep. But that doesn't matter a lot if there is no opposition. Between 1906 and 1945 not one party other than the Conservatives (Unionists) won a majority in a general election, and they came a close second on the two occasions they were not the largest party (with one dead heat). A rerun seems a distinct and alarming possibility unless Labour faces up to its real faults.
I don't share your analysis of the 2007/2008 crash for which I blame the neoliberal economics bequeathed by the Thatcher/Reagan years. It was very much a Black Swan event originating in the US with devastating consequences for the rest of the world. I do ,however, strongly criticise Labour for not taking on the Tories more effectively post 2010 re - the Deficit and the size of the Debt. Osborne was allowed to dictate the terms of the debate - despite having agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-crash - and the idea of 'Labour's mess' became the accepted version with an electorate that is 95% ignorant of economics. If Labour can sort itself out , it does have an opportunity to explain that Osborne's strategy has now been ditched - and that all the austerity and associated human misery was for nothing - and was a political choice made by the Coalition Government - rather than an economic necessity.
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
1) i think about 65% chance Corbyn not in charge come GE 2020. I'm including possibility of a successful challenge. 2) 95-100%. The only faction of the party that would struggle to get someone on the ballot is the Corbyn wing. 3) depends but the momentum seems to be away from JC. The membership may not pick the best candidate but i think chance of Corbyn Mk II is slim. Even someone who shares his views on many things will do better if they are a better presenter. 4) not sure why this is needed if there has just been a leadership election. Tony Blair kept on winning elections even when the left turned against him.
Let's wait until we know he was killled outright by an air strike before we celebrate, it could be that one of our boys finished him off when he was injured in which case it's a disgrace
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
I'm not sure what Labour can do to get their act together. OK they'll pledge more money for the NHS, but people will know that means higher taxes and more borrowing. They are weak on immigration, a key factor. There doesn't appear to be anybody capable of communicating with floating voters.
They are finished, for better or worse.
I don't think so. Personally I would never vote for them because I have a different political philosophy but I - and everyone else on the Right - really does need to recognise that the country is fairly evenly split - maybe 5% either way - between Right and Left and that the choice of Leader is vastly important in influencing which side is in the ascendency. Not least because it dictates to what extent each side is unified.
I think, barring something unforeseen that removes Corbyn from power, Labour will suffer until after 2020 but then I would see a rapid recovery. If Corbyn does go then that could happen all the sooner.
Two issues: the message and the messenger, at the moment both are dire. Even if he is replaced I can't see what the message will be.
What can they offer?
If from 2020-2025 they move away from Corbynism back towards New Labour and potentially support for the UK returning to the single market that will have appeal to many
Do you find your job dull and unfulfilling? Do you spend your days seeking out distractions or furtively pursuing your real interests? Millions find themselves in this position and pass the time meandering on Facebook or searching for a new career.
Fair enough, you might think. There are some pretty humdrum posts out there but bills need to be paid. One line of work you might not expect to be afflicted by such self-seeking ennui is being First Minister of Scotland. The office is the most senior government sinecure in the land, second only to the Prime Minister, and its inhabitant wields the kind of power the rest of us can only dream of. The head of the Scottish Government presides over an annual budget of £38 billion and runs an executive unmatched anywhere in the world for the sheer scope of its powers over a sub-state region. The First Minister can change lives, change an entire society, from a desk in Bute House.
But it’s not enough for Nicola Sturgeon. The SNP First Minister — let’s dispense with the fiction that she’s Scotland’s First Minister — isn’t interested in changing lives. She wants to change history.
Do you find your job dull and unfulfilling? Do you spend your days seeking out distractions or furtively pursuing your real interests? Millions find themselves in this position and pass the time meandering on Facebook or searching for a new career.
Fair enough, you might think. There are some pretty humdrum posts out there but bills need to be paid. One line of work you might not expect to be afflicted by such self-seeking ennui is being First Minister of Scotland. The office is the most senior government sinecure in the land, second only to the Prime Minister, and its inhabitant wields the kind of power the rest of us can only dream of. The head of the Scottish Government presides over an annual budget of £38 billion and runs an executive unmatched anywhere in the world for the sheer scope of its powers over a sub-state region. The First Minister can change lives, change an entire society, from a desk in Bute House.
But it’s not enough for Nicola Sturgeon. The SNP First Minister — let’s dispense with the fiction that she’s Scotland’s First Minister — isn’t interested in changing lives. She wants to change history.
You keep referring to Labour's 'third worst result in the age of universal suffrage'. You must know that that is not true at all in terms of number of seats won so I assume you are referring to the vote share received. However, care needs to be taken there to allow for the fact that in 1931 Labour only managed 31% despite the vast majority of seats having only two candidates . Had there been four or five major candidates offered to voters as has now become quite normal, Labour would probably have struggled to reach 25% in 1931. The same analysis applies to 1935 too. It is as ridiculous really as the suggestions that the Labour & Tory parties can aspire to the 45% - 50% votes shares obtained in the 1950s - and to a lesser extent the 1960s - when there were few other candidates in the field.
Yes, I mean voteshare, for the simple reason that as you yourself keep reminding us there are often seat changes which make comparing seat numbers difficult (Copeland being an example of a seat which changes over time - we could perhaps mention the for,er Tory stronghold of Sheffield as well). As you also point out there are issues comparing voteshare. However, I think you oversimplify matters. Even where there were multiple candidates, there was a high voteshare in the 40s for the two parties. While the Liberal share was 10-15% this was also a reflection of the fact that a high proportion of candidates stood in more promising (or less unpromising) seats. We could certainly compare the Nationalist share of 14% per candidate in 1966 with the remarkable 50% in 2015.
However I am not convinced by your reasoning on 1931. No fewer than eight parties were involved and there was a multiple choice in around one-third of seats (10% by contrast were unopposed, mostly Conservative but five Liberal and six Labour). I suggest that Labour's share of the vote might actually have looked better if they hadn't put up split tickets in 20 safe seats (a trick the Unionists also pulled in 1906, with particularly spectacular results in Greenwich where three Unionists fought each other).
Throughout the twentieth century there has been a decline in party identity. That's true for the big two as for others - look at the Liberal Democrats as well. However, Labour appear to me to be industriously and deliberately hacking away at what's left of their core support with the aim of reducing themselves to an ideologically pure rump of voters, because like Bevan in 1949 they seem genuinely not to get that people won't vote for abusive lunatics merely because the said abusive lunatics have a hagiographic image of themselves. This poll, to my mind, confirms that tendency. I am puzzled therefore that you believe a modest improvement on a terrible result in the most favourable area for Pabour is not that bad.
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
1) i think about 65% chance Corbyn not in charge come GE 2020. I'm including possibility of a successful challenge. 2) 95-100%. The only faction of the party that would struggle to get someone on the ballot is the Corbyn wing. 3) depends but the momentum seems to be away from JC. The membership may not pick the best candidate but i think chance of Corbyn Mk II is slim. Even someone who shares his views on many things will do better if they are a better presenter. 4) not sure why this is needed if there has just been a leadership election. Tony Blair kept on winning elections even when the left turned against him.
You may well be right, but I think you're slightly over-optimistic. I see few signs that Labour are anything other than a headless chicken at the moment, although there might be stuff going on behind the scenes that we don't see.
4) is there as many Cornybistas / Momentum people will be aghast at the change. Any new leader will need to face them down: think of the battle with the Militant Tendency in the 1980s. Unite's position will also be interesting.
Do you find your job dull and unfulfilling? Do you spend your days seeking out distractions or furtively pursuing your real interests? Millions find themselves in this position and pass the time meandering on Facebook or searching for a new career.
Fair enough, you might think. There are some pretty humdrum posts out there but bills need to be paid. One line of work you might not expect to be afflicted by such self-seeking ennui is being First Minister of Scotland. The office is the most senior government sinecure in the land, second only to the Prime Minister, and its inhabitant wields the kind of power the rest of us can only dream of. The head of the Scottish Government presides over an annual budget of £38 billion and runs an executive unmatched anywhere in the world for the sheer scope of its powers over a sub-state region. The First Minister can change lives, change an entire society, from a desk in Bute House.
But it’s not enough for Nicola Sturgeon. The SNP First Minister — let’s dispense with the fiction that she’s Scotland’s First Minister — isn’t interested in changing lives. She wants to change history.
It is true May's support is broader than it is deep. But that doesn't matter a lot if there is no opposition. Between 1906 and 1945 not one party other than the Conservatives (Unionists) won a majority in a general election, and they came a close second on the two occasions they were not the largest party (with one dead heat). A rerun seems a distinct and alarming possibility unless Labour faces up to its real faults.
I don't share your analysis of the 2007/2008 crash for which I blame the neoliberal economics bequeathed by the Thatcher/Reagan years. It was very much a Black Swan event originating in the US with devastating consequences for the rest of the world. I do ,however, strongly criticise Labour for not taking on the Tories more effectively post 2010 re - the Deficit and the size of the Debt. Osborne was allowed to dictate the terms of the debate - despite having agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-crash - and the idea of 'Labour's mess' became the accepted version with an electorate that is 95% ignorant of economics. If Labour can sort itself out , it does have an opportunity to explain that Osborne's strategy has now been ditched - and that all the austerity and associated human misery was for nothing - and was a political choice made by the Coalition Government - rather than an economic necessity.
We have got Labour's deficit down from 10% to 3% and are still working on it. If that is nothing then you've learnt nothing.
Yougov's London-only poll had UKIP on 9%, one point better than in the 2015 GE, while their national poll taken around the same time put them three points lower than their general election score. Could be statistical noise but what else might it indicate - slippage among Labour's working-class vote, perhaps, which elsewhere is more likely to go to the Tories?
I don't share your analysis of the 2007/2008 crash for which I blame the neoliberal economics bequeathed by the Thatcher/Reagan years. It was very much a Black Swan event originating in the US with devastating consequences for the rest of the world. I do ,however, strongly criticise Labour for not taking on the Tories more effectively post 2010 re - the Deficit and the size of the Debt. Osborne was allowed to dictate the terms of the debate - despite having agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-crash - and the idea of 'Labour's mess' became the accepted version with an electorate that is 95% ignorant of economics. If Labour can sort itself out , it does have an opportunity to explain that Osborne's strategy has now been ditched - and that all the austerity and associated human misery was for nothing - and was a political choice made by the Coalition Government - rather than an economic necessity.
You are confusing two things. One is the overall crisis. That, as Brown correctly noted, began in America (although actually it was due to Clinton's mistakes rather than Reagan's, but that is a discussion for another day). Brown's spending was OTT and often badly managed - he increased the national debt from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 40% in 2006 in a period of rapid headline economic growth, which tells you all you need to know - but that was not a factor in causing the crash although it left problems behind it.
The other is the banking crisis, which was what I specifically mentioned. Britain in 1997 had an adequate albeit not excellent system of regulating and inspecting banks under the control of the Bank of England. As part of the early changes Labour brought in, this control was removed from Threadneedle Street and handed over to - in effect - nobody. That was fine while times were good. Unfortunately it left our banks free to expand far beyond their capital limits and left them uniquely exposed when the crash came. That was undoubtedly Labour's fault and the resulting catastrophic damage to the banking sector including sixteen major banking failures has cost vast sums of money and prolonged the recession by years.
You will doubtless point out - correctly - that Ireland and Spain had similar problems. But they were caused by the Euro and the complexities the setting up of that unfortunate mix-step entailed. Brown having wisely kept us out of that, we have no such excuse to hide behind.
You may also point out - again correctly - that Brown dealt with the banking crash better than any comparable figure (the Americans under Bush spring to mind). But if an arsonist rings the fire brigade and helps them douse the flames, do you thank them for the good job or blame them for starting it in the first place?
Poundland Carlotta? You're slipping if you missed the chance to slip in a dig about Nicola's plans for the currency.
I'm surprised you aren't busy drawing up posters to explain how Ruth Davidson is the new Disraeli.
I'd compare Davidson to Derby. Not electorally especially successful (although a case could be made that he is the only party leader to win five consecutive general elections) but generally respected and doing a reasonable job after an extinction level event. I see no sign of a Scottish Disraeli.
Is that 'winning an election' in the same sense that Hillary Clinton 'won'?
That sort of thing, yes. Stanley/Derby always led the largest single party (the 'Liberals' being a coalition of three, arguably four distinct groups) but everyone else worked together to put another politician in power be that Russell, Aberdeen or Palmerston. Even so, he was Prime Minister on three separate occasions, quite an impressive achievement he shares with Baldwin and Salisbury, just behind Gladstone's record of four.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
An important question is whether one thinks that Labour's poor ratings are mainly due to the the public view of Corbyn or mainly due to left-wing policies. I don't think that people follow policy to the degree that we'd like, and a new leader from any wing of the party would be given a hearing, though would also come under immediate attack from the media for whatever weaknesses they could find. The Momentum wing of the party would mainly go into revolt if Corbyn was forced out - if he voluntarily decided to call it a day, they'd look at the options like anyone else, and a left of centre leader in that situation wouldn't face a huge uproar. (Obviously we aren't going to elect Peter Mandelson, for all his undoubted talents.)
That's why it's in the party's interest that there is an escape route available if Corbyn eventually decided to take it which doesn't exclude a left-wing candidate, because without that he won't, I predict, go voluntarily. Risking losing an argument is one thing, being prevented from having a candidate representing your views is something else.
Poundland Carlotta? You're slipping if you missed the chance to slip in a dig about Nicola's plans for the currency.
I'm surprised you aren't busy drawing up posters to explain how Ruth Davidson is the new Disraeli.
I'd compare Davidson to Derby. Not electorally especially successful (although a case could be made that he is the only party leader to win five consecutive general elections) but generally respected and doing a reasonable job after an extinction level event. I see no sign of a Scottish Disraeli.
Is that 'winning an election' in the same sense that Hillary Clinton 'won'?
That sort of thing, yes. Stanley/Derby always led the largest single party (the 'Liberals' being a coalition of three, arguably four distinct groups) but everyone else worked together to put another politician in power be that Russell, Aberdeen or Palmerston. Even so, he was Prime Minister on three separate occasions, quite an impressive achievement he shares with Baldwin and Salisbury, just behind Gladstone's record of four.
Not for very long, though.
Longest period was I think a year (off-hand, without checking). That gave us the important 1867 Reform Act though even if that's usually credited to Disraeli.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
An important question is whether one thinks that Labour's poor ratings are mainly due to the the public view of Corbyn or mainly due to left-wing policies. I don't think that people follow policy to the degree that we'd like, and a new leader from any wing of the party would be given a hearing, though would also come under immediate attack from the media for whatever weaknesses they could find. The Momentum wing of the party would mainly go into revolt if Corbyn was forced out - if he voluntarily decided to call it a day, they'd look at the options like anyone else, and a left of centre leader in that situation wouldn't face a huge uproar. (Obviously we aren't going to elect Peter Mandelson, for all his undoubted talents.)
That's why it's in the party's interest that there is an escape route available if Corbyn eventually decided to take it which doesn't exclude a left-wing candidate, because without that he won't, I predict, go voluntarily. Risking losing an argument is one thing, being prevented from having a candidate representing your views is something else.
What if it's both, plus a branding problem? Where does that leave you then? Up a certain creek, without a certain instrument. And that is where you are.
Labour can survive. It's not without assets (literally, looking at its finances). But it has a lot of work to do and I would say it's further from power now than at any time since 1983 or even 1935.
With that, I have to go. Have a good weekend everyone.
"Property tycoon Charles Kane is, by any standards, a very successful man. He has a multi-million-pound property portfolio, a law degree, a £250,000, 52ft motor yacht, a top-of-the-range Mercedes and a wardrobe stuffed with designer suits And yet, he is far from happy. "
"Sam Kane pulls up outside her £3 million London mews house in a top-of-the-range red Mercedes, looking every inch the successful, mature career woman.
An international lawyer, she is wearing a black suit and white blouse with delicate lace detailing. Her greying blonde hair falls in soft waves around her face."
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
An important question is whether one thinks that Labour's poor ratings are mainly due to the the public view of Corbyn or mainly due to left-wing policies. I don't think that people follow policy to the degree that we'd like, and a new leader from any wing of the party would be given a hearing, though would also come under immediate attack from the media for whatever weaknesses they could find. The Momentum wing of the party would mainly go into revolt if Corbyn was forced out - if he voluntarily decided to call it a day, they'd look at the options like anyone else, and a left of centre leader in that situation wouldn't face a huge uproar. (Obviously we aren't going to elect Peter Mandelson, for all his undoubted talents.)
That's why it's in the party's interest that there is an escape route available if Corbyn eventually decided to take it which doesn't exclude a left-wing candidate, because without that he won't, I predict, go voluntarily. Risking losing an argument is one thing, being prevented from having a candidate representing your views is something else.
That's a very good question. It might well be both Corbyn and the policies: Labour has a terrible CEO and incompetent salesmen trying to sell an unappealing product.
Basically, the're the political equivalent of British Leyland in the late 1970s.
The failure of Labour to gain on the back of constant NHS attacks is noteworthy. I wondered the other day whether Labour was now the-boy-that-cried-wolf over the NHS: people still generally are fond of the NHS, but it is still just about working despite all Labour's dire claims over the last seven years.
Likewise, the cuts. People have been hurt, but the dire claims made by Labour generally haven't occurred. Life's gone on.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
An important question is whether one thinks that Labour's poor ratings are mainly due to the the public view of Corbyn or mainly due to left-wing policies. I don't think that people follow policy to the degree that we'd like, and a new leader from any wing of the party would be given a hearing, though would also come under immediate attack from the media for whatever weaknesses they could find. The Momentum wing of the party would mainly go into revolt if Corbyn was forced out - if he voluntarily decided to call it a day, they'd look at the options like anyone else, and a left of centre leader in that situation wouldn't face a huge uproar. (Obviously we aren't going to elect Peter Mandelson, for all his undoubted talents.)
That's why it's in the party's interest that there is an escape route available if Corbyn eventually decided to take it which doesn't exclude a left-wing candidate, because without that he won't, I predict, go voluntarily. Risking losing an argument is one thing, being prevented from having a candidate representing your views is something else.
Yes, I mean voteshare, for the simple reason that as you yourself keep reminding us there are often seat changes which make comparing seat numbers difficult (Copeland being an example of a seat which changes over time - we could perhaps mention the for,er Tory stronghold of Sheffield as well). As you also point out there are issues comparing voteshare. However, I think you oversimplify matters. Even where there were multiple candidates, there was a high voteshare in the 40s for the two parties. While the Liberal share was 10-15% this was also a reflection of the fact that a high proportion of candidates stood in more promising (or less unpromising) seats. We could certainly compare the Nationalist share of 14% per candidate in 1966 with the remarkable 50% in 2015.
However I am not convinced by your reasoning on 1931. No fewer than eight parties were involved and there was a multiple choice in around one-third of seats (10% by contrast were unopposed, mostly Conservative but five Liberal and six Labour). I suggest that Labour's share of the vote might actually have looked better if they hadn't put up split tickets in 20 safe seats (a trick the Unionists also pulled in 1906, with particularly spectacular results in Greenwich where three Unionists fought each other).
Throughout the twentieth century there has been a decline in party identity. That's true for the big two as for others - look at the Liberal Democrats as well. However, Labour appear to me to be industriously and deliberately hacking away at what's left of their core support with the aim of reducing themselves to an ideologically pure rump of voters, because like Bevan in 1949 they seem genuinely not to get that people won't vote for abusive lunatics merely because the said abusive lunatics have a hagiographic image of themselves. This poll, to my mind, confirms that tendency. I am puzzled therefore that you believe a modest improvement on a terrible result in the most favourable area for Pabour is not that bad.
I don't agree re-1931 at all.I find it difficult to believe that Labour had more than one official candidate in any seat - other than the few double member seats then in existence such as Norwich , Brighton, Blackburn, Oldham, Stockport etc. As for eight parties being in contention that was not the case in relation to a given constituency - and many will have been differnt versions of National Government candidates - ie National Labour -National Liberal - National in addition to Tory , Labour & Liberal. Then there was Moseley's New Party and quite a few Communists. As you concede , two thirds of contests were straight fights - just like the 1950s - and that alone will have boosted Labour's vote share by five or six points.
On Topic I do very much believe that Labour are only one sensible decision away from significantly closing the gap on the Tories. If I were a Tory I would be genuinely concerned about Corbyn falling under a bus and Labour being forced to choose a sensible candidate. I do believe that what we see in the polls at the moment is a kind of reverse non of the above. Many sensible people see that the only viable Government is Tory - even if they do not agree with much of what the Tories stand for.
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
For democracy to work, we need an Opposition capable of holding the Government to account during a Parliament, and offering a viable alternative administration come election time.
Labour fulfils neither purpose, and cannot whilst it's led by Corbyn.
It is true May's support is broader than it is deep. But that doesn't matter a lot if there is no opposition. Between 1906 and 1945 not one party other than the Conservatives (Unionists) won a majority in a general election, and they came a close second on the two occasions they were not the largest party (with one dead heat). A rerun seems a distinct and alarming possibility unless Labour faces up to its real faults.
I don't share your analysis of the 2007/2008 crash for which I blame the neoliberal economics bequeathed by the Thatcher/Reagan years. It was very much a Black Swan event originating in the US with devastating consequences for the rest of the world. I do ,however, strongly criticise Labour for not taking on the Tories more effectively post 2010 re - the Deficit and the size of the Debt. Osborne was allowed to dictate the terms of the debate - despite having agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-crash - and the idea of 'Labour's mess' became the accepted version with an electorate that is 95% ignorant of economics. If Labour can sort itself out , it does have an opportunity to explain that Osborne's strategy has now been ditched - and that all the austerity and associated human misery was for nothing - and was a political choice made by the Coalition Government - rather than an economic necessity.
We have got Labour's deficit down from 10% to 3% and are still working on it. If that is nothing then you've learnt nothing.
I have taught economics at degree level so hopefully have some knowledge. The question arises as to whether it was necessary to cut the deficit given the longterm nature of so much of our debt and the very low level of interest rates. Most academic economists are highly critical and also believe that Osborne's macroeconomic policies delayed the economic recovery - and that when it arrived it was very unbalanced being based on a housing boom.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
An important question is whether one thinks that Labour's poor ratings are mainly due to the the public view of Corbyn or mainly due to left-wing policies. I don't think that people follow policy to the degree that we'd like, and a new leader from any wing of the party would be given a hearing, though would also come under immediate attack from the media for whatever weaknesses they could find. The Momentum wing of the party would mainly go into revolt if Corbyn was forced out - if he voluntarily decided to call it a day, they'd look at the options like anyone else, and a left of centre leader in that situation wouldn't face a huge uproar. (Obviously we aren't going to elect Peter Mandelson, for all his undoubted talents.)
That's why it's in the party's interest that there is an escape route available if Corbyn eventually decided to take it which doesn't exclude a left-wing candidate, because without that he won't, I predict, go voluntarily. Risking losing an argument is one thing, being prevented from having a candidate representing your views is something else.
That's a very good question. It might well be both Corbyn and the policies: Labour has a terrible CEO and incompetent salesmen trying to sell an unappealing product.
Basically, the're the political equivalent of British Leyland in the late 1970s.
The failure of Labour to gain on the back of constant NHS attacks is noteworthy. I wondered the other day whether Labour was now the-boy-that-cried-wolf over the NHS: people still generally are fond of the NHS, but it is still just about working despite all Labour's dire claims over the last seven years.
Likewise, the cuts. People have been hurt, but the dire claims made by Labour generally haven't occurred. Life's gone on.
Labour need new messages that will resonate.
That Labour Shadow Cabinet in full: headed by the Reliant Robin of British politics, Jeremy Corbyn.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
It's also important to remember that if you look at most parliaments, the main opposition party goes backwards between the midpoint and the end.
For democracy to work, we need an Opposition capable of holding the Government to account during a Parliament, and offering a viable alternative administration come election time.
Labour fulfils neither purpose, and cannot whilst it's led by Corbyn.
Nothing last forever Morris even if it feels like it at the time. 1983 to 85 was a terrible time for Labour complete split with SDP , year long miners strike Totally dominant Conservative party with 144 maj.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
It's also important to remember that if you look at most parliaments, the main opposition party goes backwards between the midpoint and the end.
Might be wrong but I thought Michael Howard and the conservatives did not between ,2003 and 2005.
That's a very good question. It might well be both Corbyn and the policies: Labour has a terrible CEO and incompetent salesmen trying to sell an unappealing product.
Basically, the're the political equivalent of British Leyland in the late 1970s.
The failure of Labour to gain on the back of constant NHS attacks is noteworthy. I wondered the other day whether Labour was now the-boy-that-cried-wolf over the NHS: people still generally are fond of the NHS, but it is still just about working despite all Labour's dire claims over the last seven years.
Likewise, the cuts. People have been hurt, but the dire claims made by Labour generally haven't occurred. Life's gone on.
Labour need new messages that will resonate.
Labour have always over-estimated the potency of the NHS as an issue because most people enjoy good health most of the time and have little direct contact with the medical profession. Many of those who do require attention report satisfactory outcomes. The demographic most likely to use the NHS are the elderly who are (a) predisposed to vote Conservative and (b) tend to be grateful for whatever care and attention they receive. EdM famously tried to "weaponise" the NHS and famously failed.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
(snipped)
That's a very good question. It might well be both Corbyn and the policies: Labour has a terrible CEO and incompetent salesmen trying to sell an unappealing product.
Basically, the're the political equivalent of British Leyland in the late 1970s.
The failure of Labour to gain on the back of constant NHS attacks is noteworthy. I wondered the other day whether Labour was now the-boy-that-cried-wolf over the NHS: people still generally are fond of the NHS, but it is still just about working despite all Labour's dire claims over the last seven years.
Likewise, the cuts. People have been hurt, but the dire claims made by Labour generally haven't occurred. Life's gone on.
Labour need new messages that will resonate.
I've thought for a long time that Labour need to go right back to the drawing board and do some serious thinking about what 'Labour' would be like if it had arisen today.
Conditions have changed out of all recognition since Labour arose to fill a genuine need. Generally speaking, those needs have been met - Labour has succeeded in making them mainstream concerns.
So, what needs are today's equivalent of yesteryear?
It might be that the rise of AI-powered 'labour' will provide a wide-spread common problem and that 'Labour' will be able to engage with ways to enable a reasonable standard of living for ordinary people when human effort is no longer wanted.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
It's also important to remember that if you look at most parliaments, the main opposition party goes backwards between the midpoint and the end.
Might be wrong but I thought Michael Howard and the conservatives did not between ,2003 and 2005.
I don't share your analysis of the 2007/2008 crash for which I blame the neoliberal economics bequeathed by the Thatcher/Reagan years. It was very much a Black Swan event originating in the US with devastating consequences for the rest of the world. I do ,however, strongly criticise Labour for not taking on the Tories more effectively post 2010 re - the Deficit and the size of the Debt. Osborne was allowed to dictate the terms of the debate - despite having agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-crash - and the idea of 'Labour's mess' became the accepted version with an electorate that is 95% ignorant of economics. If Labour can sort itself out , it does have an opportunity to explain that Osborne's strategy has now been ditched - and that all the austerity and associated human misery was for nothing - and was a political choice made by the Coalition Government - rather than an economic necessity.
?
I share your criticism of Brown's deregulation of the banks post -1997 , but would also suggest that this was but a continuation of the liberalisation of the financial markets following on from the Big Bang in 1986. Brown and Blair were very much party to the neoliberal orthodoxy of the time and they were both misguided. I do, however, seriously doubt that a Tory government would have regulated the banks more tightly. I also do not consider a 40% Debt to GDP ratio to be unreasonable . It was much higher here in the 1950s and has continued to be so in Scandinavian countries as well as Japan.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
It's also important to remember that if you look at most parliaments, the main opposition party goes backwards between the midpoint and the end.
That only holds true when there has been a swing in its direction in the first half of the Parliament. It did not happen in the 1959/1997/2001Parliaments. In the 1987 Parliament the Tories retained a big lead some 21 months beyond the 1987 election.
You may well be right, but I think you're slightly over-optimistic. I see few signs that Labour are anything other than a headless chicken at the moment, although there might be stuff going on behind the scenes that we don't see.
4) is there as many Cornybistas / Momentum people will be aghast at the change. Any new leader will need to face them down: think of the battle with the Militant Tendency in the 1980s. Unite's position will also be interesting.
If JC stands down voluntarily then everyone will understand. Quietly i suspect many momentum types would welcome it if he was replaced by a younger person with similar views... Maybe Clive Lewis... don't see militant and momentum as equivalent - to me that's just a lazy political parallel.
As to a headless chicken... I really don't think it matters what Labour does three years out from a GE if there is a new leader in charge.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
(snipped)
That's a very good question. It might well be both Corbyn and the policies: Labour has a terrible CEO and incompetent salesmen trying to sell an unappealing product.
Basically, the're the political equivalent of British Leyland in the late 1970s.
The failure of Labour to gain on the back of constant NHS attacks is noteworthy. I wondered the other day whether Labour was now the-boy-that-cried-wolf over the NHS: people still generally are fond of the NHS, but it is still just about working despite all Labour's dire claims over the last seven years.
Likewise, the cuts. People have been hurt, but the dire claims made by Labour generally haven't occurred. Life's gone on.
Labour need new messages that will resonate.
I've thought for a long time that Labour need to go right back to the drawing board and do some serious thinking about what 'Labour' would be like if it had arisen today.
Conditions have changed out of all recognition since Labour arose to fill a genuine need. Generally speaking, those needs have been met - Labour has succeeded in making them mainstream concerns.
So, what needs are today's equivalent of yesteryear?
It might be that the rise of AI-powered 'labour' will provide a wide-spread common problem and that 'Labour' will be able to engage with ways to enable a reasonable standard of living for ordinary people when human effort is no longer wanted.
A problem, partly associated with immigration is the ‘gig’ economy. I notice that there are now such organisations as the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, whose website features such activities as the Deliveroo case. So far, AFAIK it has no political affiliation but that time will come.
It is true May's support is broader than it is deep. But that doesn't matter a lot if there is no opposition. Between 1906 and 1945 not one party other than the Conservatives (Unionists) won a majority in a general election, and they came a close second on the two occasions they were not the largest party (with one dead heat). A rerun seems a distinct and alarming possibility unless Labour faces up to its real faults.
I don't share your analysis of the 2007/2008 crash for which I blame the neoliberal economics bequeathed by the Thatcher/Reagan years. It was very much a Black Swan event originating in the US with devastating consequences for the rest of the world. I do ,however, strongly criticise Labour for not taking on the Tories more effectively post 2010 re - the Deficit and the size of the Debt. Osborne was allowed to dictate the terms of the debate - despite having agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-crash - and the idea of 'Labour's mess' became the accepted version with an electorate that is 95% ignorant of economics. If Labour can sort itself out , it does have an opportunity to explain that Osborne's strategy has now been ditched - and that all the austerity and associated human misery was for nothing - and was a political choice made by the Coalition Government - rather than an economic necessity.
We have got Labour's deficit down from 10% to 3% and are still working on it. If that is nothing then you've learnt nothing.
I have taught economics at degree level so hopefully have some knowledge. The question arises as to whether it was necessary to cut the deficit given the longterm nature of so much of our debt and the very low level of interest rates. Most academic economists are highly critical and also believe that Osborne's macroeconomic policies delayed the economic recovery - and that when it arrived it was very unbalanced being based on a housing boom.
Politically though Labour lost that argument. I agree with you but voters don't. I'm not sure that rehashing it all over again is going to work.
alexmassie @alexmassie Paul Mason: Labour can return to UK power by backing Scots independence. Sentient Human Being: How would that work? PM: Reasons, comrade.
It is true May's support is broader than it is deep. But that doesn't matter a lot if there is no opposition. Between 1906 and 1945 not one party other than the Conservatives (Unionists) won a majority in a general election, and they came a close second on the two occasions they were not the largest party (with one dead heat). A rerun seems a distinct and alarming possibility unless Labour faces up to its real faults.
I don't share your analysis of the 2007/2008 crash for which I blame the neoliberal economics bequeathed by the Thatcher/Reagan years. It was very much a Black Swan event originating in the US with devastating consequences for the rest of the world. I do ,however, strongly criticise Labour for not taking on the Tories more effectively post 2010 re - the Deficit and the size of the Debt. Osborne was allowed to dictate the terms of the debate - despite having agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-crash - and the idea of 'Labour's mess' became the accepted version with an electorate that is 95% ignorant of economics. If Labour can sort itself out , it does have an opportunity to explain that Osborne's strategy has now been ditched - and that all the austerity and associated human misery was for nothing - and was a political choice made by the Coalition Government - rather than an economic necessity.
We have got Labour's deficit down from 10% to 3% and are still working on it. If that is nothing then you've learnt nothing.
I have taught economics at degree level so hopefully have some knowledge. The question arises as to whether it was necessary to cut the deficit given the longterm nature of so much of our debt and the very low level of interest rates. Most academic economists are highly critical and also believe that Osborne's macroeconomic policies delayed the economic recovery - and that when it arrived it was very unbalanced being based on a housing boom.
Politically though Labour lost that argument. I agree with you but voters don't. I'm not sure that rehashing it all over again is going to work.
Very few voters are educated with regard to macroeconomics, but the point that Hammond and May have ditched Osborne's policies could possibly be made to register. No point doing it whilst Corbyn remains leader because nobody is listening.
alexmassie @alexmassie Paul Mason: Labour can return to UK power by backing Scots independence. Sentient Human Being: How would that work? PM: Reasons, comrade.
Paul Mason must have been reading my posts. Even before independence, SLAB must be totally independent of the British Labour Party.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then: 1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting 2) Have the MPs select sane candidates. 3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II. 4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
An important question is whether one thinks that Labour's poor ratings are mainly due to the the public view of Corbyn or mainly due to left-wing policies. I don't think that people follow policy to the degree that we'd like, and a new leader from any wing of the party would be given a hearing, though would also come under immediate attack from the media for whatever weaknesses they could find. The Momentum wing of the party would mainly go into revolt if Corbyn was forced out - if he voluntarily decided to call it a day, they'd look at the options like anyone else, and a left of centre leader in that situation wouldn't face a huge uproar. (Obviously we aren't going to elect Peter Mandelson, for all his undoubted talents.)
That's why it's in the party's interest that there is an escape route available if Corbyn eventually decided to take it which doesn't exclude a left-wing candidate, because without that he won't, I predict, go voluntarily. Risking losing an argument is one thing, being prevented from having a candidate representing your views is something else.
That's a very good question. It might well be both Corbyn and the policies: Labour has a terrible CEO and incompetent salesmen trying to sell an unappealing product.
Basically, the're the political equivalent of British Leyland in the late 1970s.
Labour need new messages that will resonate.
It's strange that Theresa May has borrowed so much of the same rhetoric used by Ed Miliband, if that was the case
It is true May's support is broader than it is deep. But that doesn't matter a lot if there is no opposition. Between 1906 and 1945 not one party other than the Conservatives (Unionists) won a majority in a general election, and they came a close second on the two occasions they were not the largest party (with one dead heat). A rerun seems a distinct and alarming possibility unless Labour faces up to its real faults.
I don't share your analysis of the 2007/2008 crash for which I blame the neoliberal economics bequeathed by the Thatcher/Reagan years. It was very much a Black Swan event originating in the US with devastating consequences for the rest of the world. I do ,however, strongly criticise Labour for not taking on the Tories more effectively post 2010 re - the Deficit and the size of the Debt. Osborne was allowed to dictate the terms of the debate - despite having agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-crash - and the idea of 'Labour's mess' became the accepted version with an electorate that is 95% ignorant of economics. If Labour can sort itself out , it does have an opportunity to explain that Osborne's strategy has now been ditched - and that all the austerity and associated human misery was for nothing - and was a political choice made by the Coalition Government - rather than an economic necessity.
We have got Labour's deficit down from 10% to 3% and are still working on it. If that is nothing then you've learnt nothing.
I have taught economics at degree level so hopefully have some knowledge. The question arises as to whether it was necessary to cut the deficit given the longterm nature of so much of our debt and the very low level of interest rates. Most academic economists are highly critical and also believe that Osborne's macroeconomic policies delayed the economic recovery - and that when it arrived it was very unbalanced being based on a housing boom.
Politically though Labour lost that argument. I agree with you but voters don't. I'm not sure that rehashing it all over again is going to work.
The "cost" of debt is the interest payment on the debt. So, £1trn @ 5% means £50bn pa in interest payments where £1.5trn @ 2.5% is £37.5% pa. Unfortunately, Labour could not and still cannot explain that. Yet ordinary people do understand as they swipe their credit cards.
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
(snipped)
That's a
Likewise, the cuts. People have been hurt, but the dire claims made by Labour generally haven't occurred. Life's gone on.
Labour need new messages that will resonate.
I've thought for a long time that Labour need to go right back to the drawing board and do some serious thinking about what 'Labour' would be like if it had arisen today.
Conditions have changed out of all recognition since Labour arose to fill a genuine need. Generally speaking, those needs have been met - Labour has succeeded in making them mainstream concerns.
So, what needs are today's equivalent of yesteryear?
It might be that the rise of AI-powered 'labour' will provide a wide-spread common problem and that 'Labour' will be able to engage with ways to enable a reasonable standard of living for ordinary people when human effort is no longer wanted.
Indeed. There was a long article in the FT about the "death of the trucker" this week, as self driving trucks take over. This stuff isn't science fiction any more, it's happening right now
There are 3.5m truck drivers in America, it's one of the last well-paid jobs for fairly uneducated people. Virtually all of these jobs will likely be gone in 5-10 years.
And that's just one industry. There's gonna be millions and millions of unemployed people, across the West, and politicians don't seem to have a clue, or they haven't realised, or they are in denial.
This revolution will transform political attitudes. 1. We will probably need a universal wage, and 2. Countries will need much much less immigration. The fewer people the better.
The first party to seize on these truths will seize power, in time.
Off to Castell Son Claret tonight, which has Majorca's only 2 Michelin star restaurant. Been there?
*If* they are only one sensible decision away from a large improvement, then what are the chances of them actually making that change?
If the improvement Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
(snipped)
That's a
Likewise, the cuts. People have been hurt, but the dire claims made by Labour generally haven't occurred. Life's gone on.
Labour need new messages that will resonate.
I've thought for a long time that Labour need to go right back to the drawing board and do some serious thinking about what 'Labour' would be like if it had arisen today.
Conditions have changed out of all recognition since Labour arose to fill a genuine need. Generally speaking, those needs have been met - Labour has succeeded in making them mainstream concerns.
So, what needs are today's equivalent of yesteryear?
It might be that the rise of AI-powered 'labour' will provide a wide-spread common problem and that 'Labour' will be able to engage with ways to enable a reasonable standard of living for ordinary people when human effort is no longer wanted.
Indeed. There was a long article in the FT about the "death of the trucker" this week, as self driving trucks take over. This stuff isn't science fiction any more, it's happening right now
There are 3.5m truck drivers in America, it's one of the last well-paid jobs for fairly uneducated people. Virtually all of these jobs will likely be gone in 5-10 years.
And that's just one industry. There's gonna be millions and millions of unemployed people, across the West, and politicians don't seem to have a clue, or they haven't realised, or they are in denial.
This revolution will transform political attitudes. 1. We will probably need a universal wage, and 2. Countries will need much much less immigration. The fewer people the better.
The first party to seize on these truths will seize power, in time.
I think you are way off on those timescales. I think very little will have changed within five to ten years.
alexmassie @alexmassie Paul Mason: Labour can return to UK power by backing Scots independence. Sentient Human Being: How would that work? PM: Reasons, comrade.
Paul Mason must have been reading my posts. Even before independence, SLAB must be totally independent of the British Labour Party.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/01/labour-puts-aside-4-million-war-chest-fight-snap-election-amid/
Lots of taxpayer contributions.
One of his previous stunts involved bringing a Kalashnikov into France from Italy.
Dupont-Aignan promises to end Schengen, recruit 10000 border and air police and customs officials, and re-establish border controls.
Gibraltar - 32,000.
Gibraltar is around an eighth of the size (by population) of a single inner London Borough. It's completely inconsequential to both the EU negotiation and the Scotland position.
There is no cost or consequence that the UK would be unable to comfortably absorb without batting an eyelid in relation to Gibraltar.
That the border between Gibraltar and Spain is going to be different now is inevitable. But the specific commons were that Britain would be forced to cede at least part of national sovereignty over Gibraltar to the Spanish, which is a completely different thing.
The barrel scraping has begun
"We'll call him Henry, all of my friends are called Henry."
All:
"Hooray, its Henry!"
One of my favourite scenes.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh
Paul WaughVerified account @paulwaugh 17h17 hours ago
A final point: you, the taxpayer, are paying for this so-called Opposition. ‘Short money’ pays the staff wages. What a fucking waste (19/19)
My understanding at the time was that the UK calculation was that Hong Kong without the New Territories was not viable and that the Chinese insisted on the reversion of the New Territories from the outset.
I am not sure quite what the Economist version is referring to. Sounds like only one half of the story.
More
Greece, Palmos Analysis poll:
ND-EPP: 35% ↑
SYRIZA-LEFT: 25% ↓
KKE-NI: 9% ↑
XA-NI: 7% ↓
PASOK-S&D: 7%
EK-ALDE:... http://fb.me/1PA15jIYG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TOgB3Smvro
As such, as soon as one of the other parties - and that really does have to be Labour - get their act together, I think the polls will change very dramatically.
They are finished, for better or worse.
I ask the same question as I did a while back, who is this charismatic leader that will suddenly appear, get elected to the Labour Leadership and take them back to power?
However, it is not the size, it's the shape that should be causing Labour to panic. They are losing working class voters in the north. They have forfeited the suburban vote long ago. They have given up on Scotland. That leaves them the middle class urban voters and Wales. There are simply not enough of them to do well in an election on.
Moreover look at the context. Labour in the 1950s had destroyed its political credibility with infighting and a weird obsession with nuclear disarmament. But Gaitskell kept his head, sorted the policy problems out and reunited the party behind him, helped by his prestige and intellect. Corbyn's own shallowness and stupidity, plus his spitefulness and incompetence, are driving the current mess. Who can restore political credibility? You talk a lot about this candidate who might push them to 35%. But who is it? I cannot see one.
Even if they did restore political credibility - which is a huge ask, given how damaged Labour are in the country at large - has w do they restore economic credibility? Black Wednesday kept the Tories out for 13 years, the Winter of Discontent kept Labour out for 18 years. Both were comparatively minor blips compared to the crash of 2007-8, and in the case of Callaghan, arguably not his fault. Labour's gross incompetence and complacency was however a significant factor in the banking crash, one that they make themselves look ridiculous by refusing to acknowledge in a desperate bid instead to claim that everything was the fault of global forces outside their control. As a result, they have the economic credibility of the Hatton Garden robbers (well, maybe less).
It is true May's support is broader than it is deep. But that doesn't matter a lot if there is no opposition. Between 1906 and 1945 not one party other than the Conservatives (Unionists) won a majority in a general election, and they came a close second on the two occasions they were not the largest party (with one dead heat). A rerun seems a distinct and alarming possibility unless Labour faces up to its real faults.
If the improvement is replacing Corbyn with someone competent, then:
1) Corbyn will have to stand-down / fall ill / fall down a manhole he is inspecting
2) Have the MPs select sane candidates.
3) Have the electorate select the sanest candidate and not Corbyn Mk II.
4) Have that candidate, once leader, face down and win against the Corbynistas/Momentum.
Even if the first of these was to happen, it is far from certain that the others would. Labour is in a deep hole; they are not yet at the bottom, and half of them are arguing over the colour the rescue rope should be whilst the other half look longingly further into the abyss.
I think, barring something unforeseen that removes Corbyn from power, Labour will suffer until after 2020 but then I would see a rapid recovery. If Corbyn does go then that could happen all the sooner.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-39468045
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-resigns
What can they offer?
2) 95-100%. The only faction of the party that would struggle to get someone on the ballot is the Corbyn wing.
3) depends but the momentum seems to be away from JC. The membership may not pick the best candidate but i think chance of Corbyn Mk II is slim. Even someone who shares his views on many things will do better if they are a better presenter.
4) not sure why this is needed if there has just been a leadership election. Tony Blair kept on winning elections even when the left turned against him.
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/848168132762112001
Fair enough, you might think. There are some pretty humdrum posts out there but bills need to be paid. One line of work you might not expect to be afflicted by such self-seeking ennui is being First Minister of Scotland. The office is the most senior government sinecure in the land, second only to the Prime Minister, and its inhabitant wields the kind of power the rest of us can only dream of. The head of the Scottish Government presides over an annual budget of £38 billion and runs an executive unmatched anywhere in the world for the sheer scope of its powers over a sub-state region. The First Minister can change lives, change an entire society, from a desk in Bute House.
But it’s not enough for Nicola Sturgeon. The SNP First Minister — let’s dispense with the fiction that she’s Scotland’s First Minister — isn’t interested in changing lives. She wants to change history.
https://stephendaisley.com/2017/04/01/whatever-the-question-sturgeons-answer-will-always-be-independence/
However I am not convinced by your reasoning on 1931. No fewer than eight parties were involved and there was a multiple choice in around one-third of seats (10% by contrast were unopposed, mostly Conservative but five Liberal and six Labour). I suggest that Labour's share of the vote might actually have looked better if they hadn't put up split tickets in 20 safe seats (a trick the Unionists also pulled in 1906, with particularly spectacular results in Greenwich where three Unionists fought each other).
Throughout the twentieth century there has been a decline in party identity. That's true for the big two as for others - look at the Liberal Democrats as well. However, Labour appear to me to be industriously and deliberately hacking away at what's left of their core support with the aim of reducing themselves to an ideologically pure rump of voters, because like Bevan in 1949 they seem genuinely not to get that people won't vote for abusive lunatics merely because the said abusive lunatics have a hagiographic image of themselves. This poll, to my mind, confirms that tendency. I am puzzled therefore that you believe a modest improvement on a terrible result in the most favourable area for Pabour is not that bad.
4) is there as many Cornybistas / Momentum people will be aghast at the change. Any new leader will need to face them down: think of the battle with the Militant Tendency in the 1980s. Unite's position will also be interesting.
The other is the banking crisis, which was what I specifically mentioned. Britain in 1997 had an adequate albeit not excellent system of regulating and inspecting banks under the control of the Bank of England. As part of the early changes Labour brought in, this control was removed from Threadneedle Street and handed over to - in effect - nobody. That was fine while times were good. Unfortunately it left our banks free to expand far beyond their capital limits and left them uniquely exposed when the crash came. That was undoubtedly Labour's fault and the resulting catastrophic damage to the banking sector including sixteen major banking failures has cost vast sums of money and prolonged the recession by years.
You will doubtless point out - correctly - that Ireland and Spain had similar problems. But they were caused by the Euro and the complexities the setting up of that unfortunate mix-step entailed. Brown having wisely kept us out of that, we have no such excuse to hide behind.
You may also point out - again correctly - that Brown dealt with the banking crash better than any comparable figure (the Americans under Bush spring to mind). But if an arsonist rings the fire brigade and helps them douse the flames, do you thank them for the good job or blame them for starting it in the first place?
That's why it's in the party's interest that there is an escape route available if Corbyn eventually decided to take it which doesn't exclude a left-wing candidate, because without that he won't, I predict, go voluntarily. Risking losing an argument is one thing, being prevented from having a candidate representing your views is something else.
Labour can survive. It's not without assets (literally, looking at its finances). But it has a lot of work to do and I would say it's further from power now than at any time since 1983 or even 1935.
With that, I have to go. Have a good weekend everyone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1026392/A-British-tycoon-father-man-woman---man---knows-hed-be.html
"Sam Kane pulls up outside her £3 million London mews house in a top-of-the-range red Mercedes, looking every inch the successful, mature career woman.
An international lawyer, she is wearing a black suit and white blouse with delicate lace detailing. Her greying blonde hair falls in soft waves around her face."
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4369636/amp/The-London-lawyer-s-changed-gender-THREE-times.html
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/04/alistair-lexden-remembering-baldwin-in-a-year-of-anniversaries.html
Basically, the're the political equivalent of British Leyland in the late 1970s.
The failure of Labour to gain on the back of constant NHS attacks is noteworthy. I wondered the other day whether Labour was now the-boy-that-cried-wolf over the NHS: people still generally are fond of the NHS, but it is still just about working despite all Labour's dire claims over the last seven years.
Likewise, the cuts. People have been hurt, but the dire claims made by Labour generally haven't occurred. Life's gone on.
Labour need new messages that will resonate.
For democracy to work, we need an Opposition capable of holding the Government to account during a Parliament, and offering a viable alternative administration come election time.
Labour fulfils neither purpose, and cannot whilst it's led by Corbyn.
http://www.carsite.co.uk/news/article/top-10-worst-britishmade-cars-of-all-time/12818
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/rupert-cornwell-foreign-correspondent-for-the-independent-dies-a7661431.html
Conditions have changed out of all recognition since Labour arose to fill a genuine need. Generally speaking, those needs have been met - Labour has succeeded in making them mainstream concerns.
So, what needs are today's equivalent of yesteryear?
It might be that the rise of AI-powered 'labour' will provide a wide-spread common problem and that 'Labour' will be able to engage with ways to enable a reasonable standard of living for ordinary people when human effort is no longer wanted.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
I also do not consider a 40% Debt to GDP ratio to be unreasonable . It was much higher here in the 1950s and has continued to be so in Scandinavian countries as well as Japan.
As to a headless chicken... I really don't think it matters what Labour does three years out from a GE if there is a new leader in charge.
I agree with you but voters don't. I'm not sure that rehashing it all over again is going to work.
alexmassie @alexmassie
Paul Mason: Labour can return to UK power by backing Scots independence.
Sentient Human Being: How would that work?
PM: Reasons, comrade.
IMO more likely Uber will have gone bankrupt.