I'm fairly sceptical about overarching international narratives. Generally, traditional parties have struggled in countries that have faced harder times post-2008.
Fundamentally, in Britain Labour has a problem not caused by its turn to the far left, but because Corbynism is, rather like paradoxical undressing, a symptom that exacerbates the problem. This is that the ties that used to hold its coalition of voters together has frayed, and it's become ever more disconnected in its ties to them. Unions, which were once the party's nervous system, are now diminished in relevance to most people and run more like fiefdoms. Liberal leaning voters' desires have become very different to significant tracts of its traditional working class base, who have become less internationalist as world politics has begun to feel like a zero sum game where security (of jobs, on crime) trumps (pun intended) more abstract ideals. As it's become more disconnected it's become more interested in lecturing and letting its political id get the better of it - especially now an unrepresentative membership now have control of its direction to the extent that even when Corbyn was clearly proven to be woefully unpopular, and to have behaved on antisemitism in a way that should've led to a straightforward resignation, or MPs to drag him out of office for the sake of the party, meant they couldn't.
That's a problem for the centre-left. It's not greatly plugged in either. But it's much less of one than it is for the far left, in Britain, at least. Any Labour winning coalition needs to win back some of those security-conscious voters, and make inroads with liberal, more economically centrist voters. The centre-left doesn't have a magic cure for that, but it is at least a possibility as it can be more nimble on the issues, and with a convincing leader could return. Corbyn's brand of far leftism, however, is an existential threat to Labour because it could be specifically designed to annoy those voters. It annoys the security-conscious 'patriotic' types by placing ideals they don't share above the basics, and it annoys liberals who might be onside with its internationalist instincts but baulk at talk of economic revolutions and recoil in disgust at the far left posturing. Furthermore, as previously stated on an inability to remove Corbyn, and proven since the GE, it just has no ejector seat and ability to listen. Polling could show Labour facing a total wipeout and if it contradicted ideological prejudices, it would be ignored. People making complaints that the party was disgracing itself, and looking more like a hate group than a government, were ignored and chastised for pointing it out.
She's wrong though. Labour should absolutely make use of their available appointments. If she'd criticised some of the specific appointments, she'd have had more of a point.
Golly, I hadn't realised Marxist/Stalinist/Commie CorbLab was centre left. Someone better tell the BJ party and assorted UK tabloids about the misapprehension under which they've been 'labouring'.
He's being kind. If Labour doesn't count as centre left, then the centre left are at extinction time except in Scotland. All of which reinforces his point.
She's wrong though. Labour should absolutely make use of their available appointments. If she'd criticised some of the specific appointments, she'd have had more of a point.
Comments
Fundamentally, in Britain Labour has a problem not caused by its turn to the far left, but because Corbynism is, rather like paradoxical undressing, a symptom that exacerbates the problem. This is that the ties that used to hold its coalition of voters together has frayed, and it's become ever more disconnected in its ties to them. Unions, which were once the party's nervous system, are now diminished in relevance to most people and run more like fiefdoms. Liberal leaning voters' desires have become very different to significant tracts of its traditional working class base, who have become less internationalist as world politics has begun to feel like a zero sum game where security (of jobs, on crime) trumps (pun intended) more abstract ideals. As it's become more disconnected it's become more interested in lecturing and letting its political id get the better of it - especially now an unrepresentative membership now have control of its direction to the extent that even when Corbyn was clearly proven to be woefully unpopular, and to have behaved on antisemitism in a way that should've led to a straightforward resignation, or MPs to drag him out of office for the sake of the party, meant they couldn't.
That's a problem for the centre-left. It's not greatly plugged in either. But it's much less of one than it is for the far left, in Britain, at least. Any Labour winning coalition needs to win back some of those security-conscious voters, and make inroads with liberal, more economically centrist voters. The centre-left doesn't have a magic cure for that, but it is at least a possibility as it can be more nimble on the issues, and with a convincing leader could return. Corbyn's brand of far leftism, however, is an existential threat to Labour because it could be specifically designed to annoy those voters. It annoys the security-conscious 'patriotic' types by placing ideals they don't share above the basics, and it annoys liberals who might be onside with its internationalist instincts but baulk at talk of economic revolutions and recoil in disgust at the far left posturing. Furthermore, as previously stated on an inability to remove Corbyn, and proven since the GE, it just has no ejector seat and ability to listen. Polling could show Labour facing a total wipeout and if it contradicted ideological prejudices, it would be ignored. People making complaints that the party was disgracing itself, and looking more like a hate group than a government, were ignored and chastised for pointing it out.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Can we ask Rayner if she disagrees with the Peerage given to Shami, the only other Peerage given by Corbyn in four years?