The labour party really is finished, isnt it?

ukcarper

Spidernick wrote: »

I very much doubt it after they sold their souls (well the leadership at least) for a few short years in (a semblance of) power. It will take a very long time for many people to forgive them for that and I can never see me voting for them again. To my mind they got their just desserts last May.

As for Labour being finished - don't be too sure. We had similar comments with the advent of the SDP. Yes, they have a leader totally unsuited to the job, but it wasn't that long ago that the Tories had three of those in succession and many people wondered how long it would be before they were in government again. Politics is a funny old game at the end of the day.

Assuming Corbyn is still leader who are the moderate voters going to vote for.

Thrugelmir

ukcarper wrote: »

Assuming Corbyn is still leader who are the moderate voters going to vote for.

Nicola Sturgeon.......

The issue is far broader. There's a lack of quality in the shadow cabinet at the current time. Going to take some time to rebuild a competent opposition. The longer Corbyn remains in the hotseat the worse the situation will become.

Jason74

Generali wrote: »

Assuming Labour lose the next election, by the time 2025 comes around Labour will have had one PM elected in 50 years, Tony Blair.

If it wasn't for the unions, themselves dead outside the public sector, and the BBC Labour would be in the same place as the Lib Dems.

The Scots have replaced Labour with the SNP and I suspect that the English are in the process of doing the same (UKIP?). May will be interesting as it'll be the first time Mr Corbyn's Labour has to stand on actual policies rather than Mr Corbyn just mouthing off.

I think that you probably overestimate both the longlevity of UKIPs rise, and the extent of Labours slump. That's not because Labour isn't a shambles. After all, it's pretty clear that the current Labour party is something of a joke. It's simply that the first past the post system gives Labour an inherent electoral advantage (at least in terms of remaining the main opposition), while UKIP is hobbled by the same system.

When you add to that the fact that UKIP is effectively a one man show that gains its appeal from a single issue (and one that is likely to be resolved for a generation within a few Months), it's hard to see how UKIP can continue to grow at the next election.

As for Labour, yes, the next election will probably be 1983 all over again if Corbyn or a similar loony is still in charge (and even that might prove optimistic), but that will still leave them with 150 or so seats. Even if it takes a second similar drubbing in 2025 to ram the message home, the party will eventually return to a more sensible course, and the advantages it enjoys in the electoral system mean that it will remain the best placed party to eventually challenge the Tories as a potential alternative Government.

I suspect that the state of the Labour party means that we are likely to see the longest run of single party Government in modern times. But I think that the Government that eventually replaces the Tories will be a Labour one, even if that is just a result of our electoral system.

ukcarper

Jason74 wrote: »

I think that you probably overestimate both the longlevity of UKIPs rise, and the extent of Labours slump. That's not because Labour isn't a shambles. After all, it's pretty clear that the current Labour party is something of a joke. It's simply that the first past the post system gives Labour an inherent electoral advantage (at least in terms of remaining the main opposition), while UKIP is hobbled by the same system

I don't see how UKIP is hobbled and Labour has an inherent advantage by first past the post.

Jason74

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't see how UKIP is hobbled and Labour has an inherent advantage by first past the post.

In terms of how UKIP is hobbled by first past the post, you only have to look at the last election. Close to 4 million votes, over 12% of the total support, and 1 MP. Those stats in themselves show how hard it is for UKIP (or anyone else for that matter) to break the two party stranglehold under first past the post.

Likewise, if you want to see how the electoral system benefits the two main parties, looking at 1983 is a good start. Labour got just 28% of the vote, but the number of safe seats it held meant that it still had over 200 seats in the commons. So even in a dire election, Labour still won almost a third of the seats, and the advantage of the two main parties was demonstrated by the fact that 25% of the vote won just 23 seasts for the Liberal / SDP Alliance.

That inbuilt advantage for the two main parties means that even if (as looks likely) Labour suffer a catastrophic defeat in 2020, their parliamentary position will still be such that they offer the only realistic platform for a non-Tory government. That reality will bring an eventual recovery for a party called Labour, even if the party that emerges from that recovery bares little practical resemblance to the current set up

ukcarper

Jason74 wrote: »

In terms of how UKIP is hobbled by first past the post, you only have to look at the last election. Close to 4 million votes, over 12% of the total support, and 1 MP. Those stats in themselves show how hard it is for UKIP (or anyone else for that matter) to break the two party stranglehold under first past the post.

Likewise, if you want to see how the electoral system benefits the two main parties, looking at 1983 is a good start. Labour got just 28% of the vote, but the number of safe seats it held meant that it still had over 200 seats in the commons. So even in a dire election, Labour still won almost a third of the seats, and the advantage of the two main parties was demonstrated by the fact that 25% of the vote won just 23 seasts for the Liberal / SDP Alliance.

That inbuilt advantage for the two main parties means that even if (as looks likely) Labour suffer a catastrophic defeat in 2020, their parliamentary position will still be such that they offer the only realistic platform for a non-Tory government. That reality will bring an eventual recovery for a party called Labour, even if the party that emerges from that recovery bares little practical resemblance to the current set up

First pass the post does provide a disproportionate number of seats to the percentage of vote cast, it's designed that way but if UKIP had the largest number of votes they would have most seats.

How did that built in advantage work in Scotland 25% of votes 1 seat.

Thrugelmir

Jason74 wrote: »

In terms of how UKIP is hobbled by first past the post, you only have to look at the last election. Close to 4 million votes, over 12% of the total support, and 1 MP. Those stats in themselves show how hard it is for UKIP (or anyone else for that matter) to break the two party stranglehold under first past the post.

Likewise, if you want to see how the electoral system benefits the two main parties, looking at 1983 is a good start. Labour got just 28% of the vote, but the number of safe seats it held meant that it still had over 200 seats in the commons. So even in a dire election, Labour still won almost a third of the seats, and the advantage of the two main parties was demonstrated by the fact that 25% of the vote won just 23 seasts for the Liberal / SDP Alliance.

That inbuilt advantage for the two main parties means that even if (as looks likely) Labour suffer a catastrophic defeat in 2020, their parliamentary position will still be such that they offer the only realistic platform for a non-Tory government. That reality will bring an eventual recovery for a party called Labour, even if the party that emerges from that recovery bares little practical resemblance to the current set up

Labour lacks an identity. Turning back to the past is a huge mistake. As the world has changed and is going to continue to do so.

ruggedtoast

The Labour Party is finished, mutually agree some people who would never vote for the Labour Party, in response to a completely made up story.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The Labour Party is finished, mutually agree some people who would never vote for the Labour Party, in response to a completely made up story.

Not all the posters who think Labour have no chance of being elected in the short term would never vote Labour.

Spidernick

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Nicola Sturgeon.......

The issue is far broader. There's a lack of quality in the shadow cabinet at the current time. Going to take some time to rebuild a competent opposition. The longer Corbyn remains in the hotseat the worse the situation will become.

I've seen a few posters mention this here. The problem is the same is very much true of the Tories - you'd struggle to find bigger numpties than IDS and Jeremy Hunt, for example!

As I have said before, the general quality of MPs is much lower than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Perhaps it doesn't appeal as much to talented people these days?