The labour party really is finished, isnt it?

westernpromise

What a cracking post Jason.

Generali

Jason74 wrote: »

For me, this post in many respects sums up why the Labour party is in such profound difficulty. If we look at the bald facts, the party has lost the last two elections, and now faces a situation where winning power will be harder next time as a result of boundary changes etc that will by most accounts be to the benefit of the Tories . It has also lost a significant powerbase in Scotland that could previously be relied upon to deliver a significant bloc of MPs, and the dynamics of that (fear in England of SNP holding the balance of power) appear to make some people in England less likely to vote Labour too.

That's a profound set of difficulties to overcome, and to overcome them, Labour requires strong leadership and a united looking party that deals with issues relevant to voters. Instead, it has a leader with no meaningful experience of leading anything, a parliamentary party that clearly has no confidence in that leader, and internal party debate seems to be concerned with issues that are of little concern to many voters at a time when there is no shortage of opportunities for a decent opposition to challenge the government.

I myself would consider myself a "natural" Labour supporter (a quick glance through my posting history here would hint strongly at that), and have never voted Tory in my life. But like many people, I have moved away from the party in the last couple of general elections, and the current state of the party is such that I am further from being likely to vote Labour than i have ever been. Indeed, if the alternative is the current Labour set up, I'm close to the point of seeing a Cameron led Government a the lesser of two evils (albeit I take a different view of something led by most of the likely successors). When people like me are thinking like that, Labour are in big trouble.

But instead of trying to address those issues, many Labour supporters at present seems more interested in taking a "shoot the messenger" approach to anyone who raises them. That's no way to build a support base large enough to challenge effectively for Government

It's a brilliant set of points that you make IMHO.

Only Tony Blair has led Labour to an election victory since 1974 and quite frankly it's hard to see anyone in the shadow cabinet that is likely to lead the party to another election victory. I hate to think of the UK becoming a one party state but it is starting to look that way.

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

I not surprised that's what you think, I was interested in rugged's opinion.

He also predicted Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't last the 2015 and we'd lose Oldham, neither of which happened and Corbyn will be leader until 2020 barring health problems.

I am more interested in May 2016, at the moment.

The Labour party that would "win" looking through the prism of politics now would be so similar to the Tories, as for their victory to be rather irrelevant anyway for people who care about social democracy.

Social inequality is growing and some people who voted Tory last year are starting to regret it. The Conservatives appear to have no strategy for spinning their politics other than "you must take your medicine", while not taking any themselves. Meanwhile the press coverage since the Corbyn's election has woken at least some people up to how bought and paid for the "independent" media is by Tory donors.

I am sorry that people who were erstwhile Labour supporters feel disenfranchised, but they had a very long turn at the wheel and it ended up in Tony Blair and Ed Milliband. Its time for someone else to have a go.

I joined Labour the day after Corby won. My local constituency has more than doubled in numbers since then. It has always been Tory around here and maybe always will be, but instead of shrugging our shoulders and taking it we are going out and actually campaigning. Most of this is being orchestrated by the new members.

It feels like a new party. We may not get it right in 5 years time or even 10 but if anyone thinks we are going away, going to stop campaigning for our children's futures against an arrogant elite, or going to shrink in numbers, then they are in for shock.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

He also predicted Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't last the 2015 and we'd lose Oldham, neither of which happened and Corbyn will be leader until 2020 barring health problems.

I am more interested in May 2016, at the moment.

The Labour party that would "win" looking through the prism of politics now would be so similar to the Tories, as for their victory to be rather irrelevant anyway for people who care about social democracy.

Social inequality is growing and some people who voted Tory last year are starting to regret it. The Conservatives appear to have no strategy for spinning their politics other than "you must take your medicine", while not taking any themselves. Meanwhile the press coverage since the Corbyn's election has woken at least some people up to how bought and paid for the "independent" media is by Tory donors.

I am sorry that people who were erstwhile Labour supporters feel disenfranchised, but they had a very long turn at the wheel and it ended up in Tony Blair and Ed Milliband. Its time for someone else to have a go.

I joined Labour the day after Corby won. My local constituency has more than doubled in numbers since then. It has always been Tory around here and maybe always will be, but instead of shrugging our shoulders and taking it we are going out and actually campaigning. Most of this is being orchestrated by the new members.

It feels like a new party. We may not get it right in 5 years time or even 10 but if anyone thinks we are going away, going to stop campaigning for our children's futures against an arrogant elite, or going to shrink in numbers, then they are in for shock.

Although many Labour voters were not entily happy with Blair government they continues to vote for them but I don't think the more centre left voters will vote for a Corbyn lead Labour Party. I think he will bring in more left wing voters but not enough to compensate for loss of centre left voters. The Torys now have a 8 point lead over Labour compared to 6 at the election.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

He also predicted Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't last the 2015 and we'd lose Oldham, neither of which happened and Corbyn will be leader until 2020 barring health problems.

I am more interested in May 2016, at the moment.

The Labour party that would "win" looking through the prism of politics now would be so similar to the Tories, as for their victory to be rather irrelevant anyway for people who care about social democracy.

Social inequality is growing and some people who voted Tory last year are starting to regret it. The Conservatives appear to have no strategy for spinning their politics other than "you must take your medicine", while not taking any themselves. Meanwhile the press coverage since the Corbyn's election has woken at least some people up to how bought and paid for the "independent" media is by Tory donors.

I am sorry that people who were erstwhile Labour supporters feel disenfranchised, but they had a very long turn at the wheel and it ended up in Tony Blair and Ed Milliband. Its time for someone else to have a go.

I joined Labour the day after Corby won. My local constituency has more than doubled in numbers since then. It has always been Tory around here and maybe always will be, but instead of shrugging our shoulders and taking it we are going out and actually campaigning. Most of this is being orchestrated by the new members.

It feels like a new party. We may not get it right in 5 years time or even 10 but if anyone thinks we are going away, going to stop campaigning for our children's futures against an arrogant elite, or going to shrink in numbers, then they are in for shock.

How much longer do you think that Labour can keep losing and remain as a mass party?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The Labour party that would "win" looking through the prism of politics now would be so similar to the Tories, as for their victory to be rather irrelevant anyway for people who care about social democracy.

That's just nonsensical. As the only way "people who care about social democracy" can implement policies that reflect their outlook is to first get elected into power and form a government. Which is the entire point and purpose of being a political party rather than merely a campaigning group.

The population as a whole will elect the party that best reflects their views and that they think will be best for them and their families.

At the moment, like it or not, that is the Tories.

Who not only won an outright majority of seats at the last election but have increased their lead in the polls since.

If Labour want to become relevant again and actually change anything important then they need to change their positions so as to reflect the views of enough voters that they can get elected into power.

What they're actually doing is just sitting around being unelectable, dogmatically holding positions that the electorate doesn't want to vote for, and hoping the population will one day change their views and come to them.

Which might be a great way to keep the left wing of the party happy but it's not a very effective route back into government.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's just nonsensical. As the only way "people who care about social democracy" can implement policies that reflect their outlook is to first get elected into power and form a government. Which is the entire point and purpose of being a political party rather than merely a campaigning group.

The population as a whole will elect the party that best reflects their views and that they think will be best for them and their families.

At the moment, like it or not, that is the Tories.

Who not only won an outright majority of seats at the last election but have increased their lead in the polls since.

If Labour want to become relevant again and actually change anything important then they need to change their positions so as to reflect the views of enough voters that they can get elected into power.

What they're actually doing is just sitting around being unelectable, dogmatically holding positions that the electorate doesn't want to vote for, and hoping the population will one day change their views and come to them.

Which might be a great way to keep the left wing of the party happy but it's not a very effective route back into government.

Cameron won't be around in 2020. The likelyhood is that whoever wins the leadership will take the Conservatives even more rightwards. Corbyn has stopped Labour in it's tracks marching right trying to unsuccessfully match them. It will only take Labour to elect a leader slightly more moderate than Corbyn to make a huge difference to party unity. And for the Tories to elect a leader such as Johnson or May to go too far right. There's a long way to go yet.

But stuffing the House of Lords, boundary changes and cutting short money will make things a whole lot more challenging for Labour. Blair didn't face any of those.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Cameron won't be around in 2020. The likelyhood is that whoever wins the leadership will take the Conservatives even more rightwards. Corbyn has stopped Labour in it's tracks marching right trying to unsuccessfully match them. It will only take Labour to elect a leader slightly more moderate than Corbyn to make a huge difference to party unity. And for the Tories to elect a leader such as Johnson or May to go too far right. There's a long way to go yet.

But stuffing the House of Lords, boundary changes and cutting short money will make things a whole lot more challenging for Labour. Blair didn't face any of those.

No leader as left wing as Mr Corbyn has led Labour to a General Election victory. I see no reason for that to change.

Spidernick

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Cameron won't be around in 2020. The likelyhood is that whoever wins the leadership will take the Conservatives even more rightwards. Corbyn has stopped Labour in it's tracks marching right trying to unsuccessfully match them. It will only take Labour to elect a leader slightly more moderate than Corbyn to make a huge difference to party unity. And for the Tories to elect a leader such as Johnson or May to go too far right. There's a long way to go yet.

But stuffing the House of Lords, boundary changes and cutting short money will make things a whole lot more challenging for Labour. Blair didn't face any of those.

Did you not read the bit in bold, Generali? I think the above are interesting points, as most people don''t expect Corbyn to be there in 2020.

If a week is a long time in politics, then what about four years? Yes, the dice will be severely loaded against Labour, but I really cannot see the Tories being all hugs and kisses after the referendum, and as we all know, the public really don't like split parties.

As for who could possibly lead Labour to victory, I'd agree that none in the current shadow cabinet are likely to do so, but Chukka might and who knows, we could yet see the return of the elder Miliband, who is probably more than a match for the leading Tory candidates to take over from Cameron.

kinger101

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The likelyhood is that whoever wins the leadership will take the Conservatives even more rightwards

I'm no so sure of this. The tories haven't done well when they've move the party to the right. And GO already seems to be stealing some of the better garments from Labour's wardrobe such as the living wage.

Some of the other things he's done are hardly of the right; attacks of BTL landlords. The pension changes have been shelved but these were aimed at higher rate tax payers.

Although the selection of Corbyn by [STRIKE]the Labour Party[/STRIKE] some random members of the public with £3 and polarized views has given Conservatives freedom to move in either direction, they know the centre ground is where UK elections are won.