The labour party really is finished, isnt it?

kinger101

Generali wrote: »

This goes a lot deeper than needing someone a little more moderate.

Since 1975, Labour have tried being led by Messers Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Milliband and Corbyn of whom only Mr Blair has delivered a General election victory.

The fact is that the British people have been offered many different varieties of Labourism and rejected all but one. That's eight leaders, one of whom became PM (one hasn't had the chance and another died before getting an opportunity).

Given that record it's pretty reasonable to conclude that there is something up with Labour that means people won't vote for them. Tinkering around the edges ain't gonna cut it.

I don't think it's as bad as you make out. Since Oct 74, they've won 4/10 general elections outright, whereas Conservatives have 5/10. And since the war, Labour have also held the three highest majorities (under Blair and Attlee).

Generali

kinger101 wrote: »

I don't think it's as bad as you make out. Since Oct 74, they've won 4/10 general elections outright, whereas Conservatives have 5/10. And since the war, Labour have also held the three highest majorities (under Blair and Attlee).

I'm not sure that the 1945 Government shares much with the electoral patterns of today.

Yes, if you want to stretch the time period back to 42 years then you get another Labour PM but the fact remains that by the 2025 election, assuming that Labour lose 2020 which seems highly likely right now, only Tony Blair will have won power in 50 years (okay, Tony Blair and Harold Wilson if you want to stretch it back to 51 years).

People simply aren't buying what the Left of the Labour Party is selling.

westernpromise

antrobus wrote: »

Which most people?

I know that there are a lot of people who are hoping that he won't be there; but if wishes were horses .....



Neither is David Miliband going to come back from America riding a white charger to save the Labour Party from itself.

Apart from everything else he'd never get nominated to a seat. The local parties are now too loony left and he's associated with 13 years of Blairite abject failure..

westernpromise

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure that the 1945 Government shares much with the electoral patterns of today.

Yes, if you want to stretch the time period back to 42 years then you get another Labour PM but the fact remains that by the 2025 election, assuming that Labour lose 2020 which seems highly likely right now, only Tony Blair will have won power in 50 years (okay, Tony Blair and Harold Wilson if you want to stretch it back to 51 years).

People simply aren't buying what the Left of the Labour Party is selling.

And it could not be clearer that Labour utterly hates Blair.

Generali

westernpromise wrote: »

Apart from everything else he'd never get nominated to a seat. The local parties are now too loony left and he's associated with 13 years of Blairite abject failure..

It's a funny sort of failure: winning 3 elections on the bounce and managing to get a massive extension of the welfare state through Parliament as well as the general exceptions of some traditionally left wing policies such as the minimum wage.

I suspect that the biggest problem Labour supporters have is that Mr Blair compromised to gain power. He shed a lot of his political roots (CND membership as well as the views that he set out pretty eloquently in a letter to Michael Foot)

Mistermeaner

I think the country has completely realised the problem with giving away shed loads of money to people who haven't earned it.

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I think the country has completely realised the problem with giving away shed loads of money to people who haven't earned it.

I think it runs deeper than that. Blair, for example, expanded the welfare state massively.

I think people are bothered by the authoritarian tendancies of Labour and the wider trade union movement: that we're either with them or against them. That's what Millitant stood for and it appears to be what Momentum are approaching. Going further back it's what the Closed Shop was all about too.

kinger101

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure that the 1945 Government shares much with the electoral patterns of today.

Yes, if you want to stretch the time period back to 42 years then you get another Labour PM but the fact remains that by the 2025 election, assuming that Labour lose 2020 which seems highly likely right now, only Tony Blair will have won power in 50 years (okay, Tony Blair and Harold Wilson if you want to stretch it back to 51 years).

People simply aren't buying what the Left of the Labour Party is selling.

Your time frame of from 1975 was constructed to miss out the election of Wilson. Why not start if from 79, which was an election year?

BTW, 50 years takes us back to 1966, already in the era of two outright wins by a Wilson Labour party (March 66, Oct 74).

I think Labour as it currently stands cannot win. But I don't see the point of writing them off. The electorate are not enamoured of the Tories either.......since Blair, we've had one coalition, and now their majority is 12.

Since Blair left, the only PM to win an election outright is Cameron. And he did it once. 1 is not a good number to extrapolate from.

Generali

kinger101 wrote: »

Your time frame of from 1975 was constructed to miss out the election of Wilson. Why not start if from 79, which was an election year?

BTW, 50 years takes us back to 1966, already in the era of two outright wins by a Wilson Labour party (March 66, Oct 74).

I think Labour as it currently stands cannot win. But I don't see the point of writing them off. The electorate are not enamoured of the Tories either.......since Blair, we've had one coalition, and now their majority is 12.

Since Blair left, the only PM to win an election outright is Cameron. And he did it once. 1 is not a good number to extrapolate from.

Because it took us back 40 years from when Mr Corbyn was elected.

TBH I think my point stands: in the last 40 years, 35 years or 10 years only Tories and Tony Blair have won. My point isn't to put down Mr Corbyn or to raise up the Tory party.

The fact is that Labour leaders seem to be unelectable if their initials aren't TB or died more than 20 years ago. I honestly don't see why this is so hard.

We can muck about with whether 40 or 41 years is a more appropriate time-frame but the fact is that people don't vote Tory outside non-white London, Northern England and Wales and non-whites are rapidly turning to the Tories as they join the middle classes and don't want to see Labour missing their money away.

zarf2007

As a previously life long Labour voter I find the current state of the party laughable and Corbyn the biggest joke of all. I think someone originally summed it up, if people thought kinnock was too left wing to elect what chance does Corbyn have?

I did think that maybe the one redeeming feature Corbyn would have is the 'honesty is the best policy and lets stop all of the spin' but he can't even do that, it seems that only applies when it suits him and he is just like any other politician and has effectively reduced labour to a protest vote. Like others have said what is the point of all of his ranting if he is unelectable!

While I have never agreed with Labours policy on immigration I do agree with other things they were strong on (employee rights etc) so still cannot see myself ever voting tory but the alternatives are few at the moment.

My only concern is that Corbyn realises soon that he is fighting a losing battle and formulates a coalition strategy between Labour, SNP, Green Party and Plaid Cymru as a last desperate means to gain some sort of power.....

Think about it, if you were his age and this was your only shot at leading would you do a deal with the devil?