Are Labour Dead In The Water?

[Nearly Sane]

I would think that the Lib Dems will scrape together twenty or so MPs next time. As I see it Labour lost in Scotland, whilst I would like to blame it on Harpy & co insisting that Labour ran the same team in 2015 who lost in 2010 I don't really think that is the reason.

Again we are back at even with every Scottish seat, Labour would have lost. I know Prof D blames the loss in England in part on the SNP, but I would suggest that it all arises because Labour supported the demonization of the SNP by the Tories, in part because of tribalism, in part because they didn't want to be seen to be too left, This lost them support in Scotland because combined with the referendum campaign, they then looked too right. They allowed the Tories to dictate an agenda in which there was no Goldilocks position.

Those problems though are not recent. The #what are we for' question wasn't addressed after the 2010 election and whther David Milliband would have made that much difference is difficult to say. People who don't become leaders can always be seen in a rose tinted way as they don't then make mistakes, I don't think that going forward Labour can sensibly position itself as centrist without losing lots of union money - not because the unions will stop giving but because they need to ask them to stop. Again it's been a success from the Tories to get them portrayed in the pockets f the unions, while the campaign to associate Tories with bankers hasn't quite worked, in part because it's a given.

The Labour party is wracked with self loathing, and the unity that came about because of 18 years of Tory govt is a distant memory. It got elected in 1997 because it had becpme a post-Thatcher party. It needs to become a post Blair party now but I don't think anyone knows what that means.


There's a sort of interregnum period going on across British politics at the moment while we wait on the EU referendum, what the slowdown in China and the collapsed oil price really means, the US election, and the next steps for the Labour party are part of that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again we are back at even with every Scottish seat, Labour would have lost. I know Prof D blames the loss in England in part on the SNP, but I would suggest that it all arises because Labour supported the demonization of the SNP by the Tories, in part because of tribalism, in part because they didn't want to be seen to be too left, This lost them support in Scotland because combined with the referendum campaign, they then looked too right. They allowed the Tories to dictate an agenda in which there was no Goldilocks position.

Agree up to a point - certainly the Labour position on the referendum did it no favours, but they had no choice - they are a UK party and they either had to campaign for or against independence. There was no way they could have (in principle) campaigned against, and trying to be neutral isn't impossible and wold have been seen as being against the status quo - i.e. for independence. And ultimately as a UK party they have to be concerned with the whole of the UK, while they got it in the neck in Scotland for campaigning against, just image the backlash in England had they campaigned for independence - there would have been a blood bath.

And yes I am convinced that the threat of a Lab/SNP coalition cost Labour votes and seats in England. First because it was so obviously a major (perhaps the major) campaigning strategy of the tories in England (there seem to be a lot of Scottish based posters here, so you may, not unreasonably have missed this as I suspect this wasn't part of the strategy in Scotland). Secondly because all the polling suggested it to be a very distinct possibility - indeed the most likely outcome (sure the polls were wrong, but hindsight is a wonderful thing). And thirdly because both the tories and the SNP were very happy to quietly go along with that narrative as it suited their purposes.

Those problems though are not recent. The #what are we for' question wasn't addressed after the 2010 election and whther David Milliband would have made that much difference is difficult to say. People who don't become leaders can always be seen in a rose tinted way as they don't then make mistakes, I don't think that going forward Labour can sensibly position itself as centrist without losing lots of union money - not because the unions will stop giving but because they need to ask them to stop. Again it's been a success from the Tories to get them portrayed in the pockets f the unions, while the campaign to associate Tories with bankers hasn't quite worked, in part because it's a given.

Again largely I agree - certainly it isn't possible to predict with certainly what would have happened had another leader been elected. That said I am pretty confident that David M would have done better - partly because he is a more polished and capable leader, secondly because he is politically more mainstream than his brother and finally because he wouldn't have been seen as the union's man. It was pretty easy for the tories to get the Miliband in the pocket of the unions mantra to stick as it was clear to everyone that he was only leader because of the unions - it was them wot won it for him.

The Labour party is wracked with self loathing, and the unity that came about because of 18 years of Tory govt is a distant memory. It got elected in 1997 because it had becpme a post-Thatcher party. It needs to become a post Blair party now but I don't think anyone knows what that means.

There's a sort of interregnum period going on across British politics at the moment while we wait on the EU referendum, what the slowdown in China and the collapsed oil price really means, the US election, and the next steps for the Labour party are part of that.

Not sure I agree that it is 'wracked with self loathing'. Nope I think it is in a state of turmoil, between purest principle and pragmatic politics. There are plenty in the Labour party who want to be pure to their political principles (which of course are different for everyone), even if this makes them unelectable - indeed I know plenty of Labour members who have always been happiest in opposition, as a kind of superannuated protest group, railing at the tories but actually rather happy not to have to justify their own decisions - as they never actually have to do so being in opposition.

Then there are the pragmatists, those that recognise that being ideologically 'pure' but never actually being able to change anything, because to change things you need to be in power, is non-sense. And that the point about being in politics is to make a difference, and to make a difference you need to be in power and therefore to win elections.

[Nearly Sane]

Agree up to a point - certainly the Labour position on the referendum did it no favours, but they had no choice - they are a UK party and they either had to campaign for or against independence. There was no way they could have (in principle) campaigned against, and trying to be neutral isn't impossible and wold have been seen as being against the status quo - i.e. for independence. And ultimately as a UK party they have to be concerned with the whole of the UK, while they got it in the neck in Scotland for campaigning against, just image the backlash in England had they campaigned for independence - there would have been a blood bath.

I think the problem was more that the campaign became something where they were deeply wrapped up with the Tory party and it became easy to portray it as being mere red Tories. That combined with a lack of recognition that they were being seen as nor really being in favour of anything, and the lack of effectiveness of Miliband E caused further problems. However, there are long term historical reasons for the problems in Scotland.

The point I was making about being complicit in the demonization of the SNP, while a tactic that started in the referendum with the spurious idea of cybernats, spurious because it was predicated on there only being nutters on one side of the issue, it was the tactic the Tories ran with in the GE and because Labour were already hitched to it, and because of the long term historic issues, they helped continue. So instead of saying, if there was a hung parliament we would work to achieve xyz and if the SNP would accept that we could work with them, they just agreed with the Tories and therefore looked again like red Tories and contributed to their weakness in England.

And yes I am convinced that the threat of a Lab/SNP coalition cost Labour votes and seats in England. First because it was so obviously a major (perhaps the major) campaigning strategy of the tories in England (there seem to be a lot of Scottish based posters here, so you may, not unreasonably have missed this as I suspect this wasn't part of the strategy in Scotland). Secondly because all the polling suggested it to be a very distinct possibility - indeed the most likely outcome (sure the polls were wrong, but hindsight is a wonderful thing). And thirdly because both the tories and the SNP were very happy to quietly go along with that narrative as it suited their purposes.

 No, I was perfectly well aware of the tactic, and that was the bit in my first paragraph that you missed. I think you have a real blind spot here in terms of your emotional reaction to the idea of nationalism and it colours how you read what others are saying. As I have reiterated aboce, it was the Labour party's tacit (and in Scotland open) acceptance that the Tories were right about the SNP that put them into this cleft stick.

I would agree with you that it had an effect but one that the Labour party helped along. I'd even argue that while overall it wasn't necessarily enough to show in opinion polls, it was significant because of its effect in marginals, particularly Lib Dems seats. I just don't think that Labour could have achieved anything else with their tactics.


Again in terms of the idea that this was the intention of the SNP, it's indicative of the whole priblem. When the Sec State for Scotland bleakest memo he now admits was incorrect, Labourr jumped on the bandwagon to say SNP bad, and they want the Tories to win, without even looking at tgr motivation of A Carmichael or ensuring that it was true.

Again largely I agree - certainly it isn't possible to predict with certainly what would have happened had another leader been elected. That said I am pretty confident that David M would have done better - partly because he is a more polished and capable leader, secondly because he is politically more mainstream than his brother and finally because he wouldn't have been seen as the union's man. It was pretty easy for the tories to get the Miliband in the pocket of the unions mantra to stick as it was clear to everyone that he was only leader because of the unions - it was them wot won it for him.

Which is why union involvement in the way that it is is problematic for the Labour party. When even their supporters agree that a leader is in the pocket of the unions, and that is a bad thing, there are issues which don't arise in the Tory party.

Not sure I agree that it is 'wracked with self loathing'. Nope I think it is in a state of turmoil, between purest principle and pragmatic politics. There are plenty in the Labour party who want to be pure to their political principles (which of course are different for everyone), even if this makes them unelectable - indeed I know plenty of Labour members who have always been happiest in opposition, as a kind of superannuated protest group, railing at the tories but actually rather happy not to have to justify their own decisions - as they never actually have to do so being in opposition.

Then there are the pragmatists, those that recognise that being ideologically 'pure' but never actually being able to change anything, because to change things you need to be in power, is non-sense. And that the point about being in politics is to make a difference, and to make a difference you need to be in power and therefore to win elections.

I actually think I could not have seen a greater illustration of my point about self loathing, or rather it shows what I really meant, was completely split with enmity and loathing, than your last couple of paragraphs. If it was a Corbyn suppirter, it would just have changed round so that what you call 'pragmatists' would be portrayed as selfish careerists with no principles who should be in the Tory party. And they would have said there is no point in being in power if you don't change things when you are there.

I am sympathetic to those in the Labour party who you see as pragmatists, but for a long time now they have been their own worst enemy. There were hints towards the end of the campaign when i felt that Yvette Cooper was beginning to make strides but there really wasn't enough on offer to make people think that there was an alternative vision that could offer anything than a slightly different version of the Tories and the whole abstaining nonsense at the start of the oarluament, when in at least one case they could have defeated the govt, was a nonsense. I also think that happened because they again followed the narrative on the SNP, and that wasn't about pragmatism but the same emotional blindspot that I think you have.


I think the party is currently unleadable and that members are so keen to follow, once more, a Tory narrative about how bad their leader is is an illustration of that. I don't think Corbyn has had much choice in being good or bad as a leader, it's a nightmare to try and do anything with. I don't think any of the other candidates would have done much better, in part because had they won,they would be seen as merely Tory lite. That they do not appear an effective opposition  is because they are locked into two parties in one, and are their own opposition.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

there seem to be a lot of Scottish based posters here

No, but we are a very opinionated and noisy lot so it can feel that way.

Gonnagle.

[jakswan]

I don't want to know about past Government failures,

Isn't that just sticking your head in the sand. I want to know what Labour would do, we know they did nothing, what would they do in future.

Why people are not boycotting Google I have no idea, get adblock or use Bing.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the problem was more that the campaign became something where they were deeply wrapped up with the Tory party and it became easy to portray it as being mere red Tories.

I think you are continuing to misconstrue a perception of the party in Scotland to that which was the case in England. And remember I was talking about the perception in England, particularly relating to the possibility of Labour going into coalition with the SNP. And lets not forget 90% of the population of the UK and 90% of Westminster seats aren't in Scotland.

So it is non-sense to suggest that labour failed to win seats in England because they were perceived at too right wing - red Tories, as you suggest. Quite the reverse - they didn't win the key marginals, such as Nuneaton because they, and in particular Miliband and Balls, were perceived as too left wing. Whether that was right or not isn't the point, that was the perception. Couple that with a fear that Salmond and or Sturgeon would be influencing matters in government and you had a perfect toxic mix sufficient for the Tories to hold on to the key seats they needed that were Labour targets.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are continuing to misconstrue a perception of the party in Scotland to that which was the case in England. And remember I was talking about the perception in England, particularly relating to the possibility of Labour going into coalition with the SNP. And lets not forget 90% of the population of the UK and 90% of Westminster seats aren't in Scotland.

So it is non-sense to suggest that labour failed to win seats in England because they were perceived at too right wing - red Tories, as you suggest. Quite the reverse - they didn't win the key marginals, such as Nuneaton because they, and in particular Miliband and Balls, were perceived as too left wing. Whether that was right or not isn't the point, that was the perception. Couple that with a fear that Salmond and or Sturgeon would be influencing matters in government and you had a perfect toxic mix sufficient for the Tories to hold on to the key seats they needed that were Labour targets.

No, i'm referring to the referendum campaign here ( and that is because it is in reply to your paragraph on their position in the referendum )and how it affected the perception in  Scotland. I also in the rest of the post covered that I agree with that there was a different effect in England which allowed the Tories to exploit Labour not being clear about what they represented, added to the problem of their own emotional response to the SNP. Something I think, as already suggested, you share, and indeed I think is apparent in the use of language such as 'perfect toxic mix' and that you have taken a small extract fro what I wrote, misread it because of that and answered with something that I had both happily admitted had an effect and dealt with in detail of what I thought Labour had done to contribute to their own problems.

[Brownie]

Labour will survive.   Sorry to do a 'floo one liner' but I am certain of it, having lived through many crises.

[Jack Knave]

It isn't just that he is too left wing to appeal to a broad enough proportion of the electorate to win an election. He is also useless as a leader - just look at how many things he has botched during his few months in charge.

But if he comes good then the people will forget the bad beginnings. This is why the Tories are doing all the nasty stuff now and will sweeten up the voters nearer to 2020.

[jakswan]

I know Prof D blames the loss in England in part on the SNP, but I would suggest that it all arises because Labour supported the demonization of the SNP by the Tories, in part because of tribalism, in part because they didn't want to be seen to be too left, This lost them support in Scotland because combined with the referendum campaign, they then looked too right. They allowed the Tories to dictate an agenda in which there was no Goldilocks position.

Many people I know would never support the Tories because they would say they do not represent them, working class background, etc, the Tories would deny this.

Many people I know would never support the SNP because they would say they do not represent them, not Scottish, there is no way the SNP can deny this.

The SNP are not that far left, they spin left but the policies are populist centre.

[Nearly Sane]

Many people I know would never support the Tories because they would say they do not represent them, working class background, etc, the Tories would deny this.

Many people I know would never support the SNP because they would say they do not represent them, not Scottish, there is no way the SNP can deny this.

The SNP are not that far left, they spin left but the policies are populist centre.

I don't really see the connection to the bit you quoted from me, though I think that might be because I wasn't clear about a couple of things.


Labour needed to have a much more radical look at what it was for in the last parliament but whether there is just something about long term parties of govt that list bring a bit too stunned to do that (cf Labour 2010 and Tories 1997), or something else, it didn't happen. Much of what they might have campaigned on. E.g. Tuition fees or the bedroom tax had their start under Labour. The bedroom tax caused them problems as due to the Bain doctrine they wouldn't work with the SNP to do anything about it so it looked in Scotland again as if they were just red Tories. That it took them a year overall to decide to oppose it made them look inept.

There is a book to be written, and I presume being written on this, as even if I expanded the above beyond the shorthand for this part, it hasn't even begun to look at the impact of UKIP on the Labour position. My take though is that overall because Labour didn't know what they were for, they ended up letting the agenda be set by others and finding themselves with nothing to be for and nowhere to go. If you live by triangulation, you can die by it too.



In that sense Corbyn becomes understandable as attempt to break out from that to something, anything to be for, as opposed to a party that was abstaining on welfare cuts.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note that the Bain doctrine was that Labour shouldn't be seen to support the SNP on anything which lead to SLab complaining about a Scot gov budget not having money for apprenticeships, and when that was then included by the SNP, voting against the measures they had suggested. 

[L.A.]

Labour will survive.   Sorry to do a 'floo one liner' but I am certain of it, having lived through many crises.

The BIG difficulty that Labour faces is that they have lumbered themselves with a system for leadership election that allows groups who have their own agenda to swing the process.

The introduction of the £3 vote (arguably) got Corbyn in.

[Nearly Sane]

The BIG difficulty that Labour faces is that they have lumbered themselves with a system for leadership election that allows groups who have their own agenda to swing the process.

The introduction of the £3 vote (arguably) got Corbyn in.

Corbyn is a symptom, not the problem. I know of no electoral form that wouldn't allow for groups with their own agenda to swing the process and previously they had union block voting so in that sense this is a much more open process. Taking out the 3 quid supporters Corbyn had about 47% of first preferences, so good chance of winning anyway.


Whoever won they would have been entirely likely to lose in 2020, even without the boundary changes. They also would have done nothing to resolve the what are they for question, and would also have effectively been representative of groups with their own agenda (and quite right too otherwise not much point in being in politics).

Blaming Corbyn and his supporters for the position Labour are currently in is like blaming pigs heads for David Cameron

[L.A.]

Corbyn is a symptom, not the problem. I know of no electoral form that wouldn't allow for groups with their own agenda to swing the process and previously they had union block voting so in that sense this is a much more open process. Taking out the 3 quid supporters Corbyn had about 47% of first preferences, so good chance of winning anyway.

I'd agree that Corbyn is just a figurehead but probably a good choice as he was a bit of a hero for the Left. However, I recall seeing some figures soon after the election that suggested:

A/ There were a huge number of £3 voters.
B/ The vast majority were for Corbyn.
C/ These numbers ensured him a first round win.

Of course, he may still have won in the second round (given the poor performance of his opponents) but the system is an open invitation to people who do not have the best interests of the party at heart. I have even heard Conservatives claiming to have voted for him.

Whoever won they would have been entirely likely to lose in 2020, even without the boundary changes. They also would have done nothing to resolve the what are they for question, and would also have effectively been representative of groups with their own agenda (and quite right too otherwise not much point in being in politics).

Blaming Corbyn and his supporters for the position Labour are currently in is like blaming pigs heads for David Cameron

I think everyone agrees that 2020 is likely to be pretty tough for Labour, but with a Corbynesque leader it will be no contest.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd agree that Corbyn is just a figurehead but probably a good choice as he was a bit of a hero for the Left. However, I recall seeing some figures soon after the election that suggested:

A/ There were a huge number of £3 voters.
B/ The vast majority were for Corbyn.
C/ These numbers ensured him a first round win.





Of course, he may still have won in the second round (given the poor performance of his opponents) but the system is an open invitation to people who do not have the best interests of the party at heart. I have even heard Conservatives claiming to have voted for him.

Overall there were about 420,000  votes, of these about 110k were the 3 quid ones - Corbyn got about 80% of those - but take those out, and I was wrong on my initial memory, he had about 52% of first preferences so would have been elected without them.

I think everyone agrees that 2020 is likely to be pretty tough for Labour, but with a Corbynesque leader it will be no contest.

Unless there was going to be a meltdown in the Tory party (Still a possibility), it would have been no contest anyway, People let their attitude to Corbyn get in the way of actually looking at the numbers and at the position the Labour party found itself in. Labour isn't going to lose because it has Corbyn, it has Corbyn because it was going to lose.

[jakswan]

Labour needed to have a much more radical look at what it was for in the last parliament but whether there is just something about long term parties of govt that list bring a bit too stunned to do that (cf Labour 2010 and Tories 1997), or something else, it didn't happen. Much of what they might have campaigned on. E.g. Tuition fees or the bedroom tax had their start under Labour. The bedroom tax caused them problems as due to the Bain doctrine they wouldn't work with the SNP to do anything about it so it looked in Scotland again as if they were just red Tories. That it took them a year overall to decide to oppose it made them look inept.

Agree if they work against the SNP it will look in Scotland as if they are just red Tories and with the nationalists elsewhere. Besides if the SNP are effectively Labour but standing up for the people of Scotland what need of there is Labour in Scotland.

There is a book to be written, and I presume being written on this, as even if I expanded the above beyond the shorthand for this part, it hasn't even begun to look at the impact of UKIP on the Labour position. My take though is that overall because Labour didn't know what they were for, they ended up letting the agenda be set by others and finding themselves with nothing to be for and nowhere to go. If you live by triangulation, you can die by it too.

Ahh yes UKIP, whilst there are those on the extreme right that would say 'we don't want those immigrants' and blame everything (even the traffic) on immigrants there are those on the left who claim large scale immigration is great lets let everyone in.

I think the electorate is broadly comfortable with immigration but understand if we have a housing crisis and 300,000 people arriving every year then this represents an issue.

There is the rather obvious argument lets build up the infrastructure but normally this is drowned out by those on the right claiming you are not standing up for 'British values' and those on the left claiming you are against 'brown people'.

Long winded but to have a winning policy on immigration its a harder place to get to for Labour, so UKIP have enjoyed support from a lot of traditional Labour supporters.

In that sense Corbyn becomes understandable as attempt to break out from that to something, anything to be for, as opposed to a party that was abstaining on welfare cuts.

I think its more of a case than the policies that appeal to the electorate have been better put forward by the SNP and UKIP, Labour had no where else to go.

I don't think I disagree with you there are a number of factors, however the SNP rhetoric is toxic to those that are not Scottish and any party that works with them is going to be affected by that.

The centre left has been divided, in part by Labour's poor performance, how brilliant the SNP are, and the issues that are important in the current climate.

Divided and now ruled.

[L.A.]

Overall there were about 420,000  votes, of these about 110k were the 3 quid ones - Corbyn got about 80% of those - but take those out, and I was wrong on my initial memory, he had about 52% of first preferences so would have been elected without them.

Assuming your figures are correct, that is still a hell of a lot of bought votes for Corbyn.

Unless there was going to be a meltdown in the Tory party (Still a possibility), it would have been no contest anyway, People let their attitude to Corbyn get in the way of actually looking at the numbers and at the position the Labour party found itself in. Labour isn't going to lose because it has Corbyn, it has Corbyn because it was going to lose.

One of the functions of an opposition is to be 'a government in waiting' - ready to exploit any failures of the actual government. However, if the opposition has no credibility then the government can get away with virtually anything.

[Nearly Sane]

Agree if they work against the SNP it will look in Scotland as if they are just red Tories and with the nationalists elsewhere. Besides if the SNP are effectively Labour but standing up for the people of Scotland what need of there is Labour in Scotland.

And they did indeed work against the SNP and specifically the SNP - see the Bain doctrine covered below

Ahh yes UKIP, whilst there are those on the extreme right that would say 'we don't want those immigrants' and blame everything (even the traffic) on immigrants there are those on the left who claim large scale immigration is great lets let everyone in.

I think the electorate is broadly comfortable with immigration but understand if we have a housing crisis and 300,000 people arriving every year then this represents an issue.

There is the rather obvious argument lets build up the infrastructure but normally this is drowned out by those on the right claiming you are not standing up for 'British values' and those on the left claiming you are against 'brown people'.

Long winded but to have a winning policy on immigration its a harder place to get to for Labour, so UKIP have enjoyed support from a lot of traditional Labour supporters.

I think your idea that there is an easy left/right split on this is a nonsense, or rather I think that the right left split itself is a bit of a nonsense. There is a strong push against immigration from some traditional Labour voters, in part because inherent racism, but also because they see it as an essentially capitalist idea and about reducing wages. It's too easy to forget that the left have an issue on Europe and there have always been those supportive of being outside because they see it as essentially a capitalist neo liberal trading bloc. There is a good chance I would suggest that the EU vote could be an 'out' because of votes from the left. I've seen a lot of discussion amongst Greens that despite what the leadership say they will vote out because of TTIP, and there are growing comments on that in both Labour and the SNP, never mind the various small socialist groupings.

As for UKIP itself, it's an odd mixture of free market and protectionist, right and left, but in the last election I think did more damage to Labour than Tories.

I think its more of a case than the policies that appeal to the electorate have been better put forward by the SNP and UKIP, Labour had no where else to go.

I don't think I disagree with you there are a number of factors, however the SNP rhetoric is toxic to those that are not Scottish and any party that works with them is going to be affected by that.

The centre left has been divided, in part by Labour's poor performance, how brilliant the SNP are, and the issues that are important in the current climate.

Divided and now ruled.

It is undoubted that the SNP are toxic, in idea more than anything else - and because in the main by a concerted attempt by Con, Lib Dems, and Labour to make them so,  to some but not all non Scottish voters, just enough to make a difference - particularly in the GE, Lib Dem voters. I don't think it is the rhetoric - I think it is the rhetoric about them, that Labour because of their own issues in Scotland sometimes tacitly, sometimes openly supported - and, of course, added to do by a Lib Dem minister leaking an wrong memo. What rhetoric of Sturgeon do you think was so toxic?

[Nearly Sane]

Assuming your figures are correct, that is still a hell of a lot of bought votes for Corbyn.

One of the functions of an opposition is to be 'a government in waiting' - ready to exploit any failures of the actual government. However, if the opposition has no credibility then the government can get away with virtually anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29_leadership_election,_2015

Details in the link above (the £3 ones are the registered) - note the number doesn't matter if the case is about whether he would have won without them - he would.

As for credibility, this was the party that through the other approach was abstaining from welfare votes, in part because it didn't want to be seen as anti austerity or pro austerity, and didn't want to vote with the SNP if it made it look as if the SNP had helped defeat the govt - yes that's a credible opposition. To be an opposition you have to oppose, to oppose you need to think something is better, at least Corbyn has that, even if doomed. That you think he isn't credible doesn't mean the alternatives were.

[Nearly Sane]

Assuming your figures are correct, that is still a hell of a lot of bought votes for Corbyn.

On a specific point, you might want to edit that part of the post, it seems to imply direct bribery.

[ProfessorDavey]

For the record - Corbyn attained just under 50% of the first preference votes from actual members of the party.

[ProfessorDavey]

One of the functions of an opposition is to be 'a government in waiting' - ready to exploit any failures of the actual government. However, if the opposition has no credibility then the government can get away with virtually anything.

The first job of the opposition is to be just that - the opposition, so to oppose the government of the day and hold them to account.

A good opposition will go further and be a credible government in waiting - think the period before 1997.

Sadly the current opposition is neither a credible opposition (failing to take the argument to the government - rather talking to itself) nor, of course, being a credible government in waiting.

Horrific polling again for Corbyn today - only just over 40% of Labour voters in May last year satisfied with Corbyn (source Ipsos MORI). For comparison, nearly 80% of 2015 Tory voters think Cameron is doing a good job.

[Nearly Sane]

The first job of the opposition is to be just that - the opposition, so to oppose the government of the day and hold them to account.

A good opposition will go further and be a credible government in waiting - think the period before 1997.

Sadly the current opposition is neither a credible opposition (failing to take the argument to the government - rather talking to itself) nor, of course, being a credible government in waiting.

Horrific polling again for Corbyn today - only just over 40% of Labour voters in May last year satisfied with Corbyn (source Ipsos MORI). For comparison, nearly 80% of 2015 Tory voters think Cameron is doing a good job.

All true, just not really that much to do with Corbyn. The party is indulging in backstabbing and part of it is happy to go along with and be used by Tory attacks to try and get rid of Corbyn. Again, he's the symptom, not the cause.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Me,

The ah well! of British society.

1. ah well it is okay that we have to fight for a living wage.

2. ah well, food banks, ah well.

3. ah well google are only paying 3% tax, ah well.

4. ah well, bed room tax, ah well.

5. Bunch of immigrants, ah well.

6. Price of a train ticket, ah well.

7. Budget cuts, ah well.

8. EU exit, ah well.

9. NHS, A&E under pressure, ah well.

10. Bombing innocent civilians, ah well.

Maybe it should be, so what or who cares, well Mr Corbyn cares.

Gonnagle.