Next UK Labour Leader

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Left Unity, the Greens, Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, Class War, Workers Revolutionary Party and other hard left parties ran. The Greens managed 1.1 million, but for the most part far left parties did not break 10 000 votes. There is also zero appetite for far left parties in Scotland as none achieved anything notable. The solidly social democratic SNP obviously did very well, but they are hardly "far left". Centrist parties tend to do very well in the UK as a whole. But there is little to differentiate Glasgow from Manchester or Liverpool in terms of voting habits.

The whole "red tories" schtick is inane. Do people really think that nearly 2 million people sat at home and avoided voting for Miliband because he was not far left enough? The purpose of Labour is not to act as a whiney opposition party where students and failed radicals can indulge in voting as an act of virtue signalling. Its about building a big enough coalition of disparate opinions to form a government. You will need somewhere between 10 and 11 million people in the UK to vote for them to form a government. Move to the left and people on the right will leave the party. Likely these will be swing voters in marginals. Its a bloody nigh impossible task to come up with policies that will make people in the low income, urban constituencies happy while not frightening the swing voters in marginals. Its not about belonging to a party so you get what you want but putting your personal wants in politics aside to build a broad movement.

What is the point of being the most morally correct party in opposition? How does that provide social housing, education, health care and pensions for people? You have to work with people you disagree with to compromise to produce a platform that 36% of the electorate will vote for.

People like you who spend all your time condemning others for not being as super morally amazeballs as you are all well and good for Left Unity but it was not going to convince 11 million people that you have the best range of policies for their lives.

And how many had the opportunity to vote for all those parties? In my constituency, the only party out of six with anything like socialist policies were the Greens, who obviously got my vote.

The "red Tories shtick", as you blithely dismiss it, is far from insane. The PLP has abandoned the movements principles and, even after Corbyn was elected with a massive mandate, refuses to listen to what people actually want. It wasn't the Tories who won the election, it was Labour who couldn't convince people that they were sufficiently different.

It's not Corbyn that's the problem for Labour - it's the careerist twats who refuse to accept his democratic mandate.

[Antiochas III]

Obviously then a Centre Left Party should form as they'll annilihate these careerists (I bet they don't if it does happen).

[Granny Danger]

The English have no appetite for a Left of Centre Party

Nobody is lumping all 50 million people as one.

That's the comment that started the discussion. Very much someone trying to lump all 50 million people as one.

[DrewDon]

And how many had the opportunity to vote for all those parties? In my constituency, the only party out of six with anything like socialist policies were the Greens, who obviously got my vote.

The "red Tories shtick", as you blithely dismiss it, is far from insane. The PLP has abandoned the movements principles and, even after Corbyn was elected with a massive mandate, refuses to listen to what people actually want. It wasn't the Tories who won the election, it was Labour who couldn't convince people that they were sufficiently different.

It's not Corbyn that's the problem for Labour - it's the careerist twats who refuse to accept his democratic mandate.

Is your argument that people voted Conservative because Labour wasn't left-wing enough? Like it or not, 80% of the votes Labour has to win back to form a government in 2020 are from people who voted Conservative in 2015, and I don't suspect that will happen by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell completely abandoning the centre ground.

[Granny Danger]

Is your argument that people voted Conservative because Labour wasn't left-wing enough? Like it or not, 80% of the votes Labour has to win back to form a government in 2020 are from people who voted Conservative in 2015, and I don't suspect that will happen by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell completely abandoning the centre ground.

I think that's a very simplistic analysis. One of the reasons folk abandoned Labour was the totally ineffectual Labour leadership and campaign. Now I'm not saying Corbyn is a more effective leader than Milliband or that a campaign under him will be better. However I do believe many folk will be swayed in who they're voting for by these factors and not just the policies.

In Scotland we have seen people get behind political parties who propose more 'radical' policies if they are presented constructively and the party is able to counteract the usual MSM bias. At the last GE over 50% of those who voted in Scotland did so for parties that opposed Trident, the significance of that should not be ignored. I believe Scotland will support more radical policies than folk in rUK but there is no evidence to suggest the gulf is massively wide.

IMO the Labour Party does not have amongst its Parliamentary ranks a credible left-leaning leader. That's a terrible indictment. It is also suffering, and will continue to suffer for some time, from a PLP that is largely disconnected from its membership. That will only change if there is significant deselection over the next couple of Parliamentary elections. I don't know if Corbyn has the stomach for that fight but unless he engages in it then what's happening at the moment is no more than a short term, useless distraction that will ultimately see Labour remaining to be a watered down version of the Tories.

[Mortar Bored]

I think part of the difference between what happens north of the border & in England is that English voters don't seem to have a "cause" or perhaps "movement" to rally round.

Like it or not, and I'm an SNP member, the SNP has managed,to a large extent, to consolidate votes from those disaffected by UK government as a whole. I still think that to a large degree, the May elections will garner support for the SNP that is not equally in line with their performance in Holyrood.

It will reflect disillusionment from Westminster also.

Labour supporters & swing voters don't seem to have a movement to get behind anymore. That applies to England.

[invergowrie arab]

It's not as simple as saying UK politics sits in the centre as if the Centre is some fixed unchanging point. By having strong left wing alternatives you change the terms of the debate.

Blairism meant the UK wide political debate was between the relative merits of third way capitalism and the outright nasty party toryism of Hague and IDS ( BTW people citing Blair's electoral success often forget the utter shite he was up against).

In the 2000s arguments about renationalisation of railways, trident decommissioning or halting NHS E&W privatisation became sidelined as extreme opinions.

If a credible, strong left party (and Corbyns labour ain't it) could gain traction then where the Centre of politics sits and where mainstream ideas meets fringe ideas completely changes.

[BerwickMad]

Nobody is lumping all 50 million people as one. You know the rules of politics within the UK. The Tories don't need all 50 million people to remain in power for the next hundred years, they just need those who don't support them to be divided between one another. Which is exactly what the British main stream media is for.

I don't disagree with the rest, but telling people what 'the English' believe is lumping everyone together and far too simplistic. I know why people like him do it, but they need called up on it.

[BerwickMad]

As a side point, people didn't really abandon Labour in England in 2015. They gained 15 seats and had a swing of 3.7%. Labour gained votes and seats in England despite a stronger Green Party and a stronger UKIP in the North.

The Tories however targeted their seats. One of their gains was in my constituency where they threw everything at destroying the Lib Dems and it worked. Labour were never going to win here, or in the majority of the seats the Tories gained.

[John Lambies Doos]

As a side point, people didn't really abandon Labour in England in 2015. They gained 15 seats and had a swing of 3.7%. Labour gained votes and seats in England despite a stronger Green Party and a stronger UKIP in the North.

The Tories however targeted their seats. One of their gains was in my constituency where they threw everything at destroying the Lib Dems and it worked. Labour were never going to win here, or in the majority of the seats the Tories gained.

Quite true.

Tories took a lot of votes off lib dems in SW England. Labour's vote in England wasn't atrocious, held up strongly in Wales however the party completely disappeared in Scotland.

Labour only going one way though and it ain't pretty for their supporters

[Mortar Bored]

As a side point, people didn't really abandon Labour in England in 2015. They gained 15 seats and had a swing of 3.7%. Labour gained votes and seats in England despite a stronger Green Party and a stronger UKIP in the North.

The Tories however targeted their seats. One of their gains was in my constituency where they threw everything at destroying the Lib Dems and it worked. Labour were never going to win here, or in the majority of the seats the Tories gained.

Good post, and it's something I've not looked into.

I'm a natural SNP voter, this is partly due to...

A. When I was too young to vote, my father & his father were ardent SNP voters- and this is during the "Tartan Tory" era, they saw SNP as a means to an end. Then after independence, I'm pretty sure they would have voted Labour in an independent Scotland.

B. I've always been a follower of the original Labour movement, I was a shop- steward at the age of 21- mainly by default, however I felt back then that the socialist values of the TU movement was the only way to a progressive society.

I still hold these ideals, but ONLY in an independent Scotland.

I don't think I've made my point too well, it's basically.

No matter the policy of SNP- as long as independence is core- they get my vote.

[BerwickMad]

Quite true.

Tories took a lot of votes off lib dems in SW England. Labour's vote in England wasn't atrocious, held up strongly in Wales however the party completely disappeared in Scotland.

Labour only going one way though and it ain't pretty for their supporters

Hypothetical situation. Say the SNP didn't exist and there was no nationalist movement in Scotland. There was an option of 2, Conservative or Labour. Do you think there would be a swing towards a Corbyn Labour Party in 2020 from a Milliband Labour Party in 2015, in Scotland?

[John Lambies Doos]

Hypothetical situation. Say the SNP didn't exist and there was no nationalist movement in Scotland. There was an option of 2, Conservative or Labour. Do you think there would be a swing towards a Corbyn Labour Party in 2020 from a Milliband Labour Party in 2015, in Scotland?

It's a difficult one. I'm not entirely convinced that the SNP'S popularity is due to them actually being very left, I think it's more to do with trust. People see them as a truly Scottish party thus more likely to stick up for Scotland than others, plus independence of course. So with that in mind I don't actually think there would be a massive swing or indeed any real significant swing from milliband to corbyn (especially given the current chaos within Corbyns party). In the hypothetical absence of any nationalist movement or a desire for one, UKIP would most certainly increase their vote share quite substantially in Scotland

[DrewDon]

I think that's a very simplistic analysis. One of the reasons folk abandoned Labour was the totally ineffectual Labour leadership and campaign. Now I'm not saying Corbyn is a more effective leader than Milliband or that a campaign under him will be better. However I do believe many folk will be swayed in who they're voting for by these factors and not just the policies.

In Scotland we have seen people get behind political parties who propose more 'radical' policies if they are presented constructively and the party is able to counteract the usual MSM bias. At the last GE over 50% of those who voted in Scotland did so for parties that opposed Trident, the significance of that should not be ignored. I believe Scotland will support more radical policies than folk in rUK but there is no evidence to suggest the gulf is massively wide.

IMO the Labour Party does not have amongst its Parliamentary ranks a credible left-leaning leader. That's a terrible indictment. It is also suffering, and will continue to suffer for some time, from a PLP that is largely disconnected from its membership. That will only change if there is significant deselection over the next couple of Parliamentary elections. I don't know if Corbyn has the stomach for that fight but unless he engages in it then what's happening at the moment is no more than a short term, useless distraction that will ultimately see Labour remaining to be a watered down version of the Tories.

It likely is slightly simplistic, but I think it's a fair rebuttal to the logic that some people in England voted Conservative because Labour wasn't different or distinctive enough.

I agree with you on Miliband's leadership being essentially ineffective. I perhaps disagree on the strength of Labour's campaign. It was a more coherent and confident campaign that I was perhaps expecting. The consensus up to the election was that Miliband had grown in the months leading up to May and, by all accounts, his performances in televised debates seemed to be earning him more praise than criticism.

However, the public had made their minds up about Miliband long before this juncture. The other major issue was a lack of trust on the economy. In light of this, I think you have to ask two questions: 1) Is the current leader more effective than our previous leader, or can the voting public envisage him as Prime Minister?; 2) Is the current leadership doing a sound job of easing fears among the electorate about Labour's ability to competently manage the economy? Currently, I would answer 'no' to these questions. The polling data suggests that the voters would answer the same.

You raise a fair point on the electability of the SNP in Scotland with more 'radical' policies. I think this essentially boils down to a question of competence though. Regardless of what you think of independence or the SNP's broader programme, the Scottish electorate perceives Sturgeon as a capable and competent politician. This has taken time, but it is one of the key differences between what makes the SNP electable in Scotland and Labour unelectable in England (and elsewhere), to my mind. They have also compromised with the electorate on some of their previously more controversial positions, and I'm not sure if that is Corbyn's style. Sturgeon and the SNP, at least at the moment, are also much better at managing the media than Corbyn and Labour.

As for not having another plausible leader. Maybe. Burnham tried to be all things to all people, Cooper took far too long to hit her stride, and Kendall adopted policies massively out of line with the feeling of Labour members. Having said that, I think they would all have Labour polling higher than Corbyn does and would be more likely to win in 2020. As for who would succeed Corbyn if he resigned tomorrow? I don't have the slightest clue.

[pandarilla]

Outstanding debate on this thread now. Long, detailed, pretty respectful posts.

I think there's a north south divide in politics and wealth. The north of England have a very similar political viewpoint - which is obviously more left leaning. They don't have the independence movement and I don't think too many people there get it.

The South of England seems to have a noticeably different political tone. Much more small c conservative and 'each to their own' thatcher vibe.

Labour needs a more charismatic Corbyn, or a more left leaning Blair. But too many centre right labour MPs have to come to terms with the end of new labour. It's been thoroughly rejected by the core support of labour. Corbyn might not be the answer but tony mark II isn't either.

[dorlomin]

I think there's a north south divide in politics and wealth. The north of England have a very similar political viewpoint - which is obviously more left leaning. They don't have the independence movement and I don't think too many people there get it.

Rural England votes Tory except in the SW where there is a fair bit of support for the Liberals, this goes back a long time.

Urban England votes Labour in two big ways, low income people "traditional" Labour voters and tertiary educated younger liberals who have moved back into city centers.

University seats (big student populations plus uni workers) tended to be SDP but they have largely gone back to Labour.

This leaves suburbs\new towns as you battle grounds.

Seats usually form a bit of a mix but there are many largely rural or largely urban seats that form the core heartlands of the two parties.

The kind of person is the suburb\new town seats has a family, median income, car, owns home sort of thing. (Mondeo man). The collapse of heavy industry in the old steel, mining, shipbuilding, cotton type towns has not really been anything like close to recovered (think Motherwell). The defense industry is a huge earner for the country, the aviation industry is massive, computing bigger than most realise, finance and the like are all big earning industries (seats in Edinburgh). These tend to be clustered from London along the M4 and around Cambridge.

The midlands is a middle ground with lots of light industry and obviously the ubiquitous service sector (Rolls Royce are big in Nottingham, BAe shipbuilding in places like Barrow so this is all just broad generalisations) but the industries that thrive in these regions tend to dictate the wealth of the suburbs\new town.

Milton Keynes, service sector crazy midland town MK North: Major\Blair\Blair\Howard MK South Major\Blair\Blair\Blair.

These are the kind of seats that dictate elections.

If you are picking up the midland suburban\new town seats then the country is generally going with you. You will pick up mixed constituencies and the like but these are where the trends tend to happen.

Traditional Labour seats in the north do tend to be leftish. But they are not the kind of left you see on P&B. Benefit cheats annoy them, immigration is a big worry, they would like to be aspirational but the well paid work is not around. A lot of them are vulnerable to the UKIP message.

The really liberal places are the university seats and gentrified inner cities.

Labour has to navigate through a maze of needing to appeal to immigrants who have moved to the suburbs and done well and people who live in run down towns that are largely white and fear immigration. They have to appeal to people from traditional Labour backgrounds that have done well and are aspirational while not "ditching its past" or "taking traditional voters for granted".

Its really not easy. The tories did not manage to put together a governing coalition of voters between 92-2015. Even then it was by the skin of their teeth. Blair did it three times but in doing so seems to have permanently alienated a huge tranche of traditional voters (some from the uni type constituencies over Iraq, others from the traditional seats over immigration).

I think social media has made people so used to being surrounded by their own views they are becoming disconnected from being part of a hugely diverse country. But thats me.

May 2015 30.7 million people voted.

11.3 million for the Conservatives.

9.3 million Labour.

3.9 million UKIP

2.4 million LD

1.5 SNP

1.2 Green

0.036 million for the largest far left party TUSC

15.2 million voters voted for bluekip.

Out of that total shambles Labour has to find a message that will put about 11 million people into ballot booths voting for it.

Corbyn aint that man.

[Granny Danger]

Rural England votes Tory except in the SW where there is a fair bit of support for the Liberals, this goes back a long time.

Urban England votes Labour in two big ways, low income people "traditional" Labour voters and tertiary educated younger liberals who have moved back into city centers.

University seats (big student populations plus uni workers) tended to be SDP but they have largely gone back to Labour.

This leaves suburbs\new towns as you battle grounds.

Seats usually form a bit of a mix but there are many largely rural or largely urban seats that form the core heartlands of the two parties.

The kind of person is the suburb\new town seats has a family, median income, car, owns home sort of thing. (Mondeo man). The collapse of heavy industry in the old steel, mining, shipbuilding, cotton type towns has not really been anything like close to recovered (think Motherwell). The defense industry is a huge earner for the country, the aviation industry is massive, computing bigger than most realise, finance and the like are all big earning industries (seats in Edinburgh). These tend to be clustered from London along the M4 and around Cambridge.

The midlands is a middle ground with lots of light industry and obviously the ubiquitous service sector (Rolls Royce are big in Nottingham, BAe shipbuilding in places like Barrow so this is all just broad generalisations) but the industries that thrive in these regions tend to dictate the wealth of the suburbs\new town.

Milton Keynes, service sector crazy midland town MK North: Major\Blair\Blair\Howard MK South Major\Blair\Blair\Blair.

These are the kind of seats that dictate elections.

If you are picking up the midland suburban\new town seats then the country is generally going with you. You will pick up mixed constituencies and the like but these are where the trends tend to happen.

Traditional Labour seats in the north do tend to be leftish. But they are not the kind of left you see on P&B. Benefit cheats annoy them, immigration is a big worry, they would like to be aspirational but the well paid work is not around. A lot of them are vulnerable to the UKIP message.

The really liberal places are the university seats and gentrified inner cities.

Labour has to navigate through a maze of needing to appeal to immigrants who have moved to the suburbs and done well and people who live in run down towns that are largely white and fear immigration. They have to appeal to people from traditional Labour backgrounds that have done well and are aspirational while not "ditching its past" or "taking traditional voters for granted".

Its really not easy. The tories did not manage to put together a governing coalition of voters between 92-2015. Even then it was by the skin of their teeth. Blair did it three times but in doing so seems to have permanently alienated a huge tranche of traditional voters (some from the uni type constituencies over Iraq, others from the traditional seats over immigration).

I think social media has made people so used to being surrounded by their own views they are becoming disconnected from being part of a hugely diverse country. But thats me.

May 2015 30.7 million people voted.

11.3 million for the Conservatives.

9.3 million Labour.

3.9 million UKIP

2.4 million LD

1.5 SNP

1.2 Green

0.036 million for the largest far left party TUSC

15.2 million voters voted for bluekip.

Out of that total shambles Labour has to find a message that will put about 11 million people into ballot booths voting for it.

Corbyn aint that man.

I'm fairly sure that opinion polls had those who were voting UKIP for the first time as being fairly evenly split between former Labour voters and former Tory voters. Maybe slightly more the latter but not by much.

[sparky88]

Bullshit.

Not according to the institute for fiscal studies.

[pandarilla]

Rural England votes Tory except in the SW where there is a fair bit of support for the Liberals, this goes back a long time.

Urban England votes Labour in two big ways, low income people "traditional" Labour voters and tertiary educated younger liberals who have moved back into city centers.

University seats (big student populations plus uni workers) tended to be SDP but they have largely gone back to Labour.

This leaves suburbs\new towns as you battle grounds.

Seats usually form a bit of a mix but there are many largely rural or largely urban seats that form the core heartlands of the two parties.

The kind of person is the suburb\new town seats has a family, median income, car, owns home sort of thing. (Mondeo man). The collapse of heavy industry in the old steel, mining, shipbuilding, cotton type towns has not really been anything like close to recovered (think Motherwell). The defense industry is a huge earner for the country, the aviation industry is massive, computing bigger than most realise, finance and the like are all big earning industries (seats in Edinburgh). These tend to be clustered from London along the M4 and around Cambridge.

The midlands is a middle ground with lots of light industry and obviously the ubiquitous service sector (Rolls Royce are big in Nottingham, BAe shipbuilding in places like Barrow so this is all just broad generalisations) but the industries that thrive in these regions tend to dictate the wealth of the suburbs\new town.

Milton Keynes, service sector crazy midland town MK North: Major\Blair\Blair\Howard MK South Major\Blair\Blair\Blair.

These are the kind of seats that dictate elections.

If you are picking up the midland suburban\new town seats then the country is generally going with you. You will pick up mixed constituencies and the like but these are where the trends tend to happen.

Traditional Labour seats in the north do tend to be leftish. But they are not the kind of left you see on P&B. Benefit cheats annoy them, immigration is a big worry, they would like to be aspirational but the well paid work is not around. A lot of them are vulnerable to the UKIP message.

The really liberal places are the university seats and gentrified inner cities.

Labour has to navigate through a maze of needing to appeal to immigrants who have moved to the suburbs and done well and people who live in run down towns that are largely white and fear immigration. They have to appeal to people from traditional Labour backgrounds that have done well and are aspirational while not "ditching its past" or "taking traditional voters for granted".

Its really not easy. The tories did not manage to put together a governing coalition of voters between 92-2015. Even then it was by the skin of their teeth. Blair did it three times but in doing so seems to have permanently alienated a huge tranche of traditional voters (some from the uni type constituencies over Iraq, others from the traditional seats over immigration).

I think social media has made people so used to being surrounded by their own views they are becoming disconnected from being part of a hugely diverse country. But thats me.

May 2015 30.7 million people voted.

11.3 million for the Conservatives.

9.3 million Labour.

3.9 million UKIP

2.4 million LD

1.5 SNP

1.2 Green

0.036 million for the largest far left party TUSC

15.2 million voters voted for bluekip.

Out of that total shambles Labour has to find a message that will put about 11 million people into ballot booths voting for it.

Corbyn aint that man.

Intensive and impressive detail - cheers.

But much like a lot of football analysis I think part of the problem is overcomplication. The idea of spads working with pollsters around the clock to somehow satisfy all of these different target groups has numbed people.

There has to be something better than this stage-managed-to-the-nth-degree politics.

I'm also a massive believer in the circumstances of the other lot being a bigger factor than is given credit for. I don't think any tory leader could win against Blair in his prime - and the same could be said for thatcher.

Tom devine summed it up nicely for me in the run up to the referendum : Westminster and a large majority of England's population seem to have bought into a neo-liberal mindset for Britain - whilst Scotland and a few other parts still prefer the social democracy that existed up until the 80s. New labour ditched that and as a result started to lose touch with Scotland - slowly but surely.

[DrewDon]

Tom devine summed it up nicely for me in the run up to the referendum : Westminster and a large majority of England's population seem to have bought into a neo-liberal mindset for Britain - whilst Scotland and a few other parts still prefer the social democracy that existed up until the 80s. New labour ditched that and as a result started to lose touch with Scotland - slowly but surely.

I think this depends on when you think New Labour died. Tony Blair's most ardent supporters would say it died in 2007, when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister. Some others would argue that it happened when Ed Miliband was elected in 2010, and he essentially declared he thought New Labour needed to be abandoned when campaigning for the role. Jeremy Corbyn's supporters would argue that it only died upon his election, and it still manifests itself among large sections of (backbench) MPs.

Labour performed well in 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010 in Scotland. How much of this was down to fear of the Tories or the lack of a strong alternative in these years is a separate debate. But I'm unconvinced by the argument that New Labour repelled voters in Scotland.