Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Flying high]

The attacks started because the "centrists" (let's instead call them moderates) knew, from bitter experience, what happens to Labour's electability when they swing too far to the left. And they were right.

So it was a pre-emptive strike, which ended up being self-fulfilling. Convenient.

It may well be that Corbyn was attacked partly because his policies worried some vested interests. But it's also the case he was attacked because he was easy to attack.

This is pretty meaningless really. He simply would not have suffered the same level of attacks from nearly all sides had he been more prepared to kowtow to those with money.

Ah yes, the totemic 'increasing vote share'. You completely took the wrong lessons from that loss. Instead of asking why you fell short, you asked how can we double down. You doubled down on what turned out to be, on a longer timescale, a losing strategy.

When you, as a party, elect a leader on the basis that he believes in what he is saying and has the principles to follow through, then for him to drop those ideas simply because the centre moved to the right is to yet again abandon the left. Why when there is clearly(check polling) such support for those policies? Because he's wrongly been painted as an evil commie who hates the UK.

Which "powerful lobby group" is that then? Go on say what you mean.

Pathetic.

I find this funny. I know what group YOU mean, but I was actually talking primarily about the right wing lobby groups who seemed to inject a spokesperson into nearly every news broadcast from 2016 up to the last election. But go ahead, assume I'm so paranoid and concerned about Jewish lobby groups that I am only talking about them and hiding behind inference. No, if I thought they were the major reason I would have listed them specifically. Not every leftist is against Jews you know? In fact, I know none that are. You're still buying the agenda.

 

[Kentonio]

With Corbyn the issue was much bigger. It was not the right wing press that was the obvious problem. But right wing members of his own party undermining him and stabbing him in the back.
To make matters worse he is no orator so he had a difficult time in getting his message across and defending himself. Honest good hearted people have no chance of getting elected to the top post. Look at the USA. The Democrats are electing a corrupt guy who changed the prosecutor of a foreign country because he was investigating a company that his son was on the board. He withheld aid until the prosecutor got sacked.
As for POTUS the less said the better.

I agree with the overall point about good hearted people not being elected, but that Biden stuff isn’t accurate. That was just the US right wing press and Trump lying their asses off to try and damage Biden before the election. Which makes you wonder why they bothered really, considering all the true shit he already has against him.

 

[Kentonio]

I actually don't think he had a lot of baggage for someone who has been in politics as long as he has... the media in large part create the baggage. If he had so much baggage, why are the press twisting old stories and hammering him on things he did twenty or thirty years ago? It's the lack of content and why half of the stuff thrown at him was fairly laughable. They will pick an angle... any they can get to stick really, and attack it relentlessly.

Anybody with similar politics would get exactly the same because they will find angles to go at. It will then be the same excuse again - "they had too much baggage".

The pics with Hamas leaders, the IRA stuff, the old Marxist stuff, it all just made it far too easy for the Tories to conjure up dark images of a return to the 70’s. Much harder if it was a younger, fresher face.

 

[ZupZup]

The pics with Hamas leaders, the IRA stuff, the old Marxist stuff, it all just made it far too easy for the Tories to conjure up dark images of a return to the 70’s. Much harder if it was a younger, fresher face.

You think it would be much harder because you've listened to the media shout "IRA", "commie" and "antisemitism" relentlessly for years like a broken record. We're talking stuff from many years ago as well most of the time.

For instance. The amount of baggage/material Corbyn has to work with compared to Boris? It's not even close and Corbyn has been in politics a lot longer. I am not saying Corbyn didn't have things that could be twisted, but you can easily see early signs in the media of what RLB would be subjected to. What real baggage does she have? She shouldn't really have any but a year or two of her leadership and I reckon you'd think she had more baggage than an airport carousel.

 

[Foxbatt]

I agree with the overall point about good hearted people not being elected, but that Biden stuff isn’t accurate. That was just the US right wing press and Trump lying their asses off to try and damage Biden before the election. Which makes you wonder why they bothered really, considering all the true shit he already has against him.

I am afraid you are wrong on this. This story has been around since it happened. People who knows the region will agree with me. The company named was very close to the now deposed ex President. So when the maidan happened the owner was investigated by the new government. As with most business in the region they are corrupt so they got Hunter Biden on the Board. But the new prosecutor didn't stop the investigation. Joe Biden forced the Ukrainian government to sack him. It's on video record of Joe Biden saying that.

It's obvious that Trump is going to pick it up on it. There's no two words about Biden forcing Ukraine to sack the prosecutor.

 

[nickm]

From the above: "Any criticism of the leadership was the fault of the mainstream media. The print media has always held an anti-Labour bent, but has never stopped the election of Labour governments in the past. The lesson is: if you believe the press is not your natural ally, don’t make it easy for them. If you don’t want the press to write you are a terrorist sympathiser, don’t lay a wreath at the grave of a terrorist. If you don’t want the press to write you are a friend of Hamas or Hezbollah, don’t call them your friends. If you don’t want the press to write you associate with the IRA, don’t associate with the IRA. If you don’t want the press to doubt your patriotism, don’t give Russia the benefit of the doubt over the Salisbury poisonings or take money from Iranian state media. If you want the press to highlight your aversion to antisemitism, don’t share a platform with known anti-Semites and defend antisemitic murals.

"Only Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters can do all these things and think they can get away with them. They believe they are the most morally centred, so stand rigid in their certainty. They believe they are the most principled, so they occupy the highest of ground. The truth is that they are not virtuous, nor moral nor principled. They are vain, self-centred and narcissistic."

 

[nickm]

You think it would be much harder because you've listened to the media shout "IRA", "commie" and "antisemitism" relentlessly for years like a broken record. We're talking stuff from many years ago as well most of the time.

Corbyn DID have questions to answer on his IRA connections, and his ideological support of Sinn Fein when their military wing was murdering people in the 80s.
He DID have questions to answer about his connections to some truly vile middle east terrorists and his claims to be an honest broker.
He DID have questions to answer about how antisemitism took root in his party, given the EHRC is investigating the organisation he led/leads.

Plenty of people have long memories and don't forgive some of this stuff easily.

This isn't all made up by the press to damage him. Plenty of this was him properly being held to account over his past and present positions, given he wanted to be PM.

 

[nickm]

When you, as a party, elect a leader on the basis that he believes in what he is saying and has the principles to follow through, then for him to drop those ideas simply because the centre moved to the right is to yet again abandon the left. Why when there is clearly(check polling) such support for those policies? Because he's wrongly been painted as an evil commie who hates the UK.

"It was a normal Labour defeat and therefore seen as a victory.... Corbyn brought a worldview alien to the Labour Party. A worldview that belonged on the fringes. With his victory, that worldview became centre stage and all those who lived on the fringes with him found their home centre stage too. The pseudo-Marxists, Bennites, anti-Semites and cultists all thought it was their turn to run Labour. "

 

[Kentonio]

I am afraid you are wrong on this. This story has been around since it happened. People who knows the region will agree with me. The company named was very close to the now deposed ex President. So when the maidan happened the owner was investigated by the new government. As with most business in the region they are corrupt so they got Hunter Biden on the Board. But the new prosecutor didn't stop the investigation. Joe Biden forced the Ukrainian government to sack him. It's on video record of Joe Biden saying that.

It's obvious that Trump is going to pick it up on it. There's no two words about Biden forcing Ukraine to sack the prosecutor.

You should go back and read the investigative reporting from before Trump made it a thing. It had nothing to do with Biden wanting to help his son, the prosecutor he got fired was corrupt as hell and it was a combination of the UK, EU, Obama administration and the world bank who all wanted him gone because he wasn’t actually investigating any corruption, he was protecting pro-Russian business owners. It was in no way Biden’s policy, he was carrying out Obama’s policy with full support from the other western democracies.

 

[Flying high]

It’s not about being ok with it, it’s about accepting that a certain level of ratfecking is definitely going to happen and preparing yourself accordingly. Does that mean letting the right wing press select your leader? No. But it does mean realizing that selecting a guy who comes with a ton of easily twisted baggage and a lack of skills to give his own side probably isn’t the best approach to take. You don’t have to accept the bottom but you might have to also accept you can’t just get your top choice either.

Look I get that angle. But it's the 'easily twisted baggage' bit that we will simply never get over.

Corbyn could very easily been painted by the media as a peace loving, kind, honourable leader, who has a long history of bringing people together to talk in difficult times. For standing up for those in need. That would have been much more representative of his political career. We all knew that wasn't going to be the case before his name was even mentioned though, right?

I would love a really personable Labour leader to come along, with great charisma AND a genuine record of supporting good causes and shunning those who seek to buy influence, who has never said a thing that can be twisted to hammer home a narrative. Since that isn't going to happen, we have a choice, vote for the politics you like, or for those the media like. You can say that it's better to have the Blair years than more of the tories, to which I would agree to an extent. However, after new Labour, come the tories, not a more left wing government. Because reality says we only have 2 parties and it's their turn next. If Labour spend their term basically doing what the other side does, just with a shade less extremism, then as I said, we are simply continuing the race to the bottom.

If Starmer(or whoever) is not conceived of as being a threat to the status quo, he will not receive the full Corbyn treatment. As soon as he is, he will.

Should a prospective Labour leader hide any lefty intentions to get elected? Be more like Milliband?

 

[Foxbatt]

You should go back and read the investigative reporting from before Trump made it a thing. It had nothing to do with Biden wanting to help his son, the prosecutor he got fired was corrupt as hell and it was a combination of the UK, EU, Obama administration and the world bank who all wanted him gone because he wasn’t actually investigating any corruption, he was protecting pro-Russian business owners. It was in no way Biden’s policy, he was carrying out Obama’s policy with full support from the other western democracies.

I have. It's nothing new to me. I am neither British nor American nor Russian. The fact is the pro Russian company hired Hunter Biden. This is nothing new especially in that part of the world.
You should look at non western reports. This has got nothing to do with the Russian government or Trump. As for Obama's policy do you think he is bothered by such a small issue of sacking a prosecutor in such a country?
This story has been around the region and Ukraine long before Trump even became President. This has got nothing to do with Trump originally. It's only now the American newspapers have seen this or started talking about it. But it's a fact that Biden and the Americans forced the Ukrainian government to sack him or they will not give them the aid. It's on video record for Biden for saying that. I have seen it myself.

 

[Grinner]

Why are you all redoing the Corbyn thing? Didn't he lose and resign already?

 

[Kentonio]

I have. It's nothing new to me. I am neither British nor American nor Russian. The fact is the pro Russian company hired Hunter Biden. This is nothing new especially in that part of the world.
You should look at non western reports. This has got nothing to do with the Russian government or Trump. As for Obama's policy do you think he is bothered by such a small issue of sacking a prosecutor in such a country?
This story has been around the region and Ukraine long before Trump even became President. This has got nothing to do with Trump originally. It's only now the American newspapers have seen this or started talking about it. But it's a fact that Biden and the Americans forced the Ukrainian government to sack him or they will not give them the aid. It's on video record for Biden for saying that. I have seen it myself.

I did look at non-western reports, including Ukrainian ones. Yes Hunter Biden getting hired was clearly the company wanting to trade on his fathers name, but that doesn’t mean that Biden got the prosecutor fired to protect his son. It wasn’t Biden’s choice, he wasn’t the one who started the whole thing (that was the U.K.) and as VP he didn’t have the authority to set US policy alone. Yes it was America who forced the firing, and rightly so as the prosecutor was corrupt as hell as Ukranians are well aware.

 

[Flying high]

From the above: "Any criticism of the leadership was the fault of the mainstream media. The print media has always held an anti-Labour bent, but has never stopped the election of Labour governments in the past. The lesson is: if you believe the press is not your natural ally, don’t make it easy for them. If you don’t want the press to write you are a terrorist sympathiser, don’t lay a wreath at the grave of a terrorist. If you don’t want the press to write you are a friend of Hamas or Hezbollah, don’t call them your friends. If you don’t want the press to write you associate with the IRA, don’t associate with the IRA. If you don’t want the press to doubt your patriotism, don’t give Russia the benefit of the doubt over the Salisbury poisonings or take money from Iranian state media. If you want the press to highlight your aversion to antisemitism, don’t share a platform with known anti-Semites and defend antisemitic murals.

"Only Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters can do all these things and think they can get away with them. They believe they are the most morally centred, so stand rigid in their certainty. They believe they are the most principled, so they occupy the highest of ground. The truth is that they are not virtuous, nor moral nor principled. They are vain, self-centred and narcissistic."

It's the same old stuff we've heard a 1000 times before. Amounting to a few badly chosen comments, some obvious exaggerations and some complete lies. What politician would not have such a list? Johnson certainly does.

 

[BobbyManc]

"It was a normal Labour defeat and therefore seen as a victory.... Corbyn brought a worldview alien to the Labour Party. A worldview that belonged on the fringes. With his victory, that worldview became centre stage and all those who lived on the fringes with him found their home centre stage too. The pseudo-Marxists, Bennites, anti-Semites and cultists all thought it was their turn to run Labour. "

You've posted the article as if it says anything insightful, but I've had a read through and can't find anything other than the embittered laments of an MP who lost his seat and has a loose connection with reality. It's the equivalent of a Corbynista article just blaming the media and "Blairites" for its defeat. Minimal insight, half-hearted analysis, plenty of anecdotes but no attempts to grapple with facts, statistics or evidence. I mean, just to highlight one blatant mistruth, which the author must surely be aware of: he suggests Labour voted for the election in 2019 out of hubris - but, the SNP and Lib Dems made the first move by declaring that they backed an election. Thus, the election was going to happen even if Labour whipped all MPs against it. But yes, let's pretend that the Labour leadership arrogantly forced an election because they deluded themselves that they'd win because that ties in with the author's agenda, even if its demonstrably false.

As another example, let's look at the author's own seat.

2010 = 18k votes, 45.1% vote share.
2015 = 18k votes, 47.2% vote share.
2017 = 22k votes, 53.4% vote share.
2019 = 15k votes, 36.3% vote share.

So in his article, essentially 2019 result = bad because of Corbyn, 2017 result = good but in spite of Corbyn. If you want to push that narrative, you're going to need more than rhetoric and bluster. Nothing about how in Sedgefield, UKIP went from winning 1.9% of the vote in 2007 to 16.6% in 2015? Nothing about the wisdom of his own decision to call for a second referendum in a seat where almost 60% voted Leave? But such things can't be blamed on Corbyn, so instead he continues to propagate the intellectually lazy idea that it was almost entirely Corbyn's leadership that plunged Labour to a terrible defeat in 2019; meanwhile, the biggest increase in vote share since Attlee in 1945 can only be apparently explained by a poor Tory campaign?

If anybody wants to actually try and read a good analysis and attempts to explain Labour's electoral performances in recent years, Lewis Goodall's Left for Dead is a good book on the matter. It was published slightly prior to the 2019 election but it did quite presciently predict that seats such as Sedgefield could be lost, and it actually makes an attempt to get to grips with why Labour exceeded expectations in 2017 which does partially credit Corbyn, but also argues why Corbyn could oversee and be partially blamed for such a result as happened in 2019.

 

[ZupZup]

Corbyn DID have questions to answer on his IRA connections, and his ideological support of Sinn Fein when their military wing was murdering people in the 80s.
He DID have questions to answer about his connections to some truly vile middle east terrorists and his claims to be an honest broker.
He DID have questions to answer about how antisemitism took root in his party, given the EHRC is investigating the organisation he led/leads.

Plenty of people have long memories and don't forgive some of this stuff easily.

This isn't all made up by the press to damage him. Plenty of this was him properly being held to account over his past and present positions, given he wanted to be PM.

Has questions to answer? Answers you and the predominantly right wing media don't want anyway. You just want him to be portrayed in the worst light possible because it suits the narrative for your own political views..

 

[Sied]

Look I get that angle. But it's the 'easily twisted baggage' bit that we will simply never get over.

Corbyn could very easily been painted by the media as a peace loving, kind, honourable leader, who has a long history of bringing people together to talk in difficult times. For standing up for those in need. That would have been much more representative of his political career. We all knew that wasn't going to be the case before his name was even mentioned though, right?

I would love a really personable Labour leader to come along, with great charisma AND a genuine record of supporting good causes and shunning those who seek to buy influence, who has never said a thing that can be twisted to hammer home a narrative. Since that isn't going to happen, we have a choice, vote for the politics you like, or for those the media like. You can say that it's better to have the Blair years than more of the tories, to which I would agree to an extent. However, after new Labour, come the tories, not a more left wing government. Because reality says we only have 2 parties and it's their turn next. If Labour spend their term basically doing what the other side does, just with a shade less extremism, then as I said, we are simply continuing the race to the bottom.

If Starmer(or whoever) is not conceived of as being a threat to the status quo, he will not receive the full Corbyn treatment. As soon as he is, he will.

Should a prospective Labour leader hide any lefty intentions to get elected? Be more like Milliband?

You don't seem to be focusing much on Corbyn & Labour's economic standpoint, but as far as I could see, that was the main reason he lost by such a large margin. IMO there isn't the appetite for such left leaning economics and Labour will need to choose their next leader accordingly to stand any chance.

 

[Flying high]

You don't seem to be focusing much on Corbyn & Labour's economic standpoint, but as far as I could see, that was the main reason he lost by such a large margin. IMO there isn't the appetite for such left leaning economics and Labour will need to choose their next leader accordingly to stand any chance.

Well for sure mistakes were made with the 2019 manifesto. Adding more as you go along was a really bad idea. They were clearly desperate at that point.

Overall though, the economics of Corbyn and Mcdonnell were popular enough, as seen by the tories adopting many of them. Had they stuck more closely to the 2017 manifesto it might not have been so bad. But by the time of the election, far too many had simply stopped taking him seriously anyway.

The point you make isn't lost on me though, I have probably spent more time discussing the merits of the attacks on Corbyn, than I have the merits of his investment ideas, for example.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Why are you all redoing the Corbyn thing? Didn't he lose and resign already?

We have to decide who's fault it was that the UK didn't elect him when he clearly won the argument and had all the great policies.

There are two schools of thought, that people didn't like him because he was in fact a useless twat, or the voters are useless twats.

Third way thinking is both are equally true.

 

[sullydnl]

We have to decide who's fault it was that the UK didn't elect him when he clearly won the argument and had all the great policies.

There are two schools of thought, that people didn't like him because he was in fact a useless twat, or the voters are useless twats.

Third way thinking is both are equally true.

The third way sounds like a winner.

 

[Sweet Square]

From the above: "Any criticism of the leadership was the fault of the mainstream media. The print media has always held an anti-Labour bent, but has never stopped the election of Labour governments in the past. The lesson is: if you believe the press is not your natural ally, don’t make it easy for them. If you don’t want the press to write you are a terrorist sympathiser, don’t lay a wreath at the grave of a terrorist. If you don’t want the press to write you are a friend of Hamas or Hezbollah, don’t call them your friends. If you don’t want the press to write you associate with the IRA, don’t associate with the IRA. If you don’t want the press to doubt your patriotism, don’t give Russia the benefit of the doubt over the Salisbury poisonings or take money from Iranian state media. If you want the press to highlight your aversion to antisemitism, don’t share a platform with known anti-Semites and defend antisemitic murals.

"Only Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters can do all these things and think they can get away with them. They believe they are the most morally centred, so stand rigid in their certainty. They believe they are the most principled, so they occupy the highest of ground. The truth is that they are not virtuous, nor moral nor principled. They are vain, self-centred and narcissistic."

Spoiler

 

[esmufc07]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[Ubik]

Spoiler

The vote coming down from a historic landslide isn't particularly surprising, and seats like Bolsover with a leave vote and a pro-leave MP (Skinner, no less) also suffered a huge drop in Labour vote share.

 

[Sweet Square]

The vote coming down from a historic landslide isn't particularly surprising,

But it was a sign of things to come.

The vote coming down from a historic landslide isn't particularly surprising, and seats like Bolsover with a leave vote and a pro-leave MP (Skinner, no less) also suffered a huge drop in Labour vote share.

Doesn't matter what the local MP thinks, sadly. The party as a whole was seen as a remain party(I actually agreed with labour second referendum policy) and it's one of the many reasons why it got fecked during the last election.

I just don't think it should be difficult for former Labour MP's to think Corbyn(And the imaginary left they've built up in their heads)is shit but also that they got a bounce in 2017. It's just so tiresome.

 

[berbatrick]

Spoiler

While the Labour line is all over the place, the Try line from 2007-now is straight up. Quite remarkable for 4 elections by 3 different leaders against 3 different leaders.

 

[berbatrick]

The vote coming down from a historic landslide isn't particularly surprising

Agreed, but there's significant erosion from 2001-5 too..

 

[Sweet Square]

While the Labour line is all over the place, the Try line from 2007-now is straight up. Quite remarkable for 4 elections by 3 different leaders against 3 different leaders.

From a quick google of the demographics of sedge field(https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/northeastengland/county_durham/E34001771__sedgefield/) it's a small town filled with white people over the age of 45. The tories doing well in these places is a longer term pattern which has been accelerated by Brexit, imo.

 

[berbatrick]

From a quick google of the demographics of sedge field(https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/northeastengland/county_durham/E34001771__sedgefield/) it's a small town filled with white people over the age of 45. The tories doing well in these places is a longer term pattern which has been accelerated by Brexit, imo.

There's more people over 60 than under 40

 

[esmufc07]

 

[BobbyManc]

From a quick google of the demographics of sedge field(https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/northeastengland/county_durham/E34001771__sedgefield/) it's a small town filled with white people over the age of 45. The tories doing well in these places is a longer term pattern which has been accelerated by Brexit, imo.

Yep, spot on, but changing demographics can’t be blamed on Cobryn so you’ll rarely hear it mentioned. It’s a big problem for Labour, and why people who see Starmer as the saviour have very little understanding of the problems the party really faces. Nandy was, in my view, the best candidate from an electoral perspective by some distance.

 

[Cascarino]

Yep, spot on, but changing demographics can’t be blamed on Cobryn so you’ll rarely hear it mentioned. It’s a big problem for Labour, and why people who see Starmer as the saviour have very little understanding of the problems the party really faces. Nandy was, in my view, the best candidate from an electoral perspective by some distance.

I’m a little out of the loop atm, whatmakes you say that?

 

[BobbyManc]

I’m a little out of the loop atm, whatmakes you say that?

To put it simply the demographic in a lot of traditional Labour seats has been changing - younger people moving away, leaving greater concentrations of old white people. Culture and education are now bigger determinants of how someone votes than class. So with its traditional base no longer reliable Labour are challengeable in seats like Bolsover - but they can win previously unthinkable Tory seats like Canterbury as in 2017 and 2019.
Nandy seems the most likely to appeal in the ‘Red Wall’ areas that have been atrophying for some years now, purely because she’s the most skilful candidate and the most willing to pander to the views of Labour’s increasingly lost demographic e.g. has spoken of ‘legitimate concerns’ about immigration.

 

[nickm]

Has questions to answer? Answers you and the predominantly right wing media don't want anyway. You just want him to be portrayed in the worst light possible because it suits the narrative for your own political views..

And you wanted him portrayed in the best light possible because it suited the narrative for your own political views, so you ignored the stuff the electorate didn't like. And now we have 5 more years of the Tories to show for it.

 

[nickm]

To put it simply the demographic in a lot of traditional Labour seats has been changing - younger people moving away, leaving greater concentrations of old white people. Culture and education are now bigger determinants of how someone votes than class. So with its traditional base no longer reliable Labour are challengeable in seats like Bolsover - but they can win previously unthinkable Tory seats like Canterbury as in 2017 and 2019.
Nandy seems the most likely to appeal in the ‘Red Wall’ areas that have been atrophying for some years now, purely because she’s the most skilful candidate and the most willing to pander to the views of Labour’s increasingly lost demographic e.g. has spoken of ‘legitimate concerns’ about immigration.

I like Nandy but I think there are important steps that come before that. in Starmer you have someone with the perfect background to hold the government to account and perhaps rebuild labour's reputation for competence and being on the detail. For now, Labour need to get good at opposition.

 

[NinjaFletch]

To put it simply the demographic in a lot of traditional Labour seats has been changing - younger people moving away, leaving greater concentrations of old white people. Culture and education are now bigger determinants of how someone votes than class. So with its traditional base no longer reliable Labour are challengeable in seats like Bolsover - but they can win previously unthinkable Tory seats like Canterbury as in 2017 and 2019.
Nandy seems the most likely to appeal in the ‘Red Wall’ areas that have been atrophying for some years now, purely because she’s the most skilful candidate and the most willing to pander to the views of Labour’s increasingly lost demographic e.g. has spoken of ‘legitimate concerns’ about immigration.

I think the problem is assuming that the 'pandering' to those demographics is compatible with holding on to Labour gains like Canterbury. The problem in 2019 was that Labour haemorrhaged votes compared to 2017 to both pro-EU and pro-Brexit parties because nobody trusted anything the party said on the matter. I think Nandy is a good politician and may have done a better job than Corbyn in playing that difficult balancing act, but I think given what she has said on Brexit she'd have a very hard time convincing Labour voters in areas where the party have made gains that the Labour party have anything to offer them.

That's not to say that Starmer will find that significantly easier, but that Labour are in a difficult position of needing to appeal to quite left wing, pro-EU voters in one part of the country and centre/right of centre Brexit voters in another. Assuming that you can get the second group and keep the first is a very dangerous game.

 

[berbatrick]

@NinjaFletch

Can't be bothered to find the nice graph, but basically Labour lost 10% of its vote to Lib Dems and gained more than half of it back (left/Corbyn defections + swings both ways with tactical voting), the major lost chunk was direct to the Tories with nothing in return.

 

[NinjaFletch]

@NinjaFletch

Can't be bothered to find the nice graph, but basically Labour lost 10% of its vote to Lib Dems and gained more than half of it back (left/Corbyn defections + swings both ways with tactical voting), the major lost chunk was direct to the Tories with nothing in return.

Whilst that may be true their vote share was down around 8% overall amongst Remain voters and 12% among leave. Nobody was convinced they had a strategy.

 

[berbatrick]

I'm not saying there is a clear path forward, but there is some Remain/anti-Tory vote which seems to be transferable, while the new Tory vote will be harder to get back but equally crucial.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I'm not saying there is a clear path forward, but there is some Remain/anti-Tory vote which seems to be transferable, while the new Tory vote will be harder to get back but equally crucial.

Oh I agree, I don't think it's lost to Labour, but I think it's a dangerous game to assume those voters will come back automatically (or those trends away won't continue) if Labour panders entirely to a demographic that want different things to those voters.

They're probably going to be easier to retain than to win back voters who left for different reasons simply because the Lib Dems are too far to the right to be a natural home for a lot of those voters, but it's still a difficult tight rope to walk and I wasn't convinced by Nandy's leadership pitch she was even aware of the issue.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

To put it simply the demographic in a lot of traditional Labour seats has been changing - younger people moving away, leaving greater concentrations of old white people.

I think I spoke about this in the aftermath of the election, but demographics are a big unspoken factor in why my area (County Durham) has gone from Labour stronghold to electoral battleground over the last 2 decades. The area has been haemorrhaging young people for decades, probably half the people I went to school with in Durham have moved away since. On top of that, the last decade or so has seen an explosion of Newcastle commuter belt housing and retirement communities in and around post-industrial areas.

I'm not sure how the party can get round this under FPTP. People on both wings of the party can talk all they want about how to 'win back the heartlands' and blame each other (with some merit on both sides) for losing traditional Labour voters, but the fact is that the heartlands they're talking about don't really exist anymore.