[Offwidth]

I wouldn't underestimate how toxic it is to some people here. Particularly those who lived through the cold war observing Stalinism unfold in the East. It seems ridiculous, but I once mentioned the Labour party in front of my grandmother (a quiet, very kind, small-c-and-large-C-conservative woman) and she actually gasped and whispered in horror "the socialists". Funny and sad at the same time.

I find this really interesting, as its definitely a reasonably widely held view among that generation. The thing is, aren't we indulging it with a silly amount of respect by even talking about it? Its a clearly ridiculous point of view to hold (not having a go at your grandparents as mine would be very similar!). On a par with saying 'Johnson is a Nazi' etc etc.

I think its anecdotal and largely irrelevant. Despite the cold war socialism did pretty well in the UK. For eveyone with that attitude there will be old people out there who still hate Maggie.

[tomtom]

I think new labour did a pretty good job of detoxifying socialism from the 70-80’s.

It seems that Momentum is reversing that to the older generation in part.

[Offwidth]

It's all very well castigating progressive voters who didn't tactically vote the way you wanted them to, but as you say even if the seats you identify had voted tactically, we'd still have a Conservative government.

Maybe we should have an electoral system where a majority voting for progressive parties doesn't deliver a huge Conservative majority? Maybe one where a vote cast in Na h-Eileanan an Iar isn't worth 5x as much as a vote cast in Bristol West? Maybe one where the value of your vote isn't diminished by living in a politically engaged area - a vote cast in Kingston upon Hull East where turnout was 49.3% is worth over twice as much as one cast in Richmond Park where turnout was 78.7%. Perhaps one where Conservative voters aren't represented 22x more than Green voters?

So continue castigating voters for not voting tactically if you want, or maybe consider that it's fucking astonishing that anyone actually engages with such a farce.

That's not quite true about my views. Firstly, I most likely expected with more sensible tactical voting  the government would have been tory anyhow, but it was still possible on the numbers for a hung parliament without looking for silly distributions. Secondly, my main castigation of some progressives is those blaming northern working class tory voters and insulting them. On the failure of progressive tactical voting I'm just deeply sad and I really hope I'm wrong about how bad Boris will turn out to be (as otherwise a lot of people will get hurt).

Its a fact that most progressives have simply not embraced tactical voting and yet that's (in my view) the only likely way that the electoral system can be reformed in the next decade... you can be sure the tories won't do it.  In the next election boundary changes give the tories a bonus of about an extra 20 majority on their current majority on a smaller number of seats (down to 600)

I think UK electoral reform is vital for maintaining trust in our democratic system,  so if the current FPTP system is fucked why be a lemming and vote for the most preferred candidate in a marginal? ... the Brexit party voters understood this and mostly voted tory in nearly all the marginal seats.

I'm also gutted for the likes of Ruth in High Peak and Vernon in Gedling, good moderate Labour MPs who did good stuff and who should have been a shoe-in with a moderate level of tactical voting.

[tomtom]

In defence of offwidth - I thought his post was really highlighting how close it was in many seats - and how choices to tactically vote or not made a real difference. To the positive and negative.

[Oldmanmatt]

I wouldn't underestimate how toxic it is to some people here. Particularly those who lived through the cold war observing Stalinism unfold in the East. It seems ridiculous, but I once mentioned the Labour party in front of my grandmother (a quiet, very kind, small-c-and-large-C-conservative woman) and she actually gasped and whispered in horror "the socialists". Funny and sad at the same time.

I find this really interesting, as its definitely a reasonably widely held view among that generation. The thing is, aren't we indulging it with a silly amount of respect by even talking about it? Its a clearly ridiculous point of view to hold (not having a go at your grandparents as mine would be very similar!). On a par with saying 'Johnson is a Nazi' etc etc.

I think its anecdotal and largely irrelevant. Despite the cold war socialism did pretty well in the UK. For eveyone with that attitude there will be old people out there who still hate Maggie.

Aaarrggh!

The Labour party just lost, again, after 10 years in opposition to the most bizarrely inept, scandal prone and divided Government of the post war era, because of exactly that “anecdotal” and “irrelevant” attitude.

If anything, the Labour party is and has been “irrelevant” to everything that has happened for the past decade (including failing to reach a discernible position on the most important issue since the last World War) and they look to be about to crush themselves even further into the margins.

The Labour party does not represent the people of Britain. Until it does, it will languish.
Pretty sure, I’ve mentioned before, one of the biggest problems with Labour and it’s activists, is the constant patronising of the public and berating of anyone not a Tory diehard, for not being lefty enough.

We are in this position because Labour were not a fit opposition, not because people didn’t vote “correctly”.

[Offwidth]

Some more seats that could have gone differently with varying degrees of progressive tactical voting on the actual numbers, starting from from the worst example: Ynys Mon, to the unlikely but numerically possible with a margin.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ynys_Môn_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watford_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_London_and_Westminster_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finchley_and_Golders_Green_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipping_Barnet_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Cambridgeshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgend_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southport_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheadle_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truro_and_Falmouth_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clwyd_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycombe_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_West_Durham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewsbury_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheltenham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chingford_and_Woodford_Green_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Northfield_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchin_and_Harpenden_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrexham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Grove_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendon_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Electoral Calculus provide a data file for those who want to play with the numbers.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/electdata_2019.txt

[Will Hunt]

I wouldn't underestimate how toxic it is to some people here. Particularly those who lived through the cold war observing Stalinism unfold in the East. It seems ridiculous, but I once mentioned the Labour party in front of my grandmother (a quiet, very kind, small-c-and-large-C-conservative woman) and she actually gasped and whispered in horror "the socialists". Funny and sad at the same time.

I find this really interesting, as its definitely a reasonably widely held view among that generation. The thing is, aren't we indulging it with a silly amount of respect by even talking about it? Its a clearly ridiculous point of view to hold (not having a go at your grandparents as mine would be very similar!). On a par with saying 'Johnson is a Nazi' etc etc.

That may very well be, but not talking about it doesn't stop people thinking it!

I think new labour did a pretty good job of detoxifying socialism from the 70-80’s.

It seems that Momentum is reversing that to the older generation in part.

I'd be willing to stake a decent sum that no Momentum activist and only a small percentage of the population at large would recognise Blair's Labour as a socialist government.

In fact, I think I was only dimly aware of the word until Miliband took office.

Sorry, I don't really have a bit point to make here other than that Labour's problem is more about the presentation of its policies and how it chooses to label them, than it is about the policies themselves (notwithstanding that the 2019 manifesto was a step too far for most). I think we probably agree on that.

More grist for the mill. The bloke who cuts my hair despises Tony Blair more than literally anyone else in Western politics and doesn't believe Corbyn to be a socialist. He happily stated that he would prefer a Johnson government to a Blair government 

[Offwidth]

I think its anecdotal and largely irrelevant. Despite the cold war socialism did pretty well in the UK. For eveyone with that attitude there will be old people out there who still hate Maggie.

Aaarrggh!

The Labour party just lost, again, after 10 years in opposition to the most bizarrely inept, scandal prone and divided Government of the post war era, because of exactly that “anecdotal” and “irrelevant” attitude.

If anything, the Labour party is and has been “irrelevant” to everything that has happened for the past decade (including failing to reach a discernible position on the most important issue since the last World War) and they look to be about to crush themselves even further into the margins.

The Labour party does not represent the people of Britain. Until it does, it will languish.
Pretty sure, I’ve mentioned before, one of the biggest problems with Labour and it’s activists, is the constant patronising of the public and berating of anyone not a Tory diehard, for not being lefty enough.

We are in this position because Labour were not a fit opposition, not because people didn’t vote “correctly”.

Up front you are deliberately equating two factors unfairly: the attitudes of the old to all socialism and the specific attitude to the form demonstrated (but not implemented)  under Corbyn. That attitude was Corbyn's fault not socialism's fault. Post war socialism gave us the national health service and many other good things, despite being under the financial national cosh (as the americans felt we were following a dangerous ideology). In particular I see no such problem with the attitudes of the old towards the soft Socialsm as practiced under Blair.

I'm happy with how anyone votes, that's democracy, but if ..... some progressives bang on about how they want the end of FPTP and vote in a way that maximises the chances of it staying; and some blame the result mainly on the northern working classes voting tory...... I will call them out. Its not just progressives ...plenty of traditional tory wets can see the danger of Boris as well and all those who 'knew' about the risk but didn't vote tactically may now live to regret being wound up about Corbyn (who was never going to gain the power to achieve his muddled and overcomplicated  plans). As the non progressive total was just under 47% the progressive majority was over 6% but because those people chose not to vote tactically Boris got his huge majority.

I would agree that the Labour leader and most of the shadow cabinet were not a fit opposition but most of the Labour MPs most certainly would have been with a better leader. Why blame the Labour moderates for Corbyn... they did their best to remove him.

[petejh]

You still seem unwilling to accept the simple concept that Labour in its current guise were, in the opinion of the UK public, unelectable.

'People bang on about FPTP but vote in a way that maximises the chance of it staying'. Because the issue of not having FPTP was deemed less bad than the prospect of electing Labour in its current guise.

'Plenty of traditional tory wets can see the danger of Boris as well and all those who knew about the risk but didn't vote tactically': Because the issue of 'the Danger of Boris' was deemed less bad than the prospect of electing Labour in its current guise.

That is how shit-awful public opinion was of Labour/Corbyn. Labour were too awful to win, despite everything.

The Conservative party lost 4% of those of voted for them in 2017, but a significant number of them didn't switch to Labour.
Labour lost 8% of those who voted for them in 2017, and a significant number of them switched to the Conservatives.

You could reflect on that, accept it and move on and stop dreaming of alternatives that didn't happen.

[Oldmanmatt]

Honestly Offwidth, you are way off base.
That sentiment was echoed by people from “decrepit” to “Forty-something-and-working-class”.

I know it’s hard and you believe what you are saying.
But...

Again...

Labour did not represent me or most people I know.
They did not represent or appeal to a majority of the population.
They still don’t.

Who’s fault is Corbyn then?
You say it wasn’t Labour/Socialism who lost, but Corbyn?

If this is the case, the situation is even worse. You’re saying the Labour party is controlled by Demi-gouges and their ideology at the expense of representing either it’s members or the voting population at large (which is pretty much what everyone else has been saying for years (did someone mention Len M?)).

I get it.

You are a thoughtful person with a strong moral compass and kind soul.
None of that description applies to the Labour party of the last decade. 

[Will Hunt]

I'm just frustrated that Steve keeps coming back to this issue like it's the single biggest issue, or like it's the principle reason that we are where we are. There was plenty of tactical voting going on, and perhaps if there was less so then the result would have been even worse. You are never going to achieve 100% tactical voting. Why not ask why the Labour party chose such a doomed path? Why not ask why they didn't agree to progressive alliances with the Greens and the LDs?

Consider also that it is not only the left who vote tactically. Some of the people interviewed in this article had wanted to vote for the Brexit Party, but they chose to vote Conservative in order to be on the safe side - they could not tolerate Corbyn in power.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/15/blair-old-seat-sedgefield-rejected-corbyn-perceived-unpatriotic

In short, the train has crashed and you are blaming the passengers when it's patently obvious that the driver carries the bulk of the responsibility.

[tommytwotone]

I don't think any of this is beyond doubt statistically - but isn't the point that Labour are meant to find a leader / policy / values combination so popular that they don't need to rely on tactical voting to prevail?

[Oldmanmatt]

I think Will makes the right point.
The Elephant in the room is the division amongst all those not Tory (the Brexit Party I’m classing as a temporary aberration, a small scale schism for the duration, already defunct). There are marginal, rightwing, extreme, parties, but they are insignificant.

Labour lurched out to a point where it failed.
It left all of the centre left homeless.

[Offwidth]

I don't think any of this is beyond doubt statistically - but isn't the point that Labour are meant to find a leader / policy / values combination so popular that they don't need to rely on tactical voting to prevail?

If I was being satirical I might postulate that 'small c' conservative working class Labour voters should know their place  so that progressives could vote how they really wanted without letting the tories in.

The hung Parliament was clearly possible given the progressive vote numbers and their distribution. With that we missed we missed maybe the best chance ever for a change in UK voting systems, as it seemed to me to be very likely part of any deal.

UKB is the most progressive 'bubble' I'm involved with (even more so than academia) and even here the obsession with Corbyn negativity almost matches that of Boris negativity: when looked at as a risk-consequemce perspective this was dumb anywhere. There was almost no risk of Corbyn getting his own way but the combination was always huge for Boris.

[tomtom]

But people generally vote for someone to win - rather than because they are less bad than the other person and if they win the election they would never be pm...

Labour need to get back and listen to Blair’s point that is as important now as it was in 1995:

In order to affect change they have to be in power. To get into power they have to win the centre.

I now know no-one who supports Corbyn - even corbynista cousins now see him as a busted flush. I fear that any candidate with Momentum’s approval will basically be tarred as continuity Corbyn.

[Offwidth]

I know people do that. It was foolish for those progressives in marginals when faced with an increased chance of a Boris government as a consequence and a reduced opportunity of electoral reform as a loss, but forgivable. What's not so forgivable is those progressives who did that and then given the result, blamed others for the same action and insulted their intelligence for doing it.

Boris' s 'one nation' government announced today (whilst distracting the population with big ben bong bollocks) that there would not be regulatory alignment in brexit, so we are back again to a high economic risk of no deal in December, more delays, or at best a small chance of a hard brexit, and they say as a bonus they are going to double economic growth. This also removes the fetters of EU regulation for fairness to voters, enviromental and climate protections etc. They already plan judical reform to allow more leeway for UK politicians to do bad shit and the removal of A&E targets (one area they are vulnerable)...

Shark's optimism upthread talked about moderation from Boris to aid his electoral chances next time. What I suspect Boris is signalling, with the latest noises about hard brexit, is that he will take the easier route of chasing popularism, and in the background fix the game ... the question then becomes how far towards Hungary or Poland is he prepared to go.

Because of the size of the majority, the boundary changes (that are expected to gift Boris a 20 seat bonus on a 10% smaller Parliament) and the split progressive vote seemingly not going away any time soon (as tactical voting is clearly too unpalatable for the refined tastes of too many), the Labour leadership is almost certainly a sideshow, as getting to a majority position by next time would seem very unlikely and we are back to a hung Parliament at best and deals between progressive parties. Blair didn't win his majority on his own, the tories imploded as well, and there was no SNP dominance of Scotland. We will have to hope by the time progressives have their next chance to elect a government which will act on their behalf that the dice haven't been loaded against them in advanced.

[TobyD]

Blair didn't win his majority on his own, the tories imploded as well, and there was no SNP dominance of Scotland. We will have to hope by the time progressives have their next chance to elect a government which will act on their behalf that the dice haven't been loaded against them in advanced.

Actually Blair did win on his own. The conservatives were in a poor state, but possibly not as bad as 2017, and Corbyn couldn't win then.
Labour could just really sort out a good argument for how to run the country better, stop banging on about radical change and socialism and make themselves credible for a start. As others have said, most people aren't interested in radical change or socialism, and would like to have good schools and hospitals, job opportunities, the roads mended, and a quiet life.
If RBL keeps banging on about socialism and wins, they're screwed whatever voting system you use.

[mrjonathanr]

What he said ^^

RLB is just a continuation of project Corbyn, albeit a bit less overt on the Jew-hating thing. And what tomtom said.

Abolishing the Lords and creating an elected senate has a lot to recommend it. Unless you want to regain the trust of the electorate of course, in which case directing energies into appearing calm, competent and credible might be the better strategy.

If virtue-signalling to the left is more your thing than gaining real power, then of course, it’s just the ticket.

[mrjonathanr]

Interesting article about Blair/Thatcherism. Begs the question what the political centre is; ie what values does that look like in practice?

[Offwidth]

Blair didn't win his majority on his own, the tories imploded as well, and there was no SNP dominance of Scotland. We will have to hope by the time progressives have their next chance to elect a government which will act on their behalf that the dice haven't been loaded against them in advanced.

Actually Blair did win on his own. The conservatives were in a poor state, but possibly not as bad as 2017, and Corbyn couldn't win then.
Labour could just really sort out a good argument for how to run the country better, stop banging on about radical change and socialism and make themselves credible for a start. As others have said, most people aren't interested in radical change or socialism, and would like to have good schools and hospitals, job opportunities, the roads mended, and a quiet life.
If RBL keeps banging on about socialism and wins, they're screwed whatever voting system you use.

I really think you are massively oversimplifying matters. As I said: there was no big majority for the SNP; despite numerous problems (you really are clueless comparing Major's travails with the self inflicted idiocy of May)  the tories had closed a huge gap to just above 10% on the pre-vote polls (new Labour new danger anyone???), with only the Scum from the tory press backing Blair; plus the referendum party (Brexit version -1) took 2.6% of the vote in the election.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

We watched the election results with our academic Labour party member next door neighbours, all of us political spods,  and until the exit poll played out we didn't expect such a large majority so I don't see how you did..... we were all mightily pleased with the result, finally delivering on where Labour had moved to (albeit it became new Labour under Kinnock and cemented it under Smith). I was also personally pleased to see the Lib Dems do fantastically well in that election, as a natural social liberal.

Socialism simply wasn't denied under the early New Labour government, it was just modified, in a broad party (not so dissimilar to the  PLP when Corbyn became leader... hence the problems he had with them). 

I do agree RLB looks likely to continue the disastrous and deluded performance of Labour; but history indicates it's the leader after the one who is currently elected who will be important in winning any subsequent majority (if Labour ever achieve that again). However, demographics still indicate the majority proportion of UK progressive voters is likely to increase slowly in the next decade. So, outside Scotland most will remain frustrated for a while under FPTP, especially given boundary changes. To change FPTP we probably need a hung parliament with a progressive minority goverment,  or Labour to move back to the centre and change their views on reform, or a party in the centre to take over from Labour in England and Wales (not likely in several elections).

[mrjonathanr]

Sorry, article  here
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/18/blair-thatcher-legacy-labour-zarah-sultana

[Offwidth]

Phil McDuff is far too Corbyn friendly to entirely trust as an opinion writer in my view.

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/phil-mcduff

New Labour did loads to improve things after two decades of tory governments (link below). Plus in the same vein you could just as easily argue the tories in the 50's built on Labour's post war socialist legacy of the NHS etc.

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-inequality-1997-2010/......  assessing the Blair institute claims on Twitter

https://mobile.twitter.com/InstituteGC/status/1139525097880981504

[mrjonathanr]

Phil McDuff is far too Corbyn friendly to entirely trust as an opinion writer in my view.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/phil-mcduff

It's not the objectivity/accuracy of the argument I'm looking at. '40 years of Thatcherism' is silly, but the question is valid, what should centre-left policies look like?

[tomtom]

This will sound trite - but it’s not meant to be. It depends on where the centre ground is...

[TobyD]

I really think you are massively oversimplifying matters. As I said: there was no big majority for the SNP; despite numerous problems (you really are clueless comparing Major's travails with the self inflicted idiocy of May) 

I think this is a bit unreasonable, I wasn't saying they were equivalent, if Major was having a 5/10 bad time with the eurosceptic contingent, May was having a 11/10 bad time. She has made a lot of poor decisions in her political life, but wasn't all bad, and I think that calling people idiots is the sort of political comment that the country doesn't need. I agree with you that fptp is a terrible system, but it's what we've got for the foreseeable future, and that the ability and flexibility of a Labour leader to work with other parties is likely to be more important than any notion of ideological purity.