voters for labour without Corbyn?

[jeremyp]

I disagree, we are only half way though the political cycle with a recent change on tory face,

May has been in post for well over a year. How recent is recent?

the precedence being the replacement of Churchill with Eden who was completely shit.

Cameron was no Churchill.

The tories had another eight years to run with two more changes of face.

British politics was very different back then. I don't think parallels will work.

We know we have a stubborn electorate which have been right wing and have not so far as we are in europe still have not had to come face to face with the consequences of their actions and consequently punish the tories.

If the electorate is right wing, then Labour should never be in power.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

May has been in post for well over a year. How recent is recent?

But we are in the middle of a political cycle unless you are saying may's election reset the clock in which case Corbyn is doing exceptionally well

Cameron was no Churchill.

why did lose in 1945 then?

British politics was very different back then. I don't think parallels will work.

and yet you are coming from a world of Blairite landslides and Thatcher's trouncing of Foots or should that be feet?

If the electorate is right wing, then Labour should never be in power.

Electorates change. The electorate of 2017 were obviously not in the same mode as the electorate of 2015.

[jeremyp]

But we are in the middle of a political cycle unless you are saying may's election reset the clock in which case Corbyn is doing exceptionally well

You're just using tradition as an excuse for Corbyn's shortcomings. There's no universal law that says the opposition has to be doing badly a year after a general election.

why did [Churchill] lose in 1945 then?

Well it certainly wasn't because Cameron is like him.

and yet you are coming from a world of Blairite landslides and Thatcher's trouncing of Foots or should that be feet?Electorates change. The electorate of 2017 were obviously not in the same mode as the electorate of 2015.

Clearly not. In 2015, the Tories hadn't yet had a really destructive referendum or nearly imploded because of the result.

[ProfessorDavey]

If there are people that think Corbyn should not be leader....what are they doing about it? Since just getting Corbyn to resign and worrying about the rest after is not a solution.

I suspect they recognise that they need to play the long game, that Corbyn isn't going anywhere soon, and even if he were to his successor would be another Corbynite.

But again there are parallels to the past - the hard left played a very long game from the point when the Blairites took over.

In the current situation I imaging minds will only begin to change once it becomes clear that 'one more push' isn't going to get Corbyn into number 10 and that the outcome of a continued Corbynite leadership will be continued Tory rule.

[ProfessorDavey]

Umunna has not put himself in the position where he could be leader of the opposition.

Given that Brexit is the number one critical issue for the country, that topic is where real opposition is to be found. So actually it is Corbyn who is failing to show leadership in opposition, as he is fudging the whole Brexit issue. In fact perhaps the two most high profile 'leaders' of the opposition (i.e. to Brexit) are Soubry and Umunna.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect they recognise that they need to play the long game, that Corbyn isn't going anywhere soon, and even if he were to his successor would be another Corbynite.

But again there are parallels to the past - the hard left played a very long game from the point when the Blairites took over.

In the current situation I imaging minds will only begin to change once it becomes clear that 'one more push' isn't going to get Corbyn into number 10 and that the outcome of a continued Corbynite leadership will be continued Tory rule.

In which case Brexit or indeed anything has any importance greater than power and entitlement for these people. At least the left could plead that they could have been involved had they not been purged by the right.

In the case of Corbyn the right are of course self purged.

We are therefore back to the problem with the Blairite/Milibandites namely what do they stand for? And as the electorate taught them, why replace on expedient party with another?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Clearly not. In 2015, the Tories hadn't yet had a really destructive referendum

They found it easy to reabsorb the UKIP vote because the electorate knew the tories were the only ones who could effect a referendum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another pair of prats reviving the unassailability of the Tories narrative. When these guys absented themselves..... labour made progress.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/07/labour-mps-revive-campaign-for-progressive-alliance

When the two parties are neck and neck that's somehow a big failure for Labour and the Tories magically become unassailable? We have not returned to those days. Stop partying like it was April 2015.

In fact it looks very like a piece of anti-Corbyn passive aggression which hasn't left much room for the survival of any it's components because the premise undermines the political self esteem necessary to weaken the Tories.

[jeremyp]

Another pair of prats reviving the unassailability of the Tories narrative. When these guys absented themselves..... labour made progress.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/07/labour-mps-revive-campaign-for-progressive-alliance

When the two parties are neck and neck that's somehow a big failure for Labour and the Tories magically become unassailable? We have not returned to those days. Stop partying like it was April 2015.

In fact it looks very like a piece of anti-Corbyn passive aggression which hasn't left much room for the survival of any it's components because the premise undermines the political self esteem necessary to weaken the Tories.

I didn't see anything in that article that supports your commentary on it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't see anything in that article that supports your commentary on it.

Is this Tory Press opportunism/flat misrepresentation and this is an ongoing project or two non Corbyn politicians are a bit jittery and see an opportunity to publicly display a lack of political self esteem which benefits the tories or are these two anti corbynites reviving the myth of Tory unassailability/Labour unelectabilty?

All would be falsed friends since they are aimed at Labours political self esteem as is your hyperbole of unelectability.
Unelectability does not equate to the present analyses of what REAL votes might mean.

Labour unelectability of course will be tested at the Lewisham By election but judgment of that is already loaded since Labour victories are now spun as defeats.

[ProfessorDavey]

Labour unelectability of course will be tested at the Lewisham By election but judgment of that is already loaded since Labour victories are now spun as defeats.

No it won't - the result of the Lewisham East election will tell us nothing useful, given that Labour achieved nearly 68% of the vote just a year ago. This is an absolute rock solid Labour seat and if they win the by-election that is hardly an endorsement of their electability or otherwise. Likely it will be a comfortable Labour win but on a significantly reduced turnout and vote share. Were Labour to lose it (by the way I don't think they will) that really would be news.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it won't - the result of the Lewisham East election will tell us nothing useful, given that Labour achieved nearly 68% of the vote just a year ago. This is an absolute rock solid Labour seat and if they win the by-election that is hardly an endorsement of their electability or otherwise. Likely it will be a comfortable Labour win but on a significantly reduced turnout and vote share. Were Labour to lose it (by the way I don't think they will) that really would be news.

I think you have contradicted yourself in your last sentence.

[ProfessorDavey]

All would be falsed friends since they are aimed at Labours political self esteem as is your hyperbole of unelectability.
Unelectability does not equate to the present analyses of what REAL votes might mean.

Corbyn failed to win the general election last year and I cannot see anything that suggests he is on course to win a future general election.

The projected national vote share from last week's locals suggest that the Tories and Labour are neck and neck at 35% each. However typically opposition parties are way ahead of the government on this measure, and even then still often fail to win a general election. So for Corbyn to be on track to win a general election he should be miles ahead in both opinion polls and in the the real votes in local elections projected as national share.

In fact when you look at projected national vote share for a Labour leader in opposition Corbyn comes rock bottom of the last 7 Labour leaders in this position (Corbyn, Miliband, Blair, Smith, Kinnock, Foot and Callaghan).

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/05/08/how-corbyns-lab-compares-with-predecessors-on-local-election-performance/

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you have contradicted yourself in your last sentence.

Perhaps, but I don't think it will happen so the notion that Labour wins in Lewisham will tell us nothing about electability in a general election sense.

[jeremyp]

Is this Tory Press opportunism/flat misrepresentation and this is an ongoing project or two non Corbyn politicians are a bit jittery and see an opportunity to publicly display a lack of political self esteem which benefits the tories or are these two anti corbynites reviving the myth of Tory unassailability/Labour unelectabilty?

I saw an article about two Labour members who want an alliance with other anti-Tory parties to make it easier to defeat the Tories. I didn't see anything in it that suggests these two people are concerned that Labour can't win with Corbyn.

All would be falsed friends since they are aimed at Labours political self esteem as is your hyperbole of unelectability.
Unelectability does not equate to the present analyses of what REAL votes might mean.

I've never claimed Labour are unelectable, let alone in a hyperbolic way. My entire thesis is that, given the current government track record, they should be running away with everything but they are not. I place the blame for why they are not at the door of Jeremy Corbyn who is a terrible leader.

Labour unelectability of course will be tested at the Lewisham By election but judgment of that is already loaded since Labour victories are now spun as defeats.

Not really for all the reasons given above by PD.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Corbyn failed to win the general election last year and I cannot see anything that suggests he is on course to win a future general election.

And I see nothing else to say that it can be anything less than a hung parliament with labour becoming the Government. As in 1974.
I see no Tory landslide.

Threats are of course a Blairite/Miliband resurgence which concentrate on Labour's responsibility for austerity, Labours unelectability, labours failure to prevent Brexit and other Myths.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I see nothing else to say that it can be anything less than a hung parliament with labour in Government.

On what basis - certainly not on the projected vote share derived from last week's local elections, which suggest a hung parliament with the Tories as the largest party again.

It is worth noting that the projected national vote share change from 2014 (when these seats were contested last) indicates Labour up 4% and the Tories up 6% - effectively the Tories improving more than Labour. A year after the 2014 local elections the Tories won an overall majority.

So I've no idea where you are getting this notion that the current situation suggests Labour as largest party in the next general election - it doesn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On what basis - certainly not on the projected vote share derived from last week's local elections, which suggest a hung parliament with the Tories as the largest
party again.

It is worth noting that the projected national vote share change from 2014 (when these seats were contested last) indicates Labour up 4% and the Tories up 6% - effectively the Tories improving more than Labour. A year after the 2014 local elections the Tories won an overall majority.

Sources please.
You can be the largest party and lose
I think it depends on whether May or the Tories could maintain the exact status quo. Unlikely given Lib Dem and SNP resurgence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sources please.

Projected National vote share and changes from previous:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/992394782243786752

Plug into Electoral calculus (or one of the other election predictors)

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/

You can be the largest party and lose

Indeed you can, but that applies just as much to the Tories as to Labour.

I think it depends on whether May or the Tories could maintain the exact status quo. Unlikely given Lib Dem and SNP resurgence.

History tells us that Governments tend to poll very badly mid term and in local elections, yet tend to bounce back in a general election - which is why an opposition needs to be way ahead in the polls to feel comfortable about winning a general election.

What makes you think that a resurgent LibDem or SNP will affect the Tories more than Labour - I'd have thought that the opposite would be true with the Tories benefiting from LibDems/SNP taking Labour votes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed you can, but that applies just as much to the Tories as to Labour.
History tells us that Governments tend to poll very badly mid term and in local elections, yet tend to bounce back in a general election - which is why an opposition needs to be way ahead in the polls to feel comfortable about winning a general election.

What makes you think that a resurgent LibDem or SNP will affect the Tories more than Labour - I'd have thought that the opposite would be true with the Tories benefiting from LibDems/SNP taking Labour votes.

Thanks for the sources.
BBC projection puts labour at 283 seats Tories on 280 seats. Can you see everyone pitching in with the Tories?

I guess you are ignoring the Local election/general election 2017 as a blip or outlier in the electoral pattern. And I am saying that 2017 teaches us that historical phenomena are not that scientific.

On your suggestion that SNP and Lib Dems are only resurgent by taking votes of labour. That is just plain wrong but consistent with your treatment of history.

Electoral calculus seems to have the tories 18 seats short of a majority. How long would that Minority Govt last I wonder?

[ProfessorDavey]

I guess you are ignoring the Local election/general election 2017 as a blip or outlier in the electoral pattern. And I am saying that 2017 teaches us that historical phenomena are not that scientific.

In what way did the 2017 local election results suggest anything other than that Labour would not win the upcoming general election?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way did the 2017 local election results suggest anything other than that Labour would not win the upcoming general election?

I think it rather predicted the complete rout of Labour to the point of not even getting near to power until 2030.If indeed it survived.

So much for electoral "science".

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it rather predicted the complete rout of Labour to the point of not even getting near to power until 2030.If indeed it survived.

So much for electoral "science".

It predicted that Labour would lose, which they subsequently did.

That May ran the worst campaign in living memory and Corbyn campaigned beyond expectation and the Tories still won (albeit failed to get an overall majority) tells you all you need to know about how far from winning a general election Corbyn was then, and still is now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It predicted that Labour would lose, which they subsequently did.

That May ran the worst campaign in living memory and Corbyn campaigned beyond expectation and the Tories still won (albeit failed to get an overall majority) tells you all you need to know about how far from winning a general election Corbyn was then, and still is now.

As I say in 2017 a rout of Labour was predicted which didn't come about. Although there is a case to say you are projecting with hindsight onto something which is inherently more neutral

Since you are flip flopping between a supposed electoral ''science''(Disserving science, Prof?) and opinion based either on a lack of political self esteem or rampant Toby Young-ism, I suppose I shall have to leave you in your reverie that these Elections predict the return of Theresa May into majority Government or Boris majority Government or any Tory government.

I can't think of any reason why that should be and plenty of reasons why it won't be. Two of which are scrolling in a previous post.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I say in 2017 a rout of Labour was predicted which didn't come about. Although there is a case to say you are projecting with hindsight onto something which is inherently more neutral

So Labour lost 1-0 rather than 5-0 - so what - they still lost. The local election results indicated they would lose the election and as predicted they duly lost it.