Is Labour finished?

[Oldjohnw]

Despite an increased share of he vote, and despite the fact that most people did not vote for a Tory Government, Labour were devastated parliamentary-wise at the recent GE.

Without proportional representation - which the current majority Tory government will never agree to - the various opposition parties are pretty well stuck. Not just in terms of forming a Government but even a decent opposition, which is essential in a democracy.

Labour probably missed a trick by refusing to work with others. But, I wonder, is Labour finished unless it learns to (a) rid itself of the dead hand of the unions and (b) be prepared to yield a little ground?

So far it isn't looking good.

[pwa]

I expect the Tories to move a little to the left (yes, really) and attempt to occupy the centre ground over the next few years, so yes, I do fear that Labour will be in the wilderness for another decade. The Tories are putting the over-25 Living Wage up by about 6% in April. I see that as a statement of intent for keeping working class support. But I think the Labour membership are too idealogically driven to look up and see what is happening around them. They are creating a vacuum in the centre.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
What e said^
Both in fact

[bovlomov]

I expect the Tories to move a little to the left (yes, really) and attempt to occupy the centre ground over the next few years, so yes, I do fear that Labour will be in the wilderness for another decade. The Tories are putting the over-25 Living Wage up by about 6% in April. I see that as a statement of intent for keeping working class support. But I think the Labour membership are too idealogically driven to look up and see what is happening around them. They are creating a vacuum in the centre.

I'm not sure this stand-alone tactic should be described as a move to the left. Without movement in other areas, it isn't part of any plan for redistribution. It's wealth and property inequality that is the problem, not income. That will continue to increase, unless the government has a strategy to tackle it. Government throwing money in various directions in response to crises - it's not a plan.

[pwa]

I expect the Tories to move a little to the left (yes, really) and attempt to occupy the centre ground over the next few years, so yes, I do fear that Labour will be in the wilderness for another decade. The Tories are putting the over-25 Living Wage up by about 6% in April. I see that as a statement of intent for keeping working class support. But I think the Labour membership are too idealogically driven to look up and see what is happening around them. They are creating a vacuum in the centre.

I'm not sure this stand-alone tactic should be described as a move to the left. Without movement in other areas, it isn't part of any plan for redistribution. It's wealth and property inequality that is the problem, not income. That will continue to increase, unless the government has a strategy to tackle it. Government throwing money in various directions in response to crises - it's not a plan.

The Living Wage move is not much on its own but I think it may signal a desire to appeal to folk who would previously have voted Labour, and if Labour are not concerned by that, they should be. I think the Tories are eyeing up the centre ground that keeps parties in power for a decade or more when they win it. Labour show no signs of wanting that centre ground. Which leaves them feeling virtuous and pure and, of course, sidelined.

[Cyril Haearn]

No

The equivalent party in Germany (SPD) is doing even worse, had six leaders in three years (been in bed with the tories (CDU/CSU) for years)

[mercalia]

well one thought. The membership of the labour party has been increased by the young. Maybe the torys will have brief support from the uneducated, old ex labour supporters, but they will die out to be replaced by the more idealistic young who want social justice and a better Britain- not likely to get that from the torys?

[bovlomov]

The Living Wage move is not much on its own but I think it may signal a desire to appeal to folk who would previously have voted Labour, and if Labour are not concerned by that, they should be. I think the Tories are eyeing up the centre ground that keeps parties in power for a decade or more when they win it. Labour show no signs of wanting that centre ground. Which leaves them feel virtuous and pure and, of course, sidelined.

If Johnson is keeping a close eye on Hungary - and it seems he is - he'll know that slogans, xenophobia and fear-mongering are more powerful that first-hand experience. A few gimmicks (such as this latest one) don't have to be effective, as long as they can be trumpeted at every opportunity by a complicit media. By those same methods, Orban has kept enough of the population on board, even though most are materially poorer.

[Oldjohnw]

I'm not sure the Tories actually want to move to the centre ground. They don't like working class people and many or even most of the leaders have made clear how much they despise them. Politically, offering a significant rise in the minimum wage is sensible and welcome, although we all know that for 20 years they have told us that a minimum wage is unaffordable and anti business.

[pwa]

The Living Wage move is not much on its own but I think it may signal a desire to appeal to folk who would previously have voted Labour, and if Labour are not concerned by that, they should be. I think the Tories are eyeing up the centre ground that keeps parties in power for a decade or more when they win it. Labour show no signs of wanting that centre ground. Which leaves them feel virtuous and pure and, of course, sidelined.

If Johnson is keeping a close eye on Hungary - and it seems he is - he'll know that slogans, xenophobia and fear-mongering are more powerful that first-hand experience. A few gimmicks (such as this latest one) don't have to be effective, as long as they can be trumpeted at every opportunity by a complicit media. By those same methods, Orban has kept enough of the population on board, even though most are materially poorer.

You may not be relying on the Living Wage, but I'm sure if you were you would regard an increase of 4x the rate of inflation as more than a "gimmick". It is not enough, but it it not nothing. And it is aimed at former Labour voters.

[bovlomov]

The Living Wage move is not much on its own but I think it may signal a desire to appeal to folk who would previously have voted Labour, and if Labour are not concerned by that, they should be. I think the Tories are eyeing up the centre ground that keeps parties in power for a decade or more when they win it. Labour show no signs of wanting that centre ground. Which leaves them feel virtuous and pure and, of course, sidelined.

If Johnson is keeping a close eye on Hungary - and it seems he is - he'll know that slogans, xenophobia and fear-mongering are more powerful that first-hand experience. A few gimmicks (such as this latest one) don't have to be effective, as long as they can be trumpeted at every opportunity by a complicit media. By those same methods, Orban has kept enough of the population on board, even though most are materially poorer.

You may not be relying on the Living Wage, but I'm sure if you were you would regard an increase of 4x the rate of inflation as more than a "gimmick". It is not enough, but it it not nothing. And it is aimed at former Labour voters.

On it's own it could be less than nothing. Housing policies, benefit policies, reduced public services, failing health services... these could all be taking a lot more away than is being given.

We haven't seen anything resembling a costed strategy from Johnson. Until we do, I think we can call anything he does a gimmick.

Believe it or not, my view of politics isn't primarily governed by how it immediately affects me.

[Carlton green]

Hi,
What e said^
Both in fact

Plus one (to what's the third post in the thread).

I’m also inclined to think that if Labour had both reached out more to other parties over the last decade and been less ideologically driven then it would be in coalition or even power now. The Labour Party, and particularly the Momentum elements within it, have been the Architects of their Parliamentary decline - self inflicted injury and IMHO a massive disservice to the country.

[mercalia]

Here is an example of character assassination ( Roger Scruton) thtat very much describes what goes on these days in the media and is partly responsible for what happened to Corbyn?



https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/the-scruton-tapes-an-anatomy-of-a-modern-hit-job/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEEK%20%2020191231%20%20Best%20of%202019%20%20RM&utm_content=WEEK%20%2020191231%20%20Best%20of%202019%20%20RM+CID_d011434605dcd5d37acaa28f9ce82ead&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Production&utm_term=The%20Scruton%20tapes%20an%20anatomy%20of%20a%20modern%20hit%20job

[PH]

Labour probably missed a trick by refusing to work with others.

Lets not re-write history so soon. The best chance of avoiding a Tory or no deal Brexit was to have had a no confidence motion in the last parliament and for the Labour Party with the support of the LibDems and the SNP to have formed a Government. This was scuppered by the LibDems refusing to do anything that would have seen Corbyn in No 10. Something they continuously repeated throughout the Election campaign. The refusal was from them, they had the arrogance to suggest they, rather than the Labour Party membership should choose the Labour leader.

But, I wonder, is Labour finished unless it learns to (a) rid itself of the dead hand of the unions

It's the unions party, it was founded by the them and is funded by them, any separation will have to be mutual.

As for the rest, I don't know. I doubt it's finished, but it's certainly broken. Since Corbyn became leader, probably even before that, from the moment it was obvious New Labour was over, I've been saying the next Labour Government would have to be in coalition with the SNP, I still believe that. So what happens in Scotland over the next few years is critical. But before labour rebuilds itself it will no doubt tear itself apart. If it comes back as Newer New Labour, it may well have a chance of forming a Government in the election after next, but it won't be something I'd want to be a part of. If it manages to hang on to what I consider the real Labour core values, it'll need to either win in Scotland or have the support of the SNP, I don't believe such a party could govern without Scotland.
What it needs to do now is find a way to offer credible opposition. I think amongst the disastrous results, just how effective it's been at setting the agenda has been lost, austerity has gone, the Tories had to make lots of NHS commitments (Though we'll see if they keep any) I think pwa is right and the Tories will have to work at keeping working class support, though it'll need an effective opposition to point out where they quietly take back more than they've loudly given.
Long term future - if the LidDems stop shooting themselves in the foot and admit their past errors I think we'd benefit from a three party democracy.

[pwa]

Believe it or not, my view of politics isn't primarily governed by how it immediately affects me.

I understand that, but do you accept that Labour cannot simply put forward a vision that appeals to the Labour membership and hope that it also appeals to the voters? Labour has to work out a nicer alternative to the current state of affairs, but one that appeals to people who have recently voted Tory. I don't think enough of the membership have twigged to that. It isn't what the membership wants that counts, it is what they can sell to the voters they need on their side, many of whom are well to the right of the Labour membership.