The Batley & Spen by-election

[nlogax]

Conservative chair and MP Amanda Milling on LBC this morning claiming that Labour didn't really win. She doesn't seem to understand - or didn't want to acknowledge - that a hold is still a win. The spin was so desperate as to be visible from orbit.

 

[AntoniC]

Conservative chair and MP Amanda Milling on LBC this morning claiming that Labour didn't really win. She doesn't seem to understand - or didn't want to acknowledge - that a hold is still a win. The spin was so desperate as to be visible from orbit.

That`s why I turn off and stop listening/watching after the results because all political parties have the same excuses.

 

[A0]

The margin of the Labour win is a misleading factor here. This is a good result for Labour, but worse for the Tories.

Not sure how you work that second bit out. For a governing party, at that a governing party which has been in power for 10 years, to win a seat at a by election from an opposition party is something of a rarity.

If you look at the vote shares vs the 2019 election:

Labour down by 7.5%
Conservatives down by 1.5%
Lib Dems down by 3.3%

For the record, Labour's vote share drop at Hartlepool vs the 2019 General Election was 9% down.

This can hardly be construed as a ringing endorsement for Labour.

If you take the 1987 parliament as an example, there were a total of 24 by elections,

10 were seats held by the Conservatives - they only won 4 of them.
13 were seats held by Labour - the won 12 of them, the one they lost was Bruce Millan's seat to the SNP.

If you're looking for parallels this is probably Labour's 'Darlington' moment. In 1983 there was a by-election in Darlington, it was a marginal seat in the 1979 election with a Labour majority of just over 1000. The by election was after the SDP had been formed and Michael Foot's leadership was being called into question. Labour won the seat with a 2,500 majority but their vote share was down 6% compared to the General Election. Winning that by-election secured Michael Foot's position and Labour headed into the next General Election with him as leader.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2021 ==

Conservative chair and MP Amanda Milling on LBC this morning claiming that Labour didn't really win. She doesn't seem to understand - or didn't want to acknowledge - that a hold is still a win. The spin was so desperate as to be visible from orbit.

Well according to the Corbynites the dear leader won the 2017 election despite securing fewer votes and fewer seats than the Conservatives.

 

[nlogax]

That`s why I turn off and stop listening/watching after the results because all political parties have the same excuses.

Unfortunately I'm a little addicted to the fall-out from these things. I remain amazed at how modern politics requires the losers to deny a loss is a loss in order to supposedly save face with the electorate. Tbh it's a bit like pantomime. It's evident that Labour are struggling at the moment but in spite of everything (bloody George 'Cat' Galloway included) they managed to win this by-election.

Well according to the Corbynites the dear leader won the 2017 election despite securing fewer votes and fewer seats than the Conservatives.

Yep. See above.

 

[Acfb]

I'm not sure what to read into this result as there were too many moving parts and cross currents. It's arguably not a 'red wall' seat at all and is demographically/politically similar to other West Yorkshire seats such as Dewsbury and Keighley.

I thought the Tories were assured of about 40% and that it would be impossible for Labour to win if Galloway got more than 10-15%.

 

[WesternLancer]

When an election is this close the postal votes need to be carefully vetted as in big families they are all to easily manipulated.

any evidence for this old trope?

 

[TravelDream]

Not sure how you work that second bit out. For a governing party, at that a governing party which has been in power for 10 years, to win a seat at a by election from an opposition party is something of a rarity.

If you look at the vote shares vs the 2019 election:

Labour down by 7.5%
Conservatives down by 1.5%
Lib Dems down by 3.3%

I think you are missing something rather important. A certain someone who received 22% of the vote. His base was the muslim community who would traditionally vote Labour. My guesstimation is that over half of his voters would otherwise have voted Labour. If he hadn't stood, a fair amount would have stayed at home, voted for the 2019 independent if he'd stood, and a smaller number, around 10%, would have voted Tory.
Are those voters lost for Labour? Previous experience with Galloway in London and Bradford says no. They will come home as it were.

The narrative was that Labour would lose. They have won. That can only be seen as a success no matter how some try to spin it.

 

[quantinghome]

any evidence for this old trope?

Of course not. And how exactly does @REVUpminster think a postal vote can be 'carefully vetted', beyond carrying out the standard checks?

The idea that postal votes are largely used by 'big families' (I mean, I wonder what this is a reference to?) is complete rubbish. Postal votes are used more by older voters, who tend to vote Conservative. And this year there's been a very large uptake in postal voting across the board due to Covid.

 

[A0]

I think you are missing something rather important. A certain someone who received 22% of the vote. His base was the muslim community who would traditionally vote Labour. My guesstimation is that over half of his voters would otherwise have voted Labour. If he hadn't stood, a fair amount would have stayed at home, voted for the 2019 independent if he'd stood, and a smaller number, around 10%, would have voted Tory.
Are those voters lost for Labour? Previous experience with Galloway in London and Bradford says no. They will come home as it were.

The narrative was that Labour would lose. They have won. That can only be seen as a success no matter how some try to spin it.

However, I'd balance that by pointing out that at the last election there was an independent who came 3rd with 6,500 votes and the Brexit party with a further 1,600 votes - those two combined were about 15% of the vote.

So you can off-set a chunk of Galloway's 20% vote share to those who didn't vote for one of the main parties last time.

Had there not been an independent which had polled so well in 2019, I might have tended to agree with you, because then the situation would have been a re-run of Hartlepool. But a strong independent showing both in the GE 2019 and last night distorts it.

 

[WesternLancer]

One of the interesting things about this by election is that when a media narrative opens up saying 'x are gong to lose' I suspect that a certain section of voters melt away from voting for them (I'm sure at least some people will tend to vote for the perceived winner once that winner has momentum).

In recent weeks in B&S that narrative opened up firmly in my view, and some might say Labour 'sources' didn't do that much to challenge it (managing expectations perhaps?)

Yet Labour managed to win despite this, which I think is of note.

Also, it's been very interesting to read posts in this thread from people living in the area, so thanks to people who have posted here from that perspective.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I'm quite surprised by this result! Compared to the strong feeling on the ground, it seems unusual for Labour to have won, (albeit barely).

As for postal votes, I can confirm that in some Muslim households (usually quite traditional), the main male in the household would complete the postal votes on behalf of the family, or certainly their opinion on who should be voted for is well known, and is usually respected. I don't think it's a "trope" - it's just a more traditional culture where the older males set the tone.

 

[TravelDream]

Had there not been an independent which had polled so well in 2019, I might have tended to agree with you, because then the situation would have been a re-run of Hartlepool. But a strong independent showing both in the GE 2019 and last night distorts it.

The 2019 independent ran a pro-Brexit campaign and he endorsed the Conservatives this time. Galloway went after a totally different vote. I think there would have been a little cross-over among those who didn't want too vote for a major party last night and in 2019, but that number would be small.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'm quite surprised by this result! Compared to the strong feeling on the ground, it seems unusual for Labour to have won, (albeit barely).

As for postal votes, I can confirm that in some Muslim households (usually quite traditional), the main male in the household would complete the postal votes on behalf of the family, or certainly their opinion on who should be voted for is well known, and is usually respected. I don't think it's a "trope" - it's just a more traditional culture where the older males set the tone.

Thanks Tazi - but when you say strong feeling on the ground I assume this relates to the conversations you said you had had with friends in the area. I think the issue is (and you will appreciate this) that that can be a version of the echo chamber theme can't it - because unless you are talking to a representative sample of people from across a fairly diverse network of neighborhoods etc, it's just a 'strong feeling' from the people you spoke to.

Party workers at the count, when they 'sample' the vote (ie look at ballot papers as they are tipped out of ballot boxes, and count random samples, which is the only time when the votes cast can be linked to geographical neighbouroods at the small, polling station, level) will have a good idea of who people voted for by neighbourhood. Then it's quite easy either by local knowledge or using things like Experian's mosiac neighbourhood classification system to see how votes have been cast by 'the profile of people' who live in that area. A well organised local party will have these sampling records going back over many elections and can thus see where votes are going in areas that they know are usually supportive or unsupportive of their party over time. Done well by experienced party activists (or at a by election experienced party full time paid staff) this can generate very accurate info.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2021 ==

The 2019 independent ran a pro-Brexit campaign and he endorsed the Conservatives this time. Galloway went after a totally different vote. I think there would have been a little cross-over among those who didn't want too vote for a major party last night and in 2019, but that number would be small.

I don't think Aowen means the same people would have been attracted to the 'replacement' independent candidates. It's that in one year one independent can cream off one set of voters, in another year a different independent can cream off a different set, but the numbers can be equivalent - albeit they are totals of different people doing an equivalent thing (if this makes sense!).

 

[LittleAH]

However, I'd balance that by pointing out that at the last election there was an independent who came 3rd with 6,500 votes and the Brexit party with a further 1,600 votes - those two combined were about 15% of the vote.

So you can off-set a chunk of Galloway's 20% vote share to those who didn't vote for one of the main parties last time.

Had there not been an independent which had polled so well in 2019, I might have tended to agree with you, because then the situation would have been a re-run of Hartlepool. But a strong independent showing both in the GE 2019 and last night distorts it.

Wrong on this, the independent was pro-Brexit and along with the Brexit party candidate, there's 8000 votes which naturally you'd assume go to the Tories.

Galloway went for the hard-left Anti-Starmer vote and the muslim vote - his leaflets even said as much. The campaign he ran was truly disgusting and knowing people who campaigned for Labour there - they were intimidated, pro-Labour signage was ripped down by Galloway's supporters and his attitude stunk.

As did the attitude of certain left-wing "video-journalists" who were frothing at the mouth for Labour to lose.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Thanks Tazi - but when you say strong feeling on the ground I assume this relates to the conversations you said you had had with friends in the area. I think the issue is (and you will appreciate this) that that can be a version of the echo chamber theme can't it - because unless you are talking to a representative sample of people from across a fairly diverse network of neighborhoods etc, it's just a 'strong feeling' from the people you spoke to.

Party workers at the count, when they 'sample' the vote (ie look at ballot papers as they are tipped out of ballot boxes, and count random samples, which is the only time when the votes cast can be linked to geographical neighbouroods at the small, polling station, level) will have a good idea of who people voted for by neighbourhood. Then it's quite easy either by local knowledge or using things like Experian's mosiac neighbourhood classification system to see how votes have been cast by 'the profile of people' who live in that area. A well organised local party will have these sampling records going back over many elections and can thus see where votes are going in areas that they know are usually supportive or unsupportive of their party over time. Done well by experienced party activists (or at a by election experienced party full time paid staff) this can generate very accurate info.

It is quite possible that I am in an echo chamber when socialising, although most of my friends have had Labour sympathies until relatively recently, so I had thought those turning the backs on the party would be a good indicator, especially with other factors like popular local religious leaders also endorsing Galloway.

I think Labour need to think hard and long about their win there. They've won, nobody can deny that, but its hardly a victory, and just shows how polarised politics has become, even in areas that would never have even been at risk for Labour just a few years ago.

Kier Starmer proclaiming "Labour is back!" on media this morning is embarrassing, and in my view, totally the wrong tone to take.

 

[duncanp]

It is quite possible that I am in an echo chamber when socialising, although most of my friends have had Labour sympathies until relatively recently, so I had thought those turning the backs on the party would be a good indicator, especially with other factors like popular local religious leaders also endorsing Galloway.

I think Labour need to think hard and long about their win there. They've won, nobody can deny that, but its hardly a victory, and just shows how polarised politics has become, even in areas that would never have even been at risk for Labour just a few years ago.

Kier Starmer proclaiming "Labour is back!" on media this morning is embarrassing, and in my view, totally the wrong tone to take.

I agree, whilst is is technically a win for Labour, they need to act as if they had lost, and ask themselves why that is.

If they don't, they could well lose the seat, or its equivalent after the boundary changes, at the next election.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Tories and the right wing press seem to be trying to blame Matt Hancock, I guess he's a good scape goat but I think they are deluding themselves with that in the same way the Labour left just blamed Brexit and not the Leader or the polices for the 2019 election defeat.

Realistically, given the narrowness of the result, it seems a pretty fair guess that the Tories would have won if it hadn't been for Matt Hancock. When the Hancock affair broke, Tory MPs were saying almost from the start that their postbags were getting full of complaints from angry constituents in much the same way that happened with Dominic Cummings a year ago - and the opinion polls showed a very marked change in Tory fortunes at that time.

I'm pretty surprised by the result. Looking at the figures, I think Galloway must have taken a fair few votes that would have otherwise gone to the Tories as well as Labour. There's not really any other plausible way to explain the huge drop in the Tory vote share compared to the combined Tory + pro-Brexit heavy-woollen-party vote share in 2019.

 

[WesternLancer]

It is quite possible that I am in an echo chamber when socialising, although most of my friends have had Labour sympathies until relatively recently, so I had thought those turning the backs on the party would be a good indicator, especially with other factors like popular local religious leaders also endorsing Galloway.

I think Labour need to think hard and long about their win there. They've won, nobody can deny that, but its hardly a victory, and just shows how polarised politics has become, even in areas that would never have even been at risk for Labour just a few years ago.

Kier Starmer proclaiming "Labour is back!" on media this morning is embarrassing, and in my view, totally the wrong tone to take.

Tangential to your 2nd point - it's not like this is some sort of strong Labour seat - they won it in '97 from the Tories, when they had a massive swing nationally, and still did not win it with a vast majority. And of course the Labour Party has been doing far worse in recent elections (2015/17/19) than they did in '97.
Of course Labour should be doing better, and should have easily held it - but this seat clearly has a long standing strong Tory vote (it's not a case of 'it's in the north, they all usually vote Labour up there' stereotype)

 

[birchesgreen]

Has Galloway eaten his hat yet, as he promised to do if Labour didn't come third as he predicted.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'm pretty surprised by the result. Looking at the figures, I think Galloway must have taken a fair few votes that would have otherwise gone to the Tories as well as Labour. There's not really any other plausible way to explain the huge drop in the Tory vote share compared to the combined Tory + pro-Brexit heavy-woollen-party vote share in 2019.

It's never that simple - esp in by elections. Galloway could have 'energized' a section of people who had already fallen away from voting labour to have been non voters or never voted for example (young, angry, pro palestinian people lets say). Meanwhile other votes stay home as not bothered about by elections (the usual lower turnout). I err against looking at percentages of votes cast too.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Galloway’s disgusting, backward, homophobic campaign saw him net 22% of the vote. There will be absolutely no discussion in the mainstream political agenda as to whether this is a problem because of the kind of people who voted for him.

A lot of hard lefties simply refuse to hear a bad word about Galloway, and if the homophobia and antisemitism is brought up they'll insist it's all just a smear campaign. No doubt there will be some who were inspired to vote for GG because of those things, but most will have done so in spite of them.

 

[WesternLancer]

Has Galloway eaten his hat yet, as he promised to do if Labour didn't come third as he predicted.

Guessing he will do that live on one of the broadcasting networks he regularly features on....
or maybe saving it to do in front of the judge at the court challenge he says he is going to bring? (I always thought that the left held no truck with the 'capitalist court system' but perhaps needs must...)

 

[A0]

Wrong on this, the independent was pro-Brexit and along with the Brexit party candidate, there's 8000 votes which naturally you'd assume go to the Tories.

Galloway went for the hard-left Anti-Starmer vote and the muslim vote - his leaflets even said as much. The campaign he ran was truly disgusting and knowing people who campaigned for Labour there - they were intimidated, pro-Labour signage was ripped down by Galloway's supporters and his attitude stunk.

As did the attitude of certain left-wing "video-journalists" who were frothing at the mouth for Labour to lose.

I don't think you can naturally assume a 'pro Brexit' independent's voters will naturally have then voted Tory en-masse this time - that's too simplistic as an explanation.

Wherever you've got a large number of people voting for an independent (and I wouldn't have counted a Brexit party candidate as that, because there was a clear figurehead for the Brexit party) then the 'normal' rules don't always apply.

I hold no candle whatsoever for Galloway and I do agree with you about the campaign he ran. He's utterly, unspeakably vile - and it says something that there are a good number on the left (some who no doubt are Labour party members) who willingly cheerlead and support his brand of sectarian politics. The challenge Starmer's got is how to marginalise the hard left - and I think he's probably got a harder job than Neil Kinnock had when he did the same in the mid 80s. In that sense "winning" Batley & Spen, or perhaps more accurately, not losing Batley and Spen has bought him some opportunity to do that. But until he does that and cleanses the Labour party of such people, they won't be considered a fit party for government and I'm afraid, the fact he has to do this, is probably the reason he will never be PM.

 

[Kite159]

Gives Sir Keir some breathing room from being challenged for leader for the time being.

But with him going on the telly making claims that "Labour is back" is just idiotic considering how much the majority collapsed to a few hundred votes.

 

[Bantamzen]

Not sure how you work that second bit out. For a governing party, at that a governing party which has been in power for 10 years, to win a seat at a by election from an opposition party is something of a rarity.

If you look at the vote shares vs the 2019 election:

Labour down by 7.5%
Conservatives down by 1.5%
Lib Dems down by 3.3%

For the record, Labour's vote share drop at Hartlepool vs the 2019 General Election was 9% down.

This can hardly be construed as a ringing endorsement for Labour.

If you take the 1987 parliament as an example, there were a total of 24 by elections,

10 were seats held by the Conservatives - they only won 4 of them.
13 were seats held by Labour - the won 12 of them, the one they lost was Bruce Millan's seat to the SNP.

If you're looking for parallels this is probably Labour's 'Darlington' moment. In 1983 there was a by-election in Darlington, it was a marginal seat in the 1979 election with a Labour majority of just over 1000. The by election was after the SDP had been formed and Michael Foot's leadership was being called into question. Labour won the seat with a 2,500 majority but their vote share was down 6% compared to the General Election. Winning that by-election secured Michael Foot's position and Labour headed into the next General Election with him as leader.

Indeed, Labour are cock-a-hoot about this result despite losing 7.5% of their vote. Their only saving grace was that the Tories also lost votes, had they kept a similar number Labour would be licking their wounds.

This is what I really despair of with the Labour party, they are just in total denial. They are losing ground left, right and centre, but they also see themselves as amazing, and the sun must really shine out of The Glorious Leader's Golden Behind. You may have guessed by now I'm not a fan of him, or the direction he's taking the party. With their more than pathetic opposition to the covid measures which effectively threw a lot of the kind of people Labour have historically supported under the bus, and the sort of arrogance that Starmer displays (think the clash with the Bath pub landlord), Labour are once again chasing the Champagne Socialism that Blair perused, but without any kind of direction or momentum that he built. For all his faults, Blair at least galvanised the left and made it kind of work. Sadly for Starmer, there are bags of dead badgers that have more direction than he does.

I honestly believe he would be quite happy pratting poncing about in opposition, never actually having to work for his pay than take responsibility and lead the country & in particular those hit hardest recently back into recovery. I wasn't a fan of Corbyn by any means, but he was at least sincere and meant what he said. Starmer is just a walking, talking Spitting Image puppet.

<phew, pours another drink>

 

[WesternLancer]

With their more than pathetic opposition to the covid measures which effectively threw a lot of the kind of people Labour have historically supported under the bus,

Just a genuine question to clarify - do you mean that Labour should not have given support to the lock down measures because it has resulted in many people losing jobs as a consequence of economic inactivity (and that by implication Labour should have accepted the deaths of many more vulnerable and frail people, and the overwhelming of an NHS that could not have coped - which would seem at odds with a party that ( at least says that it) seeks to help the most vulnerable people in society - who by definition are going to be those frail people)?

More flippantly ref the 'at least Corbyn was sincere' line - always reminds me of an amusing comment by a mate of mine who when told that 'at least x is sincere' retorts 'well I think Stalin / Hitler - use as appropriate - was sincere'

Funnily enough - this is pretty close to what I thought about Jeremy C - who I tended to think had a track record of doing this for quite along time, including being happily engaged in opposition to his own party when they were in power! I suspect the then leadership Kinnock/Blair/Brown allowed him to do this as they regarded him as a largely fringe irrelevant figure.

I honestly believe he would be quite happy pratting poncing about in opposition, never actually having to work for his pay than take responsibility and lead the country

But, indeed, the Labour Party has deep seated problems, and I suspect we agree on that!

 

[Typhoon]

The Batley and Spen by-election. A grim legacy. An alarming campaign. A gnomic result. | Conservative Home

The circumstances of this contest were so unusual and the candidacies so atypical as to make wider lessons very hard to draw.

www.conservativehome.com

• The new MP is the sister of the assassinated last but one, and wasn’t even a Labour member until recently. Galloway’s candidacy was a wild card.

I know that this was a quote but (as given in #29) she had been a member but resigned when she became an Ambassador for the Jo Cox Foundation as she didn't want the Foundation to be associated with a particular political party. What they have written isn't wrong but it could be misleading.

Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ate-batley-and-spen-byelection-kim-leadbeater and https://labourlist.org/2021/05/jo-c...ted-by-labour-to-contest-batley-and-spen/?amp

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed, Labour are cock-a-hoot about this result despite losing 7.5% of their vote. Their only saving grace was that the Tories also lost votes, had they kept a similar number Labour would be licking their wounds.

This is what I really despair of with the Labour party, they are just in total denial. They are losing ground left, right and centre, but they also see themselves as amazing, and the sun must really shine out of The Glorious Leader's Golden Behind. You may have guessed by now I'm not a fan of him, or the direction he's taking the party. With their more than pathetic opposition to the covid measures which effectively threw a lot of the kind of people Labour have historically supported under the bus, and the sort of arrogance that Starmer displays (think the clash with the Bath pub landlord), Labour are once again chasing the Champagne Socialism that Blair perused, but without any kind of direction or momentum that he built. For all his faults, Blair at least galvanised the left and made it kind of work. Sadly for Starmer, there are bags of dead badgers that have more direction than he does.

I honestly believe he would be quite happy pratting poncing about in opposition, never actually having to work for his pay than take responsibility and lead the country & in particular those hit hardest recently back into recovery. I wasn't a fan of Corbyn by any means, but he was at least sincere and meant what he said. Starmer is just a walking, talking Spitting Image puppet.

<phew, pours another drink>

This is nonsense from start to finish.

 

[Bantamzen]

Just a genuine question to clarify - do you mean that Labour should not have given support to the lock down measures because it has resulted in many people losing jobs as a consequence of economic inactivity (and that by implication Labour should have accepted the deaths of many more vulnerable and frail people, and the overwhelming of an NHS that could not have coped - which would seem at odds with a party that ( at least says that it) seeks to help the most vulnerable people in society - who by definition are going to be those frail people)?

More flippantly ref the 'at least Corbyn was sincere' line - always reminds me of an amusing comment by a mate of mine who when told that 'at least x is sincere' retorts 'well I think Stalin / Hitler - use as appropriate - was sincere'

Funnily enough - this is pretty close to what I thought about Jeremy C - who I tended to think had a track record of doing this for quite along time, including being happily engaged in opposition to his own party when they were in power! I suspect the then leadership Kinnock/Blair/Brown allowed him to do this as they regarded him as a largely fringe irrelevant figure.

What I mean is that Labour should have been challenging the government on what they were doing to help those furloughed, losing their jobs, and yes they should have been challenging them on lockdowns & restrictions. Why? Because this is why we have an opposition, they are supposed to challenge the government to justify every decision they make. Labour's focus should have been on the economic impact of furloughing up to 9.6 million people, more than a million losing their jobs, the shoddy even dodgy procurement routes the government were using etc etc.

But most of all they should have been asking how all this was going to be paid for. Because as we all know, it will not be the one percenters that will pay the cost of covid, it will be the same people given up to 18 months of 20% pay cuts, or those people whose finances have been wreaked because businesses have been allowed to fall without comment who will have to pay. Even many of use lucky enough to keep working through it all have paid heavy costs will be made to pay.

Labour should have been there for all these people. Instead they perused the Zoom generation, happily sitting in their lovely homes with comfortable wages, telling everyone else why they should shut their lives down. There is a mural on the side of a building on the outskirts of Bradford's city centre that commemorates the formation of the Labour movement in the late 19th century. I can't help wonder what those founders would make of Labour today. I suspect they would be forming a new movement with haste.

But, indeed, the Labour Party has deep seated problems, and I suspect we agree on that!

It certainly does.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2021 ==

This is nonsense from start to finish.

<sigh>

Would you care to explain why?

 

[A0]

Indeed, Labour are cock-a-hoot about this result despite losing 7.5% of their vote. Their only saving grace was that the Tories also lost votes, had they kept a similar number Labour would be licking their wounds.

This is what I really despair of with the Labour party, they are just in total denial. They are losing ground left, right and centre, but they also see themselves as amazing, and the sun must really shine out of The Glorious Leader's Golden Behind. You may have guessed by now I'm not a fan of him, or the direction he's taking the party. With their more than pathetic opposition to the covid measures which effectively threw a lot of the kind of people Labour have historically supported under the bus, and the sort of arrogance that Starmer displays (think the clash with the Bath pub landlord), Labour are once again chasing the Champagne Socialism that Blair perused, but without any kind of direction or momentum that he built. For all his faults, Blair at least galvanised the left and made it kind of work. Sadly for Starmer, there are bags of dead badgers that have more direction than he does.

I honestly believe he would be quite happy pratting poncing about in opposition, never actually having to work for his pay than take responsibility and lead the country & in particular those hit hardest recently back into recovery. I wasn't a fan of Corbyn by any means, but he was at least sincere and meant what he said. Starmer is just a walking, talking Spitting Image puppet.

<phew, pours another drink>

I guess it depends what you think or want the Labour party to be - it can either be a socialist party or it can be a social-democratic party - it can't be both.

The electorate have tended to reject Labour when it's offering a more socialist vision and been more inclined to accept it when it offers the latter.

No doubt, somebody will be along any second to quote 1945 and Attlee's government to try to disprove that the British electorate don't elect socialist governments - my response to that is very simple, since 1951 the British people have rejected a socialist offering each time it has been put to them. The 1974 Labour manifesto was pretty left wing, but Wilson, Callaghan and Healey were of the opinion they would simply disregard the bits they didn't agree with, ironically helped by the IMF on that one. In 1983, 2017 and 2019 Labour put forward a socialist manifesto - and lost.

The put forward a social-democratic one in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and won.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2021 ==

This is nonsense from start to finish.

Harsh - the first sentence is quite true. The rest of it is maybe less convincing.