My understanding is that A and B are the wealthy and middle class, decidedly not what is traditionally called working class.
It is amazing the lengths to which some of you are prepared to go to pretend Corbyn is not a disaster.
Incidentally, the Conservatives are now projected to gain Copeland from Labour in the by-election next week. This is a seat that has voted Labour in every election since the 1930s. But of course this will be the fault of the Blairites.
nicky, Ken Burch has been asking you to respond to some substantive questions, rather than discussing strictly the "horse race" analysis of polls. You have steadfastly refused to address these questions, but I would like to hear your answers, and I suspect other babblers would as well. In the spirit of trying to understand your position better, I'd like to ask a few questions of my own:
1. Do you think that the current unpopularity of Labour and Corbyn are due to the policies he supports, or his personality, or a combination of the two?
2. If it is his personality, what in particular is wrong with him that voters dislike so much?
3. If it is his policies, which ones are dragging him down the most, and do you personally disagree with those policies?
4. If there were a more charismatic leader with the same policies as Corbyn, would you support that person?
5. You seem to have quite a strong emotional desire to get rid of Corbyn. Do you dislike Corbyn personally for some reason?
6. I remember reading articles in The Guardian in the period just before Corbyn was first elected leader outlining the plans of the PLP to oust him before the next election. Do you think that these constant attacks on him by his own colleagues, whether justified or not, may have contibuted to the current unpopularity in any way?
Of course, you don't have to answer any of these questions, but if you do, it will help me understand where you are coming from.
Thanks for that, Michael.
My understanding is that A and B are the wealthy and middle class, decidedly not what is traditionally called working class. It is amazing the lengths to which some of you are prepared to go to pretend Corbyn is not a disaster. Incidentally, the Conservatives are now projected to gain Copeland from Labour in the by-election next week. This is a seat that has voted Labour in every election since the 1930s. But of course this will be the fault of the Blairites.
If that happens, it will be the Blairites fault in significant measure. it's not as though Copeland would be a certain Labour victory if only Corbyn had been replaced by a right-wing leader. And it's not as though none of Labour's difficulties in the polls are related to the fact that the right-wing, anti-worker, anti-peace wing of Labour has never accepted the party's decision in the leadership contest.
My understanding is that A and B are the wealthy and middle class, decidedly not what is traditionally called working class. It is amazing the lengths to which some of you are prepared to go to pretend Corbyn is not a disaster. Incidentally, the Conservatives are now projected to gain Copeland from Labour in the by-election next week. This is a seat that has voted Labour in every election since the 1930s. But of course this will be the fault of the Blairites.
Here are some figures for election results in Copeland over the years. 2005 was the first year for Labour MP Jamie Reid. He was the Labour candidate up until he resigned, creatiing the upcoming byelection.
Election year 2005 Labour % of vote 50.5 Majority (# votes) 6320
2010 " " 46.0 " " 3833
2015 " " 42.3 " " 2564
What we see hear is a steady eroding of the Labour vote over the years. Meanwhile, UKIP polled 994 votes in 2010, then jumped to 6148 votes in 2015. I'll point out that most of the vote rise for UKIP came from the Labour party, while a good portion came from the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative vote remained more or less the same.
I don't think even you can blame Corbyn for the results of those elections. But what has happened is that Labour support has been steadily eroded by UKIP, to the point where now even a small change will put the Conservatives in control. This has been going on for years, and has nothing at all to do with Corbyn.
A similar situation exists in Stoke-On-Trent, where another byelection is in the offing. An erosion of Labour support, and a dramatic rise in UKIP support between the 2010 and 2015 elections.
So you might ask yourself, why has Labour support been decreasing over the years, years before Corbyn became leader?
Alternatively, you might ask yourself, - given the precarious position in which Labour finds itself, is Corbyn the one to help move the party back from the cliff's edge? Or is he leading the charge over the precipice?
Read the posts I've made recently, sherpa-finn...I've outlined a set of commitments the PLP could make to Corbyn in exchange for his agreement to stand down. Could you comment on those proposals I laid out?. Corbyn has never been in this out of personal ego...mainly he wants to protect his supporters from mass expulsion and to make sure the party doesn't reject everything those supporters want-most of which is actually quite popular.
Would you agree that the PLP should make those types of commitments in exchange for an agrement by Corybn to resign? That it can't be reasonable to just expect him to go and get no protection for his supporters and their principles within the party in return?
Labour cannot win the next election if the 200,000 or more people who have joined it are expelled, suspended, or allowed to stay but only in a position of silence and irrelevance, with the party moving massively to the right.
Given that, would you agree that the PLP is wrong to just demand unconditional surrender from Corbyn? And that Labour cannot possibly win in 2020 if it creates a manifesto that leaves the values Corbyn supporters fight for totally excluded? That Labour has no reason to exist if it goes back to wherre the PLP were trying to drive it before Corbyn was elected...in a sharply-further right direction, supporting the benefits cap, requiring the complete abandonment of the poor, the budget charter(a commitment to mandatory balanced budgets, even though such a commitment would make it impossible for a Labour government to do anything that benefits any of the communities that vote Labour), and the bombing of Syria and perpetual British military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world?
Alternatively, you might ask yourself, - given the precarious position in which Labour finds itself, is Corbyn the one to help move the party back from the cliff's edge? Or is he leading the charge over the precipice?
Certainly the right wing of the party, which is responsible for the precarious position, are not the ones to look to to pull them back from the edge. Unless somehow you can twist yourself into believing that what brought the Labour party to this position will be what gets them out of it.
Gentlemen, I think I have been relatively clear about my own position re this fiasco.
1. Corbyn has been a lost cause as leader ever since the parliamentary caucus overwhelmingly voted non-confidence in him. As I said at the time, he should have resigned then. In my assessment, that vote was a fatal blow to his prospects of ever becoming Prime Minister. And that is the #1 job for a Labour Leader in Opposition: being the Prime Minister in waiting.
2. Corbyn chose not to resign and successfully won a membership vote to retain his post as Party leader.
3. Such is political life: IMHO, Labour is now stuck with him through the next election. As such, my only tactical interest would be to make the case for an early election so the inevitable electoral debacle can take place sooner than later, and the party can start to rebuild. One can only trust that Corbyn would indeed resign after a defeat (crushing or otherwise). What will be more interesting will be to see if his wave of disillusioned recruits choose to stay with Labour, or move on ... perhaps to some sort of Podemos style formation, or even out of party politics altogether.
If I still lived in the UK, I would likely decide how active to be in the upcoming campaign based on the confidence (or lack thereof) I had in my local candidate and his/her electoral prospects. Taking into account of course how this whole ugly internal dynamic was playing out in our local constituency organization. All in all, I suspect I would keep my head down and focus instead on municipal / council-level politics until this shit storm has blown through. And then would do what I can to help pick up the pieces to start re-assembling an electable Labour Party.
Clear?
...Clear?
It's not clear to me at all. Are you opposed to the policies espoused by Corbyn, or to Corbyn himself? Ken Burch has asked that question, and so far the anti-Corbyn crowd has deigned to answer.
It is the fundamental question because, as I've noted above, the Labour policies of the past three elections have resulted in a serious decrease in their vote. So it seems obvious to me that the policies that brought Labour to this point have to be abandoned. If that is not clear to you, I would be interested in your view of why, exactly, Labour has been losing votes in the prior three elections.
If you agree the policies of the rightward leaning Labour party have caused the lack of support, then what is your solution?
Rev Pesky wrote: So it seems obvious to me that the policies that brought Labour to this point have to be abandoned.
As it is equally obvious to me that the current Labour leader had to be abandoned. As a prospective Prime Minister he qualifies as "dead man walking".
However, the current membership chose to stick with him. So be it.
There are plenty of vehicles to advance social justice in this world into which one can usefully invest energies and resources ... I have engaged in my share of hopeless, quixotic campaigns in the past and choose not to do so again on behalf of Mr Corbyn.
So, over to you and yours.... Best of luck.
Michael and Ken.
Thanks for your Qs. I am hideously busy at work and hope to find the time to reply comprehensively soon.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/02/16/ipsos-mor...
In the mean time here is another grim poll showing Labour's collapse among working class voters under Corbyn.
Rev Pesky wrote: So it seems obvious to me that the policies that brought Labour to this point have to be abandoned.
As it is equally obvious to me that the current Labour leader had to be abandoned. As a prospective Prime Minister he qualifies as "dead man walking".
However, the current membership chose to stick with him. So be it.
There are plenty of vehicles to advance social justice in this world into which one can usefully invest energies and resources ... I have engaged in my share of hopeless, quixotic campaigns in the past and choose not to do so again on behalf of Mr Corbyn.
So, over to you and yours.... Best of luck.
Or to put it another way, I will not answer the question asked because I don't have an answer.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/02/if-labour-loses-st...
From the above article:
The reality is that defeat in Copeland or Stoke would belong to the whole Labour Party. The contests were brought about by resignations of centrist MPs who left to take high-flying jobs. The candidates in both seats are not from the left, despite that side of the party doing much of the heavy lifting on the campaign trail. The deeper fissures and crises – on Brexit, immigration, and so on – are not problems of the left but of every wing of the party. Deep down and in private, Labour centrists are pessimistic about electoral victory under any leader of any political stripe. But if the ship goes down with the left at the helm, these facts will seem a long way away.There is still a way out for the Corbyn project. Indeed, its radical social and economic programme may well be the only way out that the Labour party has. With an NHS crisis still simmering and the Prime Minister publicly courting the Trump administration, there will be no shortage of flashpoints for the left to exploit. To really turn the tide, the left must be sober in its analysis. The prospect of victory must be backed up with real electoral success. Either way, Stoke and Copeland may prove to be a watershed.
While the left works hard to get centrist MP's elected, the centrists work hard to get the worst result possible so they can blame it on Corbyn.
As I've already shown, it was the PLP that brought Labour to this sorry pass, and all the 'centrists' can do is shout 'More of the same!'
.
Yes of course, if Labour looses the by-elections it will be because the people are voting against Tony Blair, not Jeremey Corbyn. Thanks for lifting the scales from my eyes. Or perhaps they are voting against Clement Atlee or Ramsay MacDonald?
No, if they lose, and looks like they could lose one of them, it will because of Brexit. Which would have dedeviled any Labour leader. Unless that leader had come out in support of Brexit before the vote.
yes I understand. There will always be someone or something to blame except Corbyn.
yes I understand. There will always be someone or something to blame except Corbyn.
As I've pointed out, and as the evidence shows, the Labour party has been losing votes in those two ridings over the last three elections. In that Corbyn was not the leader of the party for those elections, perhaps you'd like to speculate as to what caused the declining vote.
My personal opinion is the centrists got very comfortable in their 'tenured' seats, and have long since forgotten what Labour means. Corbyn comes along and rocks the boat, and they don't like it.
Like you, nicky, they don't have any argument about Corbyn's policies. They just don't like the fact they're being asked to join the struggle for a Labour government. Why would they want that, when they can sit on their butts doing nothing and getting paid for it?
It is impossible at this stage to separate those voters who don't like Corbyn from those who just don't like the Labour party because of the in-fighting. I suspect the latter group is the majority. That is attested to by the fact that the Labour vote has been declining since before the 2005 election.
Your solution is just more of the same, more of the same policies and politics that caused the decline in the Labour vote. You know what the definition of insanity is, right? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. That's what the Labour centrists are doing. Meanwhile UKIP is growing by leaps and bounds, and the centrists think if they just ignore it, it'll go away.
Whatever Corbyn has done, or not done, the pre-existing strategy of Labour was a recipe for long-term decline. More of the same is not going to save them.
Yet another disasterous poll for the Corbynites to ignore or rationalize
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jere...
I think Jonathan Pie gets it about right in his latest screed.
Testing to see if I can post yet.
Again...if they want Corbyn to go, they need to guarantee that his supporters will be protected and not driven away, and that what he and they stand for won't be wiped out of the party.
The PLP needs to agree to something like this:
1)A guarantee that someone with or close to Corbyn's views will be on the leadership ballot;
2) The restoration of leadership contest voting rights, accompanied by membership or "supporter" status, to all those who were suspended or expelled from the party in the run-up to the second leadership vote;
3) Restoration of the policy-making status of the party conference, as opposed to its current existence as nothing but a meaningless ritual in which the conference delegates have no real say in anything;
4) Restoration of full internal party democracy, including constituency party control over candidate selection.
If the PLP agreed to that, I suspect Corbyn would be willing to stand down. But they can't expect him to abandon his supporters and let everything he and they stand for be anathemized within the party again as it all was during the Kinnock and Blair eras.
I've asked you to respond to that list of suggestions several times now, and you've not as yet done so. If you're going to post in this thread, you have an obligation to actually engage with the rest of us. You can't just post anti-Corbyn links from the right-wing press.
I'd be satisfied with 1 and 2. I don't think this is the right time to refight the battles over deselection and the party conference.
Ok...but I wasn't even talking about deselection...I was talking about selection. It appears that the anti-Corbyn party bureaucracy still has absolute control over candidate selection. Even though Jeremy is leader, it appears to be impossible to win a Labour nomination if you agree with his political views.
Don’t blame Corbyn for the sins of Blair, Brown and New Labour
Ken Loach
The spate of calls for Jeremy Corbyn to quit since last week’s byelections in Stoke and Copeland has been as predictable as it was premeditated. It says everything about the political agenda of the media, and nothing about people’s real needs and experiences.
I went to Stoke and Whitehaven, in Cumbria, a few days before polling. Momentum arranged screenings of Daniel Blake. We went to Labour clubs in neglected areas, old estates away from the centre. At one club I was asked: “Why have you come here? No one comes here.”
Joe Bradley and Georgie Robertson, the organisers, were a model of how Labour activists should work: full of energy, hard-working and brilliantly efficient. They had a warm greeting for everyone, checked the screening facilities, made space for local contributors so people from that community felt it was their event and that they were being heard. This is how Labour can reconnect
Both screenings were packed. The discussions were passionate, informed and invigorating, a world away from the tired cliches of the public discourse. This was not a marketing exercise but a real engagement with people and their concerns.
The failure of Labour governments – and, importantly, Labour councillors – was a common theme. It is not hard to see the neglect around Stoke. Solid Labour, for sure, but what good has it done them? A 2015 report into the area found 60,000 people in poverty, 3,000 households dependent on charity food, and £25m in council tax arrears. The presence of the BNP, now replaced by Ukip, shows how Labour’s failure left space for the far right.
It was a similar story in Copeland. Industries have been lost – steel, mines, a chemical factory – without any plan to replace them. Labour is seen to be as culpable as the Tories. Someone said that in Copeland it was an anti-establishment vote, and Labour is the local establishment. It was a vote against Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and previous MPs Jack Cunningham and Jamie Reed.
In both constituencies the Labour candidates, neither from the left of the party, were invited, but both candidates ignored the meetings. With coverage on television, radio and the press, this is bizarre. Could it be because Momentum were the organisers? We were there to support Labour. There was not even the courtesy of a reply.
Now let’s ask the real questions. What are the big problems people face? What is the Labour leadership’s analysis and programme? Why is Labour apparently unpopular? Who is responsible for the party’s divisions?....
It strongly appears, epaulo, that the anti-Corbynites are so obsessed with getting Corbyn to resign(even though the second leadership vote clearly made the PLP no-confidence motion a moot point)that they would actually prefer to see Labour candidates LOSE Labour seats in byelections than let Corbyn's supporters share credit for victory. To this end, they may have gone so far as to abet the defeat of the Labour candidate in Copeland-a candidate who, if elected, would almost certainly have JOINED the demands that Corbyn resign.
And while some claim the anti-Corbyn clique aren't Blairites, even those that claim not to be are clearly invested in the Blairite narrative: they unquestioningly accept and defend the claim that Labour can only win as a party of the sectarian anti-left "center ground", under the rigid control of a right-wing leader, a privileged, cynical activist-hating parliamentary contingent, and a quasi-Stalinist party bureaucracy, fighting elections on a program as militaristic, miserly, "law and order" and market-subservient as that of the Tories, and with no role at all for the rank-and-file other than doorbelling at a general election.
I've said that as well; the anti-Corbynites would destroy the party in order to save it. Frankly, after supporting Bush's illegal war in Iraq, it deserved to be destroyed anyway. Interesting that there was no attempted parliamentary coup when a leader supported a right - wing war, but there was one when a leader committed the crime of being elected by the party members.
..the sanders wing of the party has been under attack since the election and today i heard that ellison lost in his run for chair. the status quo is firmly back in total control. whether or not it will play out differently re corbin remains to be seen. what i know is that we are very close to being out of time for making internal changes. there is already external options, grassroots options, municipal options that activists should be connecting with. and those internal party struggles are pertinent to us here in canada and the ndp. just how radical/democratic will the party be?
This article makes the point that Labour will do even worse in terms of seats under Corbyn than the polls indicate because he has particulalry alienated the Labour vote in marginal seats.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/01/the-multi...
Of course this is all the fault of the evil Blairites and not Corbyn in any degree whatsoever. So too will be the looming disaster in the local elections and the Manchester Gorton by-election set for early May. If only it weren't for those Blairites everything would just be great for Corbyn.
Remind me, when was Blair last in power and how many elections did he lose?
This article makes the point that Labour will do even worse in terms of seats under Corbyn than the polls indicate because he has particulalry alienated the Labour vote in marginal seats.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/01/the-multi...
Of course this is all the fault of the evil Blairites and not Corbyn in any degree whatsoever. So too will be the looming disaster in the local elections and the Manchester Gorton by-election set for early May. If only it weren't for those Blairites everything would just be great for Corbyn.
Remind me, when was Blair last in power and how many elections did he lose?
1 as a Labourite and 2 as a Tory. The last one with a resounding 35% of the vote. Which his ideological soulmate proceeded to drive down to 29%.
...and which Corbyn is driving down and down to maybe 20%? Losing Copeland, a reliable Labour seat since 1931. Dragging Labour to electoral apocalypse all on his own.
It has been 10 years since Blair was PM. Maybe the Corbynites, rather than look themselves in the mirror, would like to blame Clement Atlee or Ramsay MacDonald.
Oh, and Milliband got 30.4%, not 29.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/01/corbyns-r...
Corbyn has now set a record low approval rating for any Labour leader ever.
...and which Corbyn is driving down and down to maybe 20%? Losing Copeland, a reliable Labour seat since 1931. Dragging Labour to electoral apocalypse all on his own.
It has been 10 years since Blair was PM. Maybe the Corbynites, rather than look themselves in the mirror, would like to blame Clement Atlee or Ramsay MacDonald.
Oh, and Milliband got 30.4%, not 29.
How soon you forgot Gordo in 2010.
It may be approaching the time when Corbyn should consider stepping down. But I believe Labour would be in bad shape, at least at this point, regardless of who it's leader is. May is carrying out the voters' wishes by doing Brexit. Thereby poaching votes from UKIP. While Labour remains divided over the issue.
For the people that care about winning it looks like Labour may just be about done, and there appears to be a new party forming on the horizon.
For the people that care about winning it looks like Labour may just be about done, and there appears to be a new party forming on the horizon.
And what party is that?
Yet more evidence of Corbyn's toxicity:
Yet more evidence of Corbyn's toxicity: http://www2.politicalbetting.com/
Here are the actual polling numbers compared to 4 years ago, the numbers the above Tory used for his analysis.
Full Rallings & Thrasher forecast NESV compared with 4 years ago is
Con 31% (+5),
Lab 29% (nc),
LD 22% (+9)
UKIP 10% (-12).
As one can see. the Labour vote will remain roughly the same. The biggest loser will be UKIP, and that mostly because the Tories have taken over the Euro exit desk.
The question is, if Corbyn is so toxic, why is the Labour vote remaining what it was 4 years ago?
The fact is that Labour under Corbyn was running nearly even in the polls before the Brexit vote and May's ascension.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_King...
If Corbyn was so toxic, why wasn't he running 15 points behind then? At the risk of being repetitive, Labour would be in trouble regardless of who is leaders because the Tories have embraced Brexit while Labour is divided.
The Conservatives presently have a massive and what appears to be a growing 18% lead over Labour.
Scottish Referendum #2
Irish reunification
Gibralter
Brexit
Watching your country disintegrate before your eyes.
Seems like another slow time in the UK
When will Cornyn admit he is destrying the Labour Party?
If Labour had the sort of leader you'd want it to have, it wouldn't disagree with the Tories on any major issue. That's what being a "Labour moderate" means...embracing the status quo.
And nicky, you STILL haven't addressed the points I've been making with you repeatedly:
1)How can you reasonably expect Corbyn to stand down as leader without giving him guarantees that the PLP would allow a left-wing candidate on the leadership ballot to replace him and that a post-Corbyn party would not launch an all-0ut campaign to drive leftists away?
2) How could the PLP demand(as it will try to demand)all-out support for whoever it imposes as leader in Corbyn's place-a leadership ballot with ONLY "moderate" candidates would be inherently undemocratic and unrepresentative, given that the overwhelming majority of the party is clearly to the left of the PLP-when they have spent almost two years now working to undermine and remove the party's current leader?
3) What would any leader the PLP imposed by barring left-wingers from the leadership ballot possibly have to offer? If they are still insistent on driving the party back to the Third Way, aren't they pretty much agreeing to run a failed government, since Labour can't do anything to help anyone if it tries to work within those constraints?
It looks strongly as though no one the PLP would allow on a post-Corbyn leadership ballot could possibly care about the working and non-working poor-the anti-Corbynites are mostly pro-austerity, anti-immigrant, and pro-war, and there's no difference between a Labour government pledged to restrict immigration, keep taxes low on the rich, continue austerity and harassment of benefits claimants at home and military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world, and just keeping the Tories in. A Labour government committed to agreeing with the Tories on all the issues I listed there couldn't BE Labour in any recognizable sense. At most such a goverment would just build a cross-country high-speed rail line, and that's solely of interest to billionaires.
Why, after all this time, do the PLP STILL refuse to listen to what most of the party actually want, why do they still refuse to recognize that their push to move the party to the right of where it was in the 2015 election-even though there is no space to the right of Ed Milibad without just crossing the floor and having done with it-CAUSED the Corbyn phenomemon? And why don't they agree to continuing most of what Corbyn and his supporters stand for if they do get their way and force the guy to resign? Do you actually endorse the attitude of the PLP that THEY are the party and no one else is, and that everyone to their left should just shut up and "know their place"?
For once, actually respond to what the rest of us post, without just doing drive-by snark as if you are somehow above having to engage. That's just basic human respect, buddy.
And no one has really addressed my point that Labour would be in bad straights with or without Corbyn as leader because of Brexit.
Brexit is just more divide and conquer.
Didn't May herself vote against it?
Labour needs to unite and force another referendum against it
Brexit is just more divide and conquer.
Didn't May herself vote against it?
Labour needs to unite and force another referendum against it
That would be the worst thing they could do.
The Conservatives smartly united behind Brexit while Labour remains divided, pleasing no one.
Labour needs to unite and force another referendum against it
Didn't Britain recently cross that Rubicon?
If you hand your boss your resignation and it's accepted, can you just show up to work a year later and say "I changed my mind"?
It's not just up to British voters -- even assuming they weren't disgusted by a blatant "do over" -- it would be up to the EU now, wouldn't it?
Labour needs to unite and force another referendum against itDidn't Britain recently cross that Rubicon?
If you hand your boss your resignation and it's accepted, can you just show up to work a year later and say "I changed my mind"?
It's not just up to British voters -- even assuming they weren't disgusted by a blatant "do over" -- it would be up to the EU now, wouldn't it?
Having revotes has been a very common refrain in countries since Maastricht. But only when the vote came out against the EU. When the vote was pro-EU, nary a word was heard.
Ken, Michael etc;
If you look at this story and the various comments that folow you will see that most of your questions are addressed:
https://politicalwire.com/2017/04/16/labour-party-fades-u-k/
it is not since 1918 that Labour has polled a lower vote, and then barely, than what Corbyn is polling now. That is 99 years.....
There are many sincere people in the Labour party, including well more than 80% of its MPs who believe Corbyn out of ego, myopia and incompetence is dragging Labour not just to electoral disaster but to long-term impotence.
I don't personally see anything wrong with a 15% nomination requirement among MPs to stand for the leadership. Many other parties have similar threshholds. It may be necessary to save Labour from repeating the Corbynite nightmare that threatens to destroy the party.
I also think it is facile to say there is no difference between mainstream Labour and the Conservatives. I deplore many of the things Blair did in foreign poicy and civil liberties but it seems that moderate Labourites have learned the necessary lessons and espouse more left wing approaches in those areas.
The left often loses track of Blair's considerable accomplishments in eduaction and social policy which actually helped the working and middle classes. Conservative policies have been uniformly regressive.
Labour can only help its voters if it is electable. Corbyn has amply demostrated that he is unelectable and therefore useless to Labour's electorate.
Corbyn has used every feeble excuse to justify his electoaral failures except accepting rsponsibility himself. More disasters loom in the local elections and Manchester Gorton by-election in three weeks. Will Corbyn again blindly blame the Blairites? Or will he smell the roses?
It is ironic that no MP voted against his own party in the Commons as often as Corbyn did. Yet he expects uncritical subservience from his own MPs.
Anyway, off to work. I'm happy to take another stab at answering your quesytions if you like.
