Quo Vadis Labour?

[InsaneApache]

No one I know and I mean no one, voted for Labour this last election. To put this into perspective, most of my friends used to vote Labour but now say they never will again. Good.

The question is what went wrong?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Could someone toss out a 50ish word precis on the state of the conflict in question?

[rory_20_uk]

How on EARTH has Labour screwed up so bad that people look at Johnson and go "yes, we want him"?

I think that between the very left of centre Big State policies that have been going on for 18 months on now by the Tories and the shared trauma of Corbyn close to being PM and of course the current Head of the Labour party is Sir Kier Stirmer, QC - representing a borough in London - or to put it another way, a proper member of the Elite and an Egghead to boot.

That local elections have individuals associated with political parties is something that should not be a thing (as it ends up as a mid-term popularity contest) and this is why votes for local individuals is solely seen through the prism of how this matters in Westminster.

[Pannonian]

Could someone toss out a 50ish word precis on the state of the conflict in question?

As seen in rory's post, the two main parties are held to different standards. The complaint about Starmer is that he is as much an establishment figure as you can get. Except that the Tory leader was born to privilege, was brought up in privilege (the same educational route as the 2010-16 PM David Cameron), and has never held what you may call a "proper job". Compare with the Labour leader who was born to traditional Labour-oriented working parents, whose route to his current position came via his own ability, and whose knighthood came from services to the state outside politics. The Tory leader received everything he's got via his birth and class, the Labour leader received everything he's got via his own work. Yet Starmer is criticised as the establishment figure.

Keir Starmer: father was a toolmaker, mother was a nurse, went to a grammar school (a publicly funded school for the top n percentage of students). Studied law at Leeds university. Was a highly rated lawyer and served in the top legal positions, for which he received a knighthood. All this before taking up politics.

Boris Johnson: father was born of various aristocratic lines, mother is an artist. Went to various boarding schools (the traditional prep for the upper class), ending up in Eton (the most established of pre-university schools). Studied classics at Oxford. Worked in various journalistic posts, but made his name on the news satire show Have I Got News For You. Prior to becoming PM, had a bad reputation at every post he was at, with a reputation for laziness and disregard for truth (cf. his editor at the Telegraph who said that Johnson is unsuitable for any responsible role, his civil servants at the Foreign Ministry who called him the worst foreign secretary in living memory, etc.).

But Keir Starmer is the proper member of the Elite.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As seen in rory's post, the two main parties are held to different standards. The complaint about Starmer is that he is as much an establishment figure as you can get. Except that the Tory leader was born to privilege, was brought up in privilege (the same educational route as the 2010-16 PM David Cameron), and has never held what you may call a "proper job". Compare with the Labour leader who was born to traditional Labour-oriented working parents, whose route to his current position came via his own ability, and whose knighthood came from services to the state outside politics. The Tory leader received everything he's got via his birth and class, the Labour leader received everything he's got via his own work. Yet Starmer is criticised as the establishment figure.

Keir Starmer: father was a toolmaker, mother was a nurse, went to a grammar school (a publicly funded school for the top n percentage of students). Studied law at Leeds university. Was a highly rated lawyer and served in the top legal positions, for which he received a knighthood. All this before taking up politics.

Boris Johnson: father was born of various aristocratic lines, mother is an artist. Went to various boarding schools (the traditional prep for the upper class), ending up in Eton (the most established of pre-university schools). Studied classics at Oxford. Worked in various journalistic posts, but made his name on the news satire show Have I Got News For You. Prior to becoming PM, had a bad reputation at every post he was at, with a reputation for laziness and disregard for truth (cf. his editor at the Telegraph who said that Johnson is unsuitable for any responsible role, his civil servants at the Foreign Ministry who called him the worst foreign secretary in living memory, etc.).

But Keir Starmer is the proper member of the Elite.

Western side of "The Pond" orgah thanks.

[Furunculus]

Could someone toss out a 50ish word precis on the state of the conflict in question?

The core of the issue is that a Tory party now 11 years in government - having presided over massive and divisive policy problems around austerity/brexit/covid - should not be coming out of local elections with:

Hundreds of new Councillors (when local 'mid-terms' are seen as an opportunity to kick the Gov't).
Control of up to a dozen new councils (ditto above - and the base from which future GE's are fought with advantage).
Increasing its seats and mayoral vote in London (labour stronghold).
Holding firm what should have been short terms gains in Scotland (a rare place where Boris is an electoral negative).
Making huge gains in labour dominated Wales (where Labour's Mark Drakeford is recognised as having had a 'good' pandemic).

There is a problem here, and no-one can really explain why:

Yes, we can point at labour's problems as an effective opposition, and we can point to the incumbency benefit of crisis management, but on the principle that elections are "lost by the gov't, rather than won by the opposition" - what the hell are the tories doing that is making them so popular!

We all sort of recognise that the answer is that:
1. There is a broader social/cultural realignment going on, and the Tories are better able to exloit it in electorally useful ways.
"But how? Tell me what it is that is so bloody appealing about Tories!"
2. Political parties only survive long-term by a ruthless and relentless adaptation to changing circumstances, and Tories are good at it.
"But how? Why do they keep re-inventing themselves when other movements burn out after a century or so!"

It's utterly fascinating, and thoroughly perplexing. The conundrum delights me - as I love the evolution of political culture - but it's driving many people potty...

I'm old enough to have seen a number of prolonged slumps in Tory popularity. Each slump peppered with individual scandals dragging them still further down, that result in glorious exultation from opposition supporters:
"The Tories are obsolescent, through their callous self-interest totally incapable of commanding public support. Terminal decline! This is our time, and the progressive alliance of social-democrats is ascendant."
Heard this before, plenty, and I've learnt enough to smile wryly when i hear it again:
"Really, you haven't noticed how throughout history the Tories have borg'ed their opposition's electoral niche?"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...sh-welsh-polls

[Montmorency]

The core of the issue is that a Tory party now 11 years in government - having presided over massive and divisive policy problems around austerity/brexit/covid - should not be coming out of local elections with:

Hundreds of new Councillors (when local 'mid-terms' are seen as an opportunity to kick the Gov't).
Control of up to a dozen new councils (ditto above - and the base from which future GE's are fought with advantage).
Increasing its seats and mayoral vote in London (labour stronghold).
Holding firm what should have been short terms gains in Scotland (a rare place where Boris is an electoral negative).
Making huge gains in labour dominated Wales (where Labour's Mark Drakeford is recognised as having had a 'good' pandemic).

There is a problem here, and no-one can really explain why:

Yes, we can point at labour's problems as an effective opposition, and we can point to the incumbency benefit of crisis management, but on the principle that elections are "lost by the gov't, rather than won by the opposition" - what the hell are the tories doing that is making them so popular!

We all sort of recognise that the answer is that:
1. There is a broader social/cultural realignment going on, and the Tories are better able to exloit it in electorally useful ways.
"But how? Tell me what it is that is so bloody appealing about Tories!"
2. Political parties only survive long-term by a ruthless and relentless adaptation to changing circumstances, and Tories are good at it.
"But how? Why do they keep re-inventing themselves when other movements burn out after a century or so!"

It's utterly fascinating, and thoroughly perplexing. The conundrum delights me - as I love the evolution of political culture - but it's driving many people potty...

I'm old enough to have seen a number of prolonged slumps in Tory popularity. Each slump peppered with individual scandals dragging them still further down, that result in glorious exultation from opposition supporters:
"The Tories are obsolescent, through their callous self-interest totally incapable of commanding public support. Terminal decline! This is our time, and the progressive alliance of social-democrats is ascendant."
Heard this before, plenty, and I've learnt enough to smile wryly when i hear it again:
"Really, you haven't noticed how throughout history the Tories have borg'ed their opposition's electoral niche?"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...sh-welsh-polls

Using the election reporting link above:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...sh-welsh-polls


From the 2019 election Wiki, in those elections the Conservatives lost more than 1000 council seats, mostly to LibDems and other third parties (such as UKIP). From that perspective it was inevitable they should regain some in a reversion to a mean, both from the Euroskeptic UKIP/BP-voting end of the party and from the pro-EU end of the party that tended to support LibDems in 2019.

In 2021 from what I can find the Labour vote share is pretty much the same as it was in 2019. The loss of 250+ seats, alongside 70 Green gains, suggests that overall Conservatives are benefiting in a lot of close elections from voters returning from third parties, whereas the opposite is affecting Labour. The widespread sentiment of recovery from the pandemic will always help an incumbent party here, by the by.

As for Tories undermining their opposition by assimilating policies into their platform, this appears superficial, as the Conservatives rarely live up to their promises (e.g. Johnson and NHS). The political system as a whole does matter here, and it must always be pointed out that neither major party is really capable of commanding majority support under normal circumstances.
Something I don't know: the LibDems, having coalesced in the late 80s/early 90s, became a major third party once more in time for the Blair era, a time of massive Labour majorities; did LibDems mostly poach Conservative voters back then (as compared to Labour voters now)?

As we've discussed before, third parties like LibDems, Greens, and especially SNP participating at elevated levels in all the wrong places makes it almost impossible for Labour to form even a bare majority under any but the heaviest landslides - even as a majority-to-supermajority of the country dislikes the Conservative party. The collapse of reactionary parties on the Tory flank meanwhile consolidates Conservative votes - Brexit is thus a winner for the Brexiting party until the opposition can persuasively demonstrate harms to the country. For a possible analogy, it took around 20 years for US accession to NAFTA to become an animating controversy again!

Speaking of SNP, I think it's inevitable now that Scotland leaves. In 2014, the referendum was 45-55 for Remain. In 2015, the SNP finally became a major party by swapping like 50 seats in Scotland from Labour. Over the past 5 years, Brexit has been a thing, which Scottish people tend to dislike very much. In 2017 and 2019, the SNP more or less entirely maintained its massive gains from 2015 at Labour's expense. What this all amounts to is:

1. The next Labour government will rely on the SNP to form a majority
2. SNP will demand a referendum
3. Leave will be heavily favored to win the referendum
4. Labour will be widely blamed (if unfairly) for losing Scotland
5. Even if that resentment fades in England, the loss of Scottish seats is a permanent handicap for Labour (since so long as Scotland remains in the UK Labour can at least theoretically retrench on SNP)

In terms of (very) vulgar cyclicalism, I might predict Labour ought to take government in 2024/5 on the basis that no Conservative government has lasted more than ~15 years since the the pre-Victorian era (cf. Cameron government from 2010). It's crude reasoning though, and I'll laugh if it works out to be so simple.

[Montmorency]

Note of confusion.

Looking further at the history of local elections, are they actually staggered? That is, 2019 elections involved seats last contested in 2015, which are different than seats contested in 2016, these latter being the ones contested in 2021 (following postponement of elections from 2020)?

[Furunculus]

Note of confusion.

Looking further at the history of local elections, are they actually staggered? That is, 2019 elections involved seats last contested in 2015, which are different than seats contested in 2016, these latter being the ones contested in 2021 (following postponement of elections from 2020)?

Yes, they are staggered.
The English LA elections should have been last year, and there is I think a split between the rural authorities (on year) vs rural authorities (off year).
This was something of a 'super-election' as the delay meant the election coincided with lots of Mayoral and Welsh/Scottish election.

[Furunculus]

From the 2019 election Wiki, in those elections the Conservatives lost more than 1000 council seats, mostly to LibDems and other third parties (such as UKIP). From that perspective it was inevitable they should regain some in a reversion to a mean, both from the Euroskeptic UKIP/BP-voting end of the party and from the pro-EU end of the party that tended to support LibDems in 2019.

In 2021 from what I can find the Labour vote share is pretty much the same as it was in 2019. The loss of 250+ seats, alongside 70 Green gains, suggests that overall Conservatives are benefiting in a lot of close elections from voters returning from third parties, whereas the opposite is affecting Labour. The widespread sentiment of recovery from the pandemic will always help an incumbent party here, by the by.

All of this is true, but it still leaves the following as the biggest question:
"a Tory party now 11 years in government - having presided over massive and divisive policy problems around austerity/brexit/covid - should not be coming out of local elections with [a smile on its face]"
With all labours problems - and the new elecoral boundaries coming soon (finally - far too long!), there is pretty much zero prospect of conservatives not being in power after the next GE.

Speaking of SNP, I think it's inevitable now that Scotland leaves. In 2014, the referendum was 45-55 for Remain. In 2015, the SNP finally became a major party by swapping like 50 seats in Scotland from Labour. Over the past 5 years, Brexit has been a thing, which Scottish people tend to dislike very much. In 2017 and 2019, the SNP more or less entirely maintained its massive gains from 2015 at Labour's expense.

I'm not sure there is any certainty on this.
If they decide to leave, so be it, but i'm relatively confident they will decide not to.

Something I don't know: the LibDems, having coalesced in the late 80s/early 90s, became a major third party once more in time for the Blair era, a time of massive Labour majorities; did LibDems mostly poach Conservative voters back then (as compared to Labour voters now)?

The Liberals (pre Democrats) were THE major force in politics alongside the Tories until the start of the twentieth century, after which point they ceased to be able to represent the interests of a broad and election winning swathe of society.
The labour movement provided better answers. Now, a century later it seems to be that the labour movement has run out of answers to questions that interest a broad and election winning swathe of society.
And yet centuries roll by and Tory's keep winning, why?

If you want my answer - off the back of Baron Hailsham's logic, it is:
"Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."
An attitude doesn't go out of date - and in not being rooted to ideological precepts that circumstance renders obsolete it is easier for 'conservatism' to move with the times.
i.e. to die in a ditch defending now that which they died in a ditch resisting a century previous.

[Montmorency]

With all labours problems - and the new elecoral boundaries coming soon (finally - far too long!), there is pretty much zero prospect of conservatives not being in power after the next GE.

Say more.

I'm not sure there is any certainty on this.
If they decide to leave, so be it, but i'm relatively confident they will decide not to.

Shouldn't the overwhelming - and historically-recent! - success of pro-independence politics, in combination of the near-success of the independence referendum just prior to the maturation of the rise of pro-independence politics, belie this estimation?

The Liberals (pre Democrats) were THE major force in politics alongside the Tories until the start of the twentieth century, after which point they ceased to be able to represent the interests of a broad and election winning swathe of society.
The labour movement provided better answers. Now, a century later it seems to be that the labour movement has run out of answers to questions that interest a broad and election winning swathe of society.

And so were the Whigs before the Liberals, though here it is important to note that Labour continues to draw a swathe of society broad enough to almost match the Conservatives numerically, something the Liberals/LibDems have not been able to claim in over a century - it's just not election-winning. In the history of political parties fading from the scene, I am not aware of any in Labour's contemporary position.

I repeat, indeed intensify: no political party in the United Kingdom is capable of winning a majority of the vote. Structural factors have more relevance than intensional ones.

Edit: To say a little more, the contemporary LibDems seem to have hardly any natural constituency. Their votes tend to be major-party voters protesting against their customary parties. The core base of the LibDems, such as it may be, is possibly hardly bigger than that of the Greens.

And yet centuries roll by and Tory's keep winning, why?

If you want my answer - off the back of Baron Hailsham's logic, it is:
"Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."
An attitude doesn't go out of date - and in not being rooted to ideological precepts that circumstance renders obsolete it is easier for 'conservatism' to move with the times.

Yes, the Right always has a constituency, that's not a groundbreaking observation.

Evergreen observation:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

Conservatism also arguably has the distinction of the longest track record of failure and disaster in philosophical history.

i.e. to die in a ditch defending now that which they died in a ditch resisting a century previous.

This is a rather uncommon sort of conservatism today, raw reaction against modernity having driven it out, but even then it recalls one of those Internet laws (to paraphrase): 'Conservatism is opposition toward what liberals want today.'