Why Labour lost.

[srb7677]

That focus has very much been on Brexit in every election since we voted to leave . Especially when some party's decided the referendum didn't matter . Get that done and other policy  might get a viewing .

I agree that Brexit was a strong factor in both 2017 and 2019. But in the former Labour's manifesto shifted a lot of focus onto policy much more so than in 2019 which was almost wholly about Brexit. This goes a long way towards explaining why Labour did so much better in 2017 than in 2019. In the former they succeeded in diverting some of the attention away from Brexit onto their popular policies. In 2019 this didn't happen. The media had learned it's lesson.

[Streetwalker]

And yet polling evidence of the popularity of those policies clearly shows logically that it was not these that caused our defeat. We clearly lost in spite of them, not because of them. They were not enough on their own to win, but they did not lose it for us. They almost certainly prevented us from losing even more badly, actually - especially in 2017 when the focus was less on Brexit and more on policy.

That focus has very much been on Brexit in every election since we voted to leave . Especially when some party's decided the referendum didn't matter . Get that done and other policy  might get a viewing .

[papasmurf]

It is your apparent assertion that Diane Abbot single-handedly lost us the election which looks like a grotesque, dubiously motivated, exaggeration to say the least. She might have been unpopular with some but is hardly likely to have swung it for most people. There were much bigger issues involved, which is why you seem to me to be obsessed with the power of her negative impact in blaming it all on her. Looks kind of obsessive to me.

Quite, given the number of Tory MPs who if brains were dynamite they would not have enough to blow the wax out of their ears.
Anyone who regularly watches live debates in the House of Commons as I do would soon wonder what we have done to deserve the current shower of incompetent idiots who are MPs no matter what political party they represent.

[srb7677]

Labour lost because a win would have seen Diane 'its very important to know where these racists live' Abbott put in charge of the Home Office FFS.

If you think this interpretation of events wholly explains why Labour lost you are deluding yourself, driven down a blind alley by your obsession with the racism issue, ie your need to constantly downplay or mock it, and by your obsession with Diane Abbot.

FFS did you ever WATCH any of her car crash interviews.

Admit it, she only got the job because no-one competent wanted anything to do with his shadow cabinet and she was of course handy when he needed to prove his diversity of outlook by shagging her...

When Corbyn got the leader's job tories up and down the land jumped for joy.

It is your apparent assertion that Diane Abbot single-handedly lost us the election which looks like a grotesque, dubiously motivated, exaggeration to say the least. She might have been unpopular with some but is hardly likely to have swung it for most people. There were much bigger issues involved, which is why you seem to me to be obsessed with the power of her negative impact in blaming it all on her. Looks kind of obsessive to me.

[srb7677]

Also popular policy alone wont win labour an election........2017 proved this.

That is indeed true. But they are an essential part of the mix, without which we cannot hope to win either. Ditching the main thing people liked about us in 2017 in pursuit of supposedly making us "electable" is actually logically idiotic. The one thing you shouldn't change is the thing people liked. The factors that actually lost us the election is where change of some sort is needed, not the only things people liked about us.

The problem is that we have many Blairites - heavily invested in the Thatcherite status quo, often financially and not just psychologically - who are ideologically opposed to many of those popular policies. They are dishonestly engaged in trying to make the fallacious argument that the policies themselves are the problem, motivated more by their own personal dislike of them, using our defeat as their reasoning.

And yet polling evidence of the popularity of those policies clearly shows logically that it was not these that caused our defeat. We clearly lost in spite of them, not because of them. They were not enough on their own to win, but they did not lose it for us. They almost certainly prevented us from losing even more badly, actually - especially in 2017 when the focus was less on Brexit and more on policy.

[Thomas]

I think - taking the lead from Corbyn himself - the leadership were too high minded. They decided to treat the smears with the contempt they deserved by mostly ignoring them. But this doesn't work in politics.

Theres that old saying "when wrestling with a pig , you have to go in the sty and get dirty".

Labour and many on the left often forget this , while the tories and others dont.

Also popular policy alone wont win labour an election........2017 proved this.

You can have all the popular policies in the world , but if you arent on the side of the people over the big issues of the day , you arent going to win.

[papasmurf]

When Corbyn got the leader's job tories up and down the land jumped for joy.

Why were they so scared of him then?  That is a serious question by the way, if they thought him to be useless why the Tsunami of lies and anti Corbyn propaganda?

[johnofgwent]

Labour lost because a win would have seen Diane 'its very important to know where these racists live' Abbott put in charge of the Home Office FFS.

If you think this interpretation of events wholly explains why Labour lost you are deluding yourself, driven down a blind alley by your obsession with the racism issue, ie your need to constantly downplay or mock it, and by your obsession with Diane Abbot.

FFS did you ever WATCH any of her car crash interviews.

Admit it, she only got the job because no-one competent wanted anything to do with his shadow cabinet and she was of course handy when he needed to prove his diversity of outlook by shagging her...

When Corbyn got the leader's job tories up and down the land jumped for joy.

[srb7677]

Labour lost because a win would have seen Diane 'its very important to know where these racists live' Abbott put in charge of the Home Office FFS.

If you think this interpretation of events wholly explains why Labour lost you are deluding yourself, driven down a blind alley by your obsession with the racism issue, ie your need to constantly downplay or mock it, and by your obsession with Diane Abbot.

[Thomas]

The mountain to climb

In June 2015 the Fabian Society publishedThe Mountain to Climb: Labour's 2020 challenge
which presented a bleak analysis of the electoral challenge facing the party,following Ed Miliband's 2015 defeat. Today we repeat that exercise. But this time the outlook is even worse.

To win Labour will need to gain seats in all these categories because it requiresat least 123 seats at the next general election to form a majority of one.
This is almost twice as many new seats as the party needed to win before the 2019 election.However this headline figure actually under-states the extent to which Labour's electoral position has deteriorated

Labour's future prospects will be even worse if it cannot make progress in Scotland. To secure a UK majority without regaining seats in Scotland, Labour will need to win 57 per cent of the constituencies in England and Wales. Winning the 123 seats it needs just in England and Wales will require an electoral swing of over 12 percentage points in English and Welsh marginal seats.

A swing on this scale in England and Wales is almost inconceivable. This means that forLabour to return to government the party will either need to defeat the SNP or work with the SNP. The latter scenarioseems more likely. Labour would need to gain 83 seats (but not from the SNP) to be able to govern with the support of the nationalists.

Labour has suffered a crushing defeat and is very unlikely to return to majority government in a single electoral cycle. But if the party does not makemajorprogress over the next 4 or 5 yearsit cannot expect to securepower even after a further 10 yearsin opposition.A decisive change in direction is neededimmediately.

https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Another-Mountain-to-Climb.pdf

[papasmurf]

Definitions of disaster vary.

Well what the rabid pro Brexiters called project fear is I suspect going to be closer to the reality than they think.

[patman post]

I expect a disaster, the only unknown being how long it will last.

Definitions of disaster vary. For some it's missing Aunt Edith's 90th birthday party because of the traffic on the A303. For others it could be a tsunami that destroys their homes. Just using catch-all word "disaster" without any definition means nothing..

[Streetwalker]

Personally I think the seeds of defeat were sown back in the days of the Blair government  when they decide to keep our  kids at school until they were 18 and give their  entry level jobs to 16 year olds from wherever  with  an EU passport . 
Labour abandoned the working man ,  they threw us and our children aside on a  wankfest of self promotion ,diversity and multiculturalism .

The labour party have been the longest suicide note in history  and I for one will be delighted when they finally have the guts to pull the trigger .

[johnofgwent]

Labour lost because a win would have seen Diane 'its very important to know where these racists live' Abbott put in charge of the Home Office FFS.

[papasmurf]

So you keep saying, but without any indication of what to expect.

I expect a disaster, the only unknown being how long it will last.