A General Election has been called for June. Is there a chance this might be the end for the party as it has not set its ambition as becoming (again) a party of government but is wedded to its small base? True it is a large base in terms of what the main parties have but small and marginalized in terms of the electorate as a whole. Is it RIP Corbyn et al?
No, not yet. At least not for another 6 weeks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Labour may lose by a larger share of the popular vote, but they may not lose that many of their actual seats, as they tend to have fairly good majorities. Also, it is too early to tell what effect the little matter of Brexit will have on the voting, whether the populace will try to give the government a bloody nose for even having the referendum in the first place, or for opting for what seems like a harder Brexit than many might have wanted. If so, will labour be where protesters place their vote, or will that be the Lib Dems? Or maybe the Greens? But I wouldn't be surprised if Labour do lose seats, nor would I be surprised if their popular share is so low as to force Corbyn out. Whether that then triggers the Labour Party to effectively split or not, I don't know, as doing so would seem to leave the Conservative party without a significant opposition at the next election (2022), as at that time even the "safe" Labour seats might end up splitting their vote and thus let the conservatives further in. And if Labour do suffer, will Corbyn resign? If not, will he be challenged and if so will he be defeated? Will the leftist element then split from the party, or will the New Labour centralist element split off and enable the Labour part to return to its roots? Interesting times.
Can I bump this now? Is there any reason to think that the Labour Party is still in its death throes despite this Lazarus like performance?(is it all about this last performance or is it about to eat itself apart again ,this time for good?) If not ,what is the short /medium term prognosis for the Labour Party?
Why does the question carry Tory water? Should it not be asked because it is a question that would be music to their ears?
From my side of the Pond it sounds just like the apocalyptic pitch conservatives always make about liberalism. Do you really think you can explain history both accurately and in such a manner that supports your question? I assert the question is historically insupportable.
I don't understand your terminology. What does "support your question" actual mean? (I am unfamiliar with that usage) You are not disputing my right to ask the question ... (although I feel you may be insinuating that I am taking pleasure from the situation and am happy that the Conservatives will benefit) Are you asking me to say whether or not I think it is a good thing that the Labour Party should die from its internal disputes between its Parliamentary Party ,its membership and its leadership? I am not ,I hope being disingenuous but to avoid confusion I need to know what it is I am being asked.
In the U.S., for instance, we have a market sector we refer to as "push polling". The object of push polling is not to determine what an audience thinks, but to seed ideas within an audience. If I ask the British people: "Do you agree with [local council] that allowed Sharia law to be considered in resolution of a family dispute according to the wishes of all participants?" that would be a regular poll question. (I actually forget what the specific court issue was, but American conservatives freaked out at the time.) If I want to push-poll a political argument, I might poll the question, "Do you agree or disagree with the liberal decision to allow radical Muslims to overrule British law?" In the U.S., pollsters occasionally call to find out how people relate to general Party lines, and the push polls always stand out for sounding just like your question. Last year we might have asked: "Do you agree or disagree with Party officials allowing their personal candidate preferences to influence Committee actions?" Or we might have pushed: "Do you agree that the tyrants Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and Hillary Clinton should be in prison for conspiring to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders?" There are, as I understand it, general policy questions for Labour to reconcile, and also whether Corbyn is the best choice for the Party moving forward: • "Is there a chance this might be the end for the party as it has not set its ambition as becoming (again) a party of government but is wedded to its small base?" This question appears to require two Tory narrative points— (1) "has not set its ambition as becoming a party of government" (2) "is wedded to its small base" —which, in turn, form the whole of the inquiry. It's a push question advancing a Tory narrative. Interestingly, on our side of the Pond, Republicans definitively abandoned national governance, and thus won it. However, our system is specifically designed to allow a winning, governing minority. Still, though, circumstances being what they are, it's actually hard to derive lessons so early in a cycle of anti-information; it would be unwise for Labour to attempt to reproduce the GOP's viral-incoherence success, as Americans generally don't scrabble and cobble about for governing coalitions. The closest we get is the occasional "Independent" who then caucuses more or less with another Party. Occasionally it swings a chamber. Nonetheless, predicting the end of a major party, even in Britain, is a risky projection. By your question, has Labour never in its history, faced ... well, what is the existential threat? You raised what appears to be a push question formulated to cultivate Tory narrative. Which in turn is an interesting question in and of itself: Why? That is, accepting you're not trying to carry Tory water on this issue, can you explain those two enumerated points about the question?
Thank you for that interesting answer. It will take me a little while to digest (and there may be some introspection involved) and reply to . But not too long.(I think I get what you are getting at).
To get to what I see as the core issue ,am I actually (or apparently) introducing Tory assumptions into what I consciously in my own mind felt were questions addressing a catastrophic outcome to a political Party I would wish to continue to support (if only in a "lip service" way)? I feel in a way I have become more "conservative" (with a small "c" as a result of the march of time ) but within the confines of the tent of ideas represented broadly by the Labour Party. That means I would see myself as "Old Labour". This gets very confusing as the Corbynites are also referred to as "Old Labour" but I take this term to mean that Labour has to represent the population as a whole and ,hopefully govern via Parliamentary representation(The Corbinites wish to place restrictions on Parliamentary representative-or are at least strongly suspected of as much). So do I think I was introducing a Conservative narrative into an "innocent seeming" question as to Labour's future? I certainly hope not and to examine the extract you are pulling out of my OP I would say for the first point. (1) "has not set its ambition as becoming a party of government" that this is not and nor can I ever remember it having been made as part of the Tory narrative . The Tories would be very happy with that outcome although I do here it said that "we need a proper opposition" (now,ironically we have it btw). No this point is made in the context of Corbyn refusing to step aside because ,so this narrative goes he is not interested in immediate electoral success but is looking ahead to the next 2 or 3 elections. This will be said by neutral commentators I am sure(I listen to the BBC and Andrew Neil quite a lot) and events have overtaken this analysis as Corbyn is now looking apparently at a much more imminent accession to governance as the political situation has completely upended in the last week or so. Your point#2 was (2) "is wedded to its small base" is indeed more of a Tory narrative but it applies to the Corbyn wing of the party ,not to the Party as a whole. Corbyn achieved his leadership as a consequence of changes in voting rules that allowed the party's membership greater weight (hope I am correct here) and especially it allowed "last minute" registration. This led to the perception that he was a front for activists rather than "normal" Party members. That is a lot a complication that I don't expect American's to have followed but ,so as not to sound patronising I have got a thick ear on another forum from others who I think are also from the UK. So they seem to have shared your suspicion that my (similar)post was some kind of a Trojan Horse. So ,on the basis that I am getting kicked about a bit I wonder if I am getting some kind of disengaged kick out of the sad situation (laugh or cry) I didn't want Brexit . I have to put up with it . I didn't want the Tories to win -that was a plus . But we have a Labour Party that seems to have been hijacked by the elements in it that I have no sympathy with and yet have brought it back from the brink and closer to power. I am happy on balance but have no idea where it is leading to. EDIT: I sure hope your "push polling" examples were exaggerated for effect . They would be monstrous otherwise.(hadn't really come across them before tbh)
