This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Former President tack50]

To be honest, I would rather be British Labour than the Spanish PSOE or even the Portuguese PS in the long term, if only because FPTP means that in order for Labour to be displaced as the main party of the British left needs an electoral revolution of cataclysmic proportions.

Meanwhile under PR it is much easier to be replaced as the main opposition party and the fact that PSOE managed to retain that role in 2016 is almost a miracle.

Of course under PR it is also hypothetically easier to regain that role than under FPTP (which honestly makes the resurrection of the Canadian Liberals in 2015 almost a miracle tbh).

[Former President tack50]

Indeed, puts that moronic centrist meme of "MAY RAN THE WORST CAMPAIGN EVER!!" in perspective.

To be fair the huge popular vote results of Labour 2017 and the Tories in both 2017 and 2019 says more about the decline of the Lib Dems first and UKIP later than it says about either of them

Johnson got less seats than Thatcher 1987 despite having a higher percentage of the popular vote
Theresa May got less seats than Major 1992 despite having a higher percentage of the popular vote
And of course Corbyn 2017 got a result comparable to Blair 2001. But while Blair got more than 400 seats in 2001, Corbyn did not even get a Labour minority.

The answer to "Why Labour and the Tories do so great on the PV" is the fact that the Lib Dems used to get 25% of the vote and they now get 10%. This is especially noticeable for the Tories as Labour has lost their Scottish vote while the Tories actually went up there.

IMO a better comparison would be the PV gap between the 2 main parties. You could adjust this to just look at the 2 party vote, but even without adjustments (and rounding) you get since the 1980s:

2019: Tory+12
2017: Tory+2
2015: Tory+7
2010: Tory+7
2005: Labour+3
2001: Labour+9
1997: Labour+12
1992: Tory+8
1987: Tory+11
1983: Tory+15
 
So Boris Johnson got a victory on par with Blair's landslide of 1997. The only reason he does not have 400 seats is because of vote consolidation and the death of the Lib Dems. But this is certainly a testament to how good his campaign was (and conversely how utterly terrible Corbyn's was)

As for May, notice how she had the closest PV result? Given the circumstances of the election, her campaign was absolutely terrible given how she only managed to barely eke out a win

[Former President tack50]

I thought that zero tolerance was meant to be applied only to antisemitism? (Which seemed to be the big problem in Labour)

I will say it's not really like the Tories can really mount a campaign off "we are the true pro-Trans" party either; unlike with antisemitism (Labour are the true antisemites, the Tories stand with the Jewish community)

[Former President tack50]

Ed Miliband's performance today showed rightfully why Starmers team tend to lean quite heavily on him- one of the better commons performances I've seen by the end of it (he seemed a bit wobbly at first but I think it was a style thing)

Landed a number of good hits on Johnson & actually reminded me quite a lot of how Hague use to approach opposition where he tended to slaughter Gordon Brown. It's quite liberating to be a former leader.

Why was Milliband unable to win in 2015 and why was Cameron able to get his reputration quite down at the time, making him appear like a weird person? (see: That infamous sandwich photo for instance)

[Former President tack50]

IMO, the right decision morally and politically. Corbyn’s position, already precarious after the report was released, became untenable after his statement. This appears to voter, among whom Corbyn is very unpopular, to be a decisive and bold break with not just anti-Semitism but Corbynism more generally. As others have said, an actual successful breakaway is unlikely, but there is still the danger that the appearance of infighting weakens the party’s image. Anyway, Starmer is really putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak, which does no harm to his public perception.

Its a high risk move nonetheless.

Not least, in fact, because suspension isn't actually expulsion and in due course Corbyn might have to be let back into the fold - how exactly would that be spun?

Indeed - but one of the reasons for the decline of social democratic parties across Europe has been playing it too safe when they are already suffering from major image problems.

The image problems of the Labour party under Corbyn are radically different to those of all the other social democratic parties in Europe; and arguably more comparable to the parties of the far left than the centre left

There is a reason why in 2017 Corbyn was compared to the likes of Tsipras, Iglesias or Melenchon.

And to the extent that they are comparable, anti Semitism would not even rank in the top 100 worries for said voters; with their reasons to leave Labour being the usual#populist   combo of Brexit, immigration, and what not.

Now, you can argue that the antisemitism issue meant Labour had an image of incompetence; and I would agree on that hurting Labour and Corbyn a lot. But anti semitism per se is not the reason the north of England voted for Johnson in 2019.

[Former President tack50]

So that effectively means Corbyn is a Labour Party member but sitting as an indepdent, correct?

In practical terms it means he can attend meetings of his CLP and Branch and vote in internal elections, but cannot attend a meeting of the PLP and will not be issued with the Whip (i.e. the document that goes round instructing MPs how to vote on legislation). Of course he's not a particularly popular chap in the PLP and never paid much attention to the Whip anyway, so it's largely symbolic.

If I understand correctly, the CLP is the one that (eventually) names candidates for general elections right? What if they name Corbyn again? (Assuming Corbyn does not get the whip back and that he wants to run for reelection)

[Former President tack50]

Didn't Labour repeatedly vote against the Brexit treaties done by Theresa May? What makes this one different enough to consider abstaining, let alone supporting it?

Did Johnson give Starmer a seat at the table and negotiate it with Labour jointly?

If anything, Labour should vote no to a Tory brexit? (Regardless of whether Johnson or May is PM)