-
And yet Blair won by 150+ seats in 1997... The Labour party is in deep trouble at the minute, but there's people out there (and enough of them) who would vote for them if they offered something palatable to those voters.
Things have changed since 1997:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/28/boundary-review-changes-affect-200-labour-party-seats-robert-hayward-report - I haven't done the analysis, but it would be interesting to know whether Labour could ever win a majority without Scotland with these seats gone. I don't think so?
The collapse of the Lib-Dems also favours the Tories. This is reversible, but doesn't give Labour a majority.
A move to the centre could also push voters to other parties (Green in particular) which is a huge risk in marginal seats.
Point being: I concede that Scotland isn't the only issue for Labour, but it's the biggest and the one that can't be turned around if they leave.
-
Things have changed since 1997:
but it's the biggest and the one that can't be turned around if they leave.
Yep, I completely agree with both of these things. Yet (and I'm not saying anything new here so much as just restating my old Corbyn moan), that 1997 majority was huge and surely suggests that there's enough people in the country who will float and vote Labour if you can convince them (even with FPTP).
I can't believe that there's that many marginal seats that would be at risk if the party moved more to the centre (became 'less left'). I don't know any numbers though, and your posts in this thread suggest you're more informed than me :)
christianSpaceman
And yet Blair won by 150+ seats in 1997... The Labour party is in deep trouble at the minute, but there's people out there (and enough of them) who would vote for them if they offered something palatable to those voters.
Of course, this assumes that what you want from your Labour party is a position which is much more of a compromise offering compared to Corbyn et al.