-
The presumption here is that having more progressive policies is a cost to electoral viability. Many would agree that it is, and that's a reasonable position, but it's very hard to prove. It seems to me like there's a very large area to explore.
slippers-
You could refer back to the limited number of progressive parties being in power.
It provides some pretty convincing data.
-
Not very scientific I know.
The Great Labour Government of 1945 only just hung on to power in the following 1950 election, and were out in '51. 13 years of tory rule.
1983 was seen as a Left Wing Labour manafesto, lost to thatcher, 14 more years of tory govenment
1997, 2001,2005, Tony Blair wins 3 in a row only Labour Leader to do this.
2017 Jermy Corbyn's Labour lose to a hapless Teressa May who runs a bad campaign IMO.
2019 Labour under Jermy Corbyn lose again, worst loss since 1930's to Boris Johnson. Then Truss, now Sunak almost 14 years and counting the cost.
Under Centerist Keir Starmer Labour has come back and is 20 points ahead.
Looks like a pattern to me.
Grumpy_Git
DoubtfulAce
The gap between the tories and labour may not be as big as we'd like, but millions of people live and die in that gap.