-
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.
DoubtfulAce-
Looks like a pattern to me.
No doubt about that, all I'm trying to say is that there's space to move in a more progressive direction before it has any electoral effect. That means there's no need to accept some of the darker sides of the Labour front bench, and it is possible to expect better without facing defeat.
slippers
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.