A Corbyn victory is neither impossible nor inevitable
Lords Adonis and Finkelstein had an interesting debate a few days ago via the opinion and letters columns in The Times about whether Jeremy Corbyn could be elected Prime Minister.
To greatly simplify what they were saying, Lord Adonis argued that some leaders are unelectable, that Jeremy Corbyn is one of them, and that if Labour want to win they should replace him.
Danny Finkelstein argued that the most important driver of electoral success are the state of the economy and perceived economic competence, and that if the economy goes pear-shaped there is a good chance that the government will get the blame and Corbyn or whoever is then leading the Labour party will win by default.
I actually thought most of what they both said was right.
Although large numbers of people in the Labour party and the media seem to think otherwise, the 2017 election did not prove Jeremy Corbyn to be a great electoral asset. Admittedly he outperformed the very low expectations people had of him. Yes, he persuaded millions of people to turn out and vote for him.
However, he was also the main cause of even more millions of people turning out and voting Conservative.
If Labour had had a more credible and less extreme leader, and the Conservatives had still called the 2017 election and fought the same sort of campaign, Labour would have won.
That does not necessarily mean Labour will win whenever the next election comes. All parties will have learned lessons from the 2017 campaign,
There is a good piece in the Guardian which argues that Labour can't take winning the next election for granted.
As is so often the case, the safest rule is that no party can take the voters of Britain for granted.
To greatly simplify what they were saying, Lord Adonis argued that some leaders are unelectable, that Jeremy Corbyn is one of them, and that if Labour want to win they should replace him.
Danny Finkelstein argued that the most important driver of electoral success are the state of the economy and perceived economic competence, and that if the economy goes pear-shaped there is a good chance that the government will get the blame and Corbyn or whoever is then leading the Labour party will win by default.
I actually thought most of what they both said was right.
Although large numbers of people in the Labour party and the media seem to think otherwise, the 2017 election did not prove Jeremy Corbyn to be a great electoral asset. Admittedly he outperformed the very low expectations people had of him. Yes, he persuaded millions of people to turn out and vote for him.
However, he was also the main cause of even more millions of people turning out and voting Conservative.
If Labour had had a more credible and less extreme leader, and the Conservatives had still called the 2017 election and fought the same sort of campaign, Labour would have won.
That does not necessarily mean Labour will win whenever the next election comes. All parties will have learned lessons from the 2017 campaign,
There is a good piece in the Guardian which argues that Labour can't take winning the next election for granted.
As is so often the case, the safest rule is that no party can take the voters of Britain for granted.
Comments