I'm not questioning the argument that Corbyn is not looking electorally ineffective, more just that I don't think Richmond Park is anything to do with that. The argument around Corbyn is often that what appeals to the members (which he clearly does) doesn't appeal to the electorate. However, there's actually more Labour members in Richmond Park than voted Labour there in the by-election, which is why I'm so convinced it was overwhelmingly tactical voting rather than anything else.

At one point Labour were considering not fielding a candidate to give the Lib Dems a better chance but caved in to the local members demands that they should have the option to vote for their own party.

Corbyn's politics are a sort of student union' left-wing populism, it's based on a sort of "the enemy of my enemy" schtick, so for example he can get over people actually being murderous terrorists or anti-semites or any number of harmful things as long as they self-identify as opposing ideological concept he also opposes e.g. "American imperialism" or "Neoliberalism". It is in many ways the opposite of "small c" conservative pragmatism, because the actual harm done by these "friends" is considered less than the conceptual harm that can be attributed to the "enemy ideologies". The purity of the ideology is more important than the physical manifestation, so fare example stuff should be nationalised on principle even if the actual result would be no better or possibly even worse. This plays well with a substantial minority, but the majority, including the realist "left" which most of the Parliamentary Labour Party belong to, know its juvenile rubbish and the "real world" is more complex.

Corbyn won't be the end of the Labour Party, he's got to be given a chance to fail and hope that a new (pre-Iraq War) Blair figure can be found, who can put forward a sensible platform to rebuild on. It must be remembered that hard Left "Corbynistas" need the Labour brand, there are any number of socialist factions who've going nowhere slowly for a long time with the same schtick.

Although nobody is ever likely to forgive Blair, for his part in the Iraq war and nor should they, he did recognise that it's no good having policies and principles if enough people wont vote for them.
Corbyn, in this respect, has gone backwards.
His whole ethos is to stand by his personal thoughts and principles and hope that eventually enough people will come round to his way of thinking.
With the Libdems in turmoil (apart from the Richmond win) and the Tories likely to move further right, now is the time to mop up all of the centre ground.
It may not quite fit with his ideals but, if you dont have hold of the reigns, you cant ride the horse.

Corbyn is the kind of leader I'd imagine Rick from The Young Ones to vote for.

A lot of Labour supporters voted Lib Dem to get Zac Goldsmith out, Labour ran a pointless campaign (started far too late, not enough funding for advertisement, leaflets). And the area was a lib dem stronghold for many a year.

I suppose that's why the Labour Membership voted him in, twice, hoping that he can convert those personal principles and values into realistic policies that the general electorate and also his MP's can get behind. That second bit hasn't happened yet, and doesn't look like it will do to be honest, but he'd be a massive hypocrite just like most of the others in Westminster if he did as you suggest.

Ultimately, Corbyn's election wins were also protest votes in a sense. A big 'f-you' to the career-politicians and bull**itters that most of us loathe, people voting for anti-establishment, just like other votes we've seen in recent years.

However, the Richmond by-election isn't really one to judge him on. There have though been 6 other by-elections since Corbyn was elected leader, with Labour holding 5, and the Tories holding 1, but I must have missed the 5 threads on here titled "Labour heading for power"

You'll have to start a new "Labour heading for power" thread, that could be interesting.
I think that with Scotland likely to be a write off for some while, Labour may have to join forces with the SNP, to have any hope of holding the reins in Westminster but, a formal pact with the SNP could damage them further, south of the border.
Now, there's a conundrum.

It looks like the downhill slope is getting steeper for Corbyn and his team.
Although Sleaford is a true blue constituency, a further drop on their performance in the General Election, saw Labour come in 4th and receive only 7% of the vote.
I'm sure that it's all under control but, with some Labour politicians now happily confirming a jump to the left and their "happiness" about the Momentum group's influence on the party, Labour definitely risk becoming a fringe party.

For many decades you had Labour representing... well labour. And the Conservatives representing capital.

Progressive/liberal vs conservative/traditional was a secondary issue. The struggle was for economic power.

Now the working class has changed. Labour doesn't seem capable of representing their economic interests, and many of them are not very interested in the things that Labour has found to think about instead.

The Tories are, perhaps in the longer-term, facing a similar problem balancing the priorities of their economic liberals (powerful) and societal traditionalists (numerous).

Possibly we're seeing a realignment of politics along cultural rather than economic lines. In our electoral system, that would require a major realignment by both the traditional parties of power, or they'll go the way of the Whigs.

As with the Richmond by-election, I'm not sure there's much cause for concern in Labour not gaining Sleaford, or even losing some % of the vote, although the Corbyn/Labour critics will use it to stick the boot in.



It's certainly a risk. I think with the majority of policies and ideas Labour speak about, the majority of the populace would probably agree with them. They promoting fairness & equality. Unfortunately it's their ability to communicate said policies to the general population that they're failing to do effectively.

The bad PR and feeling around Corbyn (partly drummed up my the media, and partly by himself & some of the things he says that get picked up on) doesn't help either. He doesn't look or sound like a statesman. Whilst this shouldn't necessarily matter & people should be more concerned with what he actually says and judge him on his actions, unfortunately for a lot of the electorate it does matter.

The worst thing for the Labour party I believe was the terrible timing of the coup, straight after the Brexit vote. Corbyn won with a huge mandate in 2015, and there's no way those same voters would back a coup and oust the leader after just 9 months in charge. Plus, the polls at the time for Labour were reasonably good. If those MP's had kept their powder dry and carried out a coup further down the line, it might have worked.