I agree with the broad strokes of moderating on certain things to win elections, but let's not kid ourselves as to why Labour won in a landslide. The Tories have been running the show for 14 years and the country has stagnated. People wanted a change and they got it.
I find this crucial and fascinating. But I do wonder how much of the victory is due to anti-incumbency and how much to moderate policy. And the charisma of a compelling leader.
Agree - the steps Labour took to the center are necessary but not sufficient to win. Another theme throughout history applying to Clinton, Blair etc. … will add that to the next one!
I expected a discussion on how Labour actually managed to distance itself from Corbyn. I actually read their programme and think their choices were good, specially regarding immigration, energy and criminal justice.
Problem with this article is that Labour actually had incredibly mediocre results. So, move to the left and raise the vote for third party options? I mean this requires a more comprehensive explanation of the splintering of political systems in Europe and how this was delayed in the United Kingdom due to the first past the post voting system.
But without explaining the shift of many Conservative voters towards the Greens and Liberal Democrats and contrasting these parties to Labour under Starmer this article's self-congratulatory tone is unwarranted.
Furthermore, the replacement of the Conservative party by Farage's Reform is a major shift to the far right. Not any kind of victory long term for liberal democracy.
I agree with the broad strokes of moderating on certain things to win elections, but let's not kid ourselves as to why Labour won in a landslide. The Tories have been running the show for 14 years and the country has stagnated. People wanted a change and they got it.
I find this crucial and fascinating. But I do wonder how much of the victory is due to anti-incumbency and how much to moderate policy. And the charisma of a compelling leader.
Agree - the steps Labour took to the center are necessary but not sufficient to win. Another theme throughout history applying to Clinton, Blair etc. … will add that to the next one!
I expected a discussion on how Labour actually managed to distance itself from Corbyn. I actually read their programme and think their choices were good, specially regarding immigration, energy and criminal justice.
Problem with this article is that Labour actually had incredibly mediocre results. So, move to the left and raise the vote for third party options? I mean this requires a more comprehensive explanation of the splintering of political systems in Europe and how this was delayed in the United Kingdom due to the first past the post voting system.
But without explaining the shift of many Conservative voters towards the Greens and Liberal Democrats and contrasting these parties to Labour under Starmer this article's self-congratulatory tone is unwarranted.
Furthermore, the replacement of the Conservative party by Farage's Reform is a major shift to the far right. Not any kind of victory long term for liberal democracy.