Point taken. A major part of any look into why La...

2015-08-11T11:36:34.959+01:00

Point taken. A major part of any look into why Labour won three successive elections has to be just how useless the Tories were; when David Cameron and George Osborne are the solution, just how hopeless were Hague, IDS and Howard? Andreou's wider argument still doesn't follow though: moving left without convincing voters that doing so is the right thing is hardly a recipe for success, and to claim that somehow all the things the public did like about Miliband and Labour were distracted from by the pink van and immigration mugs is risible.

When someone like Alex Andreou comes up with the f...

2015-08-11T11:08:47.487+01:00

When someone like Alex Andreou comes up with the formulation that Labour only grew from 1983 and only declined from 1997, and apparently lacks the self-awareness to realise that's how politics worked until the last election

I've been looking at the figures, & I can't agree with this.

1945 Labour govt: Labour vote went up in both 1950 and 1951 (when they lost)
1951 Tory govt: Tory vote went up in 1955 and 1959, down in 1964 (when they lost)
1964 Labour govt: vote went up in 1966, then down in 1970 (when they lost)
1974 Labour govt: vote went down slightly in second 1974 election, then up slightly in 1979 election (which they lost)
1979 Tory govt: vote went down in 1983 then up in 1987 and 1992, then down in 1997 (when they lost). Labour vote went down in 1983 then up in 1987, 1992 & 1997.
1997 Labour govt: vote went down in 2001, 2005 and 2010 (when they lost)

There's no parallel to Blair's feat of winning three elections on a steadily declining number of votes. It's a weird pattern, unhealthy for political democracy and obviously unsustainable.

Comments on Obsolete: Dear Liz Kendall...

Point taken. A major part of any look into why La...

When someone like Alex Andreou comes up with the f...