by John Wall
Although the dust from the general election is yet to settle and there is much ink still to be spilt it’s clear that, despite the claims of the Corbynistas, Project Corbyn has reached its limit.
Go back a couple of years and Corbyn’s path to Downing Street was essentially predicated on two principles. The first was non-voters, in the hope that they’d support Labour, and the second was attracting fellow travellers on the left, effectively a so-called progressive alliance.
The naysayers countered with analyses contending that these wouldn’t provide sufficient extra support and that a majority could only be secured by attracting Conservative voters.
If we look at the headline figures the two main parties together secured approaching 85% of the vote, a significant increase since the about 67% in 2015 and a massive consequential squeeze on the smaller parties.
Then there was the large increase in turnout by the key, for Corbyn, 18-24 age group.
Notwithstanding the above, and despite a poor campaign, the Conservative vote and percentage share increased, and Labour are still more than sixty seats short of a majority.
It’s clear that, overall, few Conservatives were attracted to Labour and, considering Corbyn’s extremely unsavoury baggage and economic incontinence, this isn’t particularly surprising.
It may, of course, be possible to squeeze the minor parties a little more, but the share of the two main parties is at its highest since about 1970, and perhaps some more 18-24 year olds can be enticed by giveaways, but Lord Ashcroft reckons that two thirds voted for Labour, so these avenues must now be subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Whenever the next election is the Conservatives will have learned the lessons of 2017, simple things like a few devil’s advocates involved in writing the manifesto. There might even be a new leader, it’s a party that is only interested in winning and winners, with no place for sentiment.
Everything went Corbyn’s way but he still fell a long way short. His position is secure, and Labour will now probably be refashioned in his likeness, but that will not attract Conservative voters and will keep them as far from power as ever.
John Wall is a former member of the Conservatives
Tags: Conservatives, General election 2017, Jeremy Corbyn, John Wall, non-voters, power, switchers
It might have stretched a bit further if Dugdale had n’t supported tory candidates.
We were only 2000 odd votes in marginals from being the only party able to form a government.
Of course we can’t know what the future holds but the momentum, in both senses, is with us.
We’ll see.
“It’s clear that, overall, few Conservatives were attracted to Labour and, considering Corbyn’s extremely unsavoury baggage and economic incontinence, this isn’t particularly surprising.”
The Ex member for Kensington & Chelsea, might disagree with you.
Don’t totally agree with you John – for a number of reasons. I think the general public are truly shocked and appalled by the behaviour of Teresa Me – not only by her very poor performance in the election- poor interviews, not turning up for debates etc but also her behaviour after – not taking responsibility for her manifesto and her failure in the election. All of this demonstrates poor leadership skill – poor communication skills, and an authoritarian style of leadership. She says that things will change but this is too little too late.
Also getting into bed with th DUP will not sit well with many Conservatives let alone the general public. There are many problems with this arrangement.
For the above reason I think the Conservatives are very damaged. People are looking more to The Labour Party as a better option.
Not, it doesn’t:
http://mailchi.mp/survation/post-election-poll-for-the-mail-on-sunday-1118541
This article seems to sum up today’s Labour Uncut. Are we sure it’s not Chris Leslie writing under a different name. Very sad.
@TheBeholder – look at where the polls were seven weeks ago! At the moment Corbyn is on a roll whereas May is damaged goods, this is the bandwagon effect.
@buttley – Yes, some did switch from the May Party to the Corbyn Party, but some went the other way. Overall, however, millions more voted for the May Party than the Cameron Party and about 3% more than voted for the Corbyn Party – that’s hardly a rejection of May.
What matters, however, is the lead.
May had about 3% – hung parliament.
Cameron had 6-7% – slim majority.
Get up to 8%, 9% or more and the majority increases disproportionately.
May was hit by a triple whammy of a poor campaign, minor party squeeze and previously non-voters (such as 18-24s) turning out but still ended up 3% ahead.
Corbyn needs hundreds of thousands or, more probably, millions to switch from Conservative to Labour to put him in Downing Street. Yes, there are seats that “one more heave” could have got, but not another sixty plus.
More seats would, of course, make coalition building easier but what would, for example, Nicola Sturgeon’s “pound of flesh” be, Indyref2. Remember that, is is documented, in 2010 Gordon Brown was talking to the DUP.
@TheBeholder – look at where the polls were seven weeks ago! At the moment Corbyn is on a roll whereas May is damaged goods, this is the bandwagon effect.
@buttley – Yes, some did switch from the May Party to the Corbyn Party, but some went the other way. Overall, however, millions more voted for the May Party than the Cameron Party and about 3% more than voted for the Corbyn Party – that’s hardly a rejection of May.
What matters, however, is the lead.
May had about 3% – hung parliament.
Cameron had 6-7% – slim majority.
Get up to 8%, 9% or more and the majority increases disproportionately.
May was hit by a triple whammy of a poor campaign, minor party squeeze and previously non-voters (such as 18-24s) turning out but still ended up 3% ahead.
Corbyn needs hundreds of thousands or, more probably, millions to switch from Conservative to Labour to put him in Downing Street. Yes, there are seats that “one more heave” could have got, but not another sixty plus.
More seats would, of course, make coalition building easier but what would, for example, Nicola Sturgeon’s “pound of flesh” be, Indyref2. Remember that, as is documented, in 2010 Gordon Brown was talking to the DUP.
@Danny Speight – I heard Chris Leslie on Radio 4 and realised he was largely saying what I’d written. There seems to be a lot of euphoria in the Corbynistas and he did do well, better than many expected – albeit starting from a low base and low expectations. However, it’s all a bit like the Emperor’s new clothes – Corbyn isn’t in Downing Street and I don’t see his plan, cunning or otherwise, to get there.
OK, if some more seats could be gained you can start thinking about coalitions or “agreements”. In 2010 Cameron had 306 seats and Clegg – I punched the air when he lost, there is a God!, had 57. That produced a decent majority that could tolerate the occasional back bench revolt. But both sides had to pay a price. Some Conservatives had waited a long time for a government job but were passed over in favour of LDs. The LDs then suffered the fate of many junior coalition partners and many received P45s in 2015.
So, move forward to 2017. With the squeeze on the minor parties none have anything like the LDs’ 57 in 2010.
The LDs have scraped up to 12 and did not continue the progress they’d made in by-elections. They’ve also indicated that they’re not interested in getting into bed with anybody else – and I don’t blame them as it could well wipe them out completely.
The DUP hate Corbyn’s long-term support for the IRA so wouldn’t get into bed with Labour.
The SNP now have 35 so if you can get 291 seats that’s the magic 326, but means government on a knife edge – and how does it work, a coalition which would mean SNP MPs having government jobs or confidence and supply ? Either way it’s a gift for the Conservatives. It also means that there has to be a method of “agreeing” things, like the “Quad” of the 2010-15 coalition.
This, of course, assumes that there is another election in the not too distant future.
Although there is unhappiness with May – and she’s unlikely to survive – I can see no Conservative appetite for another election. Corbyn has no obvious plan to get mass switching from Conservative to Labour but he’s on a roll, and who knows…
The DUP hate Corbyn and if they’re sensible with their demands they’re in a strong position which would immediately disappear with a Corbyn/Labour government.
Unless there is another election very soon, I don’t see a path for Corbyn into Downing Street. If May is replaced and the DUP doesn’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs the euphoria will start to subside and it will be realised that Corbyn, like the Emperor, is stark naked.
What “extremely unsavoury baggage”, wtf are you talking about?
As for “economic incontinence”, no one could possibly be worse than the Tories, Austerity makes no economic sense whatsoever!
@Landless Peasant – the “extremely unsavoury baggage” is very well documented. Don’t believe the Corbynista spin regarding Ireland. Corbyn wasn’t interested in, or working for, peace – he wanted an IRA victory. He’s supported and endorsed repulsive and repressive regimes all over the world – as long as they’ve been anti-West.
The “economic incontinence” is obvious to anyone in the real world. He and his colleagues just prove that Hayek was right “If socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists”.
The tax raising plans are just fantasy economics. Although seemingly counterintuitive it’s established that raising taxes beyond a certain level reduces the take whereas cutting them increases it.
There was little Conservative refutation during the campaign – probably due to overconfidence. However, a couple of times Nick Clegg – washes my mouth out with soap! – made the point that trying to squeeze more out of the wealthy was difficult – and he was Deputy PM for five years – as they tended to move. Nicola Sturgeon was asked why she hadn’t implemented, although she could, a 50% rate and she, effectively, said that they’d move to England!
What matters when you’re in government and want to do things is the total take, not how much individuals pay – although the figures show that the percentage of tax paid by those at the top has steadily increased.
The few that pay so much have a disproportionate effect if you want to do sensible things like raise the threshold for those at the bottom. That’s good for several reasons, they wouldn’t pay very much but there would still be a collection cost and there is a processing cost in topping up through the benefits system – much better to let them keep more of what they earn.
If somebody – and chance would be a fine thing! – is paid, say, £1m they are going to pay £100ks in tax – which covers the cost of lots of people at the bottom not paying tax. If they disappear there are two options, tax those at the bottom more – which isn’t really cost effective as I explained above – or further increase the rate on those at the top, which just causes more to leave. If you get away from the politics of envy it’s obvious that you need to attract as many high earners as possible as every one enables you to take more at the bottom out of tax.
Corporation Tax is the same, the recent reductions have increased the total take by £billions so, obviously, increasing it is going to reduce that. The profits that companies make provide for several things. Most importantly they enable investment to ensure the company stays competitive and can expand – new products and services means more employment. If you want to pay people more through things like the National Living Wage – which is better than topping up through the benefits system – this is easier if less of the profit is taxed. Then the profits go into dividends for investors such as pension funds.
Reducing Corporation Tax, etc isn’t any sort of “race to the bottom”, it’s a sensible, and proven, way of increasing the total tax take – and that’s what’s important.
Were Corbyn and his crew to get into power there would just be a flight of the wealthy and businesses which would be bad news.
That IRA stuff is bollocks. As for the flight of the wealthy, good riddance to them., seize their assets. And stuff working for minimum wage, we should do same as finland &holland, introduce a unconditional citizens basic Income paid to everyone of working age whether theyre working or not, shut down all the Jobcentres, scrap JSA/universal Credit, abolish working tax credit, stop funding the leeches i n the lucrative Welfare-to-work industry, & give people the flexibility to do part time jobs, or not, as they please.
@Peter Kenny – according to a report in the Torygraph, May was 786 votes short of getting another eight seats which would have given her 326, that’s less than 400 people who needed to vote Conservative rather than Labour.
What’s clear is that both parties believed that, overall, the opinion polls were right and May was going to end up more than about 3% ahead. This meant that the Conservatives were complacent and Labour was defensive.
But Labour still has the problem that it’s a long way short of power – and no obvious way to get there.
In 2015 Miliband got 232 seats which Corbyn increased to 262, another 30. Places like Canterbury were gained because there are 40,000 students there, all being bribed with at least £27k of taxpayers money. But there aren’t sufficient places like that and, as I previously noted, it seems – according to Lord Ashcroft – that Corbyn got 2/3 of that group.
Even if, next time, Corbyn did as well again that only takes Labour up to 292 – which would make an arrangement with the SNP possible.
Then the posters start appearing…. The one with Miliband in Sturgeon’s pocket gets revamped to feature Corbyn and there are two new ones. The first has Sturgeon as puppeteer and Corbyn as puppet, the second has Sturgeon “working” Corbyn like Harry Corbett used to “work” Sooty.
It’s also important to remember that the boundary changes – which were delayed by the LDs – are coming, and they’re reckoned to favour the Conservatives.
I know his name is now a dirty word but Blair is correct and elections are won from the centre ground – the millions who voted for Thatcher in the 80s and switched to Blair a decade later. How does Corbyn attract them?
Landless peasant,grow up
@Landless Peasant – the IRA sympathising and supporting is comprehensively documented, as is the support for virtually every other anti-West regime around.
Many of us supported the IRA’s goal but not their methods.Also, what exactly is a ‘Corbynista’? Do you mean a Socialist? As much as I dislike labels, on the Political scale I would place myself somewhere to the left of Trotsky, does that make me a Corbynista?Or is it becauseI’m avegetarian&a believer in social justice, just like mr. Corbyn? In response to mr. Reid’s comment, i would suggestthat it is the right-wing of the Labour party & the mealy mouthed centrists who need to grow up & decidewhich side theyre on, stop the Corbyn character assasination &support a bonafide Socialist when you see one.
Where to begin?
Firstly I talked about the 2000 odd votes which would have made Labour the only party able to form a minority government to make the point that Olympian pronouncements on what is possible are nonsense. With a completely minor extra swing, which could have easily happened, Corbyn would have been PM.
Of course the same goes the other way! May could have had a bare majority with very few extra votes.
Olympian, that’s the problem – ‘expert’. No doubt if you’d written this seven weeks ago you’d have demonstrated that what happened couldn’t happen. Except it did!
What I find dismal about articles like yours is the impulse to ‘know’, to demonstrate your ‘expertise’ and certainty when actually you don’t know – you’re putting on a show of knowing to further a particular point of view.
I didn’t know either, except it is what I worked for because I believe politics can be transformational, people can change their minds, their lives, theri world. It is one of the key ideas of Corbynism, surely?
We also live in highly volatile times. The SNP tsunami in 2015, Brexit, the evisceration of the Libs, this election. Anything can happen, really! That of course means we have to engage with more than the dessicated, dead, triangulated stuff that you would seem to stand for. You’ d have been a Pasok supporter in Greece, I guess, and look what happned to them.
We need hope, dreams, passion, guts. We have to change the whole world, it’s the only reasonable thing to do.
You see in my consttuency my MP said, in essence, we’re going to lose – all we can do is try to defend what we have. I said that we write history, it’s not laid down for us. I was right – their majority increased by 80% and throughout they thought they might lose!
I do agree that elections are won from the centre. The question is where the centre is, isn’t it? We’re moving it, leftwards! You seem to assume it’s some fixed point or that if it’s moved it’s always to the right.
Now most of your scary stuff isn’t scary at all. You know their might be posters about the SNP and us – wooooo! Look at all the shit they shovelled over us, do you think we’re worried? Daily Mail etc are a steadily waning force, we’ve shown that.
41% for a a left manifesto should tell you that things are on the move. You assume the Tories will keep their 43.5% – look what happened to the Major Government.
It’s obvious from your various other comments that you’re not a socialist. In fact I do wonder how ‘ex’ a Tory you are. You take the power of the wealthy for granted, their abillity to shift wealth, avoid tax etc as if that can’t change.
Our project is exactly to change it, not to collude it wiith it, not to sit, as Mandelson did, on a billionaire’s yacht in the Adriatic having dinner with George Osbourne making witty little quips about their political games. All Olympians, of course.
This site, and the Labour right in general, have got a decision to make about whether they’re with this movement or not. Articles like this, now and in the past, have been useless for us, no help, no guidance, no encouragement because they have tried to tell us what we can’t do when the key is to raise our eyes to the prize and write our history ourselves.
P.S. I never once voted Labour during the Blair years, but I did visit South Armagh during the seize-fire in 94 (or was it 95?) & personally met & talked with the IRA, & I’ll tell you this, they were supportive of Labour but vehemently anti-Tory! I attended a Bigger Than Borders Rally in Co. Monaghan, a peaceful event attended by Irish, northern irish, english, Scots & welsh. I didnt see mr. Corbyn there but as a man of peace Im sure he would have approved.
Cease fire, duh!
@Landless Peasant – the “aim” of the IRA was to achieve a united Ireland by violent means. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with wanting a united Ireland, the SDLP also want a united Ireland – but by democratic means. Corbyn, and McDonnell, supported and endorsed the IRA.
@Peter Kenny – Seven weeks ago the consensus was that Corbyn would lose, and he lost – he’s still 60+ seats away from forming a majority government.
Do you really consider that forming a minority government, from a so-called progressive alliance, would be straightforward? Remember that the reason the other parties exist is because they stand for sufficiently different things. Let’s assume that Corbyn got a few more seats and could scrape a majority by getting into bed with the SNP, PC, Caroline Lucas and, possibly, the LDs. A coalition is probably best as you can then whip MPs – but that would mean divviing out government jobs. Would Welsh Labour be happy with any sort of “arrangement” with PC or Scottish Labour about the SNP ? Look at Israel where any government has to get in bed with all sorts of minority parties – it’s the tail wagging the dog! It would mean endless meetings and deals in smoke filled rooms – look back to Wilson and Callaghan in the late 1970s.
You have to decide why you want to be government, is it do things or is it to “stuff” those you don’t like? To do anything you need money. Cutting the top rate of income tax and corporation tax has been shown to increase the total tax take – therefore putting them back up will reduce the take. Putting up taxes moves people not money!
Hi John – I’d like to continue but I won’t. I’ve decided to give up on this site with its relentless defeatism and, actually, dead or dying politics. It’s starting to smell!
I see few signs of reflection or engagement with what might have changed, just an assertion that actually nothings changed, just as Teresa May squawked. So much is different that it’ll take us a long time to grasp it all.
‘The consensus’ – that sums up this place, doesn’t it? The consensus – dictated finally by the rich and powerful. We’re going to do our best to make another consensus altogether.
@Peter Kenny – Good luck! However, remember that a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist. I’m no fan of Corbyn or Labour but have an interest in what goes on.
Politics is winner takes all, there are no prizes for coming second.
I, although I had little time for him, had a sneaking regard for Blair as he was a winner. He took a party that had lost four elections and which, although in retrospect, was on course for victory after Black Wednesday and the infighting in the Major government, made it into a formidable election winning machine. The Conservatives were, by 1994, probably always going to lose in 1997 – but Blair turned that into a Labour landslide.
There are now lots of people out there saying that Corbyn was right after all and everything is wonderful.
Corbyn said that there were non-voters who could be mobilised to vote Labour. I don’t think anybody said that there weren’t – just that there weren’t enough of them. My contention, and I’m not alone, is that there aren’t sufficient to take him much further and certainly not into Downing Street.
How will Corbyn attract those who voted for Thatcher and then Blair?
The writer of the article should bugger off back t o the Tory Party.
@Sean Connor – perhaps Rob Marchant http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/06/14/reality-check-a-winning-party-needs-to-win-you-know-seats/ should go too?
“We were only 2000 odd votes in marginals from being the only party able to form a government.”
How many votes in marginals was May short of a majority after running an appalling campaign? A lot less than 2000. Think about that before you start fantasizing about Prime Minister Corbyn.
@NickT – less than 400 people voting Conservative rather than Labour would, I understand, have given May 326 seats.