Forum menu
Agree, this thread contains the very people you don’t want being anything to do with Labour if they ever want to get elected again. They simply don’t understand that the majority of people do not want what they think they should want.
Those are the Armresters.
Mandleson can argue quite successfully that labour won with him and introduced many good things.
Please explain the many good things Mandelson introduced.
He says his number one priority in to be in Government
What's he going to do if he gets there?
big_n_daft
Free MemberMandleson can argue quite successfully that labour won with him
Very nicely worded there. Yes Labour won with him. But he was also director of communications for Kinnock, and took a back seat after Kinnock's defeat.
He had little to do with John Smith's leadership, which is what actually created the win. Blair then became PM because Smith died and left him a winning hand (and because Major's government was so unpopular).
So yeah Labour "won with him", but he didn't win it. He lost with one leader and then rode the hard work of another to victory.
So yeah Labour “won with him”, but he didn’t win it. He lost with one leader and then rode the hard work of another to victory.
Didn't he run the 2010 campaign too? So if Labour won once because of him, they also lost twice because of him.
Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Hardly a ringing endorsement.
I don't think I've met or spoken with anyone who thinks that re-involving Mandelson in anything to do with with Labour is a good idea
They're really going to win back the red wall seats now with the guy who thought mushy peas in a chip shop was guacamole (supposedly!).
I don’t think I’ve met or spoken with anyone who thinks that re-involving Mandelson in anything to do with with Labour is a good idea
There are more than a few references to the Blair era and his electoral success, as if repeating the formula would see Labour into power. 1997 was a long time ago, and is about as relevant as Harold Wilson to the current landscape. Funnily enough, bold societal changes as we saw from Attlee are actually what we need, but as no-one in the shadow Cabinet is ever going to make that argument, we'll never find out if the electorate can be persuaded.
I've given up on the Labour party: if it was a horse, it would've been turned into glue by now.
I’ve given up on the Labour party: if it was a horse, it would’ve been turned into glue by now.
I swing wildly between "Please, will someone just put it out of its misery", and "All it needs is decent leadership that everyone can get behind and ignore all their differences"
I swing wildly between “Please, will someone just put it out of its misery”, and “All it needs is decent leadership that everyone can get behind and ignore all their differences”
Yeah, it has a manager, not a leader. I don't see much talent elsewhere within the PLP, with the exception of Clive Lewis, who doesn't have the backing to succeed.
Labour's leadership isn't its biggest problem, its membership is.
It's out of touch and disconnected from ordinary folk. And that applies equally to both the left and the right of the party.
I can't see any realistic solution to that problem. To fair it reflects a global trend.
Ah ffs, there's been the occasional person on this thread getting involved and doing something positive. Then there's
the very people you don’t want being anything to do with Labour if they ever want to get elected again. They simply don’t understand that the majority of people do not want what they think they should want
...and who are happy to leave the Tories running things they hate labour so much. Sigh.
Labour’s leadership isn’t its biggest problem, its membership is.
It’s out of touch and disconnected from ordinary folk. And that applies equally to both the left and the right of the party.
So Labour's members aren't 'ordinary people'? Who are they then?
The party's problems lie with its leadership, pure and simple; they are using Labour as a vehicle for their own political, economic and in some cases, egotistical gain. Which has always been the case really, but the current Labour party are so far removed from say the post war Attlee government, it's virtually unrecognisable.
and who are happy to leave the Tories running things they hate labour so much.
It's not so much the Labour Party that they hate, it's the Left of the Labour Party.
It is now widely accepted that they did everything possible to sabotage Labour's chances of winning a general election under a left-wing leadership, from coordinated front bench resignations to colluding with the Tory press to create an "antisemitism" crisis within Labour.
It is also widely accepted that they were devastated when Labour increased its support by a third in the 2017 general election, they certainly seemed to redouble their efforts to sabotage Labour in the following general election.
In the case of Peter Mandelson he wasn't even coy about his determination to damage the party leadership as much as possible, in fact he openly boasted about it :
So Labour’s members aren’t ‘ordinary people’? Who are they then?
The sort of people who post on stw political threads.
I know quite a few Labour party members. A good few dozen at least. To my knowledge, not a single one posts on STW. They range from lawyers, doctors and university professors, to cab drivers, builders and hairdressers. Pretty ordinary in the general scheme of things, I'd say, although some are exceptional people in their own right.
In the case of Peter Mandelson he wasn’t even coy about his determination to damage the party leadership as much as possible, in fact he openly boasted about it
He's not alone:
I don't often contribute to this thread but the "Mandelson" word has drawn me in. Mandelson is poison to the Labour party. A reminder from 2004 of his values:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3692226.stm
Following Ernie's post I Googled "Starmer Mandelson" such was my horror and found a Telegraph headline with Mandelson as the "prince of darkness". Not often I approve Telegraph headlines on politics. Blair and his cronies such as Mandelson are vote losers, surely even Starmer can see that.
Just out of interest, who posting on this page is a member of Labour? And who would describe themselves as an active member?
Well done Bridges.
Was a member left a little while ago.
Man of the people.
There is a whole generation of millionaires who have been created by the SE/ London property bubble
It actively limits companies recruitment from elsewhere in the UK as moving to the area is essentially impossible once you have a family
Neo-liberal politics is driving us headlong into environmental armageddon but yet dissenters are the crazy ones?
Left wing politics keep coal mines open,
Seeing what Blair is now (ultra rich PR man for Abu Dhabi and other human rights abusing dictators) doesn’t exactly make you look back on his legacy fondly. Then there’s the still-unfolding PFI disaster.
Blair and anyone else whose fingerprints were on the dodgy dossier should have been tried for treason. Committing the lives of the armed forces into an operation should be done with all regard to the fact that not everyone comes home and some who do are broken by the experience. It's the biggest decision a government can take and should be done without documents that are in essence fabrication
I don’t think I’ve met or spoken with anyone who thinks that re-involving Mandelson in anything to do with with Labour is a good idea
As is my disappointment if he is being dragged back in to assisting Starmer. He's triggering to many any would need to achieving miracles to outweigh the baggage he comes with.
but the current Labour party are so far removed from say the post war Attlee government, it’s virtually unrecognisable.
Attlee the public school educated barrister.....
Yeah, it has a manager, not a leader. I don’t see much talent elsewhere within the PLP, with the exception of Clive Lewis, who doesn’t have the backing to succeed.
I agree with the above except Clive isn't really a talent, he shines in the paucity of the labour PLP
It's really odd, there are some tremendous backstories but they seem to trip over the compromises they make to get into the PLP or give up trying to lead what is essentially a fatally flawed party
Will you stop going on about Corbyn the millionaire then?
Will you stop going on about Corbyn the millionaire then?
Already have, glad you recognise he's a millionaire
You obviously lack the forensic skills of a lawyer bnd, if you interpret ctk's comment as recognition of Corbyn's alleged millionaire status (the comment would be just as valid if Corbyn didn't have a pot to piss in)
You'll never qualify to be leader of the Labour Party.
Just out of interest, who posting on this page is a member of Labour? And who would describe themselves as an active member?
I have a vote via GMB. That's as far as my involvement goes, they're a political non-entity up here and will remain so as long as self interest and factional in fighting steers the party.
Just out of interest, who posting on this page is a member of Labour? And who would describe themselves as an active member?
Was an active member, Uni days (natch) in Hounslow and then back in High Wycombe after that. This would've been late 80's-early 90's. Wycombe's a weird place to in the Labour party, despite being in the heart of Banker/QC leafy Chiltern commuter belt, there are areas of the town that are desperately poor. Really large immigrant population as well, but solidly Tory, to the point that canvassing was laughably pointless. The incumbent MP Ray Witney was very popular, and well known and TBF, John, our candidate wasn't great (died not long after I stopped being a member) was replaced by Chris Bryant after I left. The local party had a small batch of old commies and trots, that were endlessly derailing meetings, and you would see young enthusiastic kids rock up take part in one meeting, see all these rancorous old farts take snide pot shots at each other and other members for perceived slights or insults, and never come back again. It was grinding. One died while I was a member and two of the other old guard ended up having this pathetic brawl at his actual grave-side. Eventually I got tired of, well, the internal politics of it all really (who knew that local political parties were full of folks who were deeply, poisonously full of politics!) We weren't changing lives, we were voting endlessly to "Support our fraternal brothers and sisters of the cucumber brotherhood of southern Honduras against the fascist running dogs and their capitalist overloads..." yey...
Tried re-joining under Millibands "Here, have a membership. Free with every ice cream" scheme, but was rejected for who knows what reason. Haven't bothered since
Labour’s leadership isn’t its biggest problem, its membership is.
That'll be me then.
I'm a member and I do gratis design work for the local labour party, and so I know all my local labour councillors and former (and hopefully future) Labour MP pretty well, so I suppose that would come under the description of 'active' in this post-politics/can't be arsed with politics era. I even occasionally read some of the 40 emails a day I get from 'the party'
Mind you, I'm an evil Blairite/Centrist/Red Tory bastard who needs to be driven out of the party to facilitate our glorious socialist future, so I'm clearly part of the problem, comrades
You’ll never qualify to be leader of the Labour Party.
Thank goodness
Attlee the public school educated barrister…..
About the only similarity he had with Starmer...
That’ll be me then.
There he is! Like a moth to a flame... 😀
I’m clearly part of the problem
You can always join another party. The LibDems are desperate for new members.
We weren’t changing lives, we were voting endlessly to “Support our fraternal brothers and sisters of the cucumber brotherhood of southern Honduras against the fascist running dogs and their capitalist overloads…” yey…
A couple of us went to a Momentum meeting, just for the experience. It was like a continuous comedy sketch that existed in the mind of a deranged Daily mail editorial writer. Amongst various other conspiracy theories, they actually discussed what they could do to stop 'The Establishment' from assassinating Jeremy Corbyn as he was such a threat to the capitalist system, and how 'they' would do it and make it look like an accident.
Absolutely hatstand, the lot of them.
I joined Labour during the leadership contest, as I thought that it was an opportunity to elect a Labour leader who could take the party in the right direction, after the Blair disaster. Went to local party meetings; they were led by a cabal of right-wing white privileged middle class ****ers who were only interested in enhancing the value of their million pound plus properties. Neoliberals who hated anyone with traditional Labour values. Proper Blairite scum. People who have never experienced hardship, prejudice or discrimination. People who have never experienced hardship, prejudice or discrimination. Spent more time discussing how to eject dissenters from the party, than actual issues that affected real people in the local area, such as poverty, unemployment, lack of access to healthcare, education, decent nutrition, childcare etc. I wasn't popular. 😀 One has since been expelled for misuse of party funds (bought an Apple Mac for himself, claiming it was essential for party communications), another ****ed off to take up a very lucrative job in Singapore. They're a shower of shit though; take the knee 'in solidarity with the BLM movement'; wouldn't ever want to live next door to anyone of colour. Gutless self-serving hypocritical scum.
so I’m clearly part of the problem, comrades
Well your obvious disdain for the Labour Party suggests that this is very likely. It's certainly not what most people would expect from a Labour Party member.
Although the problem in the Labour Party and its disconnection with voters clearly runs deeper.
Absolutely hatstand, the lot of them.
One of ours was obsessed (and I mean that in the literal sense) about the supposed coup to oust Harold Wilson and the strikes and the plots supposedly within MI5 to undermine him. He carried around a folder filled with press cuttings and crosswords filled with "code words" and so-on...It was wild. He was convinced he was being tailed by the security services and accused me (I was working for the DHSS at the time) of passing his benefits file to them...
All that tends to happen, is pathetic, cowardly attempts at ad hominems
It always baffles me why most people don't warm to those lovable denizens of the left, with their warm welcoming nature and sunny optimistic charm
It always baffles me why most people don’t warm to those lovable denizens of the left, with their warm welcoming nature and sunny optimistic charm
Says the man who repeatedly slurs anyone with even vaguely left-leaning tendencies, as suffering with mental illness, being stupid, etc etc. Do you know what irony is, Baldrick?
Back to Mandy:
A whole other level of vile. Anyone still think Mandelson should be allowed anywhere near the Labour party?
Anyone still think Mandelson should be allowed anywhere near the Labour party?
Again at the sake of repetition, I don't think I know of anyone who thinks that Peter Mandelson should be anywhere near the Labour party, but this stuff that you trot out as if it's revelatory and shocking is both pretty mainstream knowledge and old hat, it serves little to no purpose now. What's the point of it?
with their warm welcoming nature and sunny optimistic charm
Characteristics which you extrude in your regular political rants binners?
Yes, always optimistic, never pessimistic.
How do you manage to be always so optimistic binners?
I read that and thought "can't be long before someone reports that", Bridges. Then noticed the report button was absent so someone already had. Binners can be blunt but bullshit isn't his strength. In fact "perceptive" is the word I'd use for his appreciation of the Labour party.
It's a mess he finds words I understand to describe. When I read their manifesto there's a lot to like about the Labour party. I'd like a leader who incarnates those values, someone credibly standing up to voice them. That person needs to have a life style that includes a modicum of those values, you know, a minimum ecological, no stinking personal greed, not too hypocritical, sexist, not a toff... .
Again at the sake of repetition, I don’t think I know of anyone who thinks that Peter Mandelson should be anywhere near the Labour party, but this stuff that you trot out as if it’s revelatory and shocking is both pretty mainstream knowledge and old hat, it serves little to no purpose now. What’s the point of it?
There was suggestion that, as Mandelson had clearly won previous elections all by himself, that his inclusion in the current campaign could be beneficial.
Mandleson can argue quite successfully that labour won with him and introduced many good things. I suppose the greatest sin for the left is that it wasn’t what they wanted to see so they hate it as much as they hate it when the conservatives are in power, perhaps even more
Starmer tells you the reason he’s got Mandelson involved. He says his number one priority in to be in Government, well, the last person to manage for Labour was Mandelson. I don’t think it’s any more complex than that.
One of those quotes is your own. So; as "this stuff that you trot out as if it’s revelatory and shocking is both pretty mainstream knowledge and old hat", did you not consider that yourself, when suggesting that Mandelson's inclusion could be beneficial?
I’d like a leader who incarnates those values, someone credibly standing up to voice them.
The current leader appears to be running in the opposite direction.
I read that and thought “can’t be long before someone reports that”, Bridges
Hey ho.
did you not consider that yourself, when suggesting that Mandelson’s inclusion could be beneficial?
I didn't conclude that Mandelson's inclusion could be beneficial, I concluded I could see why Starmer would think so.
@bridges, forgive me if this has been discussed earlier, but you got your left wing leader. He then promptly failed to get elected twice. How do you suppose a left wing Labour government would get elected given the past form? To me it looks like the country will not vote in a left wing government and if labour were to stand again with a lefty leader they will lose. To make change you first have to be elected? No point standing on the side-lines shouting. This is not to say Starmer is the correct choice of leader who will win, he clearly isn't doing very well.
I have been a Labour member in the past, I'm not now, for obvious reasons.
Binners can be blunt but bullshit isn’t his strength.
Endlessly reposting screenshots from Monty Python and calling people sixth formers is his strength.
Endlessly reposting screenshots from Monty Python and calling people sixth formers is his strength.
And his sunny optimism.
To me it looks like the country Labour party will not vote support a left wing government. We don't know what would have happened if half of the party wasn't willing him to lose.
@bridges, forgive me if this has been discussed earlier, but you got your left wing leader. He then promptly failed to get elected twice.
Largely due to a massive campaign against him, by large sections of the mainstream media, various right-wing agencies, and members of his own party. Even BBC staff were censured over a lack of impartiality, and making things up. There is an awful lot of power and wealth behind the reason why a left-wing government in the UK would be opposed at all costs.
So; is the answer a right-wing leader? We've already got one...
Looks like both the party and the country? Given our FPTP system it seems unlikely we will get a left wing labour party in power. Labour tried twice and failed, how do you get a left wing labour government in power?
I didn’t conclude that Mandelson’s inclusion could be beneficial, I concluded I could see why Starmer would think so.
I hope you haven't got a coaster brake fitted...
I didn't say what the answer was. I want to know what your solution to the issue is. If Labour stand with a left wing leader the same deal with the press will happen again. Meaning we will get the tories again, and there are further to the right than Starmer.
I don't think anyone really sees any solution, that's the problem.
Getting rid of the Blairites in the party would be a start. They did the most damage; the tories and the press had a very easy job, considering the massive fractures within the party. But it most definitely is the right of the party that's rotten; and it's the right that has the wealth and by extension, power. I've explained, as have others, how things need to change. It's all in this thread.
don’t know what would have happened if half of the party wasn’t willing him to lose.
I'm in the half of the party that was dismayed by the wasted Corbyn years and also to moan about it on here, but Christ I wanted him to win a general election, donated and did bits and bobs to that end. Always preferred Brown to Blair if anyone wants to have a go about that? Or can we get on to what next??
how do you get a left wing labour government in power?
I don't think you can currently. Labour relied on Scottish seats, and that's no longer going to be a source of support. There's some evidence of former safe seats in some commuter belts turning away from this current form of the Tories (see council elections in places like Witney) but I've no real expectation of wining back former seats and gaining sufficient new seats to win overall.
I read some interesting research that looked at why left wing policies when viewed "blind" are overwhelmingly supported but aren't translated into left wing governments in elections. And the answer from the study was "cognitive bias" People who voted for right wing parties and are happy with that vote tend to view even strongly left wing policies as either their chosen parties stance on a subject, or their actual policy. The bias was stronger the more content they are with how the (even strongly right wing) party performs to their expectation.
I hope you haven’t got a coaster brake fitted…
All that tends to happen, is pathetic, cowardly attempts at ad hominems
Getting rid of the Blairites in the party would be a start.
Are you actually serious?
From what I gather according to you anyone who supports Starmer is a Blairite, you do realise that the Labour Party membership overwhelmingly voted for Starmer to be Leader, don't you? (That's bizarrely after overwhelmingly voting for Corbyn to be Leader)
Can I assume you won't being serious and that it was just a flippant remark?
People who voted for right wing parties and are happy with that vote tend to view even strongly left wing policies as either their chosen parties stance on a subject, or their actual policy. The bias was stronger the more content they are with how the (even strongly right wing) party performs to their expectation.
That is interesting. Can everyone be made to do cognitive bias and critical thinking training before they are allowed to vote? 😬
want to know what your solution to the issue is. If Labour stand with a left wing leader the same deal with the press will happen again. Meaning we will get the tories again, and there are further to the right than Starmer.
The solution is for the majority of voters in each constituency to change their views and see that voting Tory all that time was wrong.
The UK is a Tory country and has been for the last 40+ years. The only Labour party to get into power was one that a lot of Labour supporters (on this thread) just call another version of Tory. They don't realise that is the best we will get in this country.
I would rather have a Starmer Labour party over any of the Tory parties in those last 40+ years because I realise that is the best you will get in a country full of Tories.
Yes, I should be dreaming of a true Labour party coming to power and sometimes do but then I come back down to reality.
but Christ I wanted him to win a general election
I voted happily for Corbyn the first time around, less fully the second. The one event (if there ever can be such a thing) for me was the Skripal Poisoning affair which was handled by Labour so incoherently. I get that he was trying to be cautious, but there were reports circulating at the time about his press team rewriting statements to make them less supportive of NATO, and less Imperialistic in tone. I think polling at the time showed that May (of all people!!) had over 50% positive rating for her handling of the incident, and Corbyn was at 18%. Up to that point Corbyn had been doing really well in polling (over 40%), after it, support just melted away, it was a real turning point for many people. I think lots of people just concluded that he looked foolish
Can everyone be made to do cognitive bias and critical thinking training before they are allowed to vote?
I know, right, it was super depressing thing to read.
I can only assume that some people believe that aping the Tories is the best way for Labour to win power because it sounds so logical.
Presumably the same logic says that more to the right the greater the increased support.
And yet we have seen that when so-called "centre-left" parties swing dramatically to the right what actually happens is the complete opposite, their support base collapses. Massively.
It is indeed such an accepted fact now that there is even a term to specifically describe this phenomenon, ie, Pasokification.
It can be seen particularly in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and of course Greece.
To me it looks like the country will not vote in a left wing government and if labour were to stand again with a lefty leader they will lose.
With the right wing of the labour party actively conspiring and working against their own party you're absolutely right, a left wing government will never happen. There's a simple solution to that problem, but unfortunately it's not the rightwingers who are being purged.
The UK is a Tory country and has been for the last 40+ years.
FFS will you stop regurgitating this as if it were a fact. As I've pointed out many times, in 2019 28% of the electorate voted tory. By any crazy bending of the facts, that in no way suggests we live in a 'tory country'.
And yet we have seen that when so-called “centre-left” parties swing dramatically to the right what actually happens is the complete opposite, their support base collapses. Massively.
I think it's the other way around. Trad support for centre left is collapsing . Unions aren't as strong, trad Labour voters are eroding away , and as the UK population gets older, they become more socially conservative...In order to retain support; centre left parties move right. But end result is the same regardless.
Any news about SKS?
FFS will you stop regurgitating this as if it were a fact. As I’ve pointed out many times, in 2019 28% of the electorate voted tory. By any crazy bending of the facts, that in no way suggests we live in a ‘tory country’.
It is a fact. Given how the voting works, more people voted for a Tory MP in their constituency than for any other party. Looking at the overall % is meaningless as that is not how voting works, constituency by constituency it is a Tory country and has been for 40+ years with the (as you no doubt would call it) Tory Lite blip with Blair.
Try to view the country based on what the people in the country want and not what you want them to have and discounting what they want as wrong.
population gets older, they become more socially conservative
You think Pasokification has occurred across Europe because the population is getting older?
It's not a theory I've heard before. What the "centre-left" European parties that have been severely affected by Pasokification all have in common is that they have significantly swung to the right, often implementing austerity policies whilst in government.
Do you think that the Liberal Democrat swing to the right in the last 10 years has helped them in their electoral fortunes Nick?
Has it made them more appealing to an aging population?
kerley
Free MemberThe UK is a Tory country and has been for the last 40+ years
kerley
Free Member<Posts picture that proves it isn't>
47 years with the Blair 'blip'. Point still stands.
And if this doesn't look like a Tory country not sure what does. (The blue bits are Tory by the way)
Kerley all you're doing is illustrating how we live in a country where the voting system has been rigged to deliver tory governments. We do not live in a 'tory country' as evidently the vast majority do not support them. We do however live in a country with an electoral system which has been designed to amplify their minority support so that they can 'win' elections.
Is Afghanistan a 'Taliban country'??
The blue bits are in the last 2 years not the last 40 years.
Kerley all you’re doing is illustrating how we live in a country where the voting system has been rigged to deliver tory governments.
I'm not sure how true that is but what it does illustrate is that cities are geographically smaller than rural areas.
Pasofikation is a thing but so is the decline of the traditional right. In France LR has lost some of its voters to the RN and in Germany the CDU/CSU is not the solid block it was.
However in France at least it wasn't the socialist party's swing to the right that lost them votes, quite the opposite. The successful Mitterrand years were very much a left-wing party taking right-wing measures. As the party was steered to the left by Martine Aubree with the 35 hour week and properly to the left by Benoît Hamon it was dserted by some of its members and many of its voters not for the extremes but EM the new center-right party not so far from the Mitterrand era socialists.
You think Pasokification has occurred across Europe because the population is getting older?
No, I think it's partly the reason its occurred in the UK. There are many reasons though, all the things I've mentioned, immigration, the response to the banking collapse in '08 and the rise of austerity policies to name but a few. Social democratic parties can be attacked from both sides, that's why they've seen more of a decline than right wing parties.
Do you think that the Liberal Democrat swing to the right in the last 10 years has helped them in their electoral fortunes Nick?
I think traditional Liberal collapse has it's roots elsewhere. Growth of Labour and so on. I think parties swing in response to decline, not the other way around.
I’m not sure how true that is but what it does illustrate is that cities are geographically smaller than rural areas.
I think it's an established fact that the tories need far fewer votes than labour or other parties per MP. (about 12000 less according to figures below)
Mitterrand was French President in the last century, Pasofikation is generally regarded to be a phenomenon of the last 10 years, post global financial crisis.
The LibDems are actually a very good UK example of Pasofikation. They offered themselves as a "centre-left" party but once in government enthusiastically supported right-wing austerity policies, the electoral consequences for them was devastating.
Pasofikation doesn't simply represent a decline in support but a catastrophic collapse.
kerley
Free Member47 years with the Blair ‘blip’. Point still stands.
It absolutely doesn't. The reality is, your chosen graphic proves that we have a 2-party system where sometimes one wins, sometimes the other, and they swing back and forwards inside an actually pretty astonishingly consistent window. Even if every single election had been a win for one party or the other in that time, it still wouldn't point to a "tory britain" as long as it's in contest, which it certainly has been for most of that time.
This is just the exact same nonsense that led to people talking about "the strange death of tory britain"
I think traditional Liberal collapse has it’s roots elsewhere. Growth of Labour and so on.
I was so shocked by that comment that I had to check the 2019 general election result!
After the 2019 general election the LibDems were one seat down, and their Leader lost her seat. How well did Labour do, how much did their support "grow"?
According to the Labour right-wing narrative the LibDems should have been raking in the votes in 2019. Instead they won just 11 seats.