-
Whether that's at the cost of more traditional Labour voters (and whether that matters) I'm not sure.
It does matter. Think of votes lost to the Lib-Dems in 2010, or marginals where votes for third-parties give wins to Tories (Stroud comes immediately to mind).
However, it's also a question of whether it'll cost actual progressive policies. Of course, the simple, and oft-repeated, response to that is "You can't implement your policies when you're not in power," which is of course true. But if in an attempt to gain power you fail to hold the government to account (out of fear you'll scare off their supporters), you're giving them a free walk to fuck over everyone else. And by embracing middle-of-the-road policies attractive to a "natural tory," you only end up becoming part of the status-quo, and potentially pushing the Tories further to the right - which is a place many of them are very happy to go - and your supporters elsewhere.
I don't know what the answer is, but it's not obvious to me that becoming a centrist party fighting with the Tories for their supporters is the way forward. Especially as it's a dwindling demographic.
-
You can't implement your policies when you're not in power.
This is the crux of it, though. It deserves more than lip service if Labour is to be more than a pressure party.
I guess the underlying question on my mind is ‘what is Labour?’ Blair redefined it – and prefixed it – in order to gain power. Corbyn seemed to make some ground in reestablishing some more socialist cues. But what is post-Blair, post-Corbyn, mid-Johnson Labour? Right now it doesn’t necessarily feel like Labour; it feels like Starmer.
If the priority is to get the Tories out, then Starmer appears to be the best bet ATM. But if you want a capital-L Labour government, the fastest and most reliable method may be to wait for PM Starmer’s successor.
snoops
I'd say she's a natural tory, but I don't think she's a nutter or a particularly tribal one. She is genuinely a swing voter. If I had to guess I'd say Blair in preference to Major, Hague and Howard but Cameron in preference to Brown.
I suspect that the aura of competance is probably a fairly key factor, and possibly a decisive one.
I don't know if that's true for all swing voters though. In general I think it's almost so obvious that it doesn't need explaining that Starmer is more attractive to them. Whether that's at the cost of more traditional Labour voters (and whether that matters) I'm not sure.