The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

If Labour splits into two parties, will it never be elected again?

I think this will be the case. You would get the Blairites and those on the centre who do not want to vote Tory voting for the new party; however, you would get those on the left and those who vote Labour because their parents and grandparents did voting for Corbyn's original Labour Party. The vote would be pretty much split down the middle.

Scroll to see replies

The Labour party honestly resembles an unhappy married couple.
SDP, so no.
To be honest with you, the likelihood of Labour splitting into two different parties is very low anyway, so I'm not worried.

And if it did happen, then the vote would be quite evenly spread between the two Labour parties, hence giving other parties (like Conservative and UKIP) a bigger chance of being elected...
Reply 4
Avatar for viffer
viffer
16
Yes. HTH
Because of our archaic and stupid voting system, yes it pretty much would.
In politics never believe this "will never be voted again" stuff.

An incumbent government always has a time limit with the electorate. In 1992, we were coming out of a recession and the economy was a mess, and John Major's Conservatives won a record number of votes to win their fourth election in a row. At that time people said if Labour couldn't win in those circumstances, they would never win. Over the next five years the economy improved to the best point it had been in the whole of the Conservative time in office, continuous growth, low inflation, falling unemployment, and yet the Conservatives got annihilated in 1997. In 10 years there was a turn around from a majority of 102 for the Conservatives, to a majority of 179 for Labour.

Then in the early 2000s people were saying the Conservatives were consigned to history, they had spent basically the first six years of Opposition under Hague and IDS navel gazing and talking to themselves, Tony Blair smashed them and was unstoppable. But the Iraq war, financial crisis and recession rapidly eroded Labour's support.

You never know what will happen down the line, but once a government has been in office for 10 years or more it becomes very difficult to blame things on the previous government and the public starts getting more and more angry at the existing government.
Original post by Grand High Witch
I think this will be the case. You would get the Blairites and those on the centre who do not want to vote Tory voting for the new party; however, you would get those on the left and those who vote Labour because their parents and grandparents did voting for Corbyn's original Labour Party. The vote would be pretty much split down the middle.


I'd say the centrists/Blairite side would have more chance than the Corbyn side getting elected. The centre party might even attract some Tory MPs if the economy falters & May struggles.
Reply 8
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
We only really have two analogue periods..

The first around the 1920's i think saw a period of 19 years in which no party got more than 40% of the vote (the situation we see now) however in the end the result was that the Tories got a grip on themselves and Labour replaced the Liberals as the primary opposition.

The second was the SDP split of the 1980's. What we saw here was that the SDP probably cost Labour votes but in the end the brand and funding won out and Labour went on to take power.

In the current period there is more of a chance for a split party than in the 80's when the Tories were unstoppable but without the brand and funding i'm not sure we won't see the same result.

...

Moral of the story, Labour can be elected at the head of a rainbow coalition in hoc to nationalists even if they split. The Tories are not as strong yet as they were the last time.
Now the Scotland seats are gone even a united Labour would struggle to gain power. I really can't see anything other than a Conservative victory in 2020.

Our voting system is outdated, but you can hardly blame the Tories for not being interested in replacing it when they are the party who would suffer the most if it was implemented.
Original post by Grand High Witch
I think this will be the case. You would get the Blairites and those on the centre who do not want to vote Tory voting for the new party; however, you would get those on the left and those who vote Labour because their parents and grandparents did voting for Corbyn's original Labour Party. The vote would be pretty much split down the middle.


They will come back together over a coalition agreement that old fool who's the current leader is entirely to blame
Original post by Rakas21

The second was the SDP split of the 1980's. What we saw here was that the SDP probably cost Labour votes but in the end the brand and funding won out and Labour went on to take power.


I think there a two different factors this time compared to the SDP. Obviously one is that there are probably more strongly anti-Corbyn MPs than there were anti-Foot ones. But at the same time, many of the SDP defectors, particularly those like David Owen, had wanted to break away or been considering it for a while, Foot was just a pretext. By contrast it seems the anti-Corbynites this time round are very reluctant to split, and this certainly hasn't been building up for years like it had in 1981.
Original post by sr90


Our voting system is outdated, but you can hardly blame the Tories for not being interested in replacing it when they are the party who would suffer the most if it was implemented.


Yes I can.
I can actually see a split coming about by accident, potentially; if, as some rumours have been saying, that if Corbyn wins, the anti-Corbynites in the PLP will instead try to choose a different party leader; it's possible that Bercow might subsequently tell them that doing so is, de facto, a split.
Not at all. They will both have a better chance in the future especially with coalitions more and more common. They are in their most unelectable state like this. It would be more healthy for democracy if both wings could just form cohesive parties with supporter who wanted to support them. The current situation is damaging for them and our democracy. For this reason, anyone who wants a new and more representative, democratic paradigm, should not give in to more of the same Blairism, or Blairism lite. They should support Corbyn, especially in light of the continual totalitarian era propaganda from the likes of the Beeb. This will mean we will have a party significantly different from the Tories, good for democracy, and the New Labourites or Blairites will have a political party to get behind. We will have the possibility for far more representative elections and more interesting coalition situations which will allow more responsiveness to people's needs and whats going on on the ground over more specific policy areas.
Reply 15
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Let's not overstate the issue here. A small band of the party's extreme are running it, supported by all sorts of Trots and oddballs who now form part of the membership. The vast majority of Labour MPs are still mainstream and if they broke away would form a more cohesive, more Labour-like party.

This is not the SDP. But even so, let's not forget how high the SDP/Liberal Alliance polled within a couple of percentage points of Labour in 1983. A new centrist party could do far better than that.

Original post by sr90
Now the Scotland seats are gone even a united Labour would struggle to gain power. I really can't see anything other than a Conservative victory in 2020.

Our voting system is outdated, but you can hardly blame the Tories for not being interested in replacing it when they are the party who would suffer the most if it was implemented.
They'll never get elected again anyway as things stand.

This says it all about the current leader.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-mocked-for-apparently-decrying-why-media-didnt-cover-parish-council-victory_uk_5793bd05e4b0796a0b5fc3fe
Original post by anarchism101
I think there a two different factors this time compared to the SDP. Obviously one is that there are probably more strongly anti-Corbyn MPs than there were anti-Foot ones. But at the same time, many of the SDP defectors, particularly those like David Owen, had wanted to break away or been considering it for a while, Foot was just a pretext. By contrast it seems the anti-Corbynites this time round are very reluctant to split, and this certainly hasn't been building up for years like it had in 1981.


The real threat is de-selection. Foot and Kinnock largely prevented any mass de-selection of Labour MPs who did not defect to the SDP.

If a purge on sitting members occurs, perhaps because of boundary changes, the moderates have no reason to stay.
Original post by RayApparently
SDP, so no.


Well they became the lib dems so they got a few cabinet minister posts 20 years down the line. Still, might seem a good shot compared to the abyss in Corbyn land

Original post by nulli tertius
The real threat is de-selection. Foot and Kinnock largely prevented any mass de-selection of Labour MPs who did not defect to the SDP.

If a purge on sitting members occurs, perhaps because of boundary changes, the moderates have no reason to stay.


The current leader election CLP nominations are giving us idea of who might get deselected (most of them by the looks of it)
Original post by Grand High Witch
I think this will be the case. You would get the Blairites and those on the centre who do not want to vote Tory voting for the new party; however, you would get those on the left and those who vote Labour because their parents and grandparents did voting for Corbyn's original Labour Party. The vote would be pretty much split down the middle.

I'll be voting for whichever half Jezza leads

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you