I left the UK nearly two decades ago when Labour were in power. From the outside looking in, they are in precisely the same position as the Conservatives were then.
Jeremy Corbyn is no more a winner than William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith or Michael Howard. He is not going to win Labour a general election. Ever. This is for the following reasons.
First, from where I sit in the southern hemisphere, it appears that the Labour Party are going through the same entirely unnecessary ritual bloodletting that the Tories put themselves through, in the name of political purity. I say it's unnecessary, because the nonsense they seem to come out with doesn't appear to have any connection with centrist voters, who Labour have to win over. The Tories went hard right after the 1997 election and remained in the wilderness until David Cameron taked towards the centre with his Red Tory idea of the big society. Labour have gone hard left, and will remain in the wilderness - just as they did in the 80s - until they come to their senses. I suppose this is all fine if one's vision of the Labour Party is like the Israelites in the wilderness following a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night. If, by contrast, one's vision is to form the next government, it's just crazy.
Second, they don't seem to fathom just how much support the Tories have picked up. In 2005, the Conservatives polled 8.7 million votes. In 2017 they polled 13.6 million. That's a 56% increase. Labour has completely failed to take advantage of the Lib Dem meltdown, which ought to have delivered them plenty of votes. Any benefit they got from this was lost because they haemorrhaged swing voters to to the Tories in 2015 and didn't win them back.
I keep hearing from Labour supporters about what a great success Corbyn has been because he has increased the Labour vote. I just don't get this at all, because Labour still lost the election. I'm going to say it again because it seems like such a hard point to grasp:
- Labour lost the election.
- Labour lost the election.
- Labour lost the election.
Because of the same fallacy, his supporters - even in the Guardian say he "won" the campaign in 2017 because he increased the Labour vote. Well, once again, I refer such people to the same point above, which, in case you missed it, is that Labour lost the election.
Third, if Brexit turns out not to cause an economic shitstorm, the Tories will be in power for a generation. If it is a shitstorm, why does it follow that Corbyn's Labour Party will be considered a better alternative? A more likely scenario is that Mrs May gets knifed in the back and replaced with another Tory.
Third, despite tacking leftward, Labour hasn't recovered anything like its old position in Scotland. This is about winning elections, isn't it? Well, winning elections is a numbers game. The collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland has lost them 50 guaranteed parliamentary seats. They now have fewer Scottish seats than the Tories. Scotland is notionally more left-wing than the rest of the UK. Well, it seems that the Scots prefer to vote for the Tories, or the SNP who resemble nothing so much as nationalist, centrist, image-conscious Blairites.
From my vantage point the UK government is in disarray. They cannot agree on how to take on the EU. If my memory of the UK public is correct, this will be resolved by backing a leader they perceive as strong and patriotic. Mrs May was, it seems to me, perceived as a combination of Mrs Thatcher and Elizabeth I.
I simply don't know what Mr Corbyn has to offer in that respect.