The cyclical nature of politics and the worrying state of the Labour Party

The early 2000's was a difficult, even disastrous period for the Conservative Party. What had
traditionally been the party of government was reduced to a rump of under 200 MP's, and was
labelled as irrelevant, out of touch, and a former party. Its biggest critics came from its own
traditional allies in the media, and indeed from the party itself its own MP's and backbenchers.
Successive leaders in William Hague and Ian Duncan Smith had failed to come up with an answer
to Tony Blair's New Labour. It seemed that the paradigm of British politics had shifted
irrecoverably, that the Labour party now dominated the all important centre-ground, which has been
key to winning elections in Britain in modern times. Interestingly back then, the Conservative party
struggling with the outflanking manoeuvre undertaken by Labour, as the party struggled to put
clear blue water between itself and Labour, lurching further to the right.

Ironically, it began to speak about policies, when were then criticised as racist, overly right-
wing and out of date, which would in 2017 be taken up so successfully by Theresa May, the
champion of Brexit Britain. Indeed, fast forward 15 years or so, and it is the Labour party that
seems dead in the water. In a parallel outflanking move, Theresa May has abandoned the more
centrist, more considered policies of her predecessor Cameron, and in doing so has expertly
captured the mood of Britain in 2016 and 2017. Brexit means Brexit has become hard Brexit,
immigration is limited, immigrants are openly blamed for severe social and economic problems
such as the NHS crisis, and May is keen to espouse a highly populist, nationalist ethos. Whereas in
the mid-2000's such rhetoric was seemingly divisive and abhorrent in modern times it seems to have
been a masterful move, garnering massive support both from the older generation, in an
increasingly ageing society, and, crucially, and most worryingly for Labour, from the traditional
working class areas, particularly in the North. Thus, the old heartlands of Labour are being stripped
away, and now it seems as though Theresa May has expertly positioned her party to swallow up this
disillusioned bloc of Brexiteers, almost to the extent of rendering UKIP a near irrelevance.

The disastrous state of the Labour Party's current predicament is brought home by the
Copeland by-election defeat, the first time since 1982 that a governing party has actually won a by-
election. Neither can Corbyn particularly draw confidence from the narrowing of Labour's majority
in Stoke. The reality is that as an opposition party this is a calamitous set of results, arguably the
worst achieved by the main opposition party in recent memory. And even a cursory glance at the
opinion polls will indicate that the situation is going to get worse before it gets better. So, full circle
then, Labour's nadir has come in 2017 just as the Conservative's low point came in the early 2000's.
The Conservatives however, within a decade, had returned to power under Cameron, and seem to
have gone from strength to strength ever since. The question now, on every progressives lips is
simply, Will the situation improve? and indeed What does Labour have to do to see its situation
improve?. This is, obviously, an incredibly difficult question to answer. I would ague that although
Labour's problems now clearly go far beyond the issue of Corbyn, him going would still make a
massive difference to the party's fortune.

There is no denying that Brexit has changed the goalposts for the Labour party, forcing them
into a near impossible situation, should they take up the mantle of the progressive remainers,
building on their increasing popularity in London and the more affluent cities? Or should they take
a harder stance on immigration and Brexit, in order to rebuild their old alliance with the working-
class North, who increasingly seem to have abandoned the party in droves? What I would say is that
simple changes can have a remarkably massive effect. Merely changing the leader to someone with
a more confident, competent aura would help. Many campaigners on the ground, and ordinary
voters interviewed in Stoke and Copeland were hugely critical of Corbyn. There is a widespread
sense that he is simply not up to the job of Prime Minister, even that he is not even taking the
possibility of become Prime Minister seriously. Many even believe that he does not actually want
the job. The reality is that instead of railing against the unfair right-wing media's treatment of
Corbyn, we must accept the fact that the public's image of Corbyn is now largely set in stone. And ,
if British politics has taught us anything it is that once the public have a definite negative image of
a public figure it is very difficult to shift it. Instead, a new, more centrist and competent leader must
take over the reigns. A new leader must be able and willing to work with the media, even the right-
wing newspapers, as Blair did in the late 1990's. Only then can a truly positive image of a Labour
leader, and indeed the party itself, be reflected to the British public, many of whom's only
experience with politics as the occasional and cursory glance at the front-page of right-wing
newspapers. The importance of perceived competence amongst political leaders cannot be
overstated. Very often the voting public do not care for policies, they do not concern themselves
with notions of right or left wing, they just look to a leader whom they feel is most trustworthy,
most reassuring, a potential leader. I will not pretend that change in leadership will overnight
change the party's fortunes, but the reality is that Lab our has reached its nadir and that something
must change, otherwise the party will cease to exist as a serious force in British politics.