All mostly true, but still kinda hanging on to the outdated pre-Brexit, pre-Trump, pre-Corbyn model of rational vanilla politics IMO. Yes, the center is still where we're eventually heading (swings and roundabouts and all) but the entire purpose of the Labour Party is to push that center further and further left. Even Tony Blair, the hated horned demon centrist of the Corbyn uprising, was the only reason Cameron's Tory Government legalised Gay marriage. Any self respecting Tory would've spat their caviar flavoured Champagne in your face had that been suggested before a decade of Labour rule. And a soft, centrist Labour rule at that.
That's what it's about. Right now both sides are so polarised that rushing to claim that void too soon would lose votes either way, but Labour are in the better position of the two IMO.
Even a centrist Tory leader would be seen as necessitating yet another election, another embarrassing policy climb down and their 3rd leadership in as many years. Sure, some people may be placated, but many would also see them as an omnishambles, and the reason we're spending precious millions on endless party political dick-swinging.
Hence why it's never been more important for Labour to find a way (any way!) to push in the same direction. To enact that shifting of the status quo. Many of us thought it'd be a decade before we had a chance like this, but we've been granted it now, so feck pessimism, all hands to the pump comrades! I can see how many would see the DUP coalition as a step backwards, but the night is always darkest before the dawn [/batman]
Indeed. Maybe Corbyn wouldn't attract the Blairites if he moved slightly more centrally, but he does need an extra few million votes if we have a repeat election. Who knows if the youth will even turn out next time.
But actually, I think everyone, left or right, is usually best served by starting from the central position and pushing in their preferred direction. Consider these two statements;
1) There are too many Indian doctors in this country.
2) We do not train enough doctors in this country, and are over reliant on attracting them from abroad.
Both statements could mean the same thing, but the first starts from the right and stays there, the second starts from the centre and pushes right.
If a right-leaning person said the former (and its not a radical thought), the left-leaners would groan and shake their heads. But if they said the second, many would consider it.
The same applies in reverse.
1) All drugs, hard and soft, should be immediately legalised, and those in prison for drug offences released.
2) Drug addicts cost this country billions of pounds a year. Treating addicts as criminals, instead of having a mental illness, exacerbates the problem.
Not the best example, but we'll run with it. Starting from the centre gathers the largest number possible, and takes them in the direction you want them to go. I often find the 'quite-far-right' start with relatively good intentions, but fail to come up with a coherent centralist explanstion as to why the radical right offers a better solution. Or they attack the effect and not the cause.
The big problem of course, is that the right don't just hate Corbyn just because he is on the left, they hate him because he is a "terrorist sympathiser". If there is a potential replacement who looks like more of a statesmen who can unite the centre and the left, then maybe Corbyn really should step down in the next two years. I'm not saying he's a failure, or with any ill-feeling towards him, but it could be the best thing for the party. Like Sturgeon and Salmond.
But there are too many variables to even think about that now. Corbyn got 5% more of the vote than Tony Blair did in 2005. Brexit could be a s**t-show. Maybe, he will find himself as Prime Minister sooner than we think.
All i know is the centre is under-represented. May's replacement *will* move towards the centre. Corbyn may be a revolution, but he needs to be a revolution Labour can win