Corbynistas now cling with desperation to the idea that the Labour Party almost won the 2017 general election. It is all they have left, I suppose, the betrayal myth; we came so close and if it hadn’t been for internal saboteurs, we’d have got over the line. Look how close we got anyhow! Except in any sort of objective examination, the Labour party came nowhere close to winning the 2017 general election. No. Where. Close.
The myth is built upon the notion that Labour came within 2,000 to 2,500 votes of victory. The source of the idea stems from an Independent article, published on June 9th, 2017, the morning after the general election had taken place, under the headline “Jeremy Corbyn was just 2,227 votes away from chance to be Prime Minister“. At least, I feel pretty sure this was the earliest iteration of this idea – there were plenty of copycat articles to follow that week. The basic thesis here is that had Labour got exactly the right number of votes in seven marginal seats that fell to the Tories, Labour would have “won the election”. These seats were: Southampton Itchen, Pudsey, Hastings and Rye, Chipping Barnet, Thurrock, Preseli Pembrokeshire, and Calder Valley. If 2,227 people who had voted Tory in these seats had voted Labour instead, they would have fallen to Labour by one vote each.
Now, there are several obvious problems with this theory already. One is that we have a first past the post system, and while saying Labour was 2,227 votes short of an extra seven seats makes it sound dreadfully close, this is actually a long way off. In the 2019 general election, the Lib Dems came within 2,743 votes of unseating Dominic Raab in Esher and Walton, which I wouldn’t describe as almost unseating the Foreign Secretary myself. Of course, some Lib Dems probably would. Actually, that’s what this “we came within 2,227 votes of winning the election” thing reminds me of most – it’s very Lib Demy. I’m not sure that’s the comparison most Corbynistas hanker after.
But you know what? I don’t even need any of the last paragraph to debunk this theory that Labour came very close to winning the 2017 general election. I’ll give the Corbynistas their precious 2,227 votes exactly where they need them so they can take those seven seats off the Tories by one vote each. For the sake of what follows, they are theirs. So, what happens if Labour gets those seven seats off the Conservatives in 2017? They won the election then, right? No, not even remotely close. An extra seven seats would have given Labour 269, which if you are a keen observer of British politics you will note would still have put Labour someways off the 326 needed to have an outright majority in parliament and even way short of the 321 needed for a nominal majority when Sinn Fein, the speaker, etc are taken out of the equation. More than 50 seats short in fact, which is a strange way to call something a victory. So, what the hell are the Corbynistas on about then? Well, remember they took these seven seats off of the Tories, which means instead of the 317 the Conservatives actually ended up with, they now have 310. Even hooking up with the DUP only collectively gets them 320. If you add Labour’s 269 to the SNP’s 35, the Lib Dems 12, Plaid Cymru’s 4 and Caroline Lucas, you get 321. A one seat majority over the Tory-DUP configuration! Which means Corbyn would have been prime minister! Right?
Well, except it’s a huge stretch to think the Lib Dems would have jumped on board with this rainbow coalition automatically. It’s funny to me that the Corbynistas consider the Lib Dems to be horrible yellow Tories who are just itching to be back in bed with the Conservatives – but then assume in this little fantasy that the Lib Dems would have helped Corbyn form a government for certain. I suppose in return for another EU referendum? But that wasn’t even being talked about by Corbyn or his people at the time, so this is another stretch. The SNP would have demanded a second Scottish referendum – and for the UK government to not pick a side. In addition to these major consideration, those parties would have only agreed to vote for a Queen Speech that they could all live with as well. So, at best you would have had Corbyn’s agenda massively watered down. Those members of the PLP that the Corbynistas so despise would have had massive power to derail a more radical agenda as well, almost certainly with Lib Dem and some SNP help.
Beyond all that, even if somehow this rainbow coalition did agree on an initial Queen’s Speech, it would have been hard to see it lasting more than a year – at least under Corbyn’s leadership. It would have fallen apart as soon as everyone outside of Labour got what they wanted, which would have been quickly. Then, we would have had another election that the Tories would have won.
Perhaps you don’t agree with every aspect of the scenario that I have laid out above. Fine. But I don’t see how you can still tell me that getting 269 seats is winning a general election. It isn’t. It isn’t anywhere close. That is just a psephological fact. I do feel some sympathy for the Corbynistas’ world crumbling around them but in politics it is always better to face up to the obstacles in front of you honestly – and to do that you have to evaluate the past honestly. Labour lost the 2017 badly. Not as badly as 2019, but still pretty badly.
***********************************************************************
I have a new book out now. It’s called “Politics is Murder” and follows the tale of a woman named Charlotte working at a failing think tank who has got ahead in her career in a novel way – she is a serial killer. One day, the police turn up at her door and tell her she is a suspect in a murder – only thing is, it is one she had nothing to do with. The plot takes in Conservative Party conference, a plot against the Foreign Secretary and some gangsters while Charlotte tries to find out who is trying to frame her for a murder she didn’t commit.
Also: there is a subplot around the government trying to built a stupid bridge, which now seems a charming echo of a more innocent time!
It’s here:
Where does Sylvia Hermon fit into these Corbynista numbers?
You killed it with the first line,how can we take anyone with hate against the person they are writing about seriously when everything is so one sided,this is just an attack on Corbyn and those who voted for him,who now you want to vote for stammer,articles like this will destroy votes not gain any.
Where is the hate in the first line?
Ian is right. Win or lose Corbyn is a decent man and better leader. Who wants to vote for treacherous, racist, liars like The Starmer Party. I feel sorry for Nick Tyrone. All he has is vitriol and hate. I wonder who hurt him.
That’s a lie labour are not thr racist party must get over Corbyn he lost twice
Some good points here.
But no one can argue that our one left wing Labour leader in the last 20 years got less votes than right wing Labour leaders, despite the right wing narrative to the contrary. Here are the numbers: –
Votes for Labour in the last 3 elections:
2005 Blair 9,552,436 (35.2%)
2010 Brown 8,609,527 (29%)
2015 Miliband 9,347,324 (30.4%)
2017 Corbyn 12,878,460 (40%)
2019 Corbyn 10,269,076 (32.1%)
If we want a Labour government then we need a leader to the left of Corbyn.
Nope it wont work that why sorry we have not had a hard left leader for what I remember now look at it like this the next elections Tories will win and we will have that government for 10 year as they will change it after the next elections think about that
1) For a start Brown and Miliband lost but Blair won 3 times so why not include all his three victories? Because you only want to show lower total vote and %
2) Between Blair victories and Corbyn’s loses an extra 3 million have been added to electorate. Hence why it’s meaningless to compare total votes.
3) Also during Blair years the Lib Dem vote got to around 18-22%. After 2010 their vote share collapsed to 8% so more votes to Tories and Labour
4) You don’t show what the Tories got. In 2005 even they Blair got more votes than the Tories unlike Corbyn.
5) At the end of the day, the only thing that counts is seats due to the flawed FPTP system that Blair, Corbyn and Starmer have supported.
You don’t understand the concept of relative and absolute. If you don’t understand something and you want to write about it, educate yourself on it first. This just makes you look stupid
Your article fails at the headline stage.
Corbyn supporters don’t use the extraordinary closeness of the election to claim a “win.” At least, if some do on Twitter, well, that’s Twitter. And perhaps on Facebook too somewhere, left-wingers like to wind up the enemy by saying “win” in these terms.
The central point is simply that, as I said above, the vote margin of 2227 illustrates with startling clarity just how close Jeremy Corbyn was TO BE ABLE TO TRY to form a coalition. The obstacles in the way of this is quite another issue.
I’d amplify the point by saying that the tiny vote margin emphasizes how successful Corbyn was in 2017. Rescuing a party on the edge of a black abyss after two grotesque election results (29% and 30%) in 2010 and 2015, will stand for those who actually understand electoral politics and the history of the Labour party in this period as one of the greatest achievements in Labour party history. The fact that the leap to 40% was achieved against an immediate mutiny against Corbyn in 2015 when the first poll showed him to be ahead of three other candidates adds to its extraordinary nature. That the mutiny consisted of enemies of Corbyn voicing nothing but lies, smears, disinformation & other forms of skulduggery in the mainstream media very willing to platform them adds further to this achievement.
Given the historical context, the removal of the Tory majority in the 2017 general election, I see the event as a victory or Corbyn Labour, a “win.” It should be remembered by everyone who wants to chuck their opinion into the ring that general elections are not football, netball, cricket or hockey: they are stepping stones across a seemingly never-ending river width. That they decide who governs the country cannot of course be gainsaid. But that period is short. Political, electoral history unfolds over large spans of time. Elections are also causal factors in future events. Had the right-wing of the Labour party or indeed, its centre cohort of MPs who might have faced the righ down, had a belief in democratic legitimacy, 2017 would have seen them sit down, shut up, honour the membership and given Corbyn a chance of winning a 2022 general election. If they had, Corbyn would have become Prime Minister. They knew it: this is why they launched an even more intense campaign against him from 2017-19 using even more fantastical lies and smears to achieve their aims.
I completely agree with this sentiment. The truth is that Corbyn achieved a 9.6% net gain in the popular vote between 2015 and 2017 which, given the initially insurmountable polling lead of Theresa May’s Conservatives in April 2017, is nothing short of a miracle. Even after Labour’s defeat in 2019, when the ghost of Thatcher and the Murdoch khaganate worked together to set back socialism in the UK by yet another 10 years, the Labour Party still remained at 32.1% of the vote which is higher than in 2015 when they returned more seats! The wonders of the FPTP system, and the absolute rather than contextual terms by which Corbyn’s achievements in 2017 have been judged, are the only real legs on which this smug AF article rests.
TDLR; this smug faux-left faux-give-a-fuck twat can shove it.