Yet another article that confidently diagnoses why Labour lost the election without even attempting to survey relevant evidence. These really aren’t helping anything. THREAD: jacobinmag.com/2019/12/labour…
The piece says “large parts of our 2017 base either didn’t turn out or turned to the Brexit Party — ensuring a thumping Tory majority.” Yes, the Brexit party impacted things in a handful of seats. But overall only 1% of Labour’s 2017 base voted for them, according to Ashcroft 
.@DatapraxisEU estimate that Labour lost more voters to Remain parties than Leave, and that 200,000+ Labour Leavers from 2017 switched to Remain parties — more than the number that switched to the Brexit party. They conclude that a robust leave position was even less viable
Of course these studies have limitations, and the opposite could well be true — we’ll never know for sure. The point is that the evidence on whether a different Brexit strategy could have improved Labour’s fortunes is *at best* inconclusive. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest
The piece also ignores the main reason people left Labour: perception of the leadership. This is true of Leave and Remain voters. Corbyn went into the election as the most unpopular leader of all time. This made it virtually impossible to win. This can’t simply be ignored
There’s a desperate need to learn from the election, but this requires being open to evidence that challenges pre-existing biases, and acknowledging uncertainties. Polemics that do neither really won’t help anything. This goes for all sides
