Thread by @mafevema

The cynicism of the Labour Party's strategy: putting the party before the country. A 🧵
1. Why does Labour reject any Alliance with other parties? Apparently it makes no sense: to win a majority of 1 seat pre- boundary reform,Labour needs 124 extra seats. Even in Blair's time

when Labour was running at 50% in the polls against Major, it didn't achieve this. The apparachiks are not stupid. They know they can't win a majority alone. So why?
2. An Alliance would benefit the Greens (maybe from 1 to 8-10 seats & LD (maybe from 9 to 40ish). It would also 2/

be conditional on introducing a form of PR (AMS?) in the system which would anchor the small parties in the political landscape as potential king's makers. This isn't necessarily what would happen if either the Tories or Labour were popular enough to achieve majority on their 3/

own -see SNP in Scotland which has managed to achieve majority with the AMS system- but it is more likely than not. It could also lead to a split in Labour. These prospects terrify the apparachiks: Labour could lose its place as the unchallenged leader of the opposition. 4/

It could end like the SPD in Germany, around 26% (NB:the Tories too fear this greatly).Far from being a model to aspire to,the German election is Labour’s nightmare. So the strategy isn't to win the next GE:it is to eliminate the small rival parties & position Labour for 2027 5/

3. How to achieve this & still mobilise your supporters?
- reject any form of Alliance but
- loudly pretend you can win alone & that winning IS your objective
- attack voting for other parties as a "wasted vote" (note the cynicism when in fact you are doing everything you can 6/

to ensure it is wasted)
- skillfully pull the strings of unconditional loyalty of your members & activists.
- frame the GE as much as possible as a "fight to get the Tories out" (in the full knowledge that you can't on your own) 7/

-internally defeat PR in cahoot with your union backers ( ✅) (note: how skillfully the leadership managed to preserve a pretend neutrality to deflect members'anger) & ensure perenity for the leadership by changing party's rules (✅)
This will hopefully achieve 3 objectives 8/

a)reduce the LD& Greens to an even smaller share of votes making a post election majority of the opposition impossible. So Labour won't be obliged to share power with them & introduce PR:sorry, Labour will say,wringing their hands:not our fault,lousy LD & Greens,wasted votes 9/

b) reduce the Tories majority to ensure an unstable government
c) win a sufficient number of seats to have a good platform to win with a comfortable majority in 2027, may be earlier if the Tories run into big troubles. 10/

As a strategy to maintain an hegemonic duopoly of 2 parties in Britain, it can't be faulted.
As a strategy to win in 2027, it is not bad: the Tories will be dealing with the negative consequences of Brexit for years, they have been in power for 11+ already, Johnson 11/

will be replaced by someone who will not have the peculiar bond he has with part of the public.
Of course it could go wrong. But, from a party's point of view, it is a good strategy. For the country? For democracy? I leave it to you to decide. END/