The Labour party's problem is a fundamental one. It was a party whose roots are in an different era that is failing to adapt to demographic change. The Blair years saw it adapt to the new demographic landscape but it was not Labour as traditional Labour voters knew it. They then lost the trust of their new found middle class friends over Iraq and then the economic crash (however unfair that particular criticism may be). Those two things will take a generation to recover from IMO. Just look how many people in the North still rant about the Thatcher era and blame their ills on her / her party to see how long-term these voter reactions can last.

In gaining its new, short-term friends, Labour has spent two generations distancing itself from the poor in our society who are just now turning away from it.

Labour therefore is at a crossroads and needs to decide who it appeals to. Rather like "our" M&S's clothing emporia it cannot provide an offering of all things to all people as it'll end up satisfying none of them. If it lurches "left" it will not be electable as there are insufficient punters who that will appeal to.

In short, it's hard to see a meaningful future for them any time soon.

Oh I agree but someone has to start somewhere, and it would need to be a leader too, sadly I don't expect it will ever happen as they don't consider that their behavior at times is simply unacceptable in any sort of establishment.

How many leaders did the tories get through after Major and before golden bollox Camoron turned up?

I've a feeling that once the middle classes see the real consequence of Osbornomics, a chimp in an M&S suit could probably stand a good chance of winning a majority

You're flattering Osborne by tagging his "policies" with a name, I have this vision of him on the phone most evenings to his University professors saying "Could you just run through that first year lecture on sleight of hand distraction techniques with particular regard to fiscal planning again please"

It's pure revisionism to pin the blame for Labour's abandonment of core socialist principles upon Blair because the truth is the party did that NEARLY FIFTY YEARS AGO when Harold Wilson was elected. All Blair did was arrange for a skip to be placed outside of Party HQ so the last scraps of tattered credibility remaining could be hawked before selling out fully.

You can't even consider Labour a socialist party. Even in its heydey (which was before the war) it was only ever a bulwark against actual socialism breaking out in Britain. Once WWII ended and the electorate received its payoff for five years of war misery (the NHS) it didn't take long before they were falling back on all their commitments (something these "moral men" claimed only TORIES indulged in). This Labour party has spent more years reneging on its promises than it did MAKING those promises.

Part of Labour's problem is that they think everyone who voted UKIP is a 'wasist' and in the process write off their chances of every gaining back these people to vote for them.

Corbyn only appeals to a small proportion of hardcore lefties who live in some sort of delusion that if he says the right things some imaginary switch will be flicked in the UK electorate and everyone will vote for him. It's just not going to happen.

I have reported your post (and your previous posts) which are clearly aimed at destroying and disrupting discussion on the forum.

You've changed your tune.