Why Labour is haemorrhaging

Why don't YOU say it though obieobe? It is easy to refer to a link, but you have given very little evidence of having read or understood its relevance.
As they say in PMQs "Answer the question!"

Thatbags
K
Labour MP's and commentators admit this is the case.

The proof being the Labour heartlands who voted in droves to leave the EU. They did not toe the party line because the Party was felt to be lacking in understanding of the lives of the working man. It is another reason Labour votes in the last two General Elections didn't secure a Labour win.

Your comments do suggest that you haven't read the article, trisher. There is a link in the article to a report done after the Labour vote losses in 2015.
I think the reference to the Labour Party elite is because the writer thinks Labour MPs and MEPs have lost touch with the needs and wants of traditional Labour voters. Other opinion piece writers have mentioned the same disconnect.

Read the link in the op. Says it all.

labour elite? Who on earth are they

How would I know what the London and Brussels elite have condemned? I have never heard anyone from the Labour party condemn such things indeed most of the people I know who are linked to the Labour party are also active in local organisations, supporting and preserving the very things they are supposed to be destroying, running foodbanks, women's support groups and youth groups. It's easy to say something producing real evidence for it is different.

Tell us more!! Who are these labour elite?? Why are they splitting and why are there too many?

I hadn't realised until a few days ago, that gransnet too has many Labour elite[exceptions may be Anniebach and Eloethan, and Tegan.].

There is now an obvious split and the link in the op describes the situation very well.

You are one of those posters, DaphneBroon, I was right

Help ma boab , that's me tellt!

things!

What about those thongs that article claims that the London and Brussels elite have dismissed as anachronisms, trisher? Are they bad values too? They are what the article was really about. It was not about prejudices and invective against foreigners. If it had been I'm sure it would have condemned those as roundly as you have.

There has always been a section of the "poor", "working class" call them what you will, who have held right wing, conservative (with a small 'c')views (remember Alf Garnett?). They have never played any part in the Labour party, indeed in many cases there was open conflict between them and Labour supporters. Nothing in that article persuades me that the Labour party needs to appeal to these sort of people, indeed it should be opposing the sort of language and invective being used now against immigrants and foreigners.

www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1227611-Panorama-Why-We-Voted-to-Leave-Britain-Speaks

If you wanted to watch clips of the programme you will see,

I'm afraid this link just takes us round the houses back to the Panorama thread here on GN.

Corbyn didn't fight for the poor did be? He didn't take to the debates , he just seemed to tour the country gathering members for Momentum , which it seems he has done

www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1227611-Panorama-Why-We-Voted-to-Leave-Britain-Speaks

If you wanted to watch clips of the programme you will see, if you dont already know.

Since I didn't see that Panorama programme perhaps you could explain to me about the 'types of poor' interviewed.
I also didn't understand the comment about Corbyn campaigning against the poor.
By asking such questions do I inevitably become one of 'those' posters?

Fullfact is so biased as to be almost unbelievable frankly.

You are one of those posters, DaphneBroon, I was right.

£3 Corbynistas (not even in their thousands) do not a Labour Party make. A 'leader' who does not lead his Party's MPs and who can't provide a robust Opposition is not a leader.

Still, it's all good political theatre so one might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

Today at 19.22

Must have missed that bit, Daphne.

Don't knock it dj, obieone says it is possibly the best article she has ever read, so don't disillusion her.

According to the Huffington Post, Labour has 500,000 members now. According to the New Statesman it has 600,000 today.
Not exactly haemorrhaging.
The next prime minister is going to be chosen by the Tory membership said to be about 150,000.

"As Jon Cruddas’s inquiry into the dismal 2015 defeat found, Labour is now toxic with more socially conservative voters who are concerned about immigration, welfare, patriotism and Europe. Of those voters, Cruddas found that an overwhelming number consider immigration the single most important challenge facing both the party and the country.

But even though this problem was flagged long before the referendum campaign began, Labour’s leaders and the bulk of its MPs don’t actually seem to understand why so many Labour voters are anxious about immigration: first, competition in terms of jobs and the downward effect on wages; second, the impact on public services and the allocation of social housing or welfare benefits; and third, the loss of tradition, culture and community. Among Labour’s old supporters, the second and the third reason are the most significant."

From the article. Not exactly the sort of people that would vote labour anyway.
The second paragraph is just myth. There is very little downward effect on wages. The impact on public services is positive, as so many immigrants work in them, and add to the pot. If our culture and tradition are disappearing, it's our fault for not making more of them. I prefer a mix of culture and tradition anyway. Loss of community is because of a loss of community services, lead by the government cuts, and not caused by immigration.

"Between 2004-2006 and 2012-2014 the ratio of foreign-born to UK-born workers rose by about 8% in low-skilled and semi-skilled service occupations across the UK as a whole. This was the largest change in any of the four occupational groups classified by the report.

So for a low-skilled or semi-skilled occupation paid £8 per hour, this would work out to a drop of between 1 and 2 pence per hour, each year.

Many issues have an affect on the wages of the lowest paid. Academics commonly list global changes in technology and trade, or national differences in education, attitudes to gender, and union activity as having a much more significant effect than having a higher proportion of immigrants in the workforce."

From fullfact.

Corbyn and Momentum certaintly are getting it ,it's their goal