Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Paddington Bear]

Why "head to the Greens"?

Are the Lib Dems totally unelectable?

Well yes, clearly

That's pretty glib.

It’s not really. They take a pasting every election despite the wicket being rolled perfectly for them. They’re barely relevant to the news cycle and people clearly aren’t going to vote for them

[Biffer]

The Tories haven't had to do a thing, the success in the 2019 GE and the gains overnight today are coming to them gift-wrapped on a plate from their opponents, principally Labour.

Whether it's calling huge swathes of the population thick, xenophobic and racist or the SNP destroying the Labour vote in Scotland or presenting Corbyn as the answer, the Tories have had to do nothing other than to keep reloading the gun that Labour use to shoot themselves with.

We're talking about completely different things here.

I don't think we are.

Point is that the Tories aren't doing any 'baking'.

Not wholesale, strategised stuff, no. But when you see proposals around voter registration, which have a known negative effect on poorer people voting, that looks like exactly the kind of thing JM2K6 is talking about.

[JM2K6]

They've done what every government does. Have you forgotten the cronyism of the Blair years already?!

So Blair turned independent institutions into ones controlled by Labour?

Eh, Labour donor Greg Dyke got the top job at the Beeb.

And was Labour donor Greg Dyke picked because of a career in media leading up to that point, or was he a political appointee brought in to shape the corporation towards he government's wishes? .

Dyke's career:

London Weekend Television
The Six O'Clock Show
Programme Director at TV-am
Programme Director at TVS
Programme Director at LWT (again)
Chairman + CEO of Pearson Television
Chairman of Channel 5
then DG of the BBC

It's a pretty straightforward progression, and he was a fair pick. The accusations of cronyism bear some scrutiny, because of course there should be scrutiny if a donor to the government gets a job. There's no evidence that Dyke was picked to bring a brand of politics to the role, to turn the corporation into something to win votes for the government.

If Richard Sharp, new Chairman of the Board at the BBC, was a guy who was an otherwise obvious pick for the BBC outside of his >£400,000 (!!!!) of Tory donations, I'd have just rolled my eyes. But given he's Rishi Sunak's former boss, and a former director of the fucking Centre for Policy Studies, which has long been publishing anti-BBC studies, accusing the BBC of being biased to the left, and railed against the licence fee, then it's a really strange appointment unless he's there to enact the current government's wishes.

Tim Davie is the new DG. That's former Conservative Party councillor Tim Davie. The same Tim Davie who was fine with Andrew Neil's every utterance, but banned everyone else from expressing their own views on "controversial" topics, and banged on about virtue signalling.

It's another way to fight the culture war, but this time it bakes it into our national broadcaster and is a blatant attempt to remove impartiality.

Add in the fact that they want Paul fucking Dacre, chief scumbag of the Daily Mail, as head of Ofcom, and their strategy is pretty clear.

[Rinkals]

Well yes, clearly

That's pretty glib.

It’s not really. They take a pasting every election despite the wicket being rolled perfectly for them. They’re barely relevant to the news cycle and people clearly aren’t going to vote for them

Any idea why?

Given the movement of Labour voters away from that party and the undeniable corruption in the Tories, one would expect them to be a much better option.

The Greens are pretty much a single issue party; I'm a bit surprised to see you promote them as a superior option.

[Paddington Bear]

That's pretty glib.

It’s not really. They take a pasting every election despite the wicket being rolled perfectly for them. They’re barely relevant to the news cycle and people clearly aren’t going to vote for them

Any idea why?

Given the movement of Labour voters away from that party and the undeniable corruption in the Tories, one would expect them to be a much better option.

The Greens are pretty much a single issue party; I'm a bit surprised to see you promote them as a superior option.

I think there's an element of being everyone's second choice, tuition fees and their traditional strongholds in England being quite brexity.

Greens aren't my cup of tea but can see the market they're appealing to in Germany existing over here as well.

[JM2K6]

So Blair turned independent institutions into ones controlled by Labour?

Eh, Labour donor Greg Dyke got the top job at the Beeb.

Don't forget the House of Lords.

That's a good one. Shall we look at this? "Tony's Cronies" and all that.

Blair created 200-odd life peers, and removed hereditary peers (undeniably a good thing in modern politics - there's no room for hereditary power like that in Government). As a result, the Tories still had a majority in the House of Lords. Eh? Oh. That's strange, isn't it.

Eventually, he added enough that Labour had the most peers in the House for the first time ever. That's a House that's supposed to represent a balance on the Government; a Government that has been overwhelmingly Tory before and after Blair.

The real criticism of what Blair did is that he was rewarding friends and donors. That as far as I know is correct, and deserved criticism - and that's why there was a big stink about it, and why laws were introduced to reduce his power to do so. Strangely, no such stink has sprung up over Boris stuffing the Lords with friends, donors, a family member, a son of KGB operative, Brexit campaign stalwarts - several of whom were appointed in defiance of the advice from the House itself! And the result is that the Tories went from being in the majority in the Lords, to having a huge majority boosted by many people who are there purely for their political alleigance to the Government. Despite Boris having committed to reducing the size of the House.

You see the difference between "Labour finally gets enough peers to be top dog, briefly" and "Tories cement their dominance of the House, breaking campaign promises and previous commitments to do so" in terms of how it impacts something that is supposed to be something other than a lapdog for the Tories? Thanks to Boris, the Tories now have 84 more members in the House than Labour. 75 more than the crossbench/independent lot. That's huge. They have almost of a third of the entire House of Lords! Now, can anyone explain to me why the Tories would stuff the Lords with more political appointees, most of which are Brexit ultras or fanatical Tories, when they already had a healthy lead over everyone else, and had promised they would do the opposite?

(I am taking it on faith that Blair's appointees were similar fanatics to Boris' lot - though I'd be surprised if there were people like Claire Fox in Blair's group. I have no way of knowing/finding out, so...)

[JM2K6]

Then you look at threats to the various arts - threatening museums with funding cuts if they remove statues, threatening punishment for accurately reporting on British History (or as Dowden called it, 'airbrushing British history' - some proper newspeak there), or for anything deemed 'political' (i.e. politics the government doesn't like) and it's very clear that they're trying to establish a long term environment where this particular brand Conservatism is the only game in town, promoted by previously independent organisations, and boosted by a captured media.

That's playing the long game. Add in the standard voter suppression tactics, and the stated aim of the Government to reduce the power of Parliament and politicise the judicial process, and we're essentially seeing an attempt to Trumpify the UK.

[Kawazaki]

Eh, Labour donor Greg Dyke got the top job at the Beeb.

Don't forget the House of Lords.

That's a good one. Shall we look at this? "Tony's Cronies" and all that.

Blair created 200-odd life peers, and removed hereditary peers (undeniably a good thing in modern politics - there's no room for hereditary power like that in Government). As a result, the Tories still had a majority in the House of Lords. Eh? Oh. That's strange, isn't it.

Eventually, he added enough that Labour had the most peers in the House for the first time ever. That's a House that's supposed to represent a balance on the Government; a Government that has been overwhelmingly Tory before and after Blair.

The real criticism of what Blair did is that he was rewarding friends and donors. That as far as I know is correct, and deserved criticism - and that's why there was a big stink about it, and why laws were introduced to reduce his power to do so. Strangely, no such stink has sprung up over Boris stuffing the Lords with friends, donors, a family member, a son of KGB operative, Brexit campaign stalwarts - several of whom were appointed in defiance of the advice from the House itself! And the result is that the Tories went from being in the majority in the Lords, to having a huge majority boosted by many people who are there purely for their political alleigance to the Government. Despite Boris having committed to reducing the size of the House.

You see the difference between "Labour finally gets enough peers to be top dog, briefly" and "Tories cement their dominance of the House, breaking campaign promises and previous commitments to do so" in terms of how it impacts something that is supposed to be something other than a lapdog for the Tories? Thanks to Boris, the Tories now have 84 more members in the House than Labour. 75 more than the crossbench/independent lot. That's huge. They have almost of a third of the entire House of Lords! Now, can anyone explain to me why the Tories would stuff the Lords with more political appointees, most of which are Brexit ultras or fanatical Tories, when they already had a healthy lead over everyone else, and had promised they would do the opposite?

(I am taking it on faith that Blair's appointees were similar fanatics to Boris' lot - though I'd be surprised if there were people like Claire Fox in Blair's group. I have no way of knowing/finding out, so...)

When the son of a KGB operative won't even vote Labour then it really is time to call it a day.

[Kawazaki]

Then you look at threats to the various arts - threatening museums with funding cuts if they remove statues, threatening punishment for accurately reporting on British History (or as Dowden called it, 'airbrushing British history' - some proper newspeak there), or for anything deemed 'political' (i.e. politics the government doesn't like) and it's very clear that they're trying to establish a long term environment where this particular brand Conservatism is the only game in town, promoted by previously independent organisations, and boosted by a captured media.

That's playing the long game. Add in the standard voter suppression tactics, and the stated aim of the Government to reduce the power of Parliament and politicise the judicial process, and we're essentially seeing an attempt to Trumpify the UK.

I think Twitter is more your thing JM. You'll love it there in fact.

[JM2K6]

Something something Tory & Vote Leave links to Putin and co

[JM2K6]

Then you look at threats to the various arts - threatening museums with funding cuts if they remove statues, threatening punishment for accurately reporting on British History (or as Dowden called it, 'airbrushing British history' - some proper newspeak there), or for anything deemed 'political' (i.e. politics the government doesn't like) and it's very clear that they're trying to establish a long term environment where this particular brand Conservatism is the only game in town, promoted by previously independent organisations, and boosted by a captured media.

That's playing the long game. Add in the standard voter suppression tactics, and the stated aim of the Government to reduce the power of Parliament and politicise the judicial process, and we're essentially seeing an attempt to Trumpify the UK.

I think Twitter is more your thing JM. You'll love it there in fact.

I guess you don't appreciate the irony of telling me to move to Twitter when I've used our disagreement to respond with in-depth replies, in an attempt to explain my position and expand the reasons behind it, only to be met by a pithy and pointless one-liner. One of us would definitely fit in on Twitter.

[Kawazaki]

Then you look at threats to the various arts - threatening museums with funding cuts if they remove statues, threatening punishment for accurately reporting on British History (or as Dowden called it, 'airbrushing British history' - some proper newspeak there), or for anything deemed 'political' (i.e. politics the government doesn't like) and it's very clear that they're trying to establish a long term environment where this particular brand Conservatism is the only game in town, promoted by previously independent organisations, and boosted by a captured media.

That's playing the long game. Add in the standard voter suppression tactics, and the stated aim of the Government to reduce the power of Parliament and politicise the judicial process, and we're essentially seeing an attempt to Trumpify the UK.

I think Twitter is more your thing JM. You'll love it there in fact.

I guess you don't appreciate the irony of telling me to move to Twitter when I've used our disagreement to respond with in-depth replies, in an attempt to explain my position and expand the reasons behind it, only to be met by a pithy and pointless one-liner. One of us would definitely fit in on Twitter.

You can mark your own homework and say you have scored an A* explaining why the Tory conspiracy theory is true as much as you like JM. You'll just find more adherents to it on Twitter than you will here.

[JM2K6]

I think Twitter is more your thing JM. You'll love it there in fact.

I guess you don't appreciate the irony of telling me to move to Twitter when I've used our disagreement to respond with in-depth replies, in an attempt to explain my position and expand the reasons behind it, only to be met by a pithy and pointless one-liner. One of us would definitely fit in on Twitter.

You can mark your own homework and say you have scored an A* explaining why the Tory conspiracy theory is true as much as you like JM. You'll just find more adherents to it on Twitter than you will here.

My "conspiracy theory" is essentially a list of the things the Tories are on record as doing. It's hardly QAnon, but if you want to be willfully blind, that's on you. I'm sure these are all just incredible conspiracies that by pure happenstance would benefit the Tories for years to come, as well as helping them fight their current culture war. Those lucky scamps!

[JM2K6]

Just a few more bits of completely unconnected, coincidental, and unplanned actions.

- Uzma Hasan and Fru Hazlitt were dropped from the Channel 4 board (against the advice of both the board and Ofcom)

The government has vetoed the reappointment of two women to Channel 4’s board of directors, including one of only two women of colour, in a sign ministers are continuing to assert their authority over senior media appointments.

The decision not to renew the boardroom positions of Uzma Hasan and Fru Hazlitt at the state-owned but privately funded broadcaster was made against the advice of both the Channel 4 board and the media regulator, Ofcom.

Both women were recommended for another three-year term on the broadcaster’s board, sources told the Guardian, with such reappointments usually waved through by the government. However, ministers have instead decided to seek new candidates, as part of a wider push that has led to the appointment of Conservative allies to leading media roles.

but they extended the term for the Conservative peer Chris Holmes, whos term was supposed to end.

- Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden refused to reappoint Dr Aminul Huque as a trustee of the Royal Museums Greenwich, leading to the immediate resignation of its chair, Sir Charles Dunstone. Huque’s fate is presumably connected with his work calling for the decolonisation of the curriculum.

This is a pretty good article talking about all these random events - and more - that have nothing to do with any Tory attempts to secure power, including direct quotes from prominent Tories about making nakedly political appointments

https://bylinetimes.com/2021/05/05/post ... ts-system/

It ends thusly:

Of course, Conservative organisations and Conservative-supporting publications are perfectly entitled to encourage Conservatives to apply for public appointments. However, what I have outlined here goes way beyond a mere recruitment campaign and indicates how, over the past 10 years, the Tory ecosystem has systematically laid the ground for the assault on the independence of the public appointments system now being waged by Johnson’s Government.

This isn’t simply a matter of cronyism and political patronage – it’s also a significant battleground in the Government’s wider war against the ‘liberal elite’ and in fact any institutions which stand in the way of unfettered executive power.

Meanwhile, newspapers such as the Telegraph, Sun, Mail and Express, which loudly defend press freedom (or, rather, their version of it) on the grounds that it enables them to speak truth to power on behalf of the public, have for the most part acted simply as power-fixated cheerleaders for the autocratic excesses of the executive – and especially of their creature, ‘Boris’.

At the same time, the BBC has been effectively cowed by the very processes which are the subject of this article – namely the Government’s packing of public bodies by Conservative place-men in the shape of new director general Tim Davie, chairman Richard Sharp and, most recently, board member Sir Robbie Gibb.

Welcome to the post-Nolan era.

[Kawazaki]

All this Machiavellian cunning orchestrated by the intellectual mastermind, Boris Johnson

[JM2K6]

I don't think anyone is claiming it's Just Boris. Boris like anyone else has pressure coming on him from donors, Tory grandees, other senior Tory members, his personal circle, etc. And as the article makes clear, the groundwork for this sort of thing long predates his time as PM. He's just accelerating it.

The Tory Government is not just Boris.

[Kawazaki]

I don't think anyone is claiming it's Just Boris. Boris like anyone else has pressure coming on him from donors, Tory grandees, other senior Tory members, his personal circle, etc. And as the article makes clear, the groundwork for this sort of thing long predates his time as PM. He's just accelerating it.

The Tory Government is not just Boris.

Don't forget the lizards.

[tabascoboy]

It's like the PM never had a well known SPAD...

[JM2K6]

I don't think anyone is claiming it's Just Boris. Boris like anyone else has pressure coming on him from donors, Tory grandees, other senior Tory members, his personal circle, etc. And as the article makes clear, the groundwork for this sort of thing long predates his time as PM. He's just accelerating it.

The Tory Government is not just Boris.

Don't forget the lizards.

I like good faith arguments. This isn't one.

[Kawazaki]

Politics, like most things in life owes far more to Occam's razor than conspiracy theories.

[Kawazaki]

It's like the PM never had a well known SPAD...

You'd think the conspiracy would have seen him meet with a nasty accident instead of being free to trash the PM after he left Johnson.

[JM2K6]

Politics, like most things in life owes far more to Occam's razor than conspiracy theories.

THE TORIES ARE LITERALLY SAYING OUT LOUD WHAT THEY'RE DOING. Jesus Christ.

It's like the PM never had a well known SPAD...

You'd think the conspiracy would have seen him meet with a nasty accident instead of being free to trash the PM after he left Johnson.

?!?!

You really are weird - where the fuck did anyone talk about people being offed? It's a discussion about how the Tories are trying to ensure they keep a stranglehold on power via fanatical political appointees in important areas. It's mad enough you think that's ground for wanking on about conspiracy theories, but even madder that you think anyone is talking about assassinations.

Honestly, if you've no interest in engaging like a sane human being, why even bother?

[JM2K6]

"the Tories are trying to ensure they keep hold of power beyond the next election by making sure that fanatical tories are in positions of great control in various media, culture, and Parliamentary areas, as explicitly suggested by various influential conservative groups, and backed up by the actions of the people they've already put in place"

"hurr hurr why didn't they kill Dominic Cummings if that was true???"

[Kawazaki]

Politics, like most things in life owes far more to Occam's razor than conspiracy theories.

THE TORIES ARE LITERALLY SAYING OUT LOUD WHAT THEY'RE DOING. Jesus Christ.

Follow the time line on this thread. Occam's razor suggests the Tory victories in 2019 and last night are down to the implosion of the Labour party. I also added, on this thread - today, that the Tories are still benefiting from their association with the Leave Brexit vote whereas Labour are more aligned with Remain which they have to split with other parties, especially in Scotland and London - traditional heartland Labour areas.

[Kawazaki]

"the Tories are trying to ensure they keep hold of power beyond the next election by making sure that fanatical tories are in positions of great control in various media, culture, and Parliamentary areas, as explicitly suggested by various influential conservative groups, and backed up by the actions of the people they've already put in place"

As has already been pointed out, that is what all in-power political parties do. That's page one stuff. From the 15th century.

[JM2K6]

Politics, like most things in life owes far more to Occam's razor than conspiracy theories.

THE TORIES ARE LITERALLY SAYING OUT LOUD WHAT THEY'RE DOING. Jesus Christ.

Follow the time line on this thread. Occam's razor suggests the Tory victories in 2019 and last night are down to the implosion of the Labour party. I also added, on this thread - today, that the Tories are still benefiting from their association with the Leave Brexit vote whereas Labour are more aligned with Remain which they have to split with other parties, especially in Scotland and London - traditional heartland Labour areas.

Like I said, you started off by arguing a completely different thing to me. I responded to tc27 saying that the Tories weren't trying to enact a sinister right wing policy/agenda. You are talking about election results. They are completely fucking different arguments, as I told you already. We actually agree on the prevalence of Brexit feeling as being a driver for Tory success in certain areas. It's just completely irrelevant to the post I was responding to, and the post of mine you replied to.

The agenda the Tories are trying to enact and the way they are going about it is entirely separate from current and historical election results.

"the Tories are trying to ensure they keep hold of power beyond the next election by making sure that fanatical tories are in positions of great control in various media, culture, and Parliamentary areas, as explicitly suggested by various influential conservative groups, and backed up by the actions of the people they've already put in place"

As has already been pointed out, that is what all in-power political parties do. That's page one stuff. From the 15th century.

Except no, not like this. There hasn't been nakedly political attempts to force all these instiutions to promote the Government's perspective, for a very long time. Functional democracy cannot work like that. It's an absolute lie to say this is how it's always been done, and I've wasted far too many words pointing out how and why things have changed. You've literally no interest in discussing this normally, you just want to throw out shit one-liners.

[Kawazaki]

THE TORIES ARE LITERALLY SAYING OUT LOUD WHAT THEY'RE DOING. Jesus Christ.

Follow the time line on this thread. Occam's razor suggests the Tory victories in 2019 and last night are down to the implosion of the Labour party. I also added, on this thread - today, that the Tories are still benefiting from their association with the Leave Brexit vote whereas Labour are more aligned with Remain which they have to split with other parties, especially in Scotland and London - traditional heartland Labour areas.

Like I said, you started off by arguing a completely different thing to me. I responded to tc27 saying that the Tories weren't trying to enact a sinister right wing policy/agenda. You are talking about election results. They are completely fucking different arguments, as I told you already. We actually agree on the prevalence of Brexit feeling as being a driver for Tory success in certain areas. It's just completely irrelevant to the post I was responding to, and the post of mine you replied to.

The agenda the Tories are trying to enact and the way they are going about it is entirely separate from current and historical election results.

"the Tories are trying to ensure they keep hold of power beyond the next election by making sure that fanatical tories are in positions of great control in various media, culture, and Parliamentary areas, as explicitly suggested by various influential conservative groups, and backed up by the actions of the people they've already put in place"

As has already been pointed out, that is what all in-power political parties do. That's page one stuff. From the 15th century.

Except no, not like this. There hasn't been nakedly political attempts to force all these instiutions to promote the Government's perspective, for a very long time. Functional democracy cannot work like that. It's an absolute lie to say this is how it's always that shit to be fairbeen done, and I've wasted far too many words pointing out how and why things have changed. You've literally no interest in discussing this normally, you just want to throw out shit one-liners.

They're not that shit to be fair.

[Biffer]

Follow the time line on this thread. Occam's razor suggests the Tory victories in 2019 and last night are down to the implosion of the Labour party. I also added, on this thread - today, that the Tories are still benefiting from their association with the Leave Brexit vote whereas Labour are more aligned with Remain which they have to split with other parties, especially in Scotland and London - traditional heartland Labour areas.

Like I said, you started off by arguing a completely different thing to me. I responded to tc27 saying that the Tories weren't trying to enact a sinister right wing policy/agenda. You are talking about election results. They are completely fucking different arguments, as I told you already. We actually agree on the prevalence of Brexit feeling as being a driver for Tory success in certain areas. It's just completely irrelevant to the post I was responding to, and the post of mine you replied to.

The agenda the Tories are trying to enact and the way they are going about it is entirely separate from current and historical election results.

As has already been pointed out, that is what all in-power political parties do. That's page one stuff. From the 15th century.

Except no, not like this. There hasn't been nakedly political attempts to force all these instiutions to promote the Government's perspective, for a very long time. Functional democracy cannot work like that. It's an absolute lie to say this is how it's always that shit to be fairbeen done, and I've wasted far too many words pointing out how and why things have changed. You've literally no interest in discussing this normally, you just want to throw out shit one-liners.

They're not that shit to be fair.

They are.

[tabascoboy]

21% turnout at another district nearby. Feeble.

[Kawazaki]

21% turnout at another district nearby. Feeble.

That's not unusual for local council elections.

[tabascoboy]

The fact it's not unusual only makes it worse.

The PCC one will probably be even lower, as no-one really cares

[Kawazaki]

The fact it's not unusual only makes it worse.

The PCC one will probably be even lower, as no-one really cares

MEP elections could hit single figures.

[SaintK]

Like I said, you started off by arguing a completely different thing to me. I responded to tc27 saying that the Tories weren't trying to enact a sinister right wing policy/agenda. You are talking about election results. They are completely fucking different arguments, as I told you already. We actually agree on the prevalence of Brexit feeling as being a driver for Tory success in certain areas. It's just completely irrelevant to the post I was responding to, and the post of mine you replied to.

The agenda the Tories are trying to enact and the way they are going about it is entirely separate from current and historical election results.



Except no, not like this. There hasn't been nakedly political attempts to force all these instiutions to promote the Government's perspective, for a very long time. Functional democracy cannot work like that. It's an absolute lie to say this is how it's always that shit to be fairbeen done, and I've wasted far too many words pointing out how and why things have changed. You've literally no interest in discussing this normally, you just want to throw out shit one-liners.

They're not that shit to be fair.

They are.

[Tichtheid]

Who is the director, or summit like that, of the Radio 4 Today programme who has links to the Tories?

Not presenter and ex-BBC political editor Nick Robinson, who was president of the Oxford University Conservative Association when Cameron and the rest of them were there, but someone else.

[I like neeps]

Some buzz on Twitter Shaun Bailey is doing better than expected.

If Keith Starmer's Labour party lose London he surely has to resign. Yow

[tc27]

Bailey doing much better than expected but expect Khan to win seond round easily.

Wonder if it will follow Hartlepool - Labour voters staying home.

[tc27]

In other news Labour doing well in Wales and the SNP holding up in Scotland (and have taken one Labour marginal).

Covid19 great for incumbents it seems.

[ScarfaceClaw]

I don't think anyone is claiming it's Just Boris. Boris like anyone else has pressure coming on him from donors, Tory grandees, other senior Tory members, his personal circle, etc. And as the article makes clear, the groundwork for this sort of thing long predates his time as PM. He's just accelerating it.

The Tory Government is not just Boris.

He’s too disinterested and disconnected to even notice. I’d argue that he’s merely facilitating it through his own apathy and personal focuses than masterminding it in any way.

[Lobby]

The Tory mayor of Tees valley has done well.

In 2017 he won by 2000 votes only after 2nd votes were counted.

This time he has secured 73% of the votes cast, and a stonking majority of 45,641 on 1st preference votes!

[GogLais]

We're reaching a point of asking what the Labour party is for.
- It can't unite the centre/centre left/left
- It isn't the party of the organised working class
- It doesn't represent Scotland and Wales at Westminster
- It isn't seen as a government in waiting or as a viable radical alternative
- It isn't going to win an election any time soon

At some point does it's urban and wealthier vote follow the Germans and head to the Greens?

Indeed. Doesn’t time fly - only one Labour leader has gained a comfortable majority in the last fifty years, even the US has elected four Democrat presidents in that time. I recently read The Strange Death of Liberal England and I wonder whether we’re seeing the death of Labour. The realignment of the Left that’s discussed after a lot of elections seems a long way off.
Another thing - Labour won comfortably in 03 and 07 and one might expect that MPs elected then would be political big/hitters now but of course they’re branded as Blairite.