The Washington Post dived into the British general election with its usual find evidence to support the conclusion approach:
In 2015, Britain’s Labour Party tacked to the left, repudiating the middle-way philosophy that had won it three elections under Tony Blair. Voters responded by handing the party its worst defeat in three decades.
Rather than scramble back toward the center, Labour lurched further left. The party elected as its leader Jeremy Corbyn, a white-bearded baby boomer from the back benches who, like Bernie Sanders in the United States, ignited an improbable movement among young activists with his attacks on the rigged capitalist system and unquestioned fidelity to socialist ideals.
Now, with less than six weeks to go before Britain votes once more, the Corbyn-led Labour Party is on course for an electoral beatdown so broad and deep it would make the drubbing the party took in 2015 look like a triumph.
See, now that's just lazy thinking.
First of all, it is clear, from the electoral results in both countries, that neither the 'centrists' or the 'leftists' are winning elections. Yes, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton did win elections convincingly 20 years ago, an eon in politics. But there's no reason to think that the policies both men pursued would be the key to victory today. After all, Gordon Brown and Al Gore both lost after running on those very policies. Nor are Sanders or Corbyn doing any better at the polls by running in a more purist, socialist message. Those results are in fact worse. But losing or losing worse is hardly a case for centrism.
Furthermore, it seems to ignore what is actually happening in the electorate in both countries. The Socialist Left, while small, is much more active in the electorate in terms of protest, energy and vigor mirroring the rise of nationalist fervor among the much larger yet still minority Right. This sort of 'ideology is all the matters' scale of positioning also ignores the economic and social changes that have created more youth oriented, diverse and affluent cities and suburbs while other areas of both countries see rapid aging and economic decline. This is happening everywhere in the industrialized world, not just in places where centrists or socialists or nationalists are are in power.
The real decline among the world's labor-based parties is obvious and has nothing to do with ideology: the sharp decline in the number of people engaged in industrial labor and, ironically, the labor movements' political success. To sum up this point, if you make it your business to improve education and living standards for future generations, don't be surprised if those future generations are no longer toiling in factories, not too smart, and oppressed by the capitalists. They're now smart people reporting to the capitalists, if not capitalists themselves. People no longer in need of a labor movement. One could also argue, convincingly, that the labor movement shot itself in the foot by failing to move beyond factory and mine toil into organizing employment in the service oriented post-industrial economy.
Some socialists, for rhetorical reasons, will say the fact that you only need 100 people to do today what you needed 100,000 for yesterday is a product of evil and greed rather than technology. Sort of a late 19th Century message for the 21st Century. But for political reasons there is only reason that the leftist message, designed to address the striking income inequality of the post-industrial West, isn't finding broader traction: the messengers suck and the message is narrow.
Lets face facts: there wasn't some broad, mass centrism sweeping the electorate 25 years ago. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were very good politicians. A good politician knows how to cast a wide enough net to capture the most people possible. Some with a bit of ideology, some more with a bit of personality and charisma. Candidates all over have failed when lacking that element of a charismatic leader who skillfully puts together a coalition with a broad message that is fit for the times.
I believe that a charismatic leader, even a socialist, can win in this environment. The fact that the Left seems to keep putting up ideologues who make for shitty politicians is not confined to them. Centrists put up pragmatists who make for shitty politicians like Milliband or Clinton. Neither team is winning in my view for this reason. Crap candidates, not ideological positioning.