Yet Corbyn even at his 2019 worst was pulling in more voters than Brown or Miliband managed. And yet Starmer for some reason pitched himself to Labour members as wanting to stick to Corbyn's policies during the leadership election. And yet Starmer's approval ratings first started to nose dive when he booted Corbyn out of the party in November.
But hey never mind all that evidence, take your own gut feeling and just imagine it applies to everyone.
Numbers of voters is unfortunately irrelevant in our system (especially when the other side gets more also), it's more important which voters you win, where they live and what seats you can get. It's a $hit system, but it's been that way for ages, they know the rules, and could probably have changed them long before any of this crap happened.
2010, 258 seats v 306, when Brown got blamed for a worldwide recession you mean, and people were going after Labour for a war the Tories all voted for, so loads ditched Labour thinking they were clever and went and voted Lib Dem (which backfired)
2015, 232 seats v 330, not really much of a change, but the economic recovery was happening, so not easy to beat Tories then, kind of stuck with the devil you know
2017, 262 seats, looks great on paper, but the Tories still got 317, basically gaining in the wrong places, also pretty much a 2 party vote
2019, 202 seats v 365, yes 365! when the Tories were a mess, you can't do anything with 202 seats
What was next under JC,150? The trend wasn't up, that's for sure.
You're trying to convince the wrong person, I would vote labour anyway, as I realise it's the best way to get the Tories out. You need to convince those that ditched Corbyn or the Tories that think he was a moron. You can't ignore 5 people leaving to go to tories (no matter how irrational they are) and pick up 5 from further left, as the 5 from the further left do not exist (I wish they did), and either way it's still a net loss. So you're either now -5 or -10.