Anyone of a non-socialist nature will inevitably regard Labour's governments as failures, for reasons that I have been repeatedly banging on about for over a year now.
However, Fraser Nelson has written a piece for the Spectator in which he assesses Labour according to its own definition of success or failure - i.e. has it helped the poor? Like him, I would be willing to grant Labour some credit if, despite screwing up the country for the rest of us, they had managed to lift some deserving people from suffering. However, his analysis shows that they have not only failed to do so, they have actually made things worse. Unsurprisingly, this process of hurting the poor has accelerated under our Dear Leader The Appointed One.
Just take one of his graphs, that showing "inequality" by Labour's preferred definition, the Gini index:
Yes, there is inequality, rising dramatically under Thatcher, staying steady under Major, and then continuing to rise from 1997 onwards - particularly during Brown's years as PM.
So, even on their own figures, marked against their own score-card, Labour are failures. Utter failures.
Time, I think, to return to capitalism. I've never claimed that it is a perfect system, but as a method of lifting people out of poverty, it offers more help to more of the poor than any other method. Why is why my contempt for socialism is so deep, and so visceral.