Laughing I'm not saying you're totally wrong but you're not totally right either. Of course the marginal seats are important in our system. Of course swing voters are the ticket to winning the marginal seats.
But I think some people end up convincing themselves that what is or isn't a marginal seat is somehow fixed or ordained from on high.
Labour didn't care what Scottish voters thought because they already had their votes, until they didn't.
Labour didn't care what "red wall" voters thought because they already had their votes, until they didn't.
It's all well and good basing your entire strategy on a specific target audience in specific target seats... if it works. But it has to be taken as agiven that such a strategy includes a risk that you lose other voters and potentially create marginals out of safe seats. A bit like a football manager throwing players forwards to try and get a goal.
I don't think it was so much labour taking scottish voters for granted , more the SNP realising if they could secure the support of the veterinary favour of independence they would be untouchable, if around 45% upwards can be persuaded to vote on a single issue you couldn't lose the seat.
It's the same with brexit, that's what johnson and Co tapped into.
A good chunk of the population are not interested in the vast number of polices but if there's one they can nail their colours to the mast the other stuff doesn't matter.
Pro independence first the rest isn't that important
Pro brexit first the rest isn't important.
Iam seeing many tories saying the fact that their Wakefield candidate wasn't Pro brexit cost them the seat.
That's the problem labour have, moving the issues away from brexit/independence