Vocal Voices

The first is for the leader election to be run by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS). It locks out the unions who usually do that job and who through it make their preference known. It also distances the party from the process so that it cannot be blamed for any outward undue interference.

The second is that she wants candidates to be "stress-tested" in televised debates, but not by people like her, by the public. She does not say if any broadcasters have signed up for this, whys should they? If they do it for one then they must do it for all. She also does not define "the public". We do not know if it will be the general public, labour supporting public or the labour members public.

The third trick is a combination of the other two. The Labour party and its MPs will be absolved if or when things go wrong. It will not have been them 'wot dun it' it will be down to the ERS, Unions, TV companies and the public. After all, the Labour party will have followed their lead.

Talk about abrogating one's responsibilities for decisions made combined with a lack of self-belief.

TV debates? No thanks. If any broadcaster thinks watching MP's from the party that just lost the election backstab and blame each other on national TV is a ratings winner they must be off their heads.

Precisely.

If Labour really wants to know it could do worse than look at its own research.

During election day a Labour activist called round to ask whether I had voted and if not Labour, Why not? I told him the reasons and he left. I assume this happened in different parts of the country so there must a lot of information to assess. It will be long and hard work as they were 'open' answers in response to an 'open' question, and researchers do not like that, but the real truth is there if Labour actually wants to find it.

This sounds like System Software Analysis and Design. Used universally by Government projects back in the 90's. It took me a very long time to understand what it's purpose was. The purpose of SSADM or Sadism as everyone not supporting it called it had one and only one purpose. When, not if, the government project went over budget, failed or delivered a decade after it was needed, the cry would be "But we followed SSADM to the letter". Or in other words "Not My Fault".

This looks like a CYA process. It's not going to help them or even protect them, but they'll be able to say "Not My Fault". Exactly what WM was saying.

However, in the end, when all is said and done. We'll still have a leader of the Labour party who has no clue how to run a country, thinks "social reform" means destroying everything that works and replacing it with an ideological substitute and believes that "Budget Responsibility" is who to fire when the Crimson ledger balance comes home to roost and they have to submit to reality. Either at the polls or at the hands of the money lenders.

For my money why bother. If they win an election let them choose one of the shoddy lot on offer and get on with it so that when they screw it up again we can throw them out with impunity.

After all it is highly unlikely that the Tories will get in again at the next election. By then the people will be back to believing that the economy is fixed, that nothing will break it and everyone can "indulge in the benefits of a stable economy". Thus trashing the economy all over again.

Scotland will now be on it's 7th labour leader in 8 years (if I remember that correctly). Continuity, a wonderful thing and this is nothing like it....

Personally, for me, I'd like them to make themselves unelectable. But, sadly, that dream is only that. A dream....

cromwell wrote:TV debates? No thanks. If any broadcaster thinks watching MP's from the party that just lost the election backstab and blame each other on national TV is a ratings winner they must be off their heads.

A total ratings turn-off ....... I suspect the majority of the folk in this country have no more than a passing interest in the subject, and couldn't really give two hoots who Labour elect, to be honest.

TheOstrich wrote:I suspect the majority of the folk in this country have no more than a passing interest in the subject, and couldn't really give two hoots who Labour elect, to be honest.

That, if I may say so, is a sad indictment of our society and politics.

I know that we cannot force people to be interested, but they should be able to give a passing hoot. These people and their parties might not be liked but they are going to govern us. Well, they are, unless we step in and let them know that we do not approve. It is either that or a political revolution, and I do not see one of them on the horizon any time soon.

What does rile me is Labour's sense of entitlement.

Just as they thought it was OK to create a post of "Press Regulator", and put one of their mates into it to limit the freedom of the press, Hattie Harperson automatically assumes that Labour have the right to commandeer the TV and bore the living daylights out of the viewing public. Which is maybe what Os was referring to. It might matter immensely to the Labour party but we've just been through an interminable election campaign, and the last thing the public want is yet more politicians gassing away for hours on end on prime time TV.

Tbh I'd rather watch Eastenders for 5 years solid than have another load of devious word manglers infesting the TV schedules...

Those views about the TV I agree with, but the point is being lost.

Like it or not a democracy needs a strong opposition, and, like it or not, Labour is the only viable player. It surely follows that an opposition has stated position and policies and a leader capable of pushing those forward and to persuade the electorate to follow them. Neither is the case with Labour.

It is currently operating in a vacuum not knowing whether to be left, right or centre. It certainly has no policies and no leader.

God help us if Suff is right and the Tories cannot win the next election, especially if it gives this lot the chance to get in.

Yes, I think it is a sad indictment of our society and politics, but as Cromwell said, we've just been through the media-frenzy of a general election, and even all that really failed to "energise" English folk in the same way that the referendum and the election energised the Scots.

I don't know what your experiences were up in Yorkshire, but there weren't exactly many political conversations going on out there on the streets of Birmingham. WM, you actually had political activists calling on you. Nothing like that here. In fact, over 27,000 people (more than in 2010) voted in this constituency for a Tory Toff who had lost a libel damages case and whose political reputation should have been mud. To me, that says it all - the English follow party lines time and again like a flock of sheep, and politically, they deserve what they get.

There will be far more interest in the upcoming Euro-bleddy-vision Song Contest than in the election of a new Labour or LibDem leader ....

It is currently operating in a vacuum not knowing whether to be left, right or centre. It certainly has no policies and no leader.

A left-wing McCluskyite Labour will be simply unelectable. A centre-left Blairite Labour which will be little different from a centre-right Tory Party may be electable in 2020, but only because the electorate won't really give a damn who they are voting for.

I suppose you could say that the last time the English voters got "energised" was when we all (me included) decided to vote in that nice,. modern, Mr Tony Blair. And look where that got us.