highlandsflyer":2e34bszo said:
Neil":2e34bszo said:
Thing is, though, John Smith - albeit a thoroughly decent politician and labour leader, wouldn't have been elected
That really is the point of the thread. Kinnock as well.
I am not putting forward my political views here; just talking about the overriding aspect of politics today, the iconic party leader.
Whatever idealistic stance one has on what the Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem or whatever party should consist of; there is a huge restriction who can lead thanks to the importance of the 'personality'.
It is no longer the case that a leader is electable because they are 'Labour through and through' or such. They need to have a broader appeal. They need to be 'above' the politics of their party, able to take the opposing view when needed.
Or fake it really well.
Two words: George Galloway.
Every time I hear him say he's in touch with the common man, I'm more and more convinced the opposite is true, and he's just learning to play the part in a more convincing way.
Whether it's (media savvy, charismatic) a necessary evil, these days, Blair's legacy, or a natural evolution, I'm unsure.
highlandsflyer":2e34bszo said:
The electorate want leaders who will listen and bend to what is popular rather than the party line.
I suspect there's a very big demographic that if they want anything - or perhaps more correctly, the only politicians they don't hate, are the ones that appear to take the politics, out of politics. And truth be told, the ones that appear to do so, I just believe fake it really well (FSVO of "really well").
highlandsflyer":2e34bszo said:
That seems fair, even more 'democratic' in some ways.
I don't see a return to the days of Labour as the workers' party, especially now they are talking about reforming the relationship with the unions.
It also seems to be a retrograde step for unions to go backwards towards strict party affiliation.
I think there are those that lament the demise of true, socialism, and the grass roots of Labour. I suspect, though, since the religion of affluence that seemed to take hold in the 80s, that it may well be a long time - if ever - that such traditional, Labour values will ever get a sufficient amount of ground swell to get them in office again.
Apart from largely one-term governments, they were out of office for the best part of 20 years, despite a government that had evolved to misfire, look sleazy, and have several scandals - even then, it took somebody who could change the game, to be able to get Labour into government and survive more than one term.
Whilst there's some temporary, fleeting aspect to them, I do wonder whether compromise and coalition may not be such a bad thing. The problem, though, seems to be mandate and it all feeling transitory.
