How many times in the last five years have Labour launched or relaunched a website in order to determine their policies or future?

And how successful has any of them been – if they want to debate the future, surely internal debate within the party would be the way forward?

“How many times in the last five years have Labour launched or relaunched a website in order to determine their policies or future?

And how successful has any of them been – if they want to debate the future, surely internal debate within the party would be the way forward?”

I disagree – Labour should be talking to its voters and potential voters and seeing how it can build a party that’s different to the Tories in all the right ways.

Self-assessment tends to be rubbish in all areas: in this case, you’ll just have the same case of the right saying that the party isn’t right-wing enough and the left saying the opposite. Privileging what THEY want, in other words.

I’m also under the impression that most politicians think that the public pays roughly 437% more attention to politics than we actually do. So they micro-manage and say things like “they didn’t vote for me because of that ambiguous statement I made on pensions” whereas it’s more likely that people didn’t vote for them because they didn’t like Ed Milliband’s face, so to speak.

Chaise,

I don’t disagree with you. I do wonder though how a website that will only attract political anoraks is going to help… This sort of thing always looks like an attempt by a ruling clique to claim they have consulted which allows them to do their own thing.

Labour could reach out and talk to voters, but reacting to the crowd seems an odd way of doing politics – it means you either end up pandering to the views of those wierdos who think as they are told by the Mail or the Sun (or the Mirror I suppose) or that you have no coherent viewpoint on which to establish policy. In almost every election in my lifetime (I am not sure about 2005) the party with the most votes was that with the clearest message of where they were going (1983 Labour had a radical message, but it was typically old-school socialist: verbose and unclear), normally beating the ‘Are you thinking what we are thinking?’ approach.

Labour need to work out what they stand for – not what the people they aspire to represent stand for. MPs are elected to implement their platform, not to have no views and wait for the mob to tell them what to do. And I fear that a website asking for direction is simply an excuse to avoid even that – it is a claim to be populist whilst listening to the echo chamber.

Watchman:

Fair comment for one not signed up – BUT – and this is a genuine query – What IS – and what IS not – a political anorak? Do the ubiquitous Tory trolls fall into this category?

@ 3 Watchman

Good points well made, although I think you might be overstating the importantance of clarity of vision over popularism. Obviously this stuff is subjective, but I reckon most successful politicians have to take on board a few popular policies they’d rather not have as the price for getting elected.

Look at narcotics, for example. Anyone who has to deal with the budget knows that banning drugs is expensive and ineffective. I imagine most recent prime ministers would have preferred to legalise at least the softer narcotics and turn them into a revenue stream rather than a net cost. But that would probably be political suicide for a Labour or Tory leader, so they don’t.

@ 4 Mulligrubs

“BUT – and this is a genuine query – What IS – and what IS not – a political anorak? Do the ubiquitous Tory trolls fall into this category?”

I’d guess an anorak is anyone who takes a more active interest in politics than most, with bonus points if they tend to assume people would support their ideology if they just listened.

So a Labour anorak might insist that raising taxes across the board would gain the working-class vote, as the money would go into things that would help the working class. This might fail as (a) increased taxes are more obviously visible than increased public spending that benefits you, and (b) just because you’re working class and investment benefits the working class generally, it doesn’t necessarily benefit you personally.

A Tory anorak, in contrast might insist that the party should bring in a flat tax policy, as this fits with their vision of “what the Tories are all about”. Ignoring the fact that most people resent the idea of the rich getting away with low taxes.

Chaise Guevara:

Thanks for your reply and your opinion / explanation – it does seem rather logical on one level – although – to me – an anorak is a nerdish sort who is obsessed with train-spotting – for instance- as opposed to being what the man in the street might describe as balanced.

The fact is – I’m still undecided as to whether I’m a political anorak or not. Long on opinion – short on action – the prerogative of the computer-addicted OAP. Perhaps I shouldn’t take these ‘off the peg’ categories seriously – I’ll learn my lesson one day. By the way – what’s a nerd exactly? (only joking). Keep up the good work.

@ 7 Mulligrubs,

We’ll, I’m probably an anorak. I feel that most people should take far more interest in politics than they do, but I think you have to use the median as your basis. Plus, isn’t that a nerd thing – thinking people should care more about your area of interest?