Election Debates

[DanaC]

The wrong brother won.

I'm sure he's a lovely man. I know people who know him and they say he's lovely. I'm sure he's a clever bloke as well. He has some good ideas and some good analysis of some important issues.

He has no leadership qualities. None. No charisma, no gravitas, nothing to inspire confidence.



His selection was the result of internecine warfare within the party. The Labour Party is divided more or less down the middle between the modernisers and the traditionalists: Old Labour and New Labour (a continuation and evolution of the 1980s divisions over the militant tendency).

Half the party membership were voting according to who they thought would be the better leader - the other half, at a minimum, was voting according to their factional loyalties.

In some ways that's healthy - people having agency over the fundamental shape of the party. In other ways it's toxic. It's become tribal, and bitter. At times the two sides hate each other far more than they hate their political opposition. And they will each happily cripple their party in order to stop the other side gaining control.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by DanaC

snip--

In some ways that's healthy - people having agency over the fundamental shape of the party. In other ways it's toxic. It's become tribal, and bitter. At times the two sides hate each other far more than they hate their political opposition. And they will each happily cripple their party in order to stop the other side gaining control.

This sounds much like the current state of the GOP (the Grand Old Party, the Republican Party). There's a great deal of infighting to appeal to the voters, and the clash between the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party and other various sub-species of conservatives provides an unending source of the conflict you describe. There's even an epithet for those who are deemed unworthy or false Republicans, RINO (Republican In Name Only). It is more exhausting than entertaining.