This is probably inevitable in a two party, first past the post system though. I probably haven't had a party to vote for that represents my views my entire life and don't expect to ever have one. Couple that with the fact that my own views are probably different to that of "the majority" and you've got to go for the least worst option.
Same for me. I have so many right wing and left wing views, that their really isn't a party I can say, yes, I like what you are selling.
Historically that would have been the liberals, who were socially liberal but economically in favour of markets, but the Lib Dems are an utter shambles and have been for a really long time. I suppose all you can hope is that Starmer is trying not to be too "normal" for fear of giving the Tories even the slightest ammunition in an upcoming election, which does seem kinda sad given how huge Labour's lead is in the polls. If he's so underwhelming when in office then that will be a huge let down.
I don’t disagree but nothing good comes from a government being elected on account of being the ‘least worst option’ which is pretty much what this Labour Party are. I don’t know what views of mine they even represent now or how their policies are particularly different to the opposite benches.
To play devil's advocate though, lets say that there was a proportional representation system in place whereby coalitions became far more commonplace. Wouldn't that facilitate just the kind of "broad church" compromises that we're criticising Labour for doing under the auspices of first past the post? Surely the problem is that the "majority" of voters have quite a wide range of views and therefore to secure a majority you have to appeal to such a range rather than necessarily the views held by your base?
Exactly. It pushes ‘centrism’ further right.
That's the question though, isn't it? As I said above, the nature of politics is that you, by design, have to appeal to as many people as possible. Dave probably likes the Greens precisely because they're never anywhere near power so don't have to compromise, but it's almost certain that if they were in contention for government they would have to do so and would thus probably be less appealing to Dave.
The last time we had an election, Johnson won a landslide. As incomprehensible as that may seem, that suggests that while many will have just wanted the Brexit debate over with, there are also many who quite like the sound of the [Poor language removed] sandwich he was offering up. Labour have to appeal to those people somehow. As I've said, it would be lovely if the landscape was such that Johnson's lies could be disproven soundly and rationally, but do we really believe the media offers such a platform or that most people are willing and able to consume such information? If they were they wouldn't have been hoodwinked by Johnson to begin with.
www.bbc.co.uk
The last election the Tories discovered they didn’t have to do debates or challenging interviews and could just repeat the same sentence whilst there was a sustained effort to paint the opposite number as a antisemitic Commie.
France is a secular state.French state schools turn away dozens of girls wearing Muslim abaya dress
Dozens of girls are sent home after turning up at school wearing the now-banned abaya robe.
closest parallel I can see is may's 'hostile environment', racism by another word.
I'm not sure things are going to be that much different now. It's evident with the culture wars nonsense that there is a deliberate strategy to divert attention from anything to do with actual governance. Indeed, since Brexit, there has been precious little in terms of any meaningful policies in areas like health or education. Heck, even levelling up has largely been a vacuous soundbite. If Labour just did basic stuff like that and shut up about insignificant nonsense like immigration, it would be a start.
Labour must have a communications issue right? Maybe alternative policy proposals exist but there just isn’t enough platforms willing to showcase them.