It's not the least "elitist" for the leader to try to lead and steer his Party towards a position in which they can actually do things!

It's actually a small elite of activists who are trying to control the destiny of the party against the interests of the bulk of passive, non-active, Labour leaning voters.

This is a fight which has to be won. Initially within the Labour Party, but ultimately within all parties.

If it is lost, we will all suffer.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yes, people moan about this bias and that but Corbyn (not as though I was a fan anyway) received universally horrendous coverage that in no way represented the ideas he was seeking to stand for. It was similar to Sanders in the States really, where he was seen as a threat to power structures and the status quo to the extent that those with genuine power are united. The orchestrated 'shut out' that Sanders faced in both leadership contests (first by the DNC, second time everyone dropping out to back Biden to get him over the line) was laughable really.

The PR point about parties getting things done is valid, but the other side of that is that is it always a good thing for parties to 'get things done' anyway rather than thrash out a compromise that is more modest. Education would be a good example of where parties perpetually 'stamp their mark' when they get into power and up end everything, when really it could be argued that giving the endless tinkering a miss for the most part isn't always the worst approach.

I'd say that the area most parties should be able to get some agreement on, is investing in the future (whether infrastructure, energy and so on) as these always come back to bite us if we neglect them. The problem here is that political parties rarely look beyond the short term as they don't get the plaudits. The same with the general public often too if how they perceive things. If there's not in instant return on something it draws a lot of criticism, even though in just about any modern city or society, most of what we benefit from in the day to day isn't the result of short term thinking.

Actually, I didn't comment on how a leader is elected. I commented on this from you:-

"The leader of a party really should reflect it."

Which to me suggests that you believe that the leader should follow policies which are in line with the wishes of the majority of its members.

I don't. I believe they should lead their members to adopt policies which will command a majority with the electorate, because being pragmatic is the only way to achieve anything. Idealism isn't realism.

It's too easy to say the way forward is for the silent majority in the centre to form a new party, much though I would love that to happen and think it is both long overdue and badly needed.

As we know, brave souls have cast their destinies on such ventures and found themselves flung aside, thus losing some of our best political people.

With the way both major parties are funded, it is almost impossible to see how a new party could emerge in the short term. It would take a few major donors to step forward.

It could still happen. As the Brexit disaster becomes more obvious, once the pandemic is finally out of the way and our comparative position is clear, the Tory ineptitude will make them extremely unappealing.

Unless Starmer manages to recreate Blairism, which seems unlikely, Labour will remain as a fading, unelectable vision.

Only then could a credibility vacuum force a new party, or several new parties, to emerge in sufficient strength to take enough seats to force a coalition. Which would probably include the SNP and their demand for a referendum.

Too many unknowns for predictions, other than as we are in such a huge mess it's going to be a long, hard journey to get out of it.

At least Starmer is trying. He realises that unless he dumps the far left, Labour are finished. It's probably too late, and they already are.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I’d rather see Diane Abbott as chancellor and Emily Thornberry as Home Secretary. She’d probably want any men she didn’t like the look of locked up.

COYP

. . . and over the ten years followinf their re-election (pre Covid) the Conservatives TREBLED the debt. The info is available on the UK Office of National Statistics.

Enjoying getting up later and not having someone who knows better than me (apart from the missus of course).

Indeed, and most of it going on PPE, which ended up off shore in their own accounts!