« Goodbye New Labour | Main | An empty debate »

September 02, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cbef69e20133f38543f6970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A low-stakes election:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Luis Enrique

If one of the candidates was proselytizing about the empty myth of leadership and management ability, and putting forward convincing policies to break down power hierarchies etc. and other policies you approve of, would you change your tune at all? Are you just saying this because the policy differences between the candidates are small?

pablopatito

I'd be interested to know how, with the benefit of hindsight, how your 3 points applied to the last Tory leadership contest?

I'm not convinced the "character of the leader" can be understated when you look at the relevant success and failure in elections of the likes of Foot, Blair, Duncan-Smith, Howard and Cameron.

chris

I'll concede that Cameron and Blair changed their parties. But the point is that the parties wanted to change when they elected those two.
Had a Cameron-type figure tried to "decontaminate the brand" of the Tory party in 1997, he'd have failed badly. And if Labour's leader in the early 80s have tried Blair-style reforms, he might well have ripped the party apart.
If characters do matter, it is because circumstances are favourable to what the character is truting to do.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad