Where do they stand on Party Renewal?

Peter Kenyon Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:38:51 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The LabOUR Commission has devised a simple checklist for each of the candidates covering the 10-point plan in its Interim Report 2007. I have contacted each candidate to ask if s/he would fill it in to inform members about prospects for party reform under their leadership. In the light of difficulties evidenced in the Newsnight hustings obtaining single word replies, I am not optimistic. But wouldn't it be refreshing, if the old cynic in me was confounded, even if the answers did not reflect two years of deliberation and evidenced based research? 





tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Where do they stand on Party Renewal? | 4 comments (4 topical)

Re: Where do they stand on Party Renewal? (#1)

by MM on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:51:46 AM GMT

The Newsnight performance of the candidates in terms of giving yes/no answers was laughable. Only Johnson and Cruddas seemed to understand Paxman's questions and were able to give clear answers. What was Harman on trying to duck out of Trident when she voted for it? Totally cringe worthy!


Re: Where do they stand on Party Renewal? (#2)

by petercoe on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:52:04 PM GMT

I broadly agree with you on this - politicians certainly do need to get into the habit of giving more cogent, clearer answers. BUT I do feel that it could have been entirely reasonable to be unable to answer some of the questions posed by Paxman, not that the contenders handled that well.

For example, on the issue of Trident, it is possible to support an independent nuclear deterrent, but to believe that the costly decision to renew it does not need to be taken on the government's timescale. How do you answer yes or no to a question "Do you support the government's plans to replace Trident"?

Ditto, funding of political parties really can't be distilled into a yes/no question - are you talking about funding caps, spending caps, state funding, treating individual/corporate, or corporate/union funding similarly, caps on local spending or caps on national spending or both - and that's just the headline debate on that issue.

It's fine to ask politicians yes/no questions, but only if the questions can legitimately be answered so unequivocally. The problem with Paxman is that he asks those questions not to elicit an answer but to say to the public: "look: they're just typical squirming politicians" - which may make entertaining TV but just reinforces cynicism.


[ Parent ]

Re: Where do they stand on Party Renewal? (#3)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 06:38:25 PM GMT

I heard on an earlier thread that 'Cruddas was paticuarly weak' on the section where they had to give yes/no answers. It was the other candidates (apart from Johnson) who were weak on this section, trying to sugurcoat their answers. Cruddas was doing what the public wants a politician to do, answer a straight question.


Re: Where do they stand on Party Renewal? (#4)

by Barking Mad on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:03:05 PM GMT

Cruddas cam across as so much more straight talking then the other candidates, in fact some of the others pathetic attempts to wriggle out of questions were shameful. Embarrassing for everyone in the party. Only he had the guts to say he would nominate Harman. What a legend. And why were Hains eye's so googly?


Where do they stand on Party Renewal? | 4 comments (4 topical)