Elizabeth May is right - the real possibility of seeing their ideals represented can bring back disaffected voters

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, at the StopC51 'Day of Action' at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto. Photograph: Elizabeth May at #StopC51 'Day of Action' by Alex Guibord (License) (Cropped)

During Thursday night's Canada leaders debate, Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, stressed that her party did not need to take votes away from the three major parties (Wells, 2015). May said, as she has said before (May, 2015), that her party could instead focus on bringing disaffected voters back into the political fold.

With Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid, there are few subjects more sensitive for the UK Labour Party than the matter of who they should be looking to for support. May's comments touch on a sore point for the Labour establishment, who seem to have set out, with determination, to put Corbyn down and discredit his supporters (Watt, 2015).

What the mainstream of the Labour Party demands, instead, is a focus on wooing just enough of the two-thirds of Britain who regularly turnout to vote. To gain their support, the party wants policy pitches to be based on opinion poll data of the most popular, currently held, views on a range of issues (Wintour, 2015) - from the economy to immigration.

Between May and Corbyn on one side, and the Labour establishment on the other, there are two very different mindsets at work.

At the leaders debate, Elizabeth May's statement was made in response to accusations that her party would split the, already fractured, anti-Harper vote. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have led Canada since 2006, first as a minority and then as a majority, through one controversy after another, against an opposition split between the historically dominant Liberals and the New Democrats.

What the leader of Canada's Green Party makes clear is that people will turn out to vote if they believe that their ideals will be represented (May, 2015). Yet, where voters can be split into two distinct groups, progressives and conservatives, by a one-member one-constituency system, there remain obstacles to representation. Despite May's optimism, even if you can bring back the voters who have turned away, you would still risk dividing up the support of progressives between several parties in a manner that allows conservatives to triumph (Lucas, 2015).

In most countries with a one-member one-constituency system, a solution of some sort tends to develop that addresses vote splitting. The solutions vary, ranging from a two party system to the acknowledgement of formal electoral alliances.

For Caroline Lucas, the sole Green Party MP at Westminster, the solution is a one time electoral pact amongst the UK's Left parties, with the aim of reforming the electoral system into a more proportionally representative form (Lucas, 2015). With one more pragmatic vote, cast for an alliance of progressives, pragmatic votes could be a thing of the past.

However, Labour, the biggest party of the UK Left - at least historically - has remained determined to pursue its approach of forcing everyone on the Left to align within one big tent. For the Left, this is a huge disadvantage. The Left is vibrant and diverse. From Liberals to Socialists, to Environmentalists and Feminists, they all have their own priorities - which can be mangled or suppressed by a big tent party with its focus solely upon achieving victory by collecting the 51% of votes.

Labour, in pursuit of that goal, remains focussed on, and talks a lot about, 'the Centre': home to the broadest group of voters. For them, the Centre describes a particular consensus. It is an approach that has led the party steadily to the Right, as they try to suppress the fractiousness of the Left and, under the first past the post voting system, force voters to check their ideals at the polling station door - all in the name of anti-conservative unity.

Yet the Centre can also describe a place of compromise, where you seek to create a balance between the ideals and priorities of the different ideologies. If the aim of Centrism is to be broadly inclusive, then its cause would, surely, be better served, in finding both consensus and balance, by voters being able to choose representatives that actually fit with their priorities.

In Canada and the UK, the Green Party is making the case that people will turn out to vote if they can vote for their ideals - with some legitimate hope that their vote could actually turn a significant, and proportional, percentage of those nominated into representatives. In that task, one-member/one constituency, first-past-the-post type, voting systems are inadequate.

If people are to see their vote count, and have the chance of seeing their ideals turned into policy and put into action, proportional representation and coalition government present the best means. But first come the pragmatic choices.

The parties of the Left have to be willing to stand up for the ideals that make them distinct, while showing solidarity with other progressive parties in the general cause of opposing conservatism and reforming the establishment. If they can respect and nurture their supporters idealism and are willing to support reform that lets it flourish, the voters will return.

Corbyn has brought idealism to the campaign, but needs to show how public ownership can further the pursuit of a just, inclusive and power-devolving society

Jeremy Corbyn MP speaks at anti-drones rally in 2013. Photograph: By stopwar.org.uk (license)(cropped)

Jeremy Corbyn's entry has electrified the Labour leadership contest (Eno, 2015). With people beginning to ask 'what happens if Jeremy Corbyn wins?', it might be a good time to look at what it is for which Corbyn is actually campaigning (Bush, 2015).

Jeremy Corbyn was originally ushered into the Labour leadership campaign as the alternative candidate (BBC, 2015). His job was to open up the debate Leftwards, to ensure that all voices were heard and that the 'electable' candidates had to work hard for the position.

Yet the campaign has been turned on its head by his entry. Endorsements from the trade unions and a popular anti-austerity following have put Corbyn in a strong position. It is now a very ready possibility that he could, in fact, win the leadership election.

That possibility has turned the race for the leadership into a showdown between Old Labour and New Labour, each with their own rival visions of the Left. Old Labour on the one side offering idealistic solutions, so acting as the national destination for those disenchanted with New Labour, on the other side, offering their pragmatic, 'modernising', solutions. (Jones, 2015)

The trouble is that neither side is being particularly radical. Corbyn's stances belong largely to the old Left, though hardly the hard Left (Krugman, 2015), and focus on a more structured and permanent society than the one that is unfolding at present (Harris, 2015) - that is: trade unions, nationalisation and a centralised state engaged in public spending and public ownership.

On the other side, fairly or unfairly, New Labour has been seen as a surrender to Centre-Right political thought. They are seen as a negative force that is too quick to shut down idealism (Watt, 2015; Watt, 2015{2}). They are, perhaps, too cosy with big business and too afraid of public opinion (Martin, 2015), to say anything distinct, other than to maintain a determination to make everything pass through a heavily centralised state.

But society is fragmenting. Democratic politics can seemingly no longer rely on mass support, marching under one big tent banner, that supports a singular centralised state, where power is wielded by the lofty party elite.

Historically, liberals and democrats stood, as progressives, opposed to the forces of conservatism that defended the traditional, elitist, order. Liberals stood in the name of the individual, democrats in the name of the people, or of the community.

As conservatism has, ironically perhaps, evolved in order to survive, it has taken on the cast offs from democrats and liberals as they have moved leftwards. From liberals it has embraced classical liberal laissez-faire economics. From democrats it has taken advantage of populism and nationalism.

All of these elements were once used as a means to rally people against the old elite. Themes that would as unifying rallying points, that could be used to transcend the particular concerns of particular individuals or communities.

But society has moved on once more. Rather than one community united by a singular narrative of economic class, there are dozens, hundreds, of communities with their own narratives - feminist, environmental, civil rights, trade unionist - who do not believe that their cause should be secondary.

Likewise individualism has moved forward. Individuals now support many causes, shifting between them or associated freely with several at once. There is a demand, not just for choice, but also for autonomy and the devolution and decentralisation of power.

These new, fragmented forms of democratic and liberal politics require new forms of solidarity - new ideas that the old approach of the mass party using the power of state to fend of the power of corporations and aristocrats is not set up to provide.

The big question facing Labour is how it can give a community response to a country that has seen community, in all of the traditional senses, collapse? Democracy and socialism speaks of people as fundamentally based on and in communities, based on the importance of ideas like your home town, your social class and your trade. But all of these are breaking down. Permanence is disappearing and with it the conventional anchors for these traditional communities.

How does a Labour party respond to social change that has so undone its means of rallying, organising and leading?

The starting point has be in addressing the fact that Labour's view, of the people as workers, with the state as their protector, redistributor and benefactor, seems to have broken down. That system needs to rebuilt on new themes.

That themes need to encompass Labour commitment to a democratic identity, a community focus and the pursuit of justice on these terms. But it also needs build in both the pursuit of progress and the allowance for alliances and fragmentation. Labour can be a coordinator, not just a director.

The radical new horizons on the Left for democratic socialists mean an inclusive attitudes towards the new and emerging political movements which have begun to get their days in the sun, at least in glimpses. From trade unions, to environmentalists, feminists and the civil rights advocates movement, there are numerous sectional interest groups, all pursuing their own agendas.

Yet unlike conservative sectionalism, it can't be about one group asserting its dominance over the others. Labour has to learn that progress will be, ultimately, about individuals and communities cooperating - breaking down the old powers and supporting the dispersal of it widely across society.

Jeremy Corbyn's campaign is already generating success (Milne, 2015), with Andy Burnham now openly advocating a gradual renationalisation of the railways (Perraudin, 2015). But it won't be enough to call upon the old centralising powers of party and state if they continue to alienate, suppress or exclude diverse movements.

More nuanced answers are needed to the complex issues of a contemporary society that is fragmented, becoming ever more temporary and fleeting. Calling upon the state, public ownership and trade unions to have a renewed role is not a bad thing. But people do need to know how those institutions can face the challenge of an ever more fragmented and decentralised society.

It is imperative that Corbyn's campaign addresses the matter of how he intends to turn these old Left mechanisms from yesterday into the inclusive, power-devolving, radical Left solutions of tomorrow.

The Fantastic Four reboot would be the perfect opportunity to put Susan Storm front and centre as a much needed female lead

The New Fantastic Four. Photograph: Miles Teller, Kate Mara, Michael B. Jordan & Jamie Bell by Gage Skidmore via photopin (license) (cropped)

This article contains spoilers for a number of major comic book story arcs...

Trailers released for Fox's reboot of the Fantastic Four seem to suggest that the new film will stay pretty much true to its previous iteration. It appears that Reed Richards will once more be the heroic protagonist and Susan Storm will again be the love interest.

If that's the case, it will be hard to see the film as anything other than a missed opportunity. At a time when anti-hero jerks are all the rage and when there is a real clamour for female led movies - particularly comic book movies - it feels like a chance missed to revitalise the Fantastic Four. Why not embrace Reed's more difficult persona and make Susan the relatable lead?

In Fox's previous iteration of the Fantastic Four, Reed Richards was made into a kind of lovable nerd, filled with childish enthusiasm for science - and even possessed of a sense of humour. He was obsessive, but not nearly to the destructive levels of the comic books.

This seems to be the result of trying to make Reed Richards the focal point of a Hollywood movie, which appears to invariably demand that the character be made 'accessible' and 'relatable' to the audience. That tends to translate to screen as a male character, exceptional in some way, who despite flaws can be redeemed - much like Wolverine, who Fox put front and centre of the X-Men, making him much less of the violent jerk he is in the comics.

The Reed Richards of the Marvel Comics is, however, a much more detached and obsessive figure. He ignores his wife and children to a significant degree, he can be brash and arrogant, and his utilitarian 'greater good' philosophical approach can take him to some very dark places. In fact, in the mainstream continuity, many of the Reeds on alternate Earths have become supervillains. In the Ultimate Marvel continuity, Reed Richards was written to become an outright supervillain - and one the most dangerous.

Even within the mainstream continuity, it can sometimes be hard to see Reed as anything less than a villain. During the Civil War arc, soon to be translated to screen by Marvel as Captain American: Civil War, Richards creates a murderous android that murders one of his oldest friends, his methods alienate him from his friends and even his wife, and he accepts all of it as willing sacrifices, on his part, for the creation of a better world.

Hollywood clearly has trouble with these kinds of complicated heroic characters. But there are tried and tested ways of making the most out of these characters that can be learned from TV. Two of the most memorable are Gregory House, MD, and Sherlock Holmes. Both of these arrogant, difficult and aloof TV characters are central to their respective shows. But they are offset by much more relatable characters, using different approaches.

NBC's House is written with the eponymous character as the one viewers follow. Yet the writers refrain from trying to humanise him. That job is left to the expectations of the viewer, which are frequently disappointed. He is surrounded by much more human, much more relatable characters, that give him frequent opportunities to rise above his mean, cynical and selfish attitudes. Yet he rarely does.

BBC's Sherlock lets the titular character step back, becoming - like the original Conan Doyle character - the subject of the story, rather than the protagonist. For that role, there is Dr John Watson. John is the viewer's window on the world and the filter by which Sherlock's action are interpreted and grounded. This dynamic allows the writers to pen Sherlock in a way that is unrestrained - allowing him to be a full blown sociopath and jerk.

For the Fantastic Four, there is the possibility of following either of these approaches, or combining them. Reed could still be the subject of the story, but there are ready made possibilities that would allow the writers to make someone else the protagonist, through whose eyes viewers see events unfold. That role could go to Susan Storm.

At a time when there is a significant dearth of female superheroes as leading stars on the big screen, Susan Storm is perfect. At her best she is a leader, a scientist, and the most powerful of the Fantastic Four - with powers on a scale that make her, maybe, amongst the most powerful superheroes.

She combines being a mother with being a hero, and is the voice for ethics and compassion, as a foil to the much sterner and colder Reed. In the Civil War arc she is dynamic, an active participant to who rejects her husband Reed Richard's methods. She saves, and later joins, Captain America's rebels from the destructive violence of Reed's murderous android.

Susan Storm also represents somewhat the journey of women on the big screen. She began as as a crudely sexist stereotype, the Invisible Girl - a passive character who was weak, almost, token powers - who was the attractive obsession of male villains and would regularly need saving.

Yet over time she took on more active abilities and a more active role. In the Ultimate continuity, she was promoted to being, herself, an accomplished scientist.

Reducing Susan Storm, a female character who would be a compelling lead in her own right, back to being the pretty love interest for the heroic scientific genius Reed Richards would be a crude and regressive step, not unlike that taken by the characters written for Jurassic World compared to its much more feminist predecessor.

Rebooting a film franchise is an opportunity to do bold new things. The new movie has already taken the positive step of changing up the ethnicity of Franklin and Johnny Storm, increasing representation. Taking the opportunity to give Susan Storm, the female lead, a story arc that makes her more than just a damsel or a prize would be the next big step. A big part of that would be to embrace a darker and more complicated Reed Richards, rather than attempting to shoehorn him into a conventional male hero role - with all of the typical resulting affects that has upon the roles of secondary characters, particularly when they're women.