The labour Leader thread...

I don't know the Labour rules but does the leader have to be an MP to stand? Could an outsider take over and then run when the next safe seat is available at a by-election?
 
Sorry, but all the bleating about 'Murdoch this' and 'Murdoch that' is a complete distraction. There are millions of voters across this country who don't read Murdoch papers or watch news on Murdoch channels but came to exactly the same conclusions about Labour and Ed.
 
PermaBanned said:
For starters, how is looking like Wallace not a good thing in the UK?
Click to expand...

Because you need to be taken seriously as a party leader and potential future Prime Minister. If all people see when you are on TV is Wallace they cannot take you seriously.

I felt myself that the way he talked, the way he presented himself was just not strong enough. Even when making important speeches he had a kind of semi smirk on his face that made it look like he wanted to laugh (that is if he didn't completely forget a big part of it in the first place!). I also couldn't shake the visual link between him and Wallace. Many people I have spoken to say the same.

It is unfortunate, but if you look like a bit of an idiot and you also behave in a less than authorititive way - people will not take you seriously.


PermaBanned said:
Also, he routinely killed it in PMQs and he was the only one with the conviction to stand up to Murdoch,
Click to expand...

Were you watching the same PMQ's as me? The entire campaign was "look how bad the tories are because of XYZ!!" and not "look how good Labour are because of XYZ!". I think Ed had his moments, but it simply wasn't enough.

PermaBanned said:
so you tell me who's PM material.
Click to expand...

David Cameron. Clearly :)

But within the Labour Party - nobody really. Perhaps David Miliband if he made a return, but I think that ship has now sailed.
 
escape sanity said:
The level of debate here never ceases to amaze.
Click to expand...

I didn't even bother trying to debate with ubersonic given the level of stupidity and naivety in the his post was just unbelievable.

It says it all that ubersonic believes that after 5 years as leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband only showed his true colours when interviewed by a halfwit fool of a comedian that is Russell Brand.
 
You know that Labour supporters have no decent arguments left when they resort to bringing up the myth that Rupert Murdoch influences the outcomes of elections. The same thing happened in 2010. It's almost as if they aren't aware that for every news company that supports the views of the conservatives, there is one that supports Labour. Even the BBC is known to have a bias toward Labour as Jeremy Paxman openly admitted after resigning.
 
DFP123 said:
You know that Labour supporters have no decent arguments left when they resort to bringing up the myth that Rupert Murdoch influences the outcomes of elections. The same thing happened in 2010. It's almost as if they aren't aware that for every news company that supports the views of the conservatives, there is one that supports Labour. Even the BBC is known to have a bias toward Labour as Jeremy Paxman openly admitted after resigning.
Click to expand...

Let's list the major newspapers (by circulation) in Britain and which party they supported during this election:

The Sun - Conservatives
The Daily Mail - Conservatives
The Mirror - Labour
Evening Standard - Conservatives
The Telegraph - Conservatives
The Daily Express - UKIP
The Daily Star - Conservatives
The Times - Conservatives
The Guardian - Labour
The Independent - Con/LibDem coalition

There's definitely a right-wing bias in the printed press. However, online-only organisations like the Huffington Post did mostly come out in favour of Labour.
 
ubersonic said:
David Miliband and Ed Balls cannot stand as they are not a current Labour MP, and nobody available is as good as Ed Miliband. That may sound strange to some, but the was never actually anything wrong with Ed and his resignation was a big mistake, he didn't fail his party, his party failed him.

The right wing media made him out to be a loser, a fool, halfwit, weirdo, etc and his party failed miserably to dispel that myth. Even in to the last year senior Labour officials were maintaining a view that the public would warm to him and they just needed to show the people the "real Ed" and they were 100% correct, the problem however was they never did it, the public never met the real Ed until he sat down with Russell Brand a week before the election in an interview nobody watched.

If they had let people see the real Ed, a competent/confident politician and probably the nicest most genuine person to ever run for Prime Minister then they would absolutely have warmed to him. The problem was they tried to fight a 20th century campaign with a 21t century leader. If they had stuck him on TV shows and had him interviewed on late night shows they could have got him in the public eye and people would have said "hang on, this guys not an idiot, and he's much better than Cameron", it could have been another 1997 style landslide, however it turned into the worst defeat in decades and the person least responsible took all the blame.

Unless Labour learn from their mistake and stop blaming Ed for their faults they will not be able to progress.
Click to expand...

I disagree about Ed - if you can't drive the party then there's something wrong.

I do agree about the party itself.. it's failing due to internal politics rather than external, those outside just too advantage of that.

They don't need unions. They need a people-centric approach. Including perhaps things such as: changing the voting to make everyone's votes equal (i.e. online voting through general elections, more policy voting via the same system to give people feedback). With a regular voting system the country can see what it thinks - the difficulty of this approach is it's ability to "group think" and go with the masses rather than what is right (that people then see later is correct).. so should the final say be up to the prime minister?

The do need schools to drive the country forward - this doesn't have to be wishy washy new-age just that people come out ready to challenge the new internet/global world.

They do need a heath service that's focused on people with real issues - not boob jobs on the NHS or dispensing sick notes. I think that doctors should be reviewed every 7 years - ensuring they are kept on their toes. I think the gravy train that is the management of the NHS needs attention.

I don't think being a 'peoples' party means you overly-tax the rich in favour of bailing out everyone else.. I think it means you focus on the right economic policy to continue attracting wealth, companies and offer the ability for them to make contributions in return. If you look at france.. they have a dwindling rich list because of their high taxation.. yet the rest of the nation can't see why they're leaving in droves.. kiss goodbye to the jobs there too...
 
George Hincapie said:
Lord Sugar has apparently left the Labour Party.
Click to expand...

He fired himself.

"In the past year I found myself losing confidence in the party due to their negative business policies and general anti-enterprise concepts they were considering if they were elected. I expressed this to the most senior figures in the party several times.

"I signed on to New Labour in 1997 but more recently, particularly in relation to business, I sensed a policy shift moving back towards what Old Labour stood for.

"By the start of this year I had made my decision to resign from the party whatever the outcome of the general election."
Click to expand...
 
Tristram hunt is such a moron.

Some of the things he's come out with over the years makes Miliband look like a genius.
 
Django x2 said:
Ex-SAS. Sure he is. Bearing in mind Ex-SAS can't say they're Ex-SAS for like 25 years after service. But OK. ;)
Click to expand...

There are obviously exceptions made since Bear Grylls talks about passing SAS selection in his autobiography, written well within that window. You'd think that it would be possible for a politician to gain a similar dispensation to acknowledge special forces service without giving any operational details/deployments etc if I benefited his political career...

My reading of what I've seen of his record is that it hints of SF service, but it's true there's no acknowledgment of it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom