Who should be leader of the Labour party?

Dolph said:
Why are labour apologists so aggressive towards anyone who doesn't share their views? This is the third or fourth post you've made ad homming those who don't share your view of the labour party...
Click to expand...

The same could be said for your clear disdain for anything Labour or even close to "Left-Wing".
 
JamesU2005 said:
The same could be said for your clear disdain for anything Labour or even close to "Left-Wing".
Click to expand...

But I do at least provide evidence for my arguments, rather than sniping and insulting from the sidelines...

Incidentally, each time Labour have gone out of power, after an extended period in, it's been longer each time until they get back. Will they break the trend?

1951 - 13 years
1979 - 18 Years
2010 - ?
 
JamesU2005 said:
I love the fact that the guy has been in the job less than 24 hours but rabid Tory supporters are dubbing him unelectable and a major shift to the left.

Can we give him time to set his full agenda, not one that won him the Labour Leadership, before we all pre-judge and get set in this mindset of Ed as a failure.
Click to expand...

So in short, the first "test" of him as Leader will be to see if he sticks to the promises of his leadership campaign (very left wing, very union friendly) or he doesn't stick to his promises (therefore just your average politician that lies to get in to power). :)
 
What would you cut, Ed Miliband?


  • Ed Miliband has signed up to £44bn cuts. But since the election he has opposed £34bn of measures to deal with the deficit
scr1285499289.jpg



  • Worse still, he has made over £28bn of spending commitments
scr1285499351.jpg
 
I'd love it if we got Ed and Ed as shadow 10/11 ... how much more left wing and union could you get
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Did I hear right on BBC News earlier that Harriet Harman is to remain deputy leader ?
Click to expand...
Yes. She became acting leader on Brown's resignation as Labour leader. She didn't enter the race to become leader, which would have meant having to resign as deputy leader/acting leader of the party. Since there was no vacancy for a deputy leader, because HH didn't resign, she's still deputy Labour leader.

I don't have problems with many of the shadow Cabinet members (well those who are just carrying on from having been in office) but HH is one person the party really could do with getting rid of from such a senior position in the party.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Ed would surely secure a bounce in the polls getting rid of such a liability from the shadow cabinet ?
Click to expand...
As RDM says he can't. In opposition all the Labour leader can do is give jobs to the shadow cabinet, he can't even choose the shadow cabinet; they are voted in by the party. And the same goes for the deputy leader. When in office Gordon Brown didn't have a deputy PM, there's no legal requirement for one since if there was a legal requirement for a deputy PM, said deputy could demand to take over as PM should the incumbent die or quit. That would clash with the monarch's right/duty to ask the person with the support of Parliament to form the next Government. However it could be said that as deputy leader of the ruling party Harriet Harman was de facto deputy PM but wasn't actually named so.

So Tony Blair could have had John Prescott as deputy Labour leader but Jack Straw as deputy PM. The PM can choose his/her cabinet but the Labour leader in opposition has to take the shadow cabinet voted in by the party and all Ed Milliband will be able to do is decide who gets what job, not who is in his shadow cabinet.
 
Further evidence of the lurch to the left, the Unite union now has an even greater hold on the Labour purse strings...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/26/john-prescott-labour-treasurer-defeat

Still, shows the attitude of labour party members, vote for the person promising a spending splurge as opposed to the one suggesting the party that is £20m in debt needs to consider spending within it's means...
 
Dolph said:
Further evidence of the lurch to the left, the Unite union now has an even greater hold on the Labour purse strings...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/26/john-prescott-labour-treasurer-defeat

Still, shows the attitude of labour party members, vote for the person promising a spending splurge as opposed to the one suggesting the party that is £20m in debt needs to consider spending within it's means...
Click to expand...

you just wait and see, come the cuts the electorate will be begging for a lurch to the left.

I doubt the condems will last much longer, the cracks are there. When the austerity measures fail and the economy shrinks like irelands.

We will end up in more debt and with a shrunken economy with larger liabilities.

There is no need for a deputy PM, but Cleggy weggy gets 134K.

haha

Cleggy is just a mini toff.

I think Ed looks ok to me, pretty clever, not a media puppet, but not media unfriendly either.

With the backing of the unions he could cause trouble for the condems.
 
Slam62 said:
There is no need for a deputy PM, but Cleggy weggy gets 134K.
Click to expand...
How else is David Cameron meant to get a coalition Government going if he doesn't offer the leader of the junior party a very senior job, i.e. deputy Prime Minister? Cameron probably wouldn't have wanted Clegg at the Exchequer, Home Office or the Foreign Office but would be happy to have Clegg as deputy PM knowing that paternity leave/holiday time/foreign trips apart he's still in charge of the Government.
 
Slam62 said:
With the backing of the unions he could cause trouble for the condems.
Click to expand...

But why do you want trouble? If the condems do fail as you wish, then there will be an even bigger mess for Labour to clean up. By continuing spending they won't help anything. THERE IS NO MONEY.

You seem to want total anarchy more than anything else :o
 
MarcLister said:
How else is David Cameron meant to get a coalition Government going if he doesn't offer the leader of the junior party a very senior job, i.e. deputy Prime Minister? Cameron probably wouldn't have wanted Clegg at the Exchequer, Home Office or the Foreign Office but would be happy to have Clegg as deputy PM knowing that paternity leave/holiday time/foreign trips apart he's still in charge of the Government.
Click to expand...

yeah right, 134k to fill in, give me a break, he's serving no purpose and then moaning about people earning over 100k. They could always get a baby sitter.
 
dante6491 said:
But why do you want trouble? If the condems do fail as you wish, then there will be an even bigger mess for Labour to clean up. By continuing spending they won't help anything. THERE IS NO MONEY.

You seem to want total anarchy more than anything else :o
Click to expand...

I would quite like to see the smarmy chuckle brothers get their comeuppance first. Actually they won't, anyway it's a nice thought.

TBH though even Maggie got hers in the end.

I don't see the condems having a very solid back bone when the going gets tough.
 
Slam62 said:
I would quite like to see the smarmy chuckle brothers get their comeuppance first. Actually they won't, anyway it's a nice thought.

TBH though even Maggie got hers in the end.

I don't see the condems having a very solid back bone when the going gets tough.
Click to expand...

Purple Elephants :/

What has your response got to do with why you so want to see the Coalition Government fall apart?
 
dante6491 said:
Purple Elephants :/

What has your response got to do with why you so want to see the Coalition Government fall apart?
Click to expand...

oh dear you've written purple elephants, I am destroyed.

anyway, I want to see the condems fall apart because they are no good for the country and no good for the people. I do not wish for them to fail (at fixing the economy), but they will.

They (in particular the liberals) have no moral fibre and will sell their souls for power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom