Mantis Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Even though David winning the leadership contest in 2010 would've surely made a Labour majority much more likely, I kind of wish he did win purely because I think he would've made a much better Prime Minister compared to Ed. Maybe, but then, some of things that have been proposed, and actually do poll well, like freezing household energy bills, would never have been proposed by DM. And he'd have worn more of a taint from Iraq as well. Policy is only half of it though - whether you like it or not presentation matters a lot as well and I think David has/had a significant advantage in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 When i look at Labour i could never vote for them with Milliband in charge He talks through his nose and looks a complete and utter sleazeball worse than Gordon Brown that's exactly why I can't vote tory George has a roman haircut and Theresa May wears fancy shoes. Don't know what the policies are, can't get past the shoes and the hair. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I can't see either big party winning a majority. We'll be having coalitions for a while yet. I'm taking a bit more interest in politics nowadays but wouldn't claim to be an expert or manifestos or party policies. I would say this is the most likely outcome again. With the turnout nowadays hovering around 60% it's difficult to see in the present state the Tories getting the majority they need for sole power. Labour have more of a chance, could be a coalition with lib dems if they haven't been completely wiped out. My gut feeling when they did the leadership in 2010 was it should've been David Milliband but my impression in the 4 years since is that Ed Milliband dosen't strike me as a hopeless leader, he says some good things from time to time in what is always a difficult position as leader of the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 wasn't that long ago that Burnham was begging to keep his job wasn't it ? didn't think he was popular with the party ? I quite like Alan Johnson when i've seen him on TV .. shame about his Union links though what price on both parties being lead by a "Johnson " in 2015 About a billion to one, I should think. The Tory one is fairly likely, but Alan Johnson? Crikey. He was politically even less interesting or different than Miliband - a straight-down-the-line New Labourite. In terms of personality, he might have been 1% more interesting. I won't quite pretend that I had to look him up, but I had forgotten his existence until reading this thread. Rumours to the contrary, he'd have no interest in standing, and to disagree with people in this thread, the country would be unlikely to be terribly impressed by a party backstabbing its leader instead of campaigning for an election. In any case, this whole 'poll-lead' thing is a bore. Labour's poll lead means little. If its level, or +3, or +6, Labour will win more seats. In fact, if they're anything less than -5 to the Tories, they'll still win more seats. They're either going to get a tiny and fairly unworkable majority, or a coalition. And everybody forgets conference speeches within a week or two anyway. He usually pops up on This Week a couple of times a month alongside Portillo. I've always found him a reasonable bloke with his opinions but yeah he's a bit off the radar to suddenly become party leader you'd think, more likely Burnham, Yvette Cooper or one of the younger generation. I think Boris as leader would be a disaster personally for the Tories. He has his fans but running the country, really?! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Even though David winning the leadership contest in 2010 would've surely made a Labour majority much more likely, I kind of wish he did win purely because I think he would've made a much better Prime Minister compared to Ed. Maybe, but then, some of things that have been proposed, and actually do poll well, like freezing household energy bills, would never have been proposed by DM. And he'd have worn more of a taint from Iraq as well. Policy is only half of it though - whether you like it or not presentation matters a lot as well and I think David has/had a significant advantage in this area. I would say this aswell. As much as I don't want to vote a person in just on looks or presentation, David Milliband in his tv appearances just seemed to have more of an air of authority and leadership style than Ed. That's the crux of it, obviously a lot of people will vote with regarding the policies and of course the economy will still be impacting in a years time as many will still be struggling to pay the bills so that really should get Labour in. Others will simply look at who gives a natural air of leadership and authority. Whether you like him or not (and history will show him as an average prime Minister I think) Cameron wins that hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 So you're not actually judging by policies and principles? If we all did that nobody would bother voting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Even though David winning the leadership contest in 2010 would've surely made a Labour majority much more likely, I kind of wish he did win purely because I think he would've made a much better Prime Minister compared to Ed. Maybe, but then, some of things that have been proposed, and actually do poll well, like freezing household energy bills, would never have been proposed by DM. And he'd have worn more of a taint from Iraq as well. Policy is only half of it though - whether you like it or not presentation matters a lot as well and I think David has/had a significant advantage in this area. You know what, judging by some of the replies in this thread, you might even be right. David's voice isn't nasal! So naturally he'd be a much better Prime Minister! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 So you're not actually judging by policies and principles? If we all did that nobody would bother voting Or the greens would win by a landslide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 So you're not actually judging by policies and principles? If we all did that nobody would bother voting Or the greens would win by a landslide. Blood coastal erosion caused by global warming ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Even though David winning the leadership contest in 2010 would've surely made a Labour majority much more likely, I kind of wish he did win purely because I think he would've made a much better Prime Minister compared to Ed. Maybe, but then, some of things that have been proposed, and actually do poll well, like freezing household energy bills, would never have been proposed by DM. And he'd have worn more of a taint from Iraq as well. Policy is only half of it though - whether you like it or not presentation matters a lot as well and I think David has/had a significant advantage in this area. You know what, judging by some of the replies in this thread, you might even be right. David's voice isn't nasal! So naturally he'd be a much better Prime Minister! £70k for 3 days work talking to venture capitalists .. he already thinks he's Tony Blair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 So you're not actually judging by policies and principles? If we all did that nobody would bother voting Or the greens would win by a landslide. only if they restrict voting to the occupants of mental institutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 So you're not actually judging by policies and principles? If we all did that nobody would bother voting Or the greens would win by a landslide. I really don't think Britain as a whole is that left-wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 9, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 9, 2014 David Milliband in his tv appearances just seemed to have more of an air of authority and leadership style... ...Others will simply look at who gives a natural air of leadership and authority. Whether you like him or not (and history will show him as an average prime Minister I think) Cameron wins that hands down. Blair and Th**cher had an "air of leadership and authority". utter, utter, words removed, the pair of them. Vile people, terrible leaders for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 How come Labour seem so reluctant to appoint a woman as leader. Harriet Harman seems quite impressive at the despatch box and has all the right credentials. She has aristocratic forebears and links with the politically impeccable bloodline of Joseph Chamberlain, giving her the sort of breeding and cachet the electorate demand. She went to a posh school every bit as good as most Tories, and where Baroness Williams went. So why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 How come Labour seem so reluctant to appoint a woman as leader. Harriet Harman seems quite impressive at the despatch box and has all the right credentials. She has aristocratic forebears and links with the politically impeccable bloodline of Joseph Chamberlain, giving her the sort of breeding and cachet the electorate demand. She went to a posh school every bit as good as most Tories, and where Baroness Williams went. So why not? Suitability of candidate you would hope. Personally I am not convinced that Harman would be a good leader as she is a very divisive person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I'd guess Mrs Balls would be more to the front of the queue than Harman.As per a post above, I'd be surprised if the next one weren't Chuka - though when that's likely to be is up to Ed (and the electorate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 So you're not actually judging by policies and principles? If we all did that nobody would bother voting Or the greens would win by a landslide. I'm not sure vegetable rights and heavy taxation on anyone who owns a car are a real vote winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I'm not sure vegetable rights and heavy taxation on anyone who owns a car are a real vote winner. So you're not actually judging by policies and principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I'm not sure vegetable rights and heavy taxation on anyone who owns a car are a real vote winner. So you're not actually judging by policies and principles. Ever read their policies on cars and taxation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I'd guess Mrs Balls would be more to the front of the queue than Harman. As per a post above, I'd be surprised if the next one weren't Chuka - though when that's likely to be is up to Ed (and the electorate). There is certainly a potential leader there on the face of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts