Who will be the next leader of the labour party ?

[tonyh29]

Very worrying stuff, I'd say.

for who , apart from 2 people on VT :-)

The article is right , there is no way back forthem in the forseeable future and the cycle of infighting will begin and about 3 or 4 leaders down the road they will possibly get back to a point where they can challenge again

assuming of course the Libs don't over take them as the second party :shock: and become serious opposition

[snowychap]

Very worrying stuff, I'd say.

for who , apart from 2 people on VT :-)

For whom? For me for one.

It has been bad enough over the last decade with two parties competing on pretty much the same ground.

For the Labour party to stuff themselves up so much that the Tories have no serious opposition is an extremely worrying state of affairs.

The article is right , there is no way back forthem in the forseeable future and the cycle of infighting will begin and about 3 or 4 leaders down the road they will possibly get back to a point where they can challenge again

Perhaps but if the article is right then there is the very real worry that they won't be able to last until two leaders down the line let alone 3 or 4.

assuming of course the Libs don't over take them as the second party :shock: and become serious opposition

Stranger things have happened - they are already looking at moving to the right in terms of their policies on taxation (which it appears is where the majority of the electorate are).

[holte_k1]

Who cares, they're clueless from top to bottom.

New Labour is finished.

[Jon]

Stranger things have happened - they are already looking at moving to the right in terms of their policies on taxation (which it appears is where the majority of the electorate are).

shame that. i'd welcome a policy shift to the left on taxation, but i guess that is political suicide for whichever party tries it.

everyone wants more spending on halt, education police, prisons etc.

but when it comes down to who is going to pay for it, raising income tax just doesn't seem too popular with most people. I wonder why? :winkold:

me being something of a lefty, i'd be happy with a progresive taxation system, with the government taking more off us, but also putting more back into the essential services that this country needs.

It's just that nobody wants to pay for it.

Mrs T shifted those goalposts many years ago.

edit: halt = health, obviously. Sorry - just borrowed ian's keyboard for a minute :winkold: :oops:

[ianrobo1]

exactly Jon, if you want top quality health care, education, transport and the rest you have to pay for it

the rights total belief in the free market in the 80's led to the situation say in energy we have now with 4 out of 6 companies foreign owned

you can not marry the two up and to say otherwise is a false lie. The tories will claim they can still maintain the same level of public funding and lower taxes by reducing 'waste', again this is a gflawed policy all governments have tried and failed and for waste read - make peopel unemployed and therefore more benefits that way

of course at the moment the Tories have it easy, no real polcies stated and no answers to the issues we have now.

thats the problem government is simply not big enough now to fight the free market

[snowychap]

Jon, you seem to have been borrowing Ian's keyboard all morning. :winkold:

Ian, there is no problem with reducing 'waste' as long as it is just that and not streamlining(i.e. as you say laying people off). The less waste there is in the system then the level of public services ought to be better and higher.

I also think that a larger tax burden might appeal to more if there were less wasting of what is taken already (perhaps I am being a bit too naive and idealistic there, though).

[Richard]

The obsession with Tories for sacking people is amazing

Vice chair sacked in Labour row (Saturday 13th Sept) Whip sacked for urging leadership contest (Friday 12th September)

You Missed this one as well

Gordon Brown has sacked Labour MP Barry Gardiner as his special envoy for forestry after he joined the list of MPs calling for a leadership challenge.

The PM's spokesman confirmed the axing at the same time as insisting that Mr Brown was focused on the big issues of the economy and public services.

Meanwhile Labour officials have denied breaching the party's constitution, by ignoring MPs' leader election calls.

About 12 MPs have asked for nomination forms to be sent to all Labour MPs.

They cite a clause stating nominations shall be sought each year but the party says papers have not been sent out for several years.

Mr Gardiner joins Joan Ryan and Siobhain McDonagh who have both been sacked from government jobs for calling for a leadership challenge.

He accused Mr Brown at the weekend of "vacillation, loss of international credibility and timorous political manoeuvres that the public cannot understand".

The rebel MPs need 71 Labour MPs to nominate a challenger if they are to bring about a leadership election and have requested nomination papers be sent out to all MPs, ahead of next week's party conference.

But Labour's general secretary, Ray Collins, has not distributed them, saying the convention of the last 11 years is that they are only sent out to individual MPs upon request.

Critics say this breaches clause 4B 2 of the constitution, which states "where there is no vacancy, nominations shall be sought each year prior to the annual session of the party conference."

They hope to challenge the decision at Tuesday's meeting of Labour's ruling National Executive Committee.

But senior officials say the rules are different when the party is in power, and nomination papers have not been sent out for several years.

Among those who have called for a contest are former minister Fiona Mactaggart, Joan Ryan - who was sacked as Labour vice chair for doing so, former minister Frank Field and Siobhain McDonagh, who was fired as a junior whip.

But on Sunday Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who has been touted as a possible future leader, said he supported Mr Brown and rejected the rebels' calls for a leadership election.

He told the BBC: "I don't support their argument that we should trigger a leadership contest.

"I've said I expect Gordon to lead us into the next general election. I will support him in doing so."

Deputy leader Harriet Harman also said she did not believe there would be a leadership contest and said it was "an error of judgement" to call for one as the government should be focussed on getting through "difficult economic times". She said Mr Brown was "exactly the right person" to get Britain through the difficulties.

Business Secretary John Hutton said he supported Mr Brown, but said he would not criticise his colleagues who "want Labour to do better" and it was for the whole cabinet to raise its game

How long until Hutton is sacked I wonder.

[Jon]

Jon, you seem to have been borrowing Ian's keyboard all morning. :winkold:

Ian, there is no problem with reducing 'waste' as long as it is just that and not streamlining(i.e. as you say laying people off). The less waste there is in the system then the level of public services ought to be better and higher.

I also think that a larger tax burden might appeal to more if there were less wasting of what is taken already (perhaps I am being a bit too naive and idealistic there, though).

i guess people would want some sort of guarantee it wouldn't be spent fighting "unjust" or unnecessary wars?

However, i'm not sure that is possible. I think the government simply raises the monies it wants/needs. "The people" elect the government, and then essentially they have free reign (if they have a large majority) to spend it as they see fit.

They then get elected or booted out, as jusged by the electorate 4 or 5 years down the line.

I think the electorate have now simply had enough of this government, and there is very little they (labour) can do about it.

The tories don't have to do anything to win. Just keep smiling I think.

[ianrobo1]

Jon, you seem to have been borrowing Ian's keyboard all morning. :winkold:

Ian, there is no problem with reducing 'waste' as long as it is just that and not streamlining(i.e. as you say laying people off). The less waste there is in the system then the level of public services ought to be better and higher.

I also think that a larger tax burden might appeal to more if there were less wasting of what is taken already (perhaps I am being a bit too naive and idealistic there, though).

well that sort of happened when peopel voted labour and depsite what the Right wing press say the NHS and other public services have improved I have seen that in my own life but the overall impression they want to give is of a failing situation.

Lets face it why would any party in any country want to get voted in at their next election. It is a mess in the world, both economically and poltically and they are powerless to events.

I said it before but maybe in 20 years time this period will have seen a sea change in the way the western world looks at the current systems in place which have clearly failed

[myb]

exactly Jon, if you want top quality health care, education, transport and the rest you have to pay for it

I think we pay more than enough now, thank you very much. It's just that the idiots at the top don't know how to use it properly (unless they're furnishing there 2nd homes.)

[Awol]

Although I'd very much like to see them out of government at the moment I strongly agree that the reduction of the Labour Party on the scale being touted by some commentators would be a very bad thing for the country in the longer term.

It is of course in the hands of Labour MP's and more specifically those ministers with the influence to give Gordon the push required. I hope one of them mans up and does the dead before any such action becomes a moot point.

[Richard]

The tories don't have to do anything to win. Just keep smiling I think

I'd say there's every chance of those smiles remaining whilst this shower of shit are in charge.

[ianrobo1]

exactly Jon, if you want top quality health care, education, transport and the rest you have to pay for it

I think we pay more than enough now, thank you very much. It's just that the idiots at the top don't know how to use it properly (unless they're furnishing there 2nd homes.)

your wrong

we are an expensive country to live in and yet we spend just about the national average of GDP on health and education as does the rest of western europe

we get what is an average service when compared to these

yet we I believe are taxed less lightly as most

do you really think the NHS is in bad health or any of the other services, if so thats fine but peopel were screaming for nurses, doctors to be paid more and they had to to recuit them. So wages takes up a huge % of the budget because they did have generous increases from 97 to aabout 2005.

Every cost has to be paid for whether it is borrowed or not.

[Richard]

Surprising list in some regards

[ianrobo1]

Surprising list in some regards

also very surprising to see you back on here, must be 134 posts short eh ?

or maybe as a tory councillor you want to have a say ?

surely you have another site you can use ?

[Richard]

Thanks for the nice welcome

[ianrobo1]

no point is there, you will either go at 30k or just post in poltical threads because another site does not really have the same level as debate ...

I also think it is interesting to note you acceptance of the lack of Tory policies, as I said this is not the time any party should want to take over because as can be seen with Lehman Brothers far too much is out of the governments hands

[Richard]

as can be seen with Lehman Brothers far too much is out of the governments hands

Of course the current economic climate having nothing to do whatsoever with any governement economic policy anywhere in the world.

And Ian, whatever I do or do not do, whenever I post or do not post and on what subjects I do or do not chose to post on has very little whatsoever to do with you or the debate on this thread

[ianrobo1]

it's got a lot because it goes to your motivation in only posting in this thread alone after an absence of some months ...

Of course the current economic climate having nothing to do whatsoever with any governement economic policy anywhere in the world.

when most western policies are basically the same the answer is very little they could do.

what do you suggest WE could do about the American crisis which has brought problems to us because we are closely linked ?

Do you suggest as a right wing tory that we shoudl not follow the right wing free market policies of the states ?

that we should as a government regulate strongly the free market ?

because your party has not suggested this, and only the Lib Dems have to some degree

[Jon]

...this is not the time any party should want to take over because as can be seen with Lehman Brothers far too much is out of the governments hands

much is out of ther government's hands at the moment, in terms of the "credit crunch", yes.

But the CC/recession is widely expected to be short and sharp, and many experts predict it to not last more than another 6 months to 1 year.

GB still has well over a year to run, so i'd guess by the time of the next election, the economy will be in a far healthier position than we see today.

I think those taking over will not be in such a dire position as you make out.