Who will be the next leader of the labour party ?

[ianrobo1]

on this occassion most defintely

yes if oil comes back can only help to counteract the influence of the credit crunch no doubt of that

like all things economics is cyclical in 3 years times everyone will be complaining at how high house prices are again !!

[Doug's_Missing_Wallet]

like all things economics is cyclical in 3 years times everyone will be complaining at how high house prices are again !!

On that point I definitely agree with you. I must admit the house prices and oil prices don't bother me so much as, like you said, they fluctuate a lot over a cycle period. Plus I'm looking to get a house at the moment and, as a 1st time buyer, there is some absolute bargains out there. What is more concerning is the energy prices and food costs. energy costs especially, as they have to factor in greed of Eon etc.

[ianrobo1]

well foodcosts if you go to the right places ad avoid certain food are still cheap

as for energy totally different subject and oe we have covered loads of time but uffice to ay the only way to stop them is to legislate againt them and cap the rises

[Doug's_Missing_Wallet]

well foodcosts if you go to the right places ad avoid certain food are still cheap

as for energy totally different subject and oe we have covered loads of time but uffice to ay the only way to stop them is to legislate againt them and cap the rises

Don't do my food shopping (yet), so can't really comment. Agree about energy prices too, but something that Gordon should've done and didn't? :winkold:

[ianrobo1]

possibly and Snowy would say he did not help by removing the cap

but the optimisitc thing is as the credit crunch has gone on the left are becoming more vocal against captilaism and throughout these debates the past few months those who I would class as captialisits have not really defended their stance, maybe the era of unfeted captilaism is coming to the end

[nrogers]

Oh and surprise, surprise, the price of oil has dropped hugely again overnight.

PETROLEUM ($/bbl)

PRICE* CHANGE % CHANGE TIME

Nymex Crude Future 92.12 -3.59 -3.75 03:23

Dated Brent Spot 88.88 -.94 -1.04 03:53

WTI Cushing Spot 95.71 -5.47 -5.41 09/15

[PauloBarnesi]

Very annoying. I want Windbag back

[Richard]

Yesterday was Sack Monday. Today could be Resignation Tuesday

[Jon]

followed by Wonderful Wednesday?

or Woeful Wednesday ....

[Richard]

Or possibly Wretched Wednesday

Resignation Tuesday

Chancellor Alistair Darling has urged Labour colleagues to "get behind" Gordon Brown who, he said, was the "right person to lead this country".

People expected the government to be tackling the "unprecedented turbulence" in the financial markets, he said.

Labour's ruling National Executive Committee is due to discuss rebel MPs' call for leadership nomination forms to be sent out to all Labour MPs.

Twelve have requested forms but would need 70 MPs' support for a contest.

On Monday an unnamed, middle-ranking, government minister told the BBC he was considering resigning over Mr Brown's leadership, saying: "You can't go on saying 'I think Gordon Brown is the man to lead us to victory' when you don't believe it."

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said there was talk among Mr Brown's enemies that as many as "five or six" ministers were ready to resign.

But Mr Darling told BBC Radio 4's Today programme what concerned people was issues like the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers - which in turn has seen shares fall in leading Asian markets.

He said: "What I'd say is this, to my colleagues in particular, if you look at the front pages today, people of this country, as in other parts of the world, are concerned that at this time of unprecedented turbulence, we do everything we can to resolve these problems.

"That's what we should be looking at."

He added: "I have every confidence in Gordon Brown. I believe he is the right person to lead this country and to lead our party and I know that at the conference next week he will set out his vision for the future."

Mr Brown is holding a political cabinet meeting from 0830 BST, where party issues such as the upcoming conference will be discussed, as well as his regular weekly cabinet meeting.

He is expected to attend at least part of the NEC meeting from 1000 BST.

On Monday it was announced MP Barry Gardiner, one of the 12 requesting nomination papers, had left his position as special envoy for forestry "by mutual consent". It came days after Labour vice chair Joan Ryan and junior whip Siobhain McDonagh were sacked for calling for a leadership challenge.

The NEC is expected to support the party general secretary Ray Collins' refusal to send out nomination forms to all MPs.

He argues that the convention of the last 11 years is that they are only sent out to individual MPs upon request, but the rebels say this breaches the constitution of the party which says nominations "shall be sought each year".

The Guardian newspaper reports that the rebels are aware of legal advice given to past Labour party general secretaries who have been told that the papers must be sent out if members of the parliamentary party ask for them.

MP Siobhain McDonagh, another rebel who was sacked as a government whip on Friday, told the paper: "The leadership claim this rule has not been used in the past few years, but since when has a law become no longer lawful because it has not been used?

"If they refuse a leadership contest, people will ask 'what has Brown got to be afraid of?'."

[Richard]

Democracy in action ?

The Labour Party has moved to see off an attempt by 12 rebel MPs to force a challenge to Gordon Brown's leadership.

Its ruling National Executive Committee has rejected calls to get nomination forms sent out to all Labour MPs before next week's party conference.

And cabinet ministers Harriet Harman, Alan Johnson and Alistair Darling have urged unity in the party.

An assistant whip, party vice chair and a special envoy have left their jobs after calling for a leadership contest.

Under party rules, the rebels would need to get the support of 70 MPs to prompt a challenge to Gordon Brown's leadership.

Twelve rebels, among them several former ministers, have requested nomination papers be sent out ahead of next week's conference - citing a clause in the party's constitution that nominations "shall be sought each year".

But the NEC agreed with general secretary Ray Collins, after taking legal advice, that they should not be sent out for the leadership when the party is in government, as had been the convention for the past 11 years.

One of the rebels, Janet Anderson, is an NEC member but she was not at Tuesday's meeting.

In a statement NEC chair Dianne Hayter said the rules were clear and "internal procedural debates" would not divert the party "from our mission of building a fairer Britain".

She added: "The NEC fully endorses the view of the Labour Party's general secretary and the party's independent legal advisers.

"A leadership election when in government can only be held if requested by a majority of party conference on a card vote. Only Labour MPs can trigger the process and the NEC is confident that most MPs know their responsibilities under the rules."

Leaving a cabinet meeting, Health Secretary Alan Johnson told reporters he was "absolutely confident" that the cabinet was united behind Mr Brown.

He added: "I believe we need unity in the party and I believe the whole history of this party shows the reason why - in the 20th Century, Labour governments were short interludes in Conservative rule, and why we ended up in the situation we did in '97 with so much to do, is because we were disunited in the past."

If they refuse a leadership contest, people will ask 'what has Brown got to be afraid of?

Siobhain McDonagh

Rebel MP

Deputy leader Harriet Harman said the cabinet was united behind Gordon Brown, who was the "best person to lead this country".

And chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party Tony Lloyd told the BBC later the number of rebels was actually "very small" and "many, many more MPs" would be needed to mount a serious challenge.

"The challenge actually is damaging, but in its public impact. It's trivial in its real impact and that's the paradox. We've really got to get back to real politics to the sorts of things that do affect people," he said.

Earlier Chancellor Alistair Darling urged Labour colleagues to "get behind" Gordon Brown saying he was the "right person to lead this country and to lead our party".

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme what concerned people was issues like the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers - which in turn has seen shares fall in leading Asian markets.

He said: "What I'd say is this, to my colleagues in particular, if you look at the front pages today, people of this country, as in other parts of the world, are concerned that at this time of unprecedented turbulence, we do everything we can to resolve these problems.

"That's what we should be looking at."

Three MPs - former whip Siobhain McDonagh, former vice chairman Joan Ryan and former special envoy Barry Gardiner - have left their jobs since Friday after calling for a leadership contest.

There have been reports that Scotland Office minister David Cairns is considering his position, but Downing Street sources have told the BBC he has not informed them he intends to resign.

And a source close to the Scottish Secretary Des Browne has insisted that Mr Cairns has "no intention of resigning".

Ms McDonagh told the Guardian she did not accept that nomination forms should not be sent out because that had been the convention recently. She added: "If they refuse a leadership contest, people will ask 'what has Brown got to be afraid of?'"

[Awol]

It's like watching the suicide squad in the Life of Bryan. Is there nothing the party members themselves can do if the PLP are set to self destruct mode?

[Richard]

It's like watching the suicide squad in the Life of Bryan. Is there nothing the party members themselves can do if the PLP are set to self destruct mode?

I would respectfully suggest that that is highly unlikely

[kidlewis]

hopefully they can all fight to the death to see who is left standing. That person can be the leader!

[Guest Ricardomeister]

I think the best of that lot would be David Milliband, but they don't really inspire any confidence. Then again Cameron and his Eton mates are just as bad, if not worse. The only lot worth voting for are the OMRLP, who are the only honest party left!

[kidlewis]

they are all as bad as each other but if there is NO WAY that I will be giving my vote to the cretinous labour party. Will probably end up spoiling my ballot paper by putting Villa chants all over it lol

[Awol]

Now the Scotland Office Minister David Cairns has jacked it in citing Gordon's 'leadership'.

Oh dear, if he wasn't such a c unit I could almost pity the bloke.

[snowychap]

Toynbee: Gordon Brown must go – by June 5

He made the rich richer and the poor poorer. The Labour party can't go into the next election under Brown's leadership

Politics tests character, often to destruction. The character of some ministers, their shadows and MPs of all parties has been wrecked by ­exposure of their ­expenses. How can those caught pilfering from the public purse denounce benefit fraud? How can those with state-purchased silk cushions support the cash-limited social fund that denies beds and blankets to families sleeping on bare boards? MPs with fingers in the till will blush to justify paying the unemployed £60.50 a week to live on. Nor can they rant convincingly at City greed or tax-dodgers fleeing to Guernsey.

The one character who has been tested to final destruction is Gordon Brown. The music stopped on his watch, first for the economy and now MPs' sleaze, for which the government of the day takes most blame. Labour used to lay claim to higher moral ground, while the right always said greed was the motor of growth. When he first talked of his moral compass, Brown should have cleaned up party funding, MPs' expenses and honours – and linked these reforms with curbs on the power that money breathes over the nation's affairs. The expenses mess would not be fatal if the prime minister were upright and strong. But Labour is already ­dangling over a cliff, and this affair prises its fingers off the edge.

It's all over for Brown and Labour. The abyss awaits. As long as he remains leader, there is nothing that wretched Labour candidates can plausibly say on the doorstep at next month's European elections. They are struck dumb. Why should people vote for them? The horse manure bought on expenses is garnish for a decomposing government. The heart of the matter is the economy, and Brown's responsibility for the bubble years. He personally is to blame for Labour's failure to ensure that ordinary people on median incomes and poor people at the bottom received a bigger share in national growth: it turns out that they fell back and only the wealthy prospered. Labour made the rich richer and the poor poorer: growth for the few, not the many.

That is a failure so fundamental to Labour's purpose that the party can't go into the next election led by the man responsible. His other failings as leader pale beside this one monumental fact. While he is there, Labour cannot claim "fairness" or "social justice", so what is left to say? What is Labour's offer?

Gordon Brown has been tested and found in want of almost every attribute a leader needs. Squalid dealings by his poisonous inner circle were exposed to the light of day; yet at the same time he lacks a leader's necessary political cunning. Many hoped that the end of the rivalry with Blair would see Brown cast off his myrmidons. He didn't. In the tussle between his better and his worse selves, too often the lesser man won.

That he was no great public orator or warm telegenic talker would never have mattered had he gained a reputation as a gruff, unspun man of honour, vision and purpose. I thought it an asset after Blair's glibness and Cameron's suavity. It wasn't the medium that did for him, but the message. There wasn't one. What was Labour for?

He may be the best-read prime minister in decades, but his learning seems to hamper instead of illuminate his path. His indecision is legendary, every department awaiting answers that linger on his desk for months as he agonises sleepless but indecisive into the early hours. But then the decisions he takes are too often tactical, not purposeful or strategic. Trident, the third runway or post office privatisation are mere positioning in some illusory business-pleasing ploy, their long-term damage far outweighing one day's headlines.

Blair people warned of Brown's dark side, his rages, obstinacy and inflexibility. Labour MPs who voted him in ­unopposed hoped he would grow in stature. They needed to believe the best of him as there was no alternative. Any serious attempt to stop him would have led to an internal feud of such ferocity it would have shipwrecked the government. Besides, back then the economic boom years were his crowning laurels.

I was among those looking for the best in him, celebrating his undoubted concern for Africa, foreign aid and child poverty – but no one can know a leader's mettle until too late. His leadership of the G20 championed a measure of Keynesianism to counter the worst effects of the crash. But an essentially neoliberal ideology coupled with timidity prevents him taking this once-only chance to reform the City, demand more of bankers and separate high street from casino banking. Despite the crash, he harbours the same old reverence for, or fear of, the money-men who wrought this global mayhem.

The morning after the 4 June ­election a majority deputation from the ­cabinet, bearing a long list of MPs' names, should knock on the door of No 10 to tell him his number's up. Plot it now, do it fast. The Tories are lethal with their failed leaders: Labour MPs facing annihilation must find the bottle. There is nothing to lose. Once the credit crunch began, I thought assassination might make ­matters worse, precipitating a ­downward spiral from which Labour could fall into total collapse – Brown at least had the gravitas of experience. But Labour now faces an imminent collapse anyway, with Brown hitting polling depths below Michael Foot's, lower than for 70 years.

There is all the difference between losing by a few points and crashing out so badly it takes ­another three elections to ­recover. The one person around whom the party could gather speedily would be Alan Johnson. It's nonsense that another unopposed leadership would mean disaster: a general election is coming soon enough. Orphan boy, genial postman, self-made, clever but modest, he has the grace and charm to match his perfect backstory. He was always the one the Cameroons feared. His political talents turned the NHS from a danger with closures and denials of drugs into an asset for Labour. Good to work with, good in public, he inspires considerable admiration. This time I will not say I know he would be a good leader – that's unknowable until too late. I doubt that he can win for Labour. But, goodness knows, Cameron is still there for the taking.

The only question now is whether Labour ministers and MPs are so shell-shocked by the last year and so shamed by their expenses that they lack the will to live. Ordinary party members, you valiant few, get up and tell your MPs that Gordon Brown must go.

[snowychap]

Grauniad editorial - Tuesday June 2nd:

Gordon Brown talks much about his Presbyterian past, but he has a story to tell - about personal morality, a sense of justice and a belief in the power of politics that does, at its best, appeal to the "better angels of our nature", as he put it on his first day in Downing Street. The nation needs someone who answers this description to lead it now, just as Labour needs to find someone who is able to set out a case for progressive government. Political reform can no longer be put aside as an abstract idea, of appeal to dreamers but not to voters who face the harder realities of life. The public is calling furiously for a better system. People want an honest parliament. They want leaders who are prepared to act. They loathe the old system, and many of the people who are part of it.

Tragedy

The tragedy for Mr Brown and his party is that his chance to change it has gone. Although he still purports to be a radical, he has adopted the caution of an establishment man. He cannot lead a revolution against his own way of doing government, and yet a revolution is necessary. Grandstanding on his claims to good intentions, the prime minister demands the right to carry on, even as the cabinet implodes around him. The home secretary, the chancellor, and perhaps even the foreign secretary may go, and Labour faces its worst defeat in its history on Thursday, but the prime minister does not recognise his direct responsibility for the mayhem.

The truth is that there is no vision from him, no plan, no argument for the future and no support. The public see it. His party sees it. The cabinet must see it too, although they are not yet bold enough to say so. The prime minister demands loyalty, but that has become too much to ask of a party, and a country, that has was never given the chance to vote for him. Had there been a contest for the leadership in 2007 - and had Mr Brown called a general election - he would probably have won. He decided not to do these things. And he has largely failed since.

Any assessment must recognise the strength of Mr Brown's response to the financial implosion. When action to save the banks was needed, he acted impressively. But flaws in his character that drove his party close to revolt last summer now dominate again. He is not obviously able to lead. He blames others for failures and allows them insufficient credit for successes, as the current dismembering of Alistair Darling's reputation shows. He is only secure in the economic comfort zone he built up as chancellor, and in the company of his closest allies, such as Ed Balls, now being tipped as chancellor. The prime minister shines at the IMF or the G20, but the job involves much more than that.

Great causes win the day when people fight for them. A year of lingering emptiness beckons instead. Parliament is treading water; little is happening beyond the discredited attempt to sell off part of Royal Mail. Parts of government still function: on climate change, for instance, Britain is leading the way towards Copenhagen. But Mr Brown himself is not inspiring progress on these things. The McBride affair was poisonous to his reputation, but he did not seem to understand why. His timidity in the face of the expenses crisis has been painful.

The blunt reality is that, even if he set out a grand programme of reform now, his association with it would doom its prospects. Proportional representation would transform parliament, but if Mr Brown put a referendum on the ballot, it would be defeated because he backed it. A draft constitutional renewal bill was published more than 12 months ago - but what has come of it? This week Mr Brown announced a national democratic council that might (to see it in a generous light) form the basis of the sort of constitutional convention that led to Scotland's modern parliament. But it is too late. The chance for him has passed.

The next seven days will be crucial to Britain's political future. Jacqui Smith's pre-emptive resignation today was the start of a reshuffle that Mr Brown may be imagining will defend himself from terrible election results. He is heading for the bunker. If Labour holds off now, at perhaps the last moment when a change of leader might be possible, it had better reconcile itself to sticking with its leader to the bitter end. The worst of all worlds would be for people to drag their feet, carry on supporting him when others desert, then desert too, late in the day, when it can only make things worse. During the next few days it will become apparent whether Mr Brown still commands sufficient support among his parliamentary colleagues to carry on. If he suspects not, he would win much respect by announcing that he will be standing down, and let his party choose someone who can use its remaining time in power to reform parliament and then fight the election with credibility.

The case for a new leader has been made stronger by the expenses crisis. Labour needs to enter the next election having reformed parliament. But Mr Brown will never do it. The prime minister was absent from the start of the debate and cautious now he has joined it. His instinct is usually to hesitate, and to establish reviews and commissions. Meanwhile, the chance of a generation is being missed. Only a Labour government, working with the Liberal Democrats, will bring about serious reform. The likelihood, for all David Cameron's promises, is that the Conservatives will not be radical enough, especially on fair votes. But Mr Brown has shown himself incapable of collaborating in this way. His disastrous announcement of expenses reform on YouTube showed that he cannot build the coalitions of interest (inside his party, never mind beyond) that are necessary for constitutional change. If reform is not to stall, someone else will have to lead it.

Rapid contest

The mechanics will not be easy to arrange. Change will always be a gamble. Mr Brown, on past form, may fight for his job. But he cannot last if his cabinet refuses to back him, faced with an inward-looking and isolationist reshuffle that leaves the prime minister at odds with the mood of his own parliamentary party.

Any handover should be rapid and democratic. There will have to be an election for leader, and clarity from the candidates about when they want to hold a general election. Labour's constitution is murky, and some argue that it would be impossible to hold a contest quickly. They worry that the party might squander much of the time it has left in power in debates and union votes.

They are wrong. The 2007 contest for deputy leader took less than two months. Former party officials confirm a contest now could be held in 23 days; the new prime minister could be in place by early July. Several ministers would make a better leader than Mr Brown, and want to stand. They should say so early next week.

After such a contest, parliament could sit longer into the summer and return early in September, as Nick Clegg suggested in the Guardian last week. A bill should allow a referendum on electoral reform on the date of the next election. There should be a guarantee that no former MPs and party officials will be sent to the House of Lords. A bill should be passed to establish fixed terms for parliaments, as works well in Scotland, setting the date for the next election.

The opposition will want one immediately, but a new leader can make the case for some time to establish themselves, for reform laws to pass and for parties to pick new candidates. They could also argue that David Cameron needs to be tested properly. An election now would see Britain stumble into the future without any idea where it will lead.

Before polling day, the public also needs to know the score on all MPs - not just that proportion subjected to the Daily Telegraph's treatment so far. The most open way to do this would be for every editor, and broadcaster, to be sent the disc now in the hands of one paper, with the onus of meeting data protection and defamation laws on the publishers. Parties will need time after that to find new candidates.

Progressive future

The needs of the Labour party and the country are obviously not the same. Labour members must ask themselves this weekend whether they think Mr Brown is best placed to put its values into action, and win popular support for them. The public, in tomorrow's elections, will consider whether Mr Brown is the right man to lead the country. And anyone advocating a change of leadership must make it clear whose interests will gain from it. This paper believes Britain has often been at its best when Labour has been at its strongest. People who disagree with that will welcome its implosion, knowing that it will make a Conservative landslide inevitable. That is why they are not clamouring for Mr Brown to go. Progressive thinkers do not have this luxury. Of course many people, who see the better angels in Mr Brown's nature, do not want his dreams to end like this. His premiership would be one of the briefest in history. He would never have fought an election. But fate can be unjust.

All must agree that the die is cast and a hard judgment made. Otherwise progressive politics will be dragged down at a general election in May 2010 that could lead to a much bigger defeat than Labour suffered in 1979. That might bring a chance for other parties to take it forward, as the Liberal Democrats are trying to do in this election. But they are not placed to enter government. Labour has a year left before an election; its current leader would waste it. It is time to cut him loose.

[Trajan]

All must agree that the die is cast and a hard judgment made. Otherwise progressive politics will be dragged down at a general election in May 2010 that could lead to a much bigger defeat than Labour suffered in 1979.

That's almost a certainty anyway. Thatcher's majority in 1979 was only about 40 seats.

This information is also available to journalists at The Guardian.