Next leader of the Labour Party should be.....

[mjmooney]

Apparently the third brother, Steve Milliband was going to run but it turns out he's just a joker.

He he.

Old jokes never die; when their dad (Ralph Milliband) was one of my lecturers at Leeds University in the early 70s, our nickname for him was "Steve".

[mjmooney]

My vote goes to Caroline Flint:

[bickster]

Despite the fact their MP's are opposed to it, a full PR system would be the only vehicle to give the hard left any say in national government, imo.

By a full PR system I take it you mean the list system and not this AV bollocks (which isn't close to being "full pr")

Yes, Labour were in favour of AV pre-election but opposed to full PR. That's why I said it.

I think you've now confused yourself and everyone else. Labour want AV / AV plus so you said Full PR, I don't get it, why would you say full PR when you don't mean full pr but AV.

And if that is the case then how does the hard left, not even close to being in control of the Labour Party...

...Yet. Labour lurched hard left the last time they lost power, it is not inconceivable that they will do so again. It depends whether or not they reject Blairism and go back to their roots as some of their supporters on here have been suggesting they should.

Labour didn't "lurch" left last time they lost power at all, far from it. The "Hard Left" (Copyright the Witch btw and she was referring to Arthur Scargill et al) have never been in a position to ever run the Labour Party and how they would even make a start now when they are no longer in the party (which is mostly right of centre), having either been expelled or left to join left wing parties.Last time Labour lost power, the Labour party quite visibly moved to the right and that can be seen quite visibly in the progression of leaders the party voted for after Harold Wilson. Callaghan > Foot > Kinnock > Smith > Bliar > Brown. That is a very distinctive shift to the right and never once would any of those ever be described as Hard Left and the only shift leftwards was from Callaghan to Foot but even then the difference is only slight (as he was always portrayed as being more left wing than his politics actually were, the duffel coat and cnd badge saw to that). Its almost a clear slowly progressive shift rightwards

Or it could possibly be that you are scaremongering

No, just discussing possibilities.

Without the knowledge to do so it would seem

or don't understand what you talking about

....

I refer the honourable member to my previous statement

Oh and if you want my opinion on the current slew of candidates / possible candidates, they are a bunch of snakeoil salesmen who couldn't even attempt to sell sand to the arabs, don't like any of them. Can't see any of them leading Labour out of the wilderness, none of them have the force of personality to even get close

[Ads]

AV isn’t a proportional voting system, but a majority based one.

[bubbadog]

Another Cruddas supporter here!!

This will not play well, just Milly Vs Milly (sounds like a crap film), we need someone like Cruddas to reignite the core vote.

For those who haven't heard him speak, he really is quite an orator (sp?), look him up on YouTube.

[bickster]

AV isn’t a proportional voting system, but a majority based one.

I know this and you know this

[Awol]

Despite the fact their MP's are opposed to it, a full PR system would be the only vehicle to give the hard left any say in national government, imo.

By a full PR system I take it you mean the list system and not this AV bollocks (which isn't close to being "full pr")

Yes, Labour were in favour of AV pre-election but opposed to full PR. That's why I said it.

I think you've now confused yourself and everyone else. Labour want AV / AV plus so you said Full PR, I don't get it, why would you say full PR when you don't mean full pr but AV.

Eh? I said that Labour MP's were opposed to a full PR system which they are and were, but that full PR would be the only system likely to deliver seats to the hard left. That in itself being dependent on whether Labour lurch left or not in he wake of electoral defeat, as they did in 1979. You contend that they didn't do so, imo the 1983 manifesto (or "longest suicide note in history") says different.

You bought AV into it, which is something Labour were supporting before the election.

Without the knowledge to do so it would seem

I know exactly what I'm saying cheers, but apologies if it wasn't clear enough for you to get first time around.

[bickster]

Crud ass rules himself out probably because his name is as unsuitable for attempting to lead the country as is Ed Balls'

And I know names shouldn't mean anything but come on, who is't going to take the piss out of someone called Crud-ass or Balls? It's almost sitting up and begging for it

[chrisp65]

I believe the definition of left and right and hard left etc is skewed by where we are today. We currently have a system where there are three parties all offering different flavours of essentially the same thing. You might want your icecream with sprinkles or prefer it with strawberry sauce or like a flake up your 99. But it's all icecream and somehow we've all happily gone along with it and happily call each other names over our stance on sprinkles.

Back in the mid 70's Harold Wilson (not considered at all extreme at the time) had a plan to kerb house price rises and mortgage rate hikes by nationalising all land. All land taken out of private lease from the Queen and into State control, for the people. **** your sprinkles, who wants a mug of tea?

If you want 'land is power give the land to the people' these days where can you go? Not even the SWP. They are more interested in selling you a solid silver clenched left fist pendant on their website merchandising page.

So for me PR or AV is just another way of gently herding sufficient sheep into the unspectacular middle ground. Except of course, being afraid to protect jobs because it might upset billionaire money traders isn't actually the middle. Allowing 100,000 local government or nhs staff (that may well be the bread winners in their families) to be laid off so the rest of us don't have to pay an extra penny income tax (and thus take longer to acquire that flat screen tv) is not the middle ground.

I'm off for a lie down.

[bickster]

Spot on Chrisp65, like I said the infamous 1983 election manifesto was not as "left wing" as the final Harold Wilson one (which he won), the 1974 Labour Party Manifesto reads like the communist manifesto in comparison, and since the days of Wilson the Labour Party has done nothing but move relentlessly but slowly to the right of centre

[Gringo]

I believe the definition of left and right and hard left etc is skewed by where we are today. We currently have a system where there are three parties all offering different flavours of essentially the same thing. You might want your icecream with sprinkles or prefer it with strawberry sauce or like a flake up your 99. But it's all icecream and somehow we've all happily gone along with it and happily call each other names over our stance on sprinkles.

Back in the mid 70's Harold Wilson (not considered at all extreme at the time) had a plan to kerb house price rises and mortgage rate hikes by nationalising all land. All land taken out of private lease from the Queen and into State control, for the people. **** your sprinkles, who wants a mug of tea?

If you want 'land is power give the land to the people' these days where can you go? Not even the SWP. They are more interested in selling you a solid silver clenched left fist pendant on their website merchandising page.

So for me PR or AV is just another way of gently herding sufficient sheep into the unspectacular middle ground. Except of course, being afraid to protect jobs because it might upset billionaire money traders isn't actually the middle. Allowing 100,000 local government or nhs staff (that may well be the bread winners in their families) to be laid off so the rest of us don't have to pay an extra penny income tax (and thus take longer to acquire that flat screen tv) is not the middle ground.

I'm off for a lie down.

I VOTE CHRISP65 NEXT LABOUR LEADER

[drat01]

Cruddas apparently wont be standing according to Twitter feed

[snowychap]

I VOTE CHRISP65 NEXT LABOUR LEADER

The chrisp65 party might just encourage me to get on the electoral roll - that's all I would be willing to commit to, for now. :winkold:

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Cruddas ruled out.

Dave or Ed it is.

Andy Burnham is in with a shout too.

Ed Balls can go suck off a goat the smug little word removed.

[Reality]

I think Burnham might just get it.

[LJRM050389]

Interesting feature on Newsnight.

For me its still between Ed Miliband and Burnham for my vote.

Think overall it will be between the Milibands!

[LJRM050389]

I'm right in thinking its done on an AV vote?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Nah Burnham has an accent, everyone knows Politicians need to sound bland and lifeless.

[bickster]

and his name sounds too much like it goes with "and floggem" and Labour need to shake off the Authoritarian thing.

His name is a tabloids dream, he'd have to stroke kittens every morning for breakfast

[Jon]

and his name sounds too much like it goes with "and floggem" and Labour need to shake off the Authoritarian thing.

His name is a tabloids dream, he'd have to stroke kittens every morning for breakfast

Surely the tabloids would be having wet dreams if Ed Balls was to stand and win then? :winkold:

I really think Balls's surname would be a major handicap to him, were he to stand

EDIT: Maybe he could change his name, like Gideon?

Double EDIT: Seems Osborne's name is in fact George anyway. Gid is just his second name .... (damn you drat)

Maybe Balls should drop his surname, and just be Ed Michael. That might give him more "freedom".