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

[Demitri_C]

so you think its acceptable for mandy to come out in public and say he disliked him and that they gave up before the election reuslt actually came in? sounds like a faltering party that needs a whole complete revamp

and thsi was reported in the times before the sun

[Awol]

so the Tory supporters are now damning the Labour MP's based on them disagreeing with each other.

No, based on them implementing policies for over a decade, then saying how great those policies were at the election and now admitting they were a bag of shite in an attempt to put distance between themselves and the decisions that they made!

Thought that was pretty clear.

Meanwhile the ConDem's are threatening their own members to ensure that they don't vote against the Gvmt in parliament, but this in some way is acceptable?

Acceptable no, but it happens with every party once in government. If it didn't there would be no such thing as the Whip's office. If Labour want to be first to allow free votes to all of their elected MP's while in office then I'd applaud them from the rooftops.

Do you think that might happen?

[Demitri_C]

so you think its acceptable for mandy to come out in public and say he disliked him and that they gave up before the election reuslt actually came in? sounds like a faltering party that needs a whole complete revamp

and thsi was reported in the times before the sun

[drat01]

This is laughable - politicians from the ex-gvmt all come out with their memoirs which typically are controversial. We saw it from the Con's before and we are seeing it now from Labour.

Is it acceptable? Of course its acceptable because that is exactly what politicians are all about. The only way - as I said - is for them all to be independents but that is an ideal world that will never happen. For you lads to some way say it's a labour only thing is just silliness. Just because the ConDem's are an amalgamation of two parties into one does not get away from the disagreements and in fighting that will no doubt happen. I will make a bet with you that within months we will see the first "expose" from one of the ConDem's about leadership and party issues

[kidlewis]

whilst it doesn't get away from the fact that disagreements will happen, it's certainly more of an acceptable situation in a coalition government than a single party.

I never said it was just a Labour thing btw, I do however have an issue with Balls going around saying it was all hunky dory and Brown and Blair loved sharing 99s with each other.

No doubt someone will come out with various things before the spending review in October or whenever it is. Mainly to get things out into the public domain to try and force the oppositions hands into backing down on certain policies which they don't like.

Mid september would be my guess.

[Davkaus]

This is laughable - politicians from the ex-gvmt all come out with their memoirs which typically are controversial. We saw it from the Con's before and we are seeing it now from Labour.

I like the way that when it's Labour who have done something recently, then "the tories have done the same before", becomes an acceptable excuse, but it doesn't work the other way around.

[tonyh29]

like the way that when it's Labour who have done something recently, then "the tories have done the same before", becomes an acceptable excuse, but it doesn't work the other way around.

and where has anyone posted that ?

[Awol]

Just because the ConDem's are an amalgamation of two parties into one does not get away from the disagreements and in fighting that will no doubt happen.

Still banging that tired old drum I see, despite it being comprehensively debunked as rubbish by just about everyone who comments on bollitics threads. Hard to take anything else you write seriously Ian when you insist on making this ludicrous statement again and again, despite so many people actually explaining to you why you are wrong.

[Richard]

People may be well advised to read the brief history of the Labour Party

Especially the bits about the coalition of interests being at the formation of the party in 1900 but that still wasn't a proper party.

Or the coalition of national government in the early 1930's which did not lead to the Liberals, Conservatives or Labour forming one party

or perhaps the coalition of the second world war with Labour MP's in the cabinet. Didn't see Labour or the Conservatives being one party then etc etc etc

[Jon]

People may be well advised to read the brief history of the Labour Party

Especially the bits about the coalition of interests being at the formation of the party in 1900 but that still wasn't a proper party.

Or the coalition of national government in the early 1930's which did not lead to the Liberals, Conservatives or Labour forming one party

or perhaps the coalition of the second world war with Labour MP's in the cabinet. Didn't see Labour or the Conservatives being one party then etc etc etc

I'm sure you're trying to suggest something here trickie, but i can't quite grasp what it is.

Is there an "H" involved?

and a "y"?

and a "p...."

:winkold:

[Richard]

I'll take an H please Bob

[drat01]

This is laughable - politicians from the ex-gvmt all come out with their memoirs which typically are controversial. We saw it from the Con's before and we are seeing it now from Labour.

I like the way that when it's Labour who have done something recently, then "the tories have done the same before", becomes an acceptable excuse, but it doesn't work the other way around.

It depends on which rules we have to play by. As the board is populated by more people who follow this rule, I thought it advisable to join in with that rule, or is that not the case and it only has to be a one way thing?

Maybe the hypocrisy of some of the indignation and outrage shown by others over the past few years is what we should forget? who knows?

[drat01]

Tory dissent in teh ConDems

Liam Fox is placed on the Downing Street naughty step after testing David Cameron's patience

Prime minister dispatches trusted Tory media operator to keep an eye on defence secretary

When David Cameron moved into Downing Street he probably thought that he would only ever banish his children to the naughty step.

But a member of the cabinet has been placed on the Downing Street naughty step after weeks of bad behaviour which has tested the prime minister's patience to its limits.

Liam Fox, the defence secretary, has been told in no uncertain terms by No 10 that he has gone off piste on too many occasions since his appointment to the cabinet in May. The defence secretary, an important figure on the Tory right who is now known as "13th century Fox" after his unfortunate description of Afghanistan, will not be sacked or demoted.

But Downing Street has moved to rein Fox in by appointing one of the Tories' most accomplished media operators to keep an eye on him at the Ministry of Defence. Hayden Allan, who remained at Conservative HQ after the election to keep the party's press operation ticking over, will move to the Ministry of Defence on 2 August when he returns from his honeymoon.

The final straw for Cameron, which persuaded No 10 that it needed to monitor Fox more closely, came last month when the defence secretary announced that Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence staff, would resign at the conclusion of the strategic defence review in the autumn. This is what I wrote in a blog on 6 July:

Downing Street had agreed that Stirrup would stand down later this year. But No 10 was irritated with the way in which Fox grabbed some headlines with the announcement which was seen as discourteous to Stirrup.

This behaviour has left Tory MPs wondering what Fox is up to. The general conclusion is that he is holding aloft the Tory flame to strengthen his position, possibly putting him in the frame for the leadership, if the coalition collapses.

One senior government source says:

David was absolutely livid with Liam. This was completely unacceptable behaviour.

Downing Street was particularly angry with Fox, who is today making a major speech at Chatham House, because it had been agreed that Stirrup would go but that his departure would be handled in a dignified manner. No 10 was not told about Fox's announcement to the Sunday Times.

The prime minister showed his high regard for Fox's new media minder by sending a message which was read out at his wedding to his childhood sweetheart at the weekend. Allan, a calming and authoritative figure who is respected by journalists, quickly came to the attention of Andy Coulson when the former News of the World editor joined the Tories in 2007. He was rapidly promoted.

Allan will take seriously the advice that was issued to special advisers by Cameron at their first meeting after the general election. The prime minister said that any special adviser who briefed against another department or who briefed against a colleague from another party in the coalition would be sacked.

Downing Street is making clear to other cabinet ministers and their special advisers that their behaviour is being monitored. Leaks, designed to settle private scores with other departments, will not be tolerated.

The naughty step, or worse, awaits any offenders.

Obviously though this has no relevance because a) it was not Labour the ConDem's are nothing to do with the Tory party etc etc etc

Laughable

[drat01]

No, based on them implementing policies for over a decade, then saying how great those policies were at the election and now admitting they were a bag of shite in an attempt to put distance between themselves and the decisions that they made!

Jon - I'm sorry but that comment made me laugh out loud. Considering the praise you now laud on the ConDem's with all of their promises and praise they said about their policies only to now they have become this one entity (is that acceptable?) they can just dismiss the pre-election issues? Were those issues a "bag of shite"? If so how do they now feel about them only days after being elected?

[Richard]

Obviously though this has no relevance because a) it was not Labour the ConDem's are nothing to do with the Tory party etc etc etc

Laughable

Or perhaps c) it has nothing at all to do with the Labour party and its leadership? ie the thread

[kidlewis]

Fox shouldn't have said that, even though he is probably right.

[drat01]

Fox shouldn't have said that, even though he is probably right.

Why shouldn't he have said that KL?

Surely the whole point of the last few posts is about how people within a party say one thing and then mean another. Also how they are "allowed" to have differing views from other factions within a party.

[Reality]

I'm surprised Cameron appointed Fox as Defence Secretary. It is obvious that they haven't been getting along for quite some time.

[tonyh29]

Or perhaps c) it has nothing at all to do with the Labour party and its leadership? ie the thread

this :-)

[LJRM050389]

To get this back on topic I've now decided Ed Milliband; graduate tax, living wage, green and environmentaily friendly, high pay comission and tackiling inequality at the heart off all his policies.