Who will be the new Labour leader?

[johnxjsc1985]

MGJohn said:

Could not have put all that better myself. I bet Ed M. is still breathing big sighs ... of relief.

Now all eyes should focus closely on Dave and how he shapes up to the massive challenges which this Nation faced before the GE and most certainly will have to long after it. No mean task.

It also shows the fact that Labour can only muster a few mediocre candidates this Country dodged a deadly bullet had Labour formed a Government.Sends a shiver down the spine to consider what might have been

[BlackLabel]

Kermit power said:

"I've just joined The Labour Party! Will you join too?" So goes their desired Twitter tag, anyway....

If everyone on PH joined the Labour Party, would that give us enough votes to choose the next leader? We could then decide to decline Ed Milliband's resignation, vote him back in and watch the same slow motion train reck all over again for the next five years!

In the United States where some states have open primaries it's not uncommon for supporters of one party to vote for who they perceive to be the weakest candidate from the other party.

[Johnnytheboy]

BlackLabel said:

In the United States where some states have open primaries it's not uncommon for supporters of one party to vote for who they perceive to be the weakest candidate from the other party.

That's always struck me as the obvious risk. I sure as hell would do that.

[deadslow]

bhstewie said:

MarshPhantom said:

Probably happens in private.

No doubt a lot of stuff happens in private.

The point is that it would happen in private with any party.

McClucky going on prime time TV with a list of demands seems a bit too much like political interference or undue influence or whatever you may want to call it.

it seems fairly obvious he's been told to fk off with his demands behind the scenes and has launched a misjudged public campaign.

[anonymous-user]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/an...

They're going to cock this up again

[Vaud]

I think it is a shame that Labour have allowed themselves to become controlled by the unions in a modern industrial world.

Sure, they should be champion of the worker - but there is more to worker protection than unionisation. For example... ee rarely hear them talking about focusing on workers councils in companies (i.e. not cross sector), etc which can equally powerful in protecting workers but hold less of a "block control".

I'm right of centre, but I also know some companies take the piss on workers rights, and some representation and protections are critical.

I guess my point is it doesn't have to be "union power" or "weaken union power" - it could be "no more unions, but better worker protection enshrined in law and workers councils holding a position on the board"

[Johnnytheboy]

Vaud said:

I think it is a shame that Labour have allowed themselves to become controlled by the unions in a modern industrial world.

Sure, they should be champion of the worker - but there is more to worker protection than unionisation. For example... ee rarely hear them talking about focusing on workers councils in companies (i.e. not cross sector), etc which can equally powerful in protecting workers but hold less of a "block control".

Labour were always the party of the unions - that's where they are from. Unfortunately the world has changed and this relationship hasn't.

Unionised labour is a long way from the bottom of the socio-economic pile and yet Labour would always do what was best by their client state: trade unions, public sector workers and benefit recipients, in preference to society at large.

It took the other two main parties to raise the personal allowance, which is a wonderfully non-partisan way to improve the lot of the low paid across the board. Curious really, and says it all.

[anonymous-user]

Symbolica said:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/an...

They're going to cock this up again

It's like suicide by 1000 cuts.

[edh]

Johnnytheboy said:

It took the other two main parties to raise the personal allowance, which is a wonderfully non-partisan way to improve the lot of the low paid across the board. Curious really, and says it all.

It is very poorly targeted if it is intended just to help the low paid.
It does nothing to help the lowest paid, below the personal allowance threshold, and its benefits accrue mainly to middle earners. It's a very expensive way of trying to "improve the lot of the low paid"

The money could have been much better spent. NI reform for one. Incentives for companies who paid the living wage another.

Labour introduced the NMW - a specific measure to improve the lot of the low paid.

[robinessex]

Vaud said:

I think it is a shame that Labour have allowed themselves to become controlled by the unions in a modern industrial world.

Sure, they should be champion of the worker - but there is more to worker protection than unionisation. For example... ee rarely hear them talking about focusing on workers councils in companies (i.e. not cross sector), etc which can equally powerful in protecting workers but hold less of a "block control".

I'm right of centre, but I also know some companies take the piss on workers rights, and some representation and protections are critical.

I guess my point is it doesn't have to be "union power" or "weaken union power" - it could be "no more unions, but better worker protection enshrined in law and workers councils holding a position on the board"

I think it's a shame that the Conservatives allow themselves to be bought by those with to much money stuffed in their pockets. Cough up enough cash, and you can have Sunday dinner with the PM. Of course, nothing of beneficial interest to the donator will be discussed, will it. And I suggest those who criticise Labour, go look at its history, and see where it came from. At least it's honest.

[MGJohn]

robinessex said:

Vaud said:

I think it is a shame that Labour have allowed themselves to become controlled by the unions in a modern industrial world.

Sure, they should be champion of the worker - but there is more to worker protection than unionisation. For example... ee rarely hear them talking about focusing on workers councils in companies (i.e. not cross sector), etc which can equally powerful in protecting workers but hold less of a "block control".

I'm right of centre, but I also know some companies take the piss on workers rights, and some representation and protections are critical.

I guess my point is it doesn't have to be "union power" or "weaken union power" - it could be "no more unions, but better worker protection enshrined in law and workers councils holding a position on the board"

I think it's a shame that the Conservatives allow themselves to be bought by those with to much money stuffed in their pockets. Cough up enough cash, and you can have Sunday dinner with the PM. Of course, nothing of beneficial interest to the donator will be discussed, will it. And I suggest those who criticise Labour, go look at its history, and see where it came from. At least it's honest.

What! The Tory party have benefactors who will directly benefit from so being. Who knew?

[Cheese Mechanic]

garyhun said:

Symbolica said:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/an...

They're going to cock this up again

It's like suicide by 1000 cuts.

Hugely amusing,total fking idiots. Just think, these people could have lied their way into running the country. Frightening.

Anyhow, whats all the speculation, The labour "Party" already has a leader, Len Mc Clusky.

The true picture of the wrecker party, chain mail outside the velvet glove they like to con people with.

[AstonZagato]

robinessex said:

Vaud said:

I think it is a shame that Labour have allowed themselves to become controlled by the unions in a modern industrial world.

Sure, they should be champion of the worker - but there is more to worker protection than unionisation. For example... ee rarely hear them talking about focusing on workers councils in companies (i.e. not cross sector), etc which can equally powerful in protecting workers but hold less of a "block control".

I'm right of centre, but I also know some companies take the piss on workers rights, and some representation and protections are critical.

I guess my point is it doesn't have to be "union power" or "weaken union power" - it could be "no more unions, but better worker protection enshrined in law and workers councils holding a position on the board"

I think it's a shame that the Conservatives allow themselves to be bought by those with to much money stuffed in their pockets. Cough up enough cash, and you can have Sunday dinner with the PM. Of course, nothing of beneficial interest to the donator will be discussed, will it. And I suggest those who criticise Labour, go look at its history, and see where it came from. At least it's honest.

Labour is no cleaner. Dinner with Tony Blair was also buyable. Google cash for honours. Money buys influence.

[turbobloke]

"Labour...at least it's honest"

I've forgotten what the going rate was for a 2007 plate K or a 2007 plate P and those references may or may not have anything to do with Kia or Peugeot. Nothing came out of it in the end iirc - amazingly. Lots of head scratching!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553439/Hon...

Then there's the other side of Labour honesty, illustrated by McPoison.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2426071/Po...

[ellroy]

robinessex said:

At least it's honest.

You don't spell hypocritical like that.

[Vaud]

robinessex said:

I think it's a shame that the Conservatives allow themselves to be bought by those with to much money stuffed in their pockets. Cough up enough cash, and you can have Sunday dinner with the PM. Of course, nothing of beneficial interest to the donator will be discussed, will it. And I suggest those who criticise Labour, go look at its history, and see where it came from. At least it's honest.

I think it's a shame all parties allow themselves to be bought.

My point was you could have a strong centre left party truly representing workers without the unions, and ways of supporting workers that would strengthen individuals rights (whilst reducing union power). Why should you need to join a Union to be well represented in your interests while working?

At the top they are as bad as the tories - look at Bob Crowe (RIP) - at his peak earning £96k+ but living in a council house and paying below market rent.

[BlackLabel]

turbobloke said:

"Labour...at least it's honest"

I've forgotten what the going rate was for a 2007 plate K or a 2007 plate P and those references may or may not have anything to do with Kia or Peugeot. Nothing came out of it in the end iirc - amazingly. Lots of head scratching!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553439/Hon...

Then there's the other side of Labour honesty, illustrated by McPoison.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2426071/Po...

And then there is the Right Honourable Keith Vaz, the ultimate teflon politician.

[Johnnytheboy]

edh said:

Labour introduced the NMW - a specific measure to improve the lot of the low paid.

Then taxed them on it.

[AAGR]

I give you just one more debating point about the suitability of any Labour Party leader hopeful. As a Prime Minister, consider the incongruity of him /her going to see the Queen every week ? Andy Burnham talking a foreign language (Scouse ....), Yvette Cooper simpering or - well, it's worth considering - Len McClusky with his usual unshaven face. HM would have to wear her most diplomatic smile in every case ....

Edited by AAGR on Tuesday 19th May 10:26

[Timmy40]

AstonZagato said:

Labour is no cleaner. Dinner with Tony Blair was also buyable. Google cash for honours. Money buys influence.

Bloody hell no, Labour did stuff the Cons would have been crucified by the BBC for, Prescott having a load of cheap flats in the Shard after he overturned the refusal of PP for it being just one example.