Who will be the new Labour leader?

Who will be the new Labour leader?

Poll: Who will be the new Labour leader?

Total Members Polled: 378

David Miliband: 7%
Dan Jarvis: 8%
Chuka Umunna: 22%
Andy Burnham: 21%
Harriet Harman: 7%
Jim Murphy: 2%
An other: 33%
Author
Discussion

98elise

26,366 posts

160 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
RYH64E said:
turbobloke said:
Tough, he should live in something he can afford and not expect handouts. He sounds like a Labour supporter.
An MPs salary of £67k isn't enough to fund a house in London and a constituency home, the alternatives to the current system are a) A significant increase in pay to cover the costs of a second, London house, or b) Only rich people should become MPs. Which would you prefer?
Neither of the above. Curiously the option you missed was c) live in a flat he can afford - sell up (at a profit) and rent if needs be rather than milk the taxpayer for what you describe as a general 'house in London' that he cannot afford. He can easily afford to rent at £67k when the median inner London salary according to ONS is significantly below his income level.

Never forget the Nolan Sisters Principles of Public Life & Service.
How many of those median inner London workers also have to fund a house elsewhere?

67k is a relatively low salary for the responsibilities they have. This is why we end up with career politicians, from a wealthy background, regardless of their political colour.

Anyone with the actual talent to do a decent job is working their way up the corporate ladder.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Neither of the above. Curiously the option you missed was c) live in a flat he can afford - sell up (at a profit) and rent if needs be rather than milk the taxpayer for what you describe as a general 'house in London' that he cannot afford. He can easily afford to rent at £67k when the median inner London salary according to ONS is significantly below his income level.

Never forget the Nolan Sisters Principles of Public Life & Service.
When you say that he can easily afford to rent in London on a salary of £67k you are conveniently overlooking the fact that that the £67k also has to fund the family home, the London house is a second house.

If I use my personal car in the course of my employment I claim mileage, if I travel away from home I claim for accomodation, why should MPs have to use their personal assets without reimbursement?


turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
turbobloke said:
Neither of the above. Curiously the option you missed was c) live in a flat he can afford - sell up (at a profit) and rent if needs be rather than milk the taxpayer for what you describe as a general 'house in London' that he cannot afford. He can easily afford to rent at £67k when the median inner London salary according to ONS is significantly below his income level.

Never forget the Nolan Sisters Principles of Public Life & Service.
When you say that he can easily afford to rent in London on a salary of £67k you are conveniently overlooking the fact that that the £67k also has to fund the family home, the London house is a second house.
The median gross inner London salary is £34.5k according to ONS at December 2014 so he can use that amount of income or indeed a bit more to rent a small flat in London, and put the rest towards his Wigan abode or wherever his other house is. Living within your means applies to MPs, or at least it should.

RYH64E said:
If I use my personal car in the course of my employment I claim mileage, if I travel away from home I claim for accomodation, why should MPs have to use their personal assets without reimbursement?
However you're not working in public service as far as can be discerned - please advise if that's incorrect - whereas Burnham is, so the Nolan Principles don't apply to you or anyone else in a position outside public life and service.

8Ace

2,681 posts

197 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
The issue is that Labour will probably go through a very earnest process and elect the leader they think is the best. This looks like being Andy Burnham which I don't think anyone can realsitically envisage running the country. AB is tainted by his previous roles and appearing to be the union candidate will not endear him to the swing voters that the party desperately needs.

In my view, Labour really needs to elect the person that the Tories would LEAST like to deal with. This would be Liz Kendall. She;s untainted by the pestilent mess that was the last Labour government, she was distant from Ed, she comes across reasonably well and, being female, would beless likely to endure some of the more personal vitriol that got poured all over Miliband.

Burnham woudl be too easy todela with but I can imagine Lizzy getting some real momentum if she started while the Tories worked out how to deal with her.

cirian75

4,245 posts

232 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
Yes, needs to be all change at the top, non of the blair/brown/millipead crew.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
However you're not working in public service as far as can be discerned - please advise if that's incorrect - whereas Burnham is, so the Nolan Principles don't apply to you or anyone else in a position outside public life and service.
As I've said, under your scheme only the independently wealthy would choose to become an MP. Or maybe you'd like to see a means tested scheme whereby anyone with private assets is barred from claiming expenses whilst the proletariat fill their boots? That would be in line with current socialist thinking...

There's a scheme in place to reimburse justifiable expenditure, Burnham is claiming in accordance with the terms and conditions that apply to his role as MP, I don't see what he's doing wrong.

NoNeed

15,137 posts

199 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
8Ace said:
The issue is that Labour will probably go through a very earnest process and elect the leader they think is the best. This looks like being Andy Burnham which I don't think anyone can realsitically envisage running the country. AB is tainted by his previous roles and appearing to be the union candidate will not endear him to the swing voters that the party desperately needs.

In my view, Labour really needs to elect the person that the Tories would LEAST like to deal with. This would be Liz Kendall. She;s untainted by the pestilent mess that was the last Labour government, she was distant from Ed, she comes across reasonably well and, being female, would beless likely to endure some of the more personal vitriol that got poured all over Miliband.

Burnham woudl be too easy todela with but I can imagine Lizzy getting some real momentum if she started while the Tories worked out how to deal with her.
She would still represent "more of the same" for the party though, they all (labour candidates) seem to have joined a left wing debating club at uni because the tories didn't want them.

I don't see a great leader in the party, in fact I see very few competent politicians so I think they should go back to their roots and elect a working bloke, somebody who has been a shop steward but talks sense like Alan Johnson. I know he said he didn't want it but the point is the party has quite a few Alans to choose from just under the university surface if it dares to look at its roots.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
turbobloke said:
However you're not working in public service as far as can be discerned - please advise if that's incorrect - whereas Burnham is, so the Nolan Principles don't apply to you or anyone else in a position outside public life and service.
As I've said, under your scheme only the independently wealthy would choose to become an MP.
That's patently not so, £67k is more than enough to rent in London and pay off a semi in Wigan.

RYH64E said:
There's a scheme in place to reimburse justifiable expenditure, Burnham is claiming in accordance with the terms and conditions that apply to his role as MP, I don't see what he's doing wrong.
According to parliamentary regulations, nothing, according to the higher and more appropriate standards manifest in the Nolan Principles he's just another trougher...all as per my post yesterday or the day before.

MarshPhantom

9,658 posts

136 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
8Ace said:
Less likely to endure some of the more personal vitriol that got poured all over Miliband.

I wouldn't count on that, The Times are already calling her the "The Blair Witch" . Charming.

They're obviously scared.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
MarshPhantom said:
8Ace said:
Less likely to endure some of the more personal vitriol that got poured all over Miliband.

I wouldn't count on that, The Times are already calling her the "The Blair Witch" . Charming.

They're obviously scared.
Obviously, and with good reason.

Having a nobody in charge of a shredded Party bimbling around in the wilderness is terrifying.

Justayellowbadge

37,057 posts

241 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
MarshPhantom said:
I wouldn't count on that, The Times are already calling her the "The Blair Witch" . Charming.

They're obviously scared.
The Times is?

Or they have reported that someone else has?

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
They should just build a big block of flats so when somebody is elected and needs one they get it for the time they are in office.
THis sounds like the best option.

Cheese Mechanic

3,157 posts

168 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
8Ace said:
y well and, being female, would beless likely to endure some of the more personal vitriol that got poured all over Miliband.
You have to be kidding, being a deluded tt is not dependent on gender. So she will be treated accordingly.

Johnnytheboy

24,498 posts

185 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
8Ace said:
...being female, would be less likely to endure some of the more personal vitriol that got poured all over Miliband.
Well, it seemed to work for Margaret Thatcher rofl

cirian75

4,245 posts

232 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
Halb said:
NoNeed said:
They should just build a big block of flats so when somebody is elected and needs one they get it for the time they are in office.
This sounds like the best option.
Long thought that

say 100 capacity apartment blocks x6 complex, high standard of course.

Leaders, Minsters and shadows get houses that are state property.

Its a one time expense, the complex will require police security though.

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
Cheese Mechanic said:
8Ace said:
y well and, being female, would beless likely to endure some of the more personal vitriol that got poured all over Miliband.
You have to be kidding, being a deluded tt is not dependent on gender. So she will be treated accordingly.
It will make PMQs a bit more trickier for Dave. Don't forget the ott reaction to the 'calm down dear' comment a few years back. I don't think the PM would directly attack, on a personal level, a woman leader of the opposition in the same way he attacked and mocked Ed.


The Hypno-Toad

12,248 posts

204 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
This quote is telling...


It came as Harriet Harman, the acting Labour leader, said the race to find Ed Miliband's permanent replacement must not be a 'stitch-up'.
'There is absolutely not going to be a stitch-up by the unions in this election,' Ms Harman said.
'We've got a completely different election system than we've had previously.'


This from a woman that said it wasn't a stitch up and that he hadn@t stabbed his brother in the back.
Yes but to give her due, she is the biggest hypocrite in the entire HoC and has demonstrated time and again that she will do or say absolutely anything she can to keep her hand somewhere near the tiller of power.

A truly horrible human being.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
8Ace said:
y well and, being female, would beless likely to endure some of the more personal vitriol that got poured all over Miliband.
You have to be kidding, being a deluded tt is not dependent on gender. So she will be treated accordingly.
It will make PMQs a bit more trickier for Dave. Don't forget the ott reaction to the 'calm down dear' comment a few years back. I don't think the PM would directly attack, on a personal level, a woman leader of the opposition in the same way he attacked and mocked Ed.
Understood, but so much for equality! The very people who supposedly (and rightly) speak out so firmly for equality are still patting the poor ickle wimmins on the head. It'd be far better if the level of debate rose all-round, but if PMQs are going to remain 'robust' then it shouldn't matter whether a person has a Y chromosome or not.

8Ace

2,681 posts

197 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
8Ace said:
y well and, being female, would beless likely to endure some of the more personal vitriol that got poured all over Miliband.
You have to be kidding, being a deluded tt is not dependent on gender. So she will be treated accordingly.
It will make PMQs a bit more trickier for Dave. Don't forget the ott reaction to the 'calm down dear' comment a few years back. I don't think the PM would directly attack, on a personal level, a woman leader of the opposition in the same way he attacked and mocked Ed.
Yes, this was the point I was trying to make. Things have moved on a little since Thatch was around.

Justayellowbadge

37,057 posts

241 months

Tuesday 26th May 2015
quotequote all
The Hypno-Toad said:
Yes but to give her due, she is the biggest hypocrite in the entire HoC and has demonstrated time and again that she will do or say absolutely anything she can to keep her hand somewhere near the tiller of power.

A truly horrible human being.
Methinks the toad doth protest too much.

I think you lurve her. You want her. You want to do kissy squelchy stuff to her lady bits, don't you?