[arista]

This should have all be ready
just in case.



They keep saying today they are going to learn what went wrong and take a long time?
Feck Me!
we had that in 2010
then after a long ,long time the Unions to put up Ed
who failed but at least resigned today

[Christmas Dynasnow]

its going to be a long drawn out process

[Kizzy]

I say Rachael Reeves.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I say Rachael Reeves.

Yes you have met her.


I though you would go for Tougher
Ed Balls Wife

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I say Rachael Reeves.

No the Unions removed her

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

No the Unions removed her

What utter rubbish, Rachel is due to give birth to a new baby in June, that is one of the reasons she didn't put her name forward.
It would have been time consuming enough coping with a govt; department let alone the campaigning and endless attention and speeches she would have to give running for leader.

Miliband changed the Union rules on voting for the leader now too so that there is no block vote now in election of the Labour leader,
Your hate of Labour is badly clouding your judgement.

Rachel would have been a great leader in my view, however I can fully understand her putting her family first, especially as to a new baby too.
Being a govt; Minister, had Labour won, would have been far easier to cope with with a team behind her, than running for leader then becoming leader.

You were actually aware Rachel was heavily pregnant weren't you.

[arista]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

What utter rubbish, Rachel is due to give birth to a new baby in June, that is one of the reasons she didn't put her name forward.
It would have been time consuming enough coping with a govt; department let alone the campaigning and endless attention and speeches she would have to give running for leader.

Miliband changed the Union rules on voting for the leader now too so that there is no block vote now in election of the Labour leader,
Your hate of Labour is badly clouding your judgement.

Rachel would have been a great leader in my view, however I can fully understand her putting her family first, especially as to a new baby too.
Being a govt; Minister, had Labour won, would have been far easier to cope with with a team behind her, than running for leader then becoming leader.

You were actually aware Rachel was heavily pregnant weren't you.

Yes they did
But the Unions are still in charge of picking the next leader
they invest in Labour

Deal With that.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes they did
But the Unions are still in charge of picking the next leader
they invest in Labour

Deal With that.

No they didn't,I disagree completely.
Also the Unions should have a say who is leader, there would never have been a Labour party without the trade unions.

They only have a say, they don't now control who is, and even so, while it is true they helped Ed Miliband win last time with the block vote, he gave the Unions very little of what they hoped for anyway.

Of course they invest in Labour,just as really big business invests in the Conservative party too.
Would you actually rather parties were funded by the taxpayer, because that is the only real alternative as to how things are now.

When big business is stopped from donating to the Conservative party, then it would be fair to criticise the Unions for doing so as to Labour too.

[Denver]

Chuka Umunna please

[bots]

Yes, labour should already have picked a new leader, what's taking all this time

[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Yes, labour should already have picked a new leader, what's taking all this time

There is a Union Block Vote
that slows it all down.

[MB.]

Yes, because UKIP aren't waiting until September or anything.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by MB.

Yes, because UKIP aren't waiting until September or anything.

ukip have one seat

[In the Drunk Tank]

No hurry

[arista]

Originally Posted by MTVN

No hurry

I am not saying rush it.
This topic was brought up on the news

But you must admit Labour take to long

[Christmas Dynasnow]

The reality is there is no one and no one on the horizon

[joeysteele]

No party in my view should have a leader in waiting, Harriett Harman can do fine until such time as the election process is done.
People need to hear what the candidates visions are for the party and have time to decide and more to the point quiz them heavily too.

Amazed to see arista say Labour should have a leader ready to take over,the last one they did that with was Gordon Brown and you condemned that transfer of leadership massively.

Rachel Reeves would be a really good choice,I agree with Kizzy on that one, I like Chukka too, Andy Burnham is also a contender I would have thought,he can relate to voters and the party as a whole.
However, I want to see who throws their hat into the ring this time, and really the party needs to consider very carefully the choices.

This is perhaps one of the most important decisions for Labour to make now,they sadly got it wrong last time, this time it has to be as near totally right as possible.
Someone who can relate to and reach out to Scotland is vital and also Wales, the Conservatives had a rather good night there last night.

[Candy Annie Cane]

I think it will be Andy Burnham.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I think it will be Andy Burnham.

I like Andy, he is really genuine.

He was a good way behind last time however coming 4th but then he was up against the Miliband Brothers.

By the way AnnieK,thank you very much for your kind words on that other thread,it was really nice of you to say it.

[bots]

Speaking seriously now, labour should go for someone with a good presence who can communicate flawlessly. Its going to be all new next time around, so experience etc will be irrelevant.

I think all the names mentioned have history, and that's never a good thing. Start with a clean slate, and focus on policies that engage a larger cross section of the electorate and labour will be in a much better position to engage in a federal UK. They will of course need someone for Scotland too - good luck with that

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Speaking seriously now, labour should go for someone with a good presence who can communicate flawlessly. Its going to be all new next time around, so experience etc will be irrelevant.

I think all the names mentioned have history, and that's never a good thing. Start with a clean slate, and focus on policies that engage a larger cross section of the electorate and labour will be in a much better position to engage in a federal UK. They will of course need someone for Scotland too - good luck with that

Agreed; prospects are about showmanship and media presence these days and little to do with policy. I actually fully believe that a confident, charming and physically attractive labour leader would have walked this election.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Speaking seriously now, labour should go for someone with a good presence who can communicate flawlessly. Its going to be all new next time around, so experience etc will be irrelevant.

I think all the names mentioned have history, and that's never a good thing. Start with a clean slate, and focus on policies that engage a larger cross section of the electorate and labour will be in a much better position to engage in a federal UK. They will of course need someone for Scotland too - good luck with that

I agree - they should recruit Farage.

[Candy Annie Cane]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I like Andy, he is really genuine.

He was a good way behind last time however coming 4th but then he was up against the Miliband Brothers.

By the way AnnieK,thank you very much for your kind words on that other thread,it was really nice of you to say it.

You're more than welcome Joey....absolutely meant every word.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

david miliband

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

david miliband

I think he's doing rather well for himself. Perhaps Ed could ask him for a job!