[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.