why do the Labour rebels want Alan Johnson to take over?
Johnson seems a nice guy, but he is hardly party leader or potential PM material. When he was made shadow chancellor he admitted hinself he really struggled with it and he never looked convincing or comfortable.
The rebels are right to want to get rid of soon to be Dead Ed, but they need to find a better horse to pin their hopes on
The rebels are right to want to get rid of soon to be Dead Ed, but they need to find a better horse to pin their hopes on
0
Comments
He seemed to be doing ok as Home Secretary though but he wasn't in that job long enough before the 2010 election for us to fully judge him. In any case he is not the answer. He has said loads of times he doesn't want the job and its obvious that he's had his fill of front line politics and has lost any oomph that he had, if he ever had any oomph in the first place as he's always seemed very laid back to me.
Saying that, he's not 'the one'. I'm not sure who is. People always talk about Yvette Cooper, but I've never seen enough of her. Burnham.. maybe four years ago. I really don't know. I'd quite like it to be a random backbencher I've never heard of who'll wield the broom and get rid of the 'well known' Brownites & Blairites and bring a whole load of fresh new faces in.
Plus
He's not Milliband.
He didn't come to power by fratricide.
He's not left wing. Voters outside central London, south of Watford may vote for him.
He is credibly working class - which helps with UKIP too.
He's one of the old, credible looking , guard - and the only one who hasn't given up.
He's not tainted by 2008's debacle.
He's not obviously naive, indecisive and irresponsible.
But can sup a pint like Farage?
So right. The ineffective Johnson would not last 12 months before one of the Young Turks jumped. However a better marketable proposition than Harman and the narcistic Chuka.
Mr Ed
Shergar.
Joking apart looking around their front bench there just is not anyone who looks capable or even has the skills or willing to take this role on. I see no horses only three-legged mules.
I don't understand this idea that David had a greater "right" to the leadership than his brother. Can anyone explain?
I do not believe they can they just use it as a stick to beat him with.
After all if two brothers were to work say in a supermarket and they both went for a promotion opportunity, and one brother was to get it and not the other would the firm go into long term warfare i wonder.?
The sad thing is that Labour are playing their game and rather than coming out fighting and making their policies centre stage they are trying to replace them.
The press are hounding him in the same way that sports journalists hound managers out of a job. It is shocking and shameful that instead of scrutinising the parties policies they are playing this cheap and cynical money-making scam.
Very true, and very well put.
I can remember every Labour leader since Harold Wilson, and the only ones I can't recall the entire press trying to undermine are John Smith and Blair.
Did you not remember the mauling John Major and IDS got by the press when leader? Cameron is regularly mauled by large parts of the press as well. This 'blame the media' paranoia is just selective outrage.
Because they never wanted him as leader. Ever since new Labour old guard like Reid, Presecott, Blunkett etc started slagging Miliband off I thought there was a plot to get rid of him, and so it seems.
I honestly think old AJ would shock the lot of them and have them purged from the party faster than a Lib Dem drops an election pledge for a sniff of power.
It's always the ones you don't expect and I reckon AJ has been around long enough to see a back stabbing coming a mile away.
That might be because they thought he was immature, and not up to the job , and his policies were unworkable, would lose votes and were ones they opposed? Given they had worked alongside him, knew what it took to do the job, and knew the ins and outs of policies themselves , they might well be in a position to know?
So its all hearsay.
Until they come into the open and say xyz.
Fair election. It was totally rigged. Look at this page - the figures are from the Labour Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2010
Note the map - how much is green - those are the DM votes, and the blue are the EM votes. Look at the voting in the final round. All the real Labour people who voted showed a preference for DM. The only area that didn't and swung the final vote to EM, was the Union block vote - and some unions had broken the rules in telling its members who they ought to vote for in the election communication.
It is totally unsurprising so many people still feel DM had the right to have been leader, and that EM is a puppet.
Are they and do they? I don't suppose you might have some names of these "rebels" to hand? only perhaps if you do you might like to let the media know, because they seem to be really having a problem coming up with any, such a same when one considers the number of Tory rebels who actually DO have names.