So the Socialists have gone from Mr Bean to Desperate Dan?
Well I don't know about Desperate Dan, but Dan Archer would have been the ideal man I should say. A highly respected ex-military man who, it seems to me, would have won votes in the crucial middle england battlegrounds. However he has ruled himself out. Tristram Hunt is now the only viable candidate on the radar so far in my opinion. I think he could win the next election. But if Labour choose any of the others currently on offer then I think that they're looking at 2025, at the earliest, before they lay their hands on real power again.
The best :D:D But saying that, would he be any worse that the rest of the motley bunch standing at the moment. Like trying to pick a derby winner from a field of lame donkeys.
I don't disagree with either of you. But I would say enjoy it to the max now, because I think the Tories are going to have a very stressful time next year. The new Labour leader may turn out to be their best hope.
you could see in a lot of interviews he got agitated very quickly. His reasons today were quite frankly laughable he's seen a leader's kitchens, eating habits, Family conflict, will arrangements and deeply personal attacks on his father! and he didn't know it would be this bad?
Yes, despite Miliband's many failings he did have a thick skin. He had the self-confidence (or delusion) of someone who is convinced that they are right even if nobody else does.
This looks like a leadership election that nobody wants to win. It is going to be a long 5-year slog in opposition with major internal reforms needed a no better than evens chance of wining in 2020.
Maybe he thought he could cope with the intrusion having seen how Ed Miliband had to deal with it but when it actually came to the reality of it - including the press pack camped not only outside his house but that of his mother, his girlfriend, his girlfriend's parents and that of her 102 year old grandmother - he decided that wasn't actually what he wanted from life at this point
Ed Miliband should've stayed on. He's better than anyone I've seen standing. After 5 years of the Tories the electorate would have realised their mistake and that they shouldn't have blindly followed the Sun and Mail's propaganda and misinformation. Jim Murphy should've resigned instead.
I respect Chuka's decision to change his mins and not stand for office. It must be a very exhausting being pushed further into the spotlight and it seems he didn't want to overtax himself.;-)
If you're not a Labour voter it's disappointing as they'd have lost again with him as Leader.
They clearly realise that if they don't have a strong, LIKEABLE, leader they're going nowhere.
He came across as pompous, arrogant and sneering. Looking down his nose at everyone. Isn't he the one who stalked out of a tv interview because he didn't like what he was being asked? And flung his microphone off? This person would be a good leader? One who throws his toys out the pram if he gets an awkward question.
And then to cover up the real reason he's decided not to stand. Intrusive media coverage of his personal life? You stood down because nobody likes you! Either your own colleagues or the public at large.
Those of us who have in the past sometimes voted Labour and have now changed back are the ones you have to convince. You won't do it with this pompous twit.
I'd like to see one of the women get the leadership. Strong women do well in politics. But all those old fashioned Labour supporters won't want a woman. The Union leaders would be scared to death to have a woman leader! But this is the problem. When you still have cavemen running the show, it's never going to happen.
Labour are going to be in the doldrums for a long time yet.
Ed Miliband should've stayed on. He's better than anyone I've seen standing. After 5 years of the Tories the electorate would have realised their mistake and that they shouldn't have blindly followed the Sun and Mail's propaganda and misinformation. Jim Murphy should've resigned instead.
If you think people vote because they read a certain paper - then this is why Labour do not understand the electorate. People decided a long time ago who they wanted to vote for and the campaigns did nothing to change it. And the polls are misleading because most people won't say who they're voting for. We decide our vote on the performance over the last 5 years.
Labour lost because of a weak leader, the knowledge that Labour would spend, spend, spend and get us right back into debt again, and you had no idea what their policies were. Too wishy washy.
Saying we choose because of a newspaper is ridiculous. We're not idiots. This is why Labour do not understand. The sooner you do the more chance you have of changing our minds.
Labour lost because of a weak leader, the knowledge that Labour would spend, spend, spend and get us right back into debt again, and you had no idea what their policies were.
What knowledge is that then? The fact that they planned to cut spending every year and backed the majority of the Tory cuts? The fact that they wouldn't agree to the Tories 8 billion a year spend on the NHS because it was unaffordable and the Tories couldn't say where the money was coming from?
You had no idea what their policies were?? Why on earth not? They were all in their manifesto. I'm sorry to say buy your post only seems to confirm what I was saying.
Ed Miliband should've stayed on. He's better than anyone I've seen standing. After 5 years of the Tories the electorate would have realised their mistake and that they shouldn't have blindly followed the Sun and Mail's propaganda and misinformation. Jim Murphy should've resigned instead.
And I didn't see Miliband as a Prime Minister. He was too much of a drip. Say what you like about your manifesto - he was never PM material and I think (in my humble opinion bowing down to your superior knowledge of course) this is what scared people off voting for Labour.
A strong leader is paramount. This is why Blair won by a landslide. Despite ending up with egg on his face in the end.
Get your leader right, and your manifesto will speak for itself.
I can and I will. All they did was blather on about SNP scaremongering (a Tory attack line) and potential coalitions instead of talking about the many issues that really matter to people. They bashed poor Ed to a pulp while giving Cameron very little scrutiny for the past 5 years.
And I didn't see Miliband as a Prime Minister. He was too much of a drip. Say what you like about your manifesto - he was never PM material and I think (in my humble opinion bowing down to your superior knowledge of course) this is what scared people off voting for Labour.
A strong leader is paramount. This is why Blair won by a landslide. Despite ending up with egg on his face in the end.
Get your leader right, and your manifesto will speak for itself.
If a strong leader is important then how on earth did Cameron win? Is a strong leader someone who's afraid to debate his record, afraid to stand up to the powerful but happy to constantly pick on the weakest in society?
If a strong leader is important then how on earth did Cameron win? Is a strong leader someone who's afraid to debate his record, afraid to stand up to the powerful but happy to constantly pick on the weakest in society?
Because his opponent was perceived as being even weaker. It's not exactly rocket science this.
I can and I will. All they did was blather on about SNP scaremongering (a Tory attack line) and potential coalitions instead of talking about the many issues that really matter to people. They bashed poor Ed to a pulp while giving Cameron very little scrutiny for the past 5 years.
If Labour believe the media was the main reason for defeat, they'll never win an election again.
It would have been fun to see Chuka as leader of the opposition!
But realistically, Labour are a mess, and the chances of him winning in 5 years were not good.
5 years from now, I wouldn't be surprised to see him leading out the Labour party. 2025 might be Chuka's time!
Miiband never looked like Prime Minister material, I could never see him on the world's stage. Ever more less impressive was Ed Balls as a prospective Chancellor who made so many economic predictions which were so very wrong. When many Labour MPs were shown on TV, even on PMQs they appeared to be not the sharpest tools in the toolbox.
No good blaming newspapers and the media, Labour as a prospective government looked so damn weak and ineffective. To cap it all Miliband went creeping to Russell Brand to garner support, that said it all, if voters had doubts about Miliband's judgement and ability to become PM, (ye gods that shows desperation), that that one act alone would have made their minds up. Added to this was the gimmicky Edstone.
Nobody bashed Miliband and the Labour Party to a pulp they just jumped into the sink and into waste disposal unit, switched it on, and bashed themselves to pulp.
No good blaming the other parties for Labours demise either, if Labour had been any good they could have picked up many votes from them.
I think it's a terrible shame about Chuka, because the first time I ever heard him speak I thought he would be a future leader. He is both intelligent and articulate, with what seemed to be a good TV manner.
If Labour elect a leader by the name of Tristram it's just asking for ridicule.
Comments
Well I don't know about Desperate Dan, but Dan Archer would have been the ideal man I should say. A highly respected ex-military man who, it seems to me, would have won votes in the crucial middle england battlegrounds. However he has ruled himself out. Tristram Hunt is now the only viable candidate on the radar so far in my opinion. I think he could win the next election. But if Labour choose any of the others currently on offer then I think that they're looking at 2025, at the earliest, before they lay their hands on real power again.
I don't disagree with either of you. But I would say enjoy it to the max now, because I think the Tories are going to have a very stressful time next year. The new Labour leader may turn out to be their best hope.
Labour's plight is worse than we thought.
Labour really should make some serious overtures to brother David. I can't think of any else remotely suitable.
Chuka can't
Chuka can't
Chuka can't
Yes, despite Miliband's many failings he did have a thick skin. He had the self-confidence (or delusion) of someone who is convinced that they are right even if nobody else does.
This looks like a leadership election that nobody wants to win. It is going to be a long 5-year slog in opposition with major internal reforms needed a no better than evens chance of wining in 2020.
He was looking like a true survivor, but must have been feeling like a little kid.
They clearly realise that if they don't have a strong, LIKEABLE, leader they're going nowhere.
He came across as pompous, arrogant and sneering. Looking down his nose at everyone. Isn't he the one who stalked out of a tv interview because he didn't like what he was being asked? And flung his microphone off? This person would be a good leader? One who throws his toys out the pram if he gets an awkward question.
And then to cover up the real reason he's decided not to stand. Intrusive media coverage of his personal life? You stood down because nobody likes you! Either your own colleagues or the public at large.
Those of us who have in the past sometimes voted Labour and have now changed back are the ones you have to convince. You won't do it with this pompous twit.
I'd like to see one of the women get the leadership. Strong women do well in politics. But all those old fashioned Labour supporters won't want a woman. The Union leaders would be scared to death to have a woman leader! But this is the problem. When you still have cavemen running the show, it's never going to happen.
Labour are going to be in the doldrums for a long time yet.
If you think people vote because they read a certain paper - then this is why Labour do not understand the electorate. People decided a long time ago who they wanted to vote for and the campaigns did nothing to change it. And the polls are misleading because most people won't say who they're voting for. We decide our vote on the performance over the last 5 years.
Labour lost because of a weak leader, the knowledge that Labour would spend, spend, spend and get us right back into debt again, and you had no idea what their policies were. Too wishy washy.
Saying we choose because of a newspaper is ridiculous. We're not idiots. This is why Labour do not understand. The sooner you do the more chance you have of changing our minds.
Don't listen (again) at your peril.
What knowledge is that then? The fact that they planned to cut spending every year and backed the majority of the Tory cuts? The fact that they wouldn't agree to the Tories 8 billion a year spend on the NHS because it was unaffordable and the Tories couldn't say where the money was coming from?
You had no idea what their policies were?? Why on earth not? They were all in their manifesto. I'm sorry to say buy your post only seems to confirm what I was saying.
He was rubbish.
You can't blame the media for Labour losing
And I didn't see Miliband as a Prime Minister. He was too much of a drip. Say what you like about your manifesto - he was never PM material and I think (in my humble opinion bowing down to your superior knowledge of course) this is what scared people off voting for Labour.
A strong leader is paramount. This is why Blair won by a landslide. Despite ending up with egg on his face in the end.
Get your leader right, and your manifesto will speak for itself.
I can and I will. All they did was blather on about SNP scaremongering (a Tory attack line) and potential coalitions instead of talking about the many issues that really matter to people. They bashed poor Ed to a pulp while giving Cameron very little scrutiny for the past 5 years.
If a strong leader is important then how on earth did Cameron win? Is a strong leader someone who's afraid to debate his record, afraid to stand up to the powerful but happy to constantly pick on the weakest in society?
Because his opponent was perceived as being even weaker. It's not exactly rocket science this.
If Labour believe the media was the main reason for defeat, they'll never win an election again.
Burying heads in the sand
1) It's never our fault.
No good blaming newspapers and the media, Labour as a prospective government looked so damn weak and ineffective. To cap it all Miliband went creeping to Russell Brand to garner support, that said it all, if voters had doubts about Miliband's judgement and ability to become PM, (ye gods that shows desperation), that that one act alone would have made their minds up. Added to this was the gimmicky Edstone.
Nobody bashed Miliband and the Labour Party to a pulp they just jumped into the sink and into waste disposal unit, switched it on, and bashed themselves to pulp.
No good blaming the other parties for Labours demise either, if Labour had been any good they could have picked up many votes from them.
If Labour elect a leader by the name of Tristram it's just asking for ridicule.