Options
Milliband should be Dumped?
According to the London Evening Standard anyway, editorial in June.
Ed Miliband suffered a major blow today as an exclusive poll found nearly half the public think Labour should ditch him as party leader before the election.
Some 49 per cent think he should be replaced - including 43 per cent of Labour supporters, Ipsos MORI researchers found.
That compares with 44 per cent who think Nick Clegg should be dumped as Liberal Democrat leader and just 27 per cent who think the Tories should get rid of David Cameron.
Alarmingly for Labour, the percentage of voters who think Mr Miliband is “ready to be Prime Minister” has gone down slightly rather than up in the past year - from 24 to 22 per cent.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-should-be-replaced-as-labour-leader-before-election-say-half-the-public-in-poll-9545573.html
Ed Miliband suffered a major blow today as an exclusive poll found nearly half the public think Labour should ditch him as party leader before the election.
Some 49 per cent think he should be replaced - including 43 per cent of Labour supporters, Ipsos MORI researchers found.
That compares with 44 per cent who think Nick Clegg should be dumped as Liberal Democrat leader and just 27 per cent who think the Tories should get rid of David Cameron.
Alarmingly for Labour, the percentage of voters who think Mr Miliband is “ready to be Prime Minister” has gone down slightly rather than up in the past year - from 24 to 22 per cent.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-should-be-replaced-as-labour-leader-before-election-say-half-the-public-in-poll-9545573.html
0
Comments
I don't want anyone else representing labour in the debates.
Of course, he should. Yogi Bear has got a better chance of getting Labour elected. But the dilemma faced by Labour is that if they replace him now with just over ten months to go before the election it will look bloody daft. And even if they did, they new leader wouldn't have long enough to try to turn the ship around and would probably be tarnished by failure in the election and get off to an undeserved bad start.
Then there's the question of talent: Miliband, Balls, Harman etc are the old brigade and need to make way for younger, fresher people. But who are those people? And what are their ideas? The public doesn't know, and they would need several years to acquaint the voters with themselves.
I also think it is high time Labour did what the SDP did in Germany decades ago, which is to transform itself into a centre-left social democratic party. It could even do with a name change. The party was forged in the days of heavy industry, pre the welfare state, typified by Andy Capp, factories fortnights and the rest, and a much more stratified society in which there was hardly any social mobility.
Now, in 2014, the whole landscape has changed and spurious claims to 'representing the working man' sound at best phoney, at worst laughable. I believe Labour (or whatever new name it comes up with) should become a party to represent all, from all classes and backgrounds and ethnicities, who feel themselves centre-left or left.
As usual, of course, elections aren't really decided on 'policy' but more along the lines of Buggins' Turn. So Labour must stick with Miliband for the while until they lose in May 2015, then a true root and branch re-organisation can be undertaken and Miliband can f*ck off to some academic sinecure where he might be taken a little more seriously.
What? What planet to you live on? Just watched Balls on Newsnight (on iPlayer) and he and Miliband have substantially lost the plot. The voters doesn't want policy group jargon thrown at them which is all either is capable of. The voter wants to be spoken to in ordinary language and to be taken seriously.
Yes, at the exit where all the losers hang out who couldn't score at the party and pretend it's not that important anyway.
What, you really want to end up looking really stupid next May?
If you wanted Labour to lose the next election - who would you want in charge?
The two Eds are like a comedy duo we just cannot afford to lose them, one day in the distance future they may find their plot on Planet Jog where the Ublijubilies dance naked around trees in the light of the moon.
There was never any need for Labour to become Tory lite! Blair the panicker decided to do it A, because he is a Tory and B because is panicks so much. Labour were on course to win the 1997 General Election under John Smith so no it was not all down to Tony Blair and those extra extra 97 intake's of Labour MP's failed to realise that.
If people are so shallow that they'd rather vote on who's face fits rather than on policies then more fool them. Even more so if they have been suffering from the Tory's economic policies!
Ed Miliband at a guess, or maybe Ed Balls.
Now that's a toughie, let me see, if I wanted Labour to fail next year who would I choose to lead them?
Well, probably someone with a track record of failure when it comes to general elections, someone we know has already disastrously failed to gain a working majority in spite of most polls having him and his party on course for an easy victory.
someone who has a record of embarrassing the entire nation on the world and European stage.
It would also be good if he could be trusted to create the most divided society this country has ever known, getting neighbour to be suspicious of neighbour etc,
he could also embark on a campaign of blatant social cleansing, driving the poorest out of London,
perhaps also attacking and punishing the victims of the global economic crash, at the same time as convincing the herd that this is 'fair' because they are the people responsible for it, and if we could somehow 'get rid' of the "scroungermensch" then 'us decent folk' would have the lives we so rightfully deserve.
While at the same time being relied on to reward those who actually played a part in causing the global economic crash too.
OOPS almost forgot about U turns,
Perhaps a party leader known for hold the record for U turns, dithering and broken promises, would also be an advantage when choosing a leader if the intention was to deliberately fail, after all it would make sense to select someone used to failure.
I have someone in mind who is perfect for the job, but he plays for the other team, but I think he may be on the market as a free transfer this time next year.
Bet you can guess who, ..... Hint, there is a 'C' in his name.
there's no 'C' in Gordon Brown. the man who never won an election.
perhaps you should change your username to OFFTOPICGUY.:D The thread is about milliband. and yes, i think he is doing a 'cracking job'.;-)
i find this funny. we are discussing miliband. or trying to.
He lives on Planet Tory. ;-):D
Completely agree. Miliband loses, Labour forced to sort themselves out, Tories get wafer-thin majority, LDs get their release, UKIP get the snip, Cameron gets shafted by Europe post-referendum, everything goes down the toilet as the Tories fight like rats in a sack, win win win all round as far as I am concerned.
it's funny that you see labour losing as an opportunity to sort themselves out.
and the conservatives winning as the end of them.
It's only 'funny' if you make the assumption that I am a Labourite.
Whoever wins the next election is taking on a poisoned chalice. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
why's that then?
No! No! No!
He must stay!:)
A question for Conservative supporting posters. Do you really think Labour will lose the next General Election and its mainly down to Ed Miliband and people not liking the look of him?
A lot of Tory MP's cheer every week when Ed Miliband stands up to ask his first question as if they are saying "you being there is going to keep us in power" but do they really believe that or is it a reverse psychology thing?
I think it is them trying to knock Miliband's and Labour's confidence as the Tories have some marginal seats with very small majorities. That is on top of the fact that in 2010 there was 100 seats that had majorities of less than 1000. So much for Blair being such an appealer huh?!