ChatterBank1 min ago
Alan Johnson As Labour Leader?
35 Answers
What do the Labour supporters think and would it sway any non Labour supporters?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zacs-Master. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Interesting report about voter churn on http://
// One of the reasons the Conservatives ended up falling short at the last election was that they failed to clearly identify themselves as THE party for change – the public wanted rid of Gordon Brown and Labour, but following the debates Nick Clegg managed to make many people think the Liberal Democrats were the more convincing alternative. Ed Miliband may face a similar problem, the government still isn’t popular and still has a relatively low level of support, but the anti-government vote seems to be fracturing away from Labour to alternative non-Conservative parties like UKIP, the Greens and the SNP. //
// One of the reasons the Conservatives ended up falling short at the last election was that they failed to clearly identify themselves as THE party for change – the public wanted rid of Gordon Brown and Labour, but following the debates Nick Clegg managed to make many people think the Liberal Democrats were the more convincing alternative. Ed Miliband may face a similar problem, the government still isn’t popular and still has a relatively low level of support, but the anti-government vote seems to be fracturing away from Labour to alternative non-Conservative parties like UKIP, the Greens and the SNP. //
I think your old dad was right, Mickey. Also, people were keen to put the good-v-evil element of warfare behind them and get together to rebuild the country. Churchill fought the election as he'd fought the war.
People who deride Miliband's lack of charisma should remember what happened the last time Labour had a charismatic leader.
People who deride Miliband's lack of charisma should remember what happened the last time Labour had a charismatic leader.
Just a point of clarification. The description of Mr Ed's election to the leadership does not fit in with someone who "...stabbed his own brother in the back, at the 11th hour, to get the top job? "
After nominations opened three potential candidates - including Milliband, E - complained that the deadline for entries was too tight (candidates need to secure the support of 12.5% of the Parliamentary Labour Party) and the deadline was duly extended.
The reason David Milliband was not elected leader was because of the composition of the electorate entitled to vote. These are split into three groups: The party's MPs and MEPs; Labour Party members; and what are euphemistically known as "affiliated members". These are not necessarily members of the Labour Party but are individual members of affiliated organisations, such as trade unions and socialist societies. These far outnumber the first two groups taken together (211k associate members took part in the election compared to 126k Party members and 266 MPs/MEPs). As if that were not bad enough, absolute numbers are not considered when counting the vote. Each of the three sections contributes one third towards the vote meaning that the votes of 266 MPs/MEPs are given the same weight as 126k party members or 211k associate members. Couple this with the "Alternative Vote" system and you could not contrive a more ridiculous system if you tried. Labour lauds this system as "one man one vote" but it is clear that one vote from an MP/MEP outweighs that of a party member by about 470 to one and that of an affiliated member by almost 800 to one.
However, even with that disadvantage (David was the preferred candidate of the MPs/MEPs and Labour party members in all rounds) Ed won. In fact he won every round of voting in absolute numbers and percentage terms because of the Union vote and if anybody did any back stabbing it was the Union barons.
After nominations opened three potential candidates - including Milliband, E - complained that the deadline for entries was too tight (candidates need to secure the support of 12.5% of the Parliamentary Labour Party) and the deadline was duly extended.
The reason David Milliband was not elected leader was because of the composition of the electorate entitled to vote. These are split into three groups: The party's MPs and MEPs; Labour Party members; and what are euphemistically known as "affiliated members". These are not necessarily members of the Labour Party but are individual members of affiliated organisations, such as trade unions and socialist societies. These far outnumber the first two groups taken together (211k associate members took part in the election compared to 126k Party members and 266 MPs/MEPs). As if that were not bad enough, absolute numbers are not considered when counting the vote. Each of the three sections contributes one third towards the vote meaning that the votes of 266 MPs/MEPs are given the same weight as 126k party members or 211k associate members. Couple this with the "Alternative Vote" system and you could not contrive a more ridiculous system if you tried. Labour lauds this system as "one man one vote" but it is clear that one vote from an MP/MEP outweighs that of a party member by about 470 to one and that of an affiliated member by almost 800 to one.
However, even with that disadvantage (David was the preferred candidate of the MPs/MEPs and Labour party members in all rounds) Ed won. In fact he won every round of voting in absolute numbers and percentage terms because of the Union vote and if anybody did any back stabbing it was the Union barons.
// On the subject of Churchill, I have always found it difficult to understand why he failed so badly, to win the 1945 election. //
People wanted a new start. He was seen as a being a great wartime leader, but not the man to take the country forward. There was a sense of optimism and a desire to look forward and embrace the welfare state etc, so it was a case of thanks Mr Churchill, you did a great job there, but we now need a peacetime leader.
That's my understanding of it anyway.
People wanted a new start. He was seen as a being a great wartime leader, but not the man to take the country forward. There was a sense of optimism and a desire to look forward and embrace the welfare state etc, so it was a case of thanks Mr Churchill, you did a great job there, but we now need a peacetime leader.
That's my understanding of it anyway.
A.J. is an honest and forthright man, he really is "Mr Nice Guy", someone you could trust - a rare quality in modern day politics and would make an important contribution to any cabinet, but I can't see he has sufficient gravitas to make a party leader, If he were to take charge, I fear he would be stabbed in the back in short order by the envious, disreputable lower orders of his party.
/Changing horses in mid stream is never a good idea. /
// It is if the one you are on can't swim. //
That is exactly what the Conservatives did in 2003. After Hagues defeat at the 2001 General Election, they replaced him as leader with IDS.
Realising their mistake, they ditched him before the 2005 General Election.
It disn't work.
// It is if the one you are on can't swim. //
That is exactly what the Conservatives did in 2003. After Hagues defeat at the 2001 General Election, they replaced him as leader with IDS.
Realising their mistake, they ditched him before the 2005 General Election.
It disn't work.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
Society & Culture25 mins ago
Other Sports27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.