• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Who will succeed Brown as Labour leader ?


cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,625
Website
www.google.com
One thing is sure by now, that bar a a miracle, Brown is a goner. Though Labour may well coalesce with the Lib Dems.

Ed Balls David Millband are the leading contenders for Labour leader, and as the London Times points out, they have sharply different philosophies. Ball is a more authoritarian (and nasty character) , Millband is more reflective and cherishes individual rights. So who to win ?

Labour is learning that it has no right to exist | Rachel Sylvester - Times Online
Perhaps inevitably, the choice is increasingly characterised in terms of successors to Mr Brown. David Miliband is seen as the figurehead for the liberal wing and Mr Balls is emerging as the most likely leader of the more statist group, assuming that he is not the victim of the Tories’ castration strategy.

Allegiances are being quietly made.

I am told that Alan Johnson has made clear to the Foreign Secretary’s supporters that he would back Mr Miliband rather than standing himself. Lord Mandelson is also in the same camp.

Interestingly, Jon Cruddas, the champion of the thoughtful Left, sees himself as being on the liberal rather than the statist side.
Of course Balls may loose his seat... and that would be that then I guess ?

Edit:

Clegg makes clear he favours the Miliband wing of Labour:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/30/nick-clegg-lib-dem-labour
Asked if the same gulf existed with Labour, he says: "I have always accepted the first part of Roy Jenkins's analysis that says that historically Labour and Liberal Democrats are two wings of a progressive tradition in British politics. That seems to me to be right." But Clegg maintains that his party cannot be an annex of Labour and that there is a fundamental difference between the two parties over the individual and the state. "There are some people in the Labour party that now get progressive politics has to be about empowerment, reducing dependency on the state, increasing social mobility through individual empowerment releasing power from the centre politically – but it is not where the Labour party lies at heart.

"Listen to Gordon Brown's final message last night – it was: 'You're not allowed to take a risk on anyone else.' It's a very dismal, cramped and depressing message. That's why the polls are putting us ahead of Labour and that will crystallise in the next few days into a two-horse race."
cYp
 
Last edited:


neiphin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
5,585
I too would go for miliband,
not that i like him , but he seems the best placed
 

pete2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
1,304
Ed Balls is toast reckon he will be unseated. Suspect Brown might deliver something looking like a victory, or 'best case scenario'. Still convinced Cleggomania is very overstated and will not be anywhere near those polls, he didn't seal the "voting Lib Dem is not a wasted vote" deal. So the charismatic Miliband even if he does "have something of the night about him".
 

Interista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
4,145
Millband is more reflective and cherishes individual rights.
So long as said rights are approved by his boss, Hilary Clinton. The boy David doesn't do anything without the go-ahead from Washington.
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
819
Very fair impartial comment in the OP, "Ball is a more authoritarian (and nasty character) , Millband is more reflective and cherishes individual rights."

Anyway, I would like to see Brown stay on as Labour leader if Labour had to go into opposition, but of course if brown has to go to get a coalition with the LibDems then so be it. The next leader should be the one least likely to lead to disputes and schisms in the future, which I think might be Milliband. Not that I dislike Balls (or his "nasty authoritarian" views) but he might be a bit weak support-wise to lead Labour through this important period.
 

Interista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
4,145
By general consensus, Minibrain has been quite ineffective in his role as FM, and made more than his fair share of gaffes. I don't think he's a shoo-in.
 

pete2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
1,304
Oh he wont be acceptable to Lib Dem rank & file :)


Alan Johnston is my pick then, GB would probably go for that no questions.
 

Simbo67

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
572
Problem is that the labour leadership change process is quite complicated and takes a while.
 

Interista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
4,145
That didn't stop Brown.
Brown was much older and more experienced than the boy David, and was what many considered to be an excellent chancellor. Milipede has acted like an obnoxious 12 year old who gatecrashed the adults' party.
 

Simply

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
392
In this non ideological age things like 'statism' and 'liberalism' aren't very important. A woman on the news there put it nicely,she was switching from Labour to Cameron because 'he would be easier to get along with' :) Johnson by that measure is the best alternative to the Tory toffs and the fact he doesn't want it so obviously makes him more qualified than Milliband.
 

Interista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
4,145
Gordon Brown destroyed Britain's economy. so badly that 21 year old youths are now committing suicide out of desperation. Yet the labour party knowing full well what he did went and made the bastard the Prime minister.
Yes, but the damage he did to the economy has only recently come to light. At the time of his accession (2006?) he was generally considered to have been a succesful chancellor.
 

Horses

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
127
Yes, but the damage he did to the economy has only recently come to light. At the time of his accession (2006?) he was generally considered to have been a succesful chancellor.
That was the prevailing opinion if you only listen to the controlled media and state owned university economists. Many people knew that Brown's policies of mass unplanned immigration, bank deregulation, enormous state spending on socialism and war (with borrowed money) and of course enormous derivative speculation (casino capitalism) etc would spell ruin and no one listened. But my point is that the upper levels within the the Labour party knew what he was doing and approved of it. The Labour party is truly evil.
 

H.R. Haldeman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
4,444
Ed Milliband is an interesting one. He's not as polished as David but he has an earthiness that David lacks that I think helps him communicate with the common man. And he doesn't have that patronising air about him that David does, nor his goody-two-shoes prefect vibe, which is an issue for David. Ed comes across as very straight and earnest on TV and in general he seems very, very bright.

Age and experience might be an issue. EM is 40, about the same as Blair when he became Labour leader. But it's very young. He is however more experienced in government than Blair was. The difference with Blair of course was that his enormous political talent trumped all the downsides of youth and inexperience. While I rate Milliband the Younger, I can't say he's as good as Blair.

Prime Minister Balls will never happen.

In an ideal world, we'd get caretaker Mandy for a few years as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That would be political porn for the junkies. He'd scare the bejaysus out of Cameron.
 

Bobert

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
1,072
Lord Mandelson.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top