Well, just about an hour to go....
Who's your money on?
Mine is Ed M - Red Ed as he will be called by the Cameron front bench!
A good old return to Labour lefty basics - should keep them out of power for another 10 years at least :grin:
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
New Labour Leader
Sex God
If a Milliband wins, as is likely, all 3 main (England) party leaders will look like clones of each other. I'll have even more trouble than usual remembering who is which and what party they belong to.
And David M looks really creepy too.
And David M looks really creepy too.
Not bothered who will win to be honest, they will still be poxy Socialists!
Both the Millibands are clones of Blair and how fucking scary is that?
Labour have skinted this country over the last 13 years....sent us to war on two fronts, and people are bothered about another Labour leader?
I do not care less who wins, it is their out of date wanker policies I am more concerned about.
Both the Millibands are clones of Blair and how fucking scary is that?
Labour have skinted this country over the last 13 years....sent us to war on two fronts, and people are bothered about another Labour leader?
I do not care less who wins, it is their out of date wanker policies I am more concerned about.
Quote by kentswingers777
Maybe true Max but..........still lefty tree hugging Socialists, who were part of a Government that broke this country financially.
Of which we are all about to start paying for heavily.
As I said already......who cares?
I thought you used to accuse the liberals of tree huggers seem quiet a few Tories have liberal thoughts too, so you can not tarnish everyone the same.
Sex God
Whoever it is, my only hope is, they do not get back in power for a very long time 
Sex God
As many have said, Ed, fits right into the Cam - Clegg mould. Will his policies be any better than the ConDems, don't know? But I'd suggest that after the next 3 years, if the ConDems last that long, Labour will be miles ahead in the opinion polls.
John
John
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
As many have said, Ed, fits right into the Cam - Clegg mould. Will his policies be any better than the ConDems, don't know? But I'd suggest that after the next 3 years, if the ConDems last that long, Labour will be miles ahead in the opinion polls.
John
But will they be electable?
Sex God
Well I'm pleased. I went to hustings over the summer and to one of his local meetings and I liked what he had to say.
:thumbup:
I actually 'do' politics, rather than just post about it.
:thumbup:
I actually 'do' politics, rather than just post about it.
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Well I'm pleased. I went to hustings over the summer and to one of his local meetings and I liked what he had to say.
:thumbup:
I actually 'do' politics, rather than just post about it.
By how many politicians have you been "done"?
Well the new Con-Dem government are screwing me over, does that count?! :wink:
Well what a suprise.....the unions ended up picking the Labour leader.
Now how democratic is that?
Taxpayers money goes to the unions, they then spend that money on endorsing a leader, and then the union members overturn what seemed like a for gone conclusion with electing David.
But no the unions come along and scupper that, and hey presto Ed is the winner.
Fair? You decide but I know my feelings on it.
I actually think that Ed looks a lot like Brown, and no doubt about as unelectable in an election.
Now how democratic is that?
Taxpayers money goes to the unions, they then spend that money on endorsing a leader, and then the union members overturn what seemed like a for gone conclusion with electing David.
But no the unions come along and scupper that, and hey presto Ed is the winner.
Fair? You decide but I know my feelings on it.
I actually think that Ed looks a lot like Brown, and no doubt about as unelectable in an election.
If it's anything like the Conservatives in Opposition, Ed may only be caretaker until the party smell the coffee after defeat at the next election and install someone else.
There are some very impressive new young Labour MP's in the 2010 intake to watch (as well as on the ConDem benches) so politics could take on a new dimension for watchers like me as their careers develop.
There are some very impressive new young Labour MP's in the 2010 intake to watch (as well as on the ConDem benches) so politics could take on a new dimension for watchers like me as their careers develop.
Quote by Kaznkev
And the 1922 commitee is an excellent representation of democracy ,especially since Cameron messed with it?
A fairly valid point.
"BBC Political Correspondent Ross Hawkins said Mr Cameron may have weakened a potentially hostile committee, but had also "stoked the resentment of those who could make his life difficult in the future", given that the coalition rests on the prime minister's ability to command the confidence of the House"'
Why he would openly do anything to " make his life difficult in the future " is baffling I admit.
Quote by Kaznkev
And before the usual snipers who cannot extrapolate start , with their boring pettiness i know how the leader is elected, i am simply pointing out that as far as i am aware all systems have their inadequacies.
Yes they all do have their own inadequacies but as a taxpayer and not a Labour supporter, why any of my money or should I say the taxpayers money goes to the unions at all is amazing.
As a hater of unions I find it hard to comprehend how unions have the vote, and in this instance have picked the party leader, who could possibly ( and I use that word loosely ) become our next PM.
No wonder Brown kept his gob shut over the Unite strikes for so long.
Is it the party members who control Labour, or as I suspect it is still the Unions? I think yesterdays voting showed to me exactly which ones control the party.
Also in edit....
Opponents are already asking what legitimacy a party leader has who lost among both his own MPs and party members.
Quote by kentswingers777
And the 1922 commitee is an excellent representation of democracy ,especially since Cameron messed with it?
A fairly valid point.
"BBC Political Correspondent Ross Hawkins said Mr Cameron may have weakened a potentially hostile committee, but had also "stoked the resentment of those who could make his life difficult in the future", given that the coalition rests on the prime minister's ability to command the confidence of the House"'
Why he would openly do anything to " make his life difficult in the future " is baffling I admit.
Quote by Kaznkev
And before the usual snipers who cannot extrapolate start , with their boring pettiness i know how the leader is elected, i am simply pointing out that as far as i am aware all systems have their inadequacies.
Yes they all do have their own inadequacies but as a taxpayer and not a Labour supporter, why any of my money or should I say the taxpayers money goes to the unions at all is amazing.
As a hater of unions I find it hard to comprehend how unions have the vote, and in this instance have picked the party leader, who could possibly ( and I use that word loosely ) become our next PM.
No wonder Brown kept his gob shut over the Unite strikes for so long.
Is it the party members who control Labour, or as I suspect it is still the Unions? I think yesterdays voting showed to me exactly which ones control the party.
Also in edit....
Opponents are already asking what legitimacy a party leader has who lost among both his own MPs and party members.
You do realise it was union members, voting in strictly controlled ballots, who decided who got their union's votes don't you?
The Labour Party is honest about how the people who pay the bills get to influence the leadership and policies. You might want to think about the St Helena airport decision and what that says about how the same process works in the Tory party.
Quote by kentswingers777
As a hater of unions I find it hard to comprehend how unions have the vote, and in this instance have picked the party leader, who could possibly ( and I use that word loosely ) become our next PM.
No wonder Brown kept his gob shut over the Unite strikes for so long.
Is it the party members who control Labour, or as I suspect it is still the Unions? I think yesterdays voting showed to me exactly which ones control the party.
It is not correct to say that the unions "have the vote".
That ended in 1994 when the block vote was replaced by one member one vote.
The unions can endorse a candidate, but it is down to individual members to choose who they vote for. It is a secret ballot and they are free to pick who they want.
And because union members and not just party members are able to vote, it means the number of people getting the chance to have their say is far wider than that of the Tory Party.
Quote by Stevie J
It is not correct to say that the unions "have the vote".
That ended in 1994 when the block vote was replaced by one member one vote.
The unions can endorse a candidate, but it is down to individual members to choose who they vote for. It is a secret ballot and they are free to pick who they want.
And because union members and not just party members are able to vote, it means the number of people getting the chance to have their say is far wider than that of the Tory Party.
pmsl
Whilst she says she didn't vote in the leadership election, 'arriett 'arman had three (3) (Trois) (tres) (tair) votes for leader; one as MP, one as a member of the labour party and one as a member of the Fabian Society.
How does that translate to "one member, one vote"? cos this "member" had three!
I'm confused. Perhaps one of you Labourites can enlighten me....
In the absence of an answer from the lefties, I guess one could surmise that a single member only gets to have one third of a vote in actuality since there are 3 electoral colleges with a third of the vote each, if you see what I mean.
That means, for example, that MP's automatically get a second third bite of the cherry and if they are members of the Fabien Society, they actually get to have a complete vote - 3 x one thirds = 1 whole.
If you are a member of an affiliated Trades Union as well as a member of the Labour party, you get to have a second vote - 2 thirds of one whole unless also a member of the FS which makes your vote complete.
Could that make sense?
You only get to have one member one vote if ya pays ya dues to all and sundry. Now then, payment for votes.... Didn't Noo Labour accuse the Conservatives of something similar with Lord Ashcroft and similar?
No wonder the silence; the Labour Party Executive have told members to play this one very quietly and our usually vociferous lefties are waiting for guidance from above like MP's had to do in the past with diktats from Alastair Campbell by pager.
That means, for example, that MP's automatically get a second third bite of the cherry and if they are members of the Fabien Society, they actually get to have a complete vote - 3 x one thirds = 1 whole.
If you are a member of an affiliated Trades Union as well as a member of the Labour party, you get to have a second vote - 2 thirds of one whole unless also a member of the FS which makes your vote complete.
Could that make sense?
You only get to have one member one vote if ya pays ya dues to all and sundry. Now then, payment for votes.... Didn't Noo Labour accuse the Conservatives of something similar with Lord Ashcroft and similar?
No wonder the silence; the Labour Party Executive have told members to play this one very quietly and our usually vociferous lefties are waiting for guidance from above like MP's had to do in the past with diktats from Alastair Campbell by pager.
Quote by kentswingers777
The unions can endorse a candidate
What is the point in that if there is a secret ballot?
Anyway I would also like an answer to GNV's comment about old Arriet Armen's votes....I use the plural there!
Each member of one organisation gets one vote. Most people belong to one trade union. There's also a weighting system depending upon what part of the college you are in. As for Harriet Harman, she says she only voted once. If you've got any evidence that she is lying (other than your cyncicism) then please produce it.
The point is that over three million votes were cast, compared to about 200,000 in the Tory Party when Cameron was elected leader. And there've been scores of hustings across the country for those who are interested enough to go and see the candidates for themselves.
It's a pretty fair and democratic system, but no voting system is ever perfect.
Quote by Stevie J
The unions can endorse a candidate
What is the point in that if there is a secret ballot?
Anyway I would also like an answer to GNV's comment about old Arriet Armen's votes....I use the plural there!
Each member of one organisation gets one vote. Most people belong to one trade union. There's also a weighting system depending upon what part of the college you are in. As for Harriet Harman, she says she only voted once. If you've got any evidence that she is lying (other than your cyncicism) then please produce it.
The point is that over three million votes were cast, compared to about 200,000 in the Tory Party when Cameron was elected leader. And there've been scores of hustings across the country for those who are interested enough to go and see the candidates for themselves.
It's a pretty fair and democratic system, but no voting system is ever perfect.
In an interview with Adam Boulton Sky News this morning in Manchester, our 'arriet actually said that she did NOT exercise her right to vote because as Deputy Leader, she felt it would be wrong for her to do so.
Who is accusing her of lying?
Quote by kentswingers777
It's a pretty fair and democratic system, but no voting system is ever perfect.
This one is even less perfect so..............there is not one member one vote as you indicated earlier?
Just a yes or no will suffice.
Yes there is - each member of each trade union gets one vote. That is one member one vote!
