The Labour leadership election ....

[Champman99]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHw...eature=related

Say what you want about Campbell, but his trolling of Adam Boulton here is absolute quality.

Off topic:

I like Campbell more than I like Boulton.... and thats saying something, because I really don't like Campbell. I watched Sky News for some of the election coverage, having been told that it was nothing like it's US 'sister' Fox News ("Fair & Balanced" hahahahahaha) and was actually a quality impartial station. Aparently the people that told me that have never watched BBC News, ITV News, Channel 4 News, hell even Channel 5 news was of higher quality.

Between Adam Boulton and Kay Burley they have some real lemons.

On topic:

I feel it will be a bit sad if the three leaders are Cameron, Clegg and David Milliband. Its all a bit style over substance (to coin a much used phrase) to me. Fair enough, it seems that is what the people want, but sometimes I get the feeling that a party could win an election just by putting David Beckham as its leader and playing the free kick against Greece in all the party election broadcasts.

[format]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHw...eature=related

Say what you want about Campbell, but his trolling of Adam Boulton here is absolute quality.

I love that video.

[Saracen]

....

I feel it will be a bit sad if the three leaders are Cameron, Clegg and David Milliband. Its all a bit style over substance (to coin a much used phrase) to me.

It is hard, though, for opposition politicians to do anything beyond talk, because they can't implement policy, and Blair showed us that charisma and a slick gob work ... for a while.

Now, we'll really find put if there's anything to Cameron beyond style, and I guess, Clegg too.

Looking at it another way, Brown certainly wasn't about style, but having seen the substance, I wish he had been.

[Spud1]

As a serious leader so to speak, who can (hopefully) lead labour to better things and ultimately getting rid of the tories...David Miliband. I trust him the most out of that list.

From another point of view I'd quite like to see Ms Harmon take over and seal labours coffin for the next 50 years..who'd be stupid enough to vote for them then? Downside to that being that we'd likely be stuck with a Tory government for that time which would be even worse. Ho Hum.

[SeriousSam]

At this stage I don’t think it matters who becomes Labour leader because they are still deluded enough to think that just replacing Brown will be enough to get them back into power next time. I get the sense that despite losing the election there are those within the Labour party who view the Conservatives not getting a majority as a bit of a victory. This is irrespective of the fact that the vagaries of the constituency system are the primary driver behind us having a hung parliament. Combine this with the still pervasive arrogance that they are “the party for social progress”, despite solid evidence to the contrary, and you have a recipe for 10years of wilderness at least.

Obviously a lot will hinge on how the Liberal Conservative* coalition works, but I for one think that this is a much better result than it first looks.

*Whoever decided on that name definitely has their head screwed on

The previous Conservative government did a lot to put the UK on a solid financial footing; however it pushed the “individual” agenda too far further undermining our sense of community which had been eroding since the 50’s. Then Labour swept to power and at first things looked good, until Mr. Brown started spending far beyond our means. Added to which Labour tried to curb individualism by drawing power to the state as a means of control, which created indolence and dependency rather than community.

Had the Conservatives got in with a majority then irrespective of how and why cuts were made they would be tarred even further with the negative image of Conservatism as created by the Labour propaganda machine. Combine this with our adversarial political system and Labour would have had a much easier time positioning themselves to take advantage of reactionary sentiments. Assuming that they then won the next election (or the one after), followed by the Conservatives getting in after that we would end up with a situation analogous to a “yo-yo” dieter, and we all know what happens there.

But now that the Conservatives have a Liberal Democrat buffer things will be rather different because it is much easier to push the “national interest” angle when two sides of an opposing view come together to work towards a common goal. In addition, it is also more likely to ensure that any lingering “pro-individualism” within the Conservative party doesn’t have too much of an effect on policy. The end result being that we may very well see progress on both the deficit and “small government, big society” in the same electoral term, which I for one see as a good thing.

This then leaves Labour in a difficult position as undoubtedly they will be adversarial during the next parliament, irrespective of how far they lurch to the left, putting them at a disadvantage. Add into this the fact that our new government can make a song a dance about undoing all of the “laws” which impinged on our civil liberties and their attempts to look like a social progress party will likely fall very flat. Consequently it probably won’t be until they are handed another defeat and have to do some soul searching that they will elect a leader that will move them forward.

Ultimately though the one thing that will have the biggest impact on the future fate of the Labour party is how our voting system changes. At the very least the inbuilt bias of the current system will be eliminated, making their task harder. If however this coalition works and we get a new voting system then Labour could be staring at the unthinkable for them of coming 3rd in an election.

[kalniel]

At this stage I don’t think it matters who becomes Labour leader because they are still deluded enough to think that just replacing Brown will be enough to get them back into power next time.

That's not what they're saying:

In many areas too many core Labour voters felt that we had not been listening enough on issues such as immigration, benefits and fairness. How we reconnect with these voters is a key challenge for the leadership contenders. The good news is that all of the potential candidates get this. It will not be a battle between new and old Labour. That’s the past

I get the sense that despite losing the election there are those within the Labour party who view the Conservatives not getting a majority as a bit of a victory.

Not loosing as many seats as most people said they were going to is a small victory - there are more Labour MPs still in their jobs and with a remit to represent the people that voted for them than expected.

This is irrespective of the fact that the vagaries of the constituency system are the primary driver behind us having a hung parliament.

And it's still the same for all the parties. The constituency system is not inherently pro-Labour.

[oolon]

The constituency system is not inherently pro-Labour.

However the current sizing of them is.

[santa claus]

A perfect example of Labour democracy .... do anything you want as long as it's what you're told.

I think you'll find that more applicable to the liberals in the new Condems () "coalition".

[TheAnimus]

I think you'll find that more applicable to the liberals in the new Condems () "coalition".

Yes, damn those elected party leaders to hell!

[Salazaar]

Yes, damn those elected party leaders to hell!

But there are no elected party leaders... We only elect MPs, they appoint themselves leader! Maybe it would be a fairer system with a less party based lower house and a directly elected head of state...

Thinking about it, I'm surprised throughout this whole debacle there hasn't been more thought towards the fact that we have an entirely undemocratic head of state.

[TheAnimus]

I thought we voted for a Party, who then voted for their leader.

None of that in Brown's old Labour, he got it because he'd been promised it......

Ironically people like him who have complained about the 'privileged' eduction and the like most tory PMs have had insufferably hypocritical.

[scaryjim]

Maybe it would be a fairer system with a less party based lower house and a directly elected head of state...

I wondered about that when they declared the "all elected" Lords, but after discussing it with my better half (who is a lot brighter than me ) it would actually make more sense the other way round. One of the benefits of the Lords as they are currently is that there is no inherent party structure. The Lords do have a party allegiance, but in each vote they can vote according to conscience.

So in fact, a party-based PR-elected first house which sets policy and passes legislature, kept honest by a second house of elected independents on a constituency (or maybe regional) basis, who could each vote according to conscience on each policy and pass back amendments to each bill, would make a lot more sense. The second house would have party groups, but its members wouldn't be elected by party and would choose whether to join a party group or not, and they wouldn't have any obligation or pressure placed on them to vote with their group. However, the party groups would give the first house parties the opportunity to gauge and campaign for support in the second house.

Now, how do I sneak that onto the statute books for the new coalition government...?

[kalniel]

Now, how do I sneak that onto the statute books for the new coalition government...?

Run for President

[scaryjim]

Run for President

You know, I might seriously consider running next general election. The only question is whether my better half (a fervent anarchist* and hater of our system of government) would gut me for even thinking about it...

*that is, theoretically she's an anarchist, but actually she wants to rule as High Empress of the world!

[Salazaar]

You know, I might seriously consider running next general election. The only question is whether my better half (a fervent anarchist* and hater of our system of government) would gut me for even thinking about it...

*that is, theoretically she's an anarchist, but actually she wants to rule as High Empress of the world!

The only way to change the system is to become part of it...

[kalniel]

The only way to change the system is to become part of it...

History disagrees! A big stick seems to work best