Should Labour get a new leader after the election even if they win/lose?
Printable View
Should Labour get a new leader after the election even if they win/lose?
Well no if they change leader after winning we'll just have another unelected PM.
What you also have to remember is that alot of people voting Labour arent fond of Gordon Brown. They are voting Labour as they prefer the part over other ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
What she said ^ If they want to have a new leader to make Labour popular again (seeing as Brown seems to be hated by many, and people will vote in favour of someone else), they should of thought about a new one last year sometime, to paint a new face for the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Hmm no. I don't really like Gordon Brown but that's because I don't think he is a generally easy person to like. However, I do think he hasn't done as much wrong as the media and conservatives will have you believe. So no, keep him.
You mean like selling the gold at dirt cheap prices and misleading the Iraq inquiry over military spending?.. poor Gordon, it must just be the evil right wingers out to get him and none of its his fault. It reminds me of when he was found to be bullying members of number 10 and some of you on here actually tried defending him as though Gordon is right and 10 odd other people are all being awful and nasty to him because Gordon can never be wrong! - the worst one within Labour at the moment though is the dreaded, nasty, evil and spiteful woman; Harriett Harman. If she gets anywhere the buttons of power its like the second coming of Hitler I tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tash.
Then again you could choose from Mandelson who was convicted of fraud like twice and had dodgy dealings when he was EU trade commissior..oh and has a house which on his salary, he cannot afford but refuses to tell us from where and whom he gets his money from. Saying that, you could pick from numerous MPs within the Labour Party (it happened in other parties as well) who were involved in the expenses scandal.
I hope he stays as leader, and I hope the party disappears off the face of the earth along with all the other socialist parties who, everytime they gain office, leave the country in a financial state (because they dont know how to control themselves when spending) and a social state (because as all left wingers, its the common line; lets give them [the criminal] another chance).
I very much doubt they'll get rid of him if Labour win, I imagine that would put faith in the Labour supporters who had doubts about him, especially if he's capable of winning quite a difficult election. They can't even successfully get rid of him when he's doing badly so what hope do they have when he's just won an election? The guy won't go down easily either, he said himself he even wishes to continue should he lose the election.
If he loses the election, how can Labour not get rid of him? I think there's many supporters prepared to give him a chance during this election but if he loses, then they'll happily get rid of him (Tories feel the same way about their leader). The problem is there's no one decent willing to take him on as leader, if David Miliband came out as a challenger then they might successfully of ousted Brown a while back, except none of them are prepared to take gambles and as a result, they will probably never get much further in politics. There really isn't any shining stars in Brown's cabinet who will replace him, it'd either have to be a backbencher, David Miliband, Ed Balls or maybe Lord Mandelson. If I was a Labour supporter I'd want Mandelson as a leader, he is probably the most corrupt in British politics atm but he's an incredibly clever man.
As for the unelected remarks. To an extent, all British PMs are as unelected as each other. You vote for your local MP in elections, not who's prime minister. However it is worth noting that the PM is chosen by their own constituents and also elected as party leader within their own party by fellow elected MPs, so they are elected to an extent. So I'd say Gordon Brown is just as elected/unelected as any other prime minister.
It's sad that is pretty much the bottom line with parties like this. The idea of them is great and in some ways perfect, but they just cannot control themselves and these ideologies are usually shadowed in greed. The party is fine, it's just the people who make it aren't who they think they are. Like turning up to a Princess Party, and all the people at it are heavy metal Hitler impersonistic farmers with little to no dignity :/Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Note: Brown is not an unelected leader.
Also Undertaker you can't complain about expenses. Farage has claimed more in European Parliament than any "real" politician has done in UK Parliament.
I don't believe I ever said he was blameless.. if I did then show me, and i'll hold my hands up. What I meant was, if you pick any PM in the past 50 or so years you can pick out key things they did which turned out to be very bad decisions. It's the nature of being a leader, you are there to make the decisions, but not every one is going to be a good one is it? He is human after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
It's also in the nature of the party in charge to be blamed for the economic state of this country, and yes it is majorly their blame for the spending and how long it is going to take us to recover from recession as a result of that spending, but they know the true state of the economy. The conservatives and every other party can only speculate and guess, and therefore their promises are based on nought but predictions.
I'm not going to get in to your bottom paragraph, it's clear I aren't going to agree with you. But I must echo what FlyDuo said, those in glass houses should not be throwing stones.