Should Labour get a new leader after the Election?

[jrh2002]

Labour needed to get their new leader when they first tried to oust Brown or maybe the 2nd or 3rd time hahaaha They need to get together and all become as one again (without the racist Scottish dictator) and maybe go back to their roots which was to look after british the workers instead of themselves.

[Swearwolf]

i dont think so but then again i'm not gonna vote labour lol.

[-: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.

The EU expenses are a different system to the Westminister expenses, them expenses are used to fund his regional office and that £2 million was used over a 10 year period. If he was clearly in the wrong then I would simply not support them or him because I find that bending the rules to suit yourself is totally wrong and criminal action should be taken against anybody who falls foul of regulations or morals for that matter. Farage in that system does not benefit himself from the expenses whereas in the Westminister system they have done exactly that. The matter with Lord Pearson who was involved in the Westminister expenses; hes explained it pretty clear himself and didnt seem to be in breach of any rules and morals to my point, however I would like to see him and all the other peers and MPs investigated anyhow and if found guilty, removed of their peerage and criminal action taken against them.

UKIP was the only party which took immediate action against those who were involved in fraud.

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.

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.

I would like to agree with you, and the only real benefit I can think of which Labour and Brown have done is keeping Trident. That honestly is the only thing that I give them credit for, so yes if he was a leader like Thatcher who made overall good decisions (the only problem I have with her leadership was the surrender of Hong Kong islands and possibly also the bay area) then I would give him credit, sadly that is not the case and has never been the case with a Labour Prime Minister.

No i'm afraid Labour do not know the full scale of the economy and neither do the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. As Richard Littlejohn pointed out last night on Question Time; our debt stands well over 1 trillion. We spend more every year paying back only the interest on our debt than we do on the entire military or education budgets. None of the main parties have a solution to this problem and its damn right serious.

The Tories are saying lets cut a few little things here and there (which isnt adding up because at the same time they've pledged to increase foreign aid) and Labour and the Liberal Democrats are carrying on with the fairytale idea of lengthening the client state that this government has created under its watch to get us out of recession. It does not work.

[Catzsy]

Gordon Brown should have gone months ago unfortunately those who had a chance of succeeding him didn't seem to want to take the chance which is a shame because I do believe that David Milliband would be good as I have said before on this forum. Whether Labour win or lose I hope that they make sure there is a leadership election before the year is out. He changes his mind when pressured to easily and has a terrible public image and unfortunately the personality of a codfish.

Can I also remind members of the specific debate rules particularly no. 2:

Debates Specific Forum Rules


1. Please do not make short, pointless comments. This might include "I agree" or "I disagree". Back up your points with evidence or an explanation for your opinion. For example, if you do agree explain why you agree.

2. Always stick to the debates topic itself. Unlike all other forums, it is not allowed to post an off topic reply to another member's reply in that thread - this is to prevent multiple debates occurring within one debate.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact a member of Forum Management.

The debate is:

Should Labour get a new leader after the election even if they win/lose?

Thanks =]

[Tash.]

I would like to agree with you, and the only real benefit I can think of which Labour and Brown have done is keeping Trident. That honestly is the only thing that I give them credit for, so yes if he was a leader like Thatcher who made overall good decisions (the only problem I have with her leadership was the surrender of Hong Kong islands and possibly also the bay area) then I would give him credit, sadly that is not the case and has never been the case with a Labour Prime Minister.

No i'm afraid Labour do not know the full scale of the economy and neither do the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. As Richard Littlejohn pointed out last night on Question Time; our debt stands well over 1 trillion. We spend more every year paying back only the interest on our debt than we do on the entire military or education budgets. None of the main parties have a solution to this problem and its damn right serious.

The Tories are saying lets cut a few little things here and there (which isnt adding up because at the same time they've pledged to increase foreign aid) and Labour and the Liberal Democrats are carrying on with the fairytale idea of lengthening the client state that this government has created under its watch to get us out of recession. It does not work.

Again, this is solely opinion. I personally do not rate Margaret Thatcher, there will be many who would agree with me and i'm sure many that would agree with your evaluation of her. I choose to believe she ran this country down and did very little good, you think that about the current labour government, thats your choice.

I would accept what you wrote about neither labour, the conservatives or the lib dems not know the true extent of the debt, however you made a very silly comment a little later which leads me to believe that you are going the way you normally do. If the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems do not know the true extent of the debt, the 3 'big' parties, then i'm sure that none of the others do either, and I doubt they would do any better than any of the aforementioned parties at dealing with it. You didn't seem to want to imply that with what you wrote.

I stick by what I said, I don't think Brown has been as bad as some would have us believe, he hasn't been anywhere near brilliant thats for sure, but I don't think he's been given much of a chance to. I doubt i'd be sad if they replaced him with someone like Miliband as Catzsy said. I actually like David Miliband, and I do think he would be a good replacement.

[Bun]

nah, brown isn't going to give up being PM lol.