Ed Miliband Leader

[Frodo13.]

Regardless of the new Labour "leader", I highly doubt they'll win the next election unless the Tories screw things up further. A lot of people have lost faith in Labour over the past few years. They won the previous election by a small margin, this year they only just lost - I think they'll just keep going downhill tbh.

The Times have run some rather witty stories about Ed Miliband and his speeches over the past few days aswell which has got me pretty interested with all this.

How very wrong you are. 2005 was in no way a Labour win by 'a small margin', they had 160 more seats than the opposition. And this year, you can't exactly say that Labour just lost either, because despite the majority of the newspapers being pro-Conservative, despite the Ashcroft millions, Labour were STILL able to deny the Conservatives an overall majority. Yes, your right, alot of people have lost faith in Labour, but the election shows that the people don't have alot of faith in the Conservatives either, hence why they were forced to start a coalition with the Lib Dems.

[Ardemax]

This is a funny thread already.

Basically Dave had the backing of Tony Blair and tbh, didn't we all want a fresh start?

Ed hasn't been leader for a week and the critics are just rolling in.

Seriously give him a chance, he's gonna be better than Blair and Brown and he's already admitted Iraq was a mistake, isn't that what we all wanted to hear? But now that its been said, some people are cowarding away?

Geeeeeez.
O and Labour will be in next election, guaranteed. (Let the flame wars begin)

[-:Undertaker:-]

How very wrong you are. 2005 was in no way a Labour win by 'a small margin', they had 160 more seats than the opposition. And this year, you can't exactly say that Labour just lost either, because despite the majority of the newspapers being pro-Conservative, despite the Ashcroft millions, Labour were STILL able to deny the Conservatives an overall majority. Yes, your right, alot of people have lost faith in Labour, but the election shows that the people don't have alot of faith in the Conservatives either, hence why they were forced to start a coalition with the Lib Dems.

In 2005 Michael Howard was only a few percent behind Tony Blair yet Tony Blair secured that many seats because of the unfair over-proportionally representated Scotland and the inner-city Labour seats. For the Tories to win a seat, it has been worked out that they need many more votes on average than Labour to secure a seat. Indeed, I believe the percentage Labour (in real terms by including those who did not vote) recieved in 1997 was only a mere 22%. All of the time support is dropping for the main parties (all three of them) in terms of votes and in terms of membership which has plummeted across the board over the past few years.

On the newspaper issue, Labour has papers which support it - and if people actually were to the left in this country then they would buy those papers. The Guardian struggles to sell and the only one which does sell (the Daily Mirror) is of very low quality and only ranks up 3rd. It is interesting to see a Labourite bashing the Tories by blaming the newspapers, big money etc when Labour itself was the exact same - so take a look in the mirror I do think.

And as for Labour preventing a Tory overall win, I guess you could argue that in some cases as the Labour vote did increase dramatically - but more so in already left-wing seats such as those in Liverpool where the Tories never had a chance anyway on picking up a seat. It was the eurosceptic vote that cost the Conservatives a full majority (was seen to be 20+ seats).

[Frodo13.]

In 2005 Michael Howard was only a few percent behind Tony Blair yet Tony Blair secured that many seats because of the unfair over-proportionally representated Scotland and the inner-city Labour seats. For the Tories to win a seat, it has been worked out that they need many more votes on average than Labour to secure a seat. Indeed, I believe the percentage Labour (in real terms by including those who did not vote) recieved in 1997 was only a mere 22%. All of the time support is dropping for the main parties (all three of them) in terms of votes and in terms of membership which has plummeted across the board over the past few years.

On the newspaper issue, Labour has papers which support it - and if people actually were to the left in this country then they would buy those papers. The Guardian struggles to sell and the only one which does sell (the Daily Mirror) is of very low quality and only ranks up 3rd. It is interesting to see a Labourite bashing the Tories by blaming the newspapers, big money etc when Labour itself was the exact same - so take a look in the mirror I do think.

And as for Labour preventing a Tory overall win, I guess you could argue that in some cases as the Labour vote did increase dramatically - but more so in already left-wing seats such as those in Liverpool where the Tories never had a chance anyway on picking up a seat. It was the eurosceptic vote that cost the Conservatives a full majority (was seen to be 20+ seats).

And as you well know, using the first past the post system, it's how many SEATS a party gets. I'm not saying this is fair, but as I said in 2005, Labour were no where near losing an overall majority in seats, so it was misleading for that to be said

Clearly, you didn't read my post properly, as I said the MAJORITY of news papers supported the Tories, and I am also very aware of the papers that support Labour. And also, I in no way were 'bashing' newspaper support, the best selling paper in the UK (The Sun) supported Labour for 13 years so I'm quiet aware of the positive impact this can have, although it is funny how Rupert Murdoch only enjoys backing the favorite, makes you wonder if he'll be supporting the Tories if the coalition fails. On another note, Labour, compared to the Conservatives have no major financial backing. As someone who isn't a member of the party, you'd have no idea about the number of letters that came through the letter box begging for money during the election.

The Tories being denied a majority due to a euro-sceptic vote could be true, however, I am more of the opinion it is due to Labour running a fairly good campaign against the odds.

[[Jay]]

I was suprised Ed won this should be intresting, however looking at what happend during this time I would have to say David is deffinatly a better character. He moved from front line polotics to give Ed the best chance, this is what Ed should of done to start of with, he knew that his brother was next in line to be the leader of the labour party but he still ran, where is the brotherly love?

[Jordy]

I was suprised Ed won this should be intresting, however looking at what happend during this time I would have to say David is deffinatly a better character. He moved from front line polotics to give Ed the best chance, this is what Ed should of done to start of with, he knew that his brother was next in line to be the leader of the labour party but he still ran, where is the brotherly love?

Why should he of just handed victory to David like he wanted? David was an arrogant fool thinking he was next in-line for Labour leadership and that it was his right, far from it. David had the chance to over-throw Gordon Brown who lets face it was a disastrous leader of Labour and the country, yet he was too cowardly to and as a result you got a thrashed at the election and are no longer in power. You don't want someone like that leading your party.