howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
courtesy of the independent on sunday.
Ed Miliband is planning a new year shake-up of his internal party structure, as criticism of his faltering leadership escalated last night. The moves come at a difficult end to his first full year as Labour leader, with a performance at Prime Minister's Questions last week that left some members in his party talking openly about a succession unless he improves.
The restructuring will include moving Labour's headquarters, currently half a mile from the House of Commons, closer to Parliament.
Labour sources refused yesterday to release more details of the new property or the wider shake-up, but it is thought that there will be new appointments at senior level, including the prospect of a permanent chief of staff and an elected party chairman.
But, as the Labour leader prepared to spend Christmas at home with his family in Camden, north London, MPs and activists called on him to do more to "cut through" to the public, particularly on the economy.
One activist who campaigned for Mr Miliband's leadership last year said he now regretted the decision, adding that, more than a year on from the victory, the leader stood "in the middle of nowhere".
Tom Scholes-Fogg, a leading Labour blogger who volunteered on Mr Miliband's campaign team and co-edited the book What Next for Labour?, said some grassroots members were "unhappy" and wanted a change of leader.
He told The Independent on Sunday: "When Ed gave his speech to conference in 2010, I was sitting behind him on stage, and I was thinking I have backed the right person to get Labour back into Downing Street. A year on, I do regret backing him. If there was a leadership election with the same five candidates I would now back David Miliband. David is more of a statesman. He would be taking on the Government much more, and laying out his vision for the country and the Labour Party.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
i think ony time will tell on this one
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Any horse will do, mid stream, it seems.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I THINK HES Building up
if there going to do it they need to now
otherwise they should let him get on with the job
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the man is a liability, when a party chooses a leader they have to appoint someone who likes he/she could be prime minister.
ed is about as likely to get to no10 as i am, the only worse decision i can remember is michael howard for the blues.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
HOWARD;
We probably won't ever agree on this one, so best probably to lay that one to rest.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Very generous of you Howard not to mention Hague or IDS.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
hague just sounds a bit silly when he talks tom but has a shrewd brain, the other one i thought a decent chap so i decided i would be nice and not mention him.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I think hague was a leader at the wrong time, a stalking horse the tories put up
then shipped on later with the maverick publicity he sdhould have seen what his party was up to.
but i think he would have been a good leader.
i think IDS has shown he was never leader material but has recently shown he has abilities in other areas, and stronger now in those areas
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
fully agree keith, when they selected him i thought it was for the long term, they knew it would be 8 years before they would have a realistic chance of gaining power.
we all remember his gaffes, dressing up in jeans, trainers and baseball cap to appeal to the young, then claiming he drank 20 pints a night.
by the second term of opposition he would have wised up and got new advisors.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
agreed howard
but both have rebuilt there careers
who would have thought IDS would have come out anything like he is today.
a lot of experience.
he was one of the poorest tory leaders
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 663- Registered: 20 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,136
Think Ed Milliband needs to toughen up Cameron got the better of him by using personal sarcasm, which is always the lowest way of getting get to someone.
I to would have backed David Milliband Ed always looked to young, but at the end of the day we are where we are, so lets hope that he can regroup after christmas and come out fighting.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Ed is a far too decent man to be the leader in the way that is required today, sarcasm is not his game and if that is what is needed to lead this country no wonder we are in the state we are in.
Audere est facere.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
David M would have been infinitely better for Labour than Ed. But we all know whose block votes swung it for Ed. Another own goal by the union bosses.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
strangest decision i can remember in politics, david with 6 years in cabinet of which 3 were as foreign secretary was an obvious choice to me.
the result would still have been very close taking away the union vote.
the unions have always been the blues trump card, they would never have gained power in 1979 without the winter of discontent and the actions of mr scargill helped keep them in power later.
more recently backing ed rather than david has given flashman a free run and the recent strike has played right into the blues hands.
I hold a different view , about the political situation in general , No party wanted to win the last election as the economy was in an appauling state , a combination of internal and external mis management .
But the Tories did win , Brown had to go for a variety of reasons , so its better to have an ineffective short term leader Ed , while the chaos in the EU and world economy unfolds , then at the next election swifty replace him with an effective leader once there is a possibility that some calm has returned to the economy . After all why waste a good leader on an situation that is so far out of control that anyone trying to deal with it will fail.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the poisoned chalice theory was put out prior to the election and one that is possible.
the blues should have won by a mile but faced with a government that was past its sell by date, an unpopular prime minister and a massive deficit they still failed and had to run to the most left wing party to form a government.
could be that ed is being used as a short term fall guy, there doesn't seem to be a rash of contenders waiting to replace him.
by the time of the next election the economy is likely to be in a worse state than it is now so then it may be time for change giving a new leader 5 years to make his/her mark.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
howard
i agree to your view to a point
i have no inside info on ed but i think your right the tories did not win
and only by the lib dems selling there souls did barryws dave get into number 10.
sarah
barryw's dave did run a campaign to win the election and realy failed badly
thus where we are today
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
That's just a teeny-weeny bit lop-sided Keith - we are where we are today - as regards the structural deficit, because of the last 13 years of Labour (mis) rule.
Balancing the Nation's accounts has never been Labour's strong point; being honest with the people, hasn't either.
Having to take this unpalatable medicine is not the fault of the present Government.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
roger;
your view is definatly lop sided roger, so maybe a balance somewhere in the middle of that.
if things are as you say, like howard said, the conservatives should have romped home with such a big majority.
but they didn't and had to rely on a wishy washy yellow team
so realy the conservatives failed big time
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS