Who should be the next leader?

antrobus

purch wrote: »

...The Lib Dems would do better to look outside of their group of MP's if that is allowed.

Don't know, to be honest. I am not familiar with the Lib Dem constitution. I know that the Labour Party Rule Book specifies that the leader has to be an MP.

What does Google say? I must admit I can't see anything that places limits on who can be the leader. Perhaps they could look elsewhere.

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/376/attachments/original/1389636747/Constitution_-_December_2013.pdf?1389636747

Sapphire

Carswell for UKIP initially. Farage is amazing – I have to admire the way he kept going in spite of all the derision that was heaped on him. I'm not sure whether he would have the stamina to continue, though. I think campaigns, and politics in general, must take it out of the people at the thick of things.

For poor old LD, I simply don't know at this stage, because all the big figures have gone from that party. Nick Clegg was a good orator and a good leader.

For labour, I don't think it should be any of the old guard, if they want to succeed at some point (I would add, God forbid). My feeling is that it needs to be someone completely new and unfamiliar, and somewhat right of centre – though not sure what someone like that could deliver that would be different from the Tories.

Thrugelmir

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I don't see any point in having a Labour party that occupies the centre ground - we need to get back to our roots.

The roots of the labour party need to change. As Blair attempted to do. The days of old are past. The world is a very different place to that of even 50 years ago.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I don't see any point in having a Labour party that occupies the centre ground - we need to get back to our roots.

Then you will continue to lose elections.

purch

The main problems New Labour had were having a leader in Blair who was a Tory and a Chancellor who was utterly incompetent.

The ideas behind the changes to the party were sound, but the two two had greatest influence over them ultimately !!!!ed the whole thing up.

Linton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The roots of the labour party need to change. As Blair attempted to do. The days of old are past. The world is a very different place to that of even 50 years ago.

I agree the roots need to change as the massed ranks of mine and factory workers no longer exist, but not as Blair attempted to do. He started well, but with an apparent lack of principles and long term objectives he ran out of policy steam.

There is room for a mass radical left party in this country that can offer a vision of a better world to the majority of the population. The core principles and vision should be more important than policies of minor tweaks to the tax system. The SNP show it can be done. Remember in the mid 1950s the Tory's had a greater than 50% vote in Scotland and represented more than 50% of the constituencies.

The other parties in the radical left area dont have a very large base support and have their own problems - the LDs are split between left and right with some rather liking the one-nation David Cameron though perhaps not his back benchers and others well to the left of Labour. Sadly the Greens come with their own baggage of opposition to the modern world.

antrobus

Linton wrote: »

...There is room for a mass radical left party in this country that can offer a vision of a better world to the majority of the population. The core principles and vision should be more important than policies of minor tweaks to the tax system. ....

I have good news for you. Someone has already taken the time and trouble to prepare a draft manifesto for your new "mass radical left party". It might need a few tweaks here and there, and a bit of updating, but that shouldn't be too difficult.

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab83.htm

Linton

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Then you will continue to lose elections.

The objective is to move what "centre" means. Looking at past history, once upon a time the Tory's opposed the intoduction of the NHS and there was a significant view well into the 1950s or later in favour of dismantling it. Now they vie with Labour on who can put the most money into it. More recently the Tory's voted agains a National Minimum Wage. Now Boris wants to increase it. What was dangerously radical has a tendancy to become middle ground.

If you look around the world, and into history, the workings of democracy seems to ensure that the party system moves towards two blocs each with around 50% of the electorate.

antrobus

Linton wrote: »

The objective is to move what "centre" means. Looking at past history, once upon a time the Tory's opposed the intoduction of the NHS ...

The Conservative Party was not opposed to a national health service. You can't getting away with spreading your leftie myths here ya'know.:)

Linton wrote: »

..and there was a significant view well into the 1950s or later in favour of dismantling it. Now they vie with Labour on who can put the most money into it. More recently the Tory's voted agains a National Minimum Wage. Now Boris wants to increase it. What was dangerously radical has a tendancy to become middle ground....

And once upon a time the Labour wanted to leave the 'Common Market' as was. Now they've learnt to love it. What of it? Life, and politics, move on.

What's next? The standard 'History Is On Our Side' trope?:)

Linton wrote: »

...If you look around the world, and into history, the workings of democracy seems to ensure that the party system moves towards two blocs each with around 50% of the electorate.

All that shows is that your knowledge of both the world and history is somewhat patchy.:)

Thrugelmir

Linton wrote: »

I agree the roots need to change as the massed ranks of mine and factory workers no longer exist, but not as Blair attempted to do. He started well, but with an apparent lack of principles and long term objectives he ran out of policy steam.

Don't overlook Brown and Balls influence in shaping policy. Not the disagreement between Blair and Brown on issues such as the amount of expenditure on the welfare state.