Do you think he'll last longer as Labour leader than Greece will as a member of the Eurozone?

Greece may fall out of the EZ in March / April, although I suspect they will be bailed out again. Ed will feel the pressure mounting by conference season. Whether they'll both last the year though is doubtful.

Ed will remain as long as the next election.
Then when he fails to pick up the votes of the disillusioned and/or dimwits who voted ConDem, he'll get the elbow.

Nice bloke, intelligent, decent ... but apparently ineffectual ... he needs to get in touch with his inner Rottweiler and let Ed Balls off the leash at Gideon a bit more often.

Ed Ballocks is a caretaker leader, a bit like Ian Duncan Smith was for the Conservatives. He's working the political equivalent of the night shift.

He'll be there until he loses the next election, and is only there because Labour need someone as a figurehead until they become electable again following the usual 10-ish year cycles that these governments have. If they put someone good in, like his brother for instance, he will only burn himself out by the time he is needed. ie, when they stand a chance of winning, or coming close.

Labour will get themselves a good leader again as soon as one is needed, don't you worry.

We need a strong Labour leader NOW, we cannot afford the Tories in power for 10 years.

I wouldn't say Ed Miliband is a caretaker leader, or IDS for that matter, a caretaker leader was like Michael Howard was in 2003. With defeat in the next election inevitable Howard's job was to minimise damage and shore up the traditional support so that the next leader had a winnable platform. Howard did that to an extent, he might not have been popular but he was credible. If Labour wanted a caretaker like that they would have been better with someone like Alan Johnson or Alastair Darling.

Ed Miliband is what William Hague was supposed to be, 'a fresh start', and a total disaster who soon became shown up as non credible. But the two are in totally different situations. Hague faced a dominant Blair with a huge majority and a healthy economy, he was on a hiding to nothing. Miliband faces a Tory PM having to share power with the Lib Dems in a disastrous economy with rising unemployment. The circumstances are in place for a strong Labour candidate to land blows on Cameron but Ed Miliband is allowing Cameron an easy run because he is a bit of a joke Opposition leader.

I think if the economy nosedives next year and the Coalition gets into trouble then Ed Miliband will be forced out, if Labour sense that the next election could be winnable they will have to make the move. But if the Coalition stays together and keeps away from disaster and scandal next year, then Labour will let Ed Miliband take them to the next election and lose.

Only in Dally world can Milibland be described as red.

I think the Tories and Lib Dems will engineer a "friendly" break up of the coalition 18 months before the election, to give them time to re-establish their separate identities. It will revert to a minority Tory government. At same the time Labour will make a decision as to whether to ditch Miliband. I think that decision basically comes down to whether they have a credible alternative. Clearly they cant ditch Ed in favour of his brother. Who else is there?

'The Beast'



If your not going to win, you may as well have some charisma on the front benches, lets face it there is sod all of that on either side.

It wouldn't make any difference.

My money for the next leader of the Labour party will be Balls, not Ed but no-balls Balls, Yvette Cooper. I also think she'll be leading them into the next election.

May as well disband the party now then.

That'll be a disaster

Don't underestimate her, she's a bloody shrewd operative. Ed got his chance in the last leadership election, he won't get another. You also have to ask: who else is there? Please don't mention Alan Johnson, not after he threw his hand in once he found a rozzer had been nobbing his missus

good to see that Labour are unelectable, we don't need them anywhere near f'ing up the country again, ever.

Cooper has more chance becoming a cleaner at a Hilton hotel than PM.

This country is never more f'ckd then when the Tories get hold of it.

Yeah, the Tories are doing a terrific job.



As usual.

Don't you think so mate? You wouldn't get a Labour Government declaring war on behalf of American Foreign Policy, selling honours for cash, selling arms to dodgy regimes, keeping Tory anti-union laws, closing schools and hospitals. Oh, hang on! You're right! They're all a shower of s and in the thrall of a system designed to help the priviledged stay in their position of power at the expense of the working class.

Fixing Labours total and utter shambles is going to take some time, but you crack on bleating, it's funny to read.

As you well know, I was no fan of the previous administration and didn't vote for them. The current lot are doing no better and, in many instances, worse. Osbourne is the most economically illiterate chancellor I can remember in my lifetime, and his cabinet colleagues (both Tory and Lib Dem) aren't much better.

I wasn't 'bleating' as you so maturely put it. I was reacting with amused disdain to your completely one-eyed assertion that only Labour were capable of damaging the country when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Sadly I'm not at all surprised by your knee-jerkery when challenged.

Being a shrewd operative doesn't make any difference in today's world of politics. William Hague is a brilliant debator and politician, but people just don't like him. It's the same with Yvette Cooper.

On the other side of the fence you have Tony Blair, who was youthful and all the housewives fancied him. Average politically, but he could talk a magnificent talk.

In a leader, these days, you basically need a salesman, whilst all the real policitians do the work behind the scenes.

no, you'd have the Lib Dems sell our soul to Europe, and that would have been so much better, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately that is true, the electorate does seem to prefer snake-oil.
But it doesn't just require a salesman to keep it going, it also requires a vision (of some sort), substantial back-up within the party and Machiavellian managerial expertise to keep it running.

That's where Cameron is winning it at the moment, he has packaged-up his "rolling back the state and sod the lot of you" as "The Big Society".
Only a minority bought it ... but Cameron got lucky because Cleggy a) hated Brown and b) was weak-willed (or stupid) enough to join a "coalition" where the main point of agreement is that Cleggy doesn't do a runner.
Then Cameron stuffed his cabinet with his cabal of hoorays (don't want any of that oiky "conscience" nonsense) to keep it steady as she goes... and bingo, just keep lying to the electorate and Bob's your uncle.

Sell our soul?



We'd have been no worse off under a Lib Dem administration. Whether we'd have been much better off is open to question but we'd have avoided some of the more odious policies to come out of the 'coalition'. And we'd have avoided alienating our largest trading partner for no actual benefit to the country.

yes, because all exports to Europe have stopped, haven't they?

anyway, we'll never agree on politics, because I didn't chose to have children and then expect everyone else to help me pay their way.

You'd have pulled out then ... and that would have been so much better wouldn't it?
Blind Euroscepticism is so easy, all it needs is a touch of xenophobia and no actual thinking.