Can Labour put up any credible, electable leader from its MPs? If so, who? Will they need to parachute someone into a constituency to have any credibility?

Chuka Umunna for me. Modern, Obama-eque and a far more presentable person than Milliband.

Andy Burnham. Anyone but Yvette Cooper, too close to Balls

Unelectable at the present time, IMO.

Why?

Burnham I like but I am not sure he is forceful enough. Yvette Cooper would be a joke candidate. If Ed M did not look like a leader (he didn't!) then she certainly does not!

Sadly, IMO there are no true labour politicians anymore, and the same goes the majority of other party's.

All this talk of "aspiration" etc. is fine and dandy and the fear of losing anything is well founded. Add to that the playground notion of 'its my ball and if you don't play to my rules I'm taking it home" attitude and you get the situation we are in today.

A country scared to "think outside the box", where right and privilege are seen as ok but this cannot be permitted at the lower end of society because they may get something they don't deserve and "I" don't want to pay for it mentality.

Strange then that same attitudes are not applicable to the big spongers off the state called the monarchy.

A country where the "big bad unions" who fight for their members "aspirations" are condemned yet the other "unions" like the 1922 committee, the Nation Farmers UNION, the Freight Transport Association, the Law society, the BMA etc., etc, who have the "governments" ear and fight for their members (by the way some of these "unions" are CLOSED SHOPS!!!) are not seen as bad.

Strange isn't it.

I am a believer in you work for what you get, and that means for "daddies heirs" to take over a business/ancestry without putting the effort in is wrong, yet this is seen as normal. There are loads of businesses that have gone to the wall once the "heirs" have taken over yet the businesses had the people who could/should have taken the business forward but the system makes it difficult to give them the opportunity.

Cameron has stated his "one nation" philosophy" and then shot himself in the foot immediately by keeping IDS and Gove in the government.

The Labour need to look for a leader who aspire to be PM and also know what fairness means. That is the key to success. The tries create a divided nation but play on fear as their chief weapon. HONESTY AND TRUTH need to be the main weapons, and if that means looking inward and thinking "outside the box" then that is what the labour party need but one thing is definite, people who have only done "political study" and never been in business, care etc. are not the politicians this country needs.

We live in interesting times, and the next couple of years will be the most interesting indeed.

I voted for Burnham for leader last time and looks like I will do so again.

Too close to the Unions

Got to be Dianne Abbott, surely............?

Of those mentioned so far, here's my take:

Yvette Cooper - too close to Ed Balls, mention of him would be continuous and keep dragging her back

Chuka Umunna - personable enough, good communicator but he'll be subjected to closet racism in the same way that Miliband suffered closet anti-semitism

Andy Burnham - good orator, cheeky chappy but will always be saddled with "North Staffs killing 1200 people"

Liz Kendall - intelligent, excellent orator. About the only thing the Wail will find wrong is that she's not married and her partner is a comedian

None of them get me excited but of the lot, I'd go for Kendall

I'm sure "New" New Labour will follow what's been its traditional policy since Harold Wilson's days of jumping further to the right with each successive iteration whilst further selling out its core principles. It's now so far from the Labour Party of the post-war years it might as well drop the appellation "Labour" altogether.

The truth of the matter is that even at the height of its ideological fervour - Labour was always a half-hearted at attempt at socialism. If anything the party was created as a buffer against true socialism breaking out in Britain with the creation of the NHS serving as a payoff to the electorate for the sufferings of two savage wars.

I mean, people talk about Blair selling the party down the river - but Harold Wilson did as much damage if not more so.

I might not agree with Peter O'Borne's politics - but he's absolutely correct in saying there are no longer any real divisions between Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems. There exists only one party in Westminster (excluding the SNP for the time being) which has multiple factions. They might bicker and scheme and war against each other - but should the [usystem as a whole[/u be threatened (such as happened during MP's expenses) they'll immediately coalesce into a tight group, raise their shields and like a Roman turtle advancing determinedly toward a jeering band of rock-hurling Visigoths they'll wipe the obnoxious, upstart proles from the battlefield.

Blair was arguably the first all-out political opportunist (and perhaps still the best example) - but Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are all his spiritual progeny to some lesser or greater extent.

Not that they have much freedom of self-determination. We live in a global marketplace dominated by enormous multi-national conglomerates, super-power and approaching-super-power states etc. all of whose influence borders upon the unimaginable by comparison.

Instead of wielding comprehensive and conspicuous real-world power as prime ministers during the days of the British Empire (and immediately in the wake of WWII) once did - today's incarnations are little more the middle-managers whose job it is to take the fall for the true architects of power (international banking, trans-national corporations, defence contractors, big oil etc.)

Once their term in office is concluded they are handsomely rewarded with lucrative positions on the boards of several corporations (even John Major managed to get himself onto the board of the Carlyle Group) and they largely disappear from view. Which is surely antithetical to democracy since an ex-prime minister is arguably the best person possible to provide the electorate with experienced analysis and criticism of those in power.

The fourth estate gave the Tories a pretty easy time of it last term. But you can bet they'll be after Cameron like salivating dogs chasing the hare at Belle Vue this. Oh the self-righteousness will be cranked up to maximum (especially in the Guardian) as Tory cuts bite deep. After all, SOMEONE must stand up for the people (

). But the reality is (whether they know it or not) they are merely baiting the electorate for the absolute necessity of voting Labour next time around. And so the carnival just keeps rollin' on.

You don't read much do you.

Isn't Cameron too close to his unions?

The 'Labour' Party are so far removed from their supposed core vote they should be sued for misrepresentation. I predict that every potential leadership candidate will try and move the party even further to the right in the illusion that this is why they are losing votes. As supposedly proven in several surveys immigration adds a net economic positive to the country as a whole BUT the bottom 20% end up WORSE OFF. That's why IMO a lot of traditional Labour voter who tend to lives in a micro-bubble are turning to UKIP. They don't fully understand how a global economy functions but they have enough common sense to realise that more competition for low paid jobs drives down wages even further.

Scotland's rejection of U.K pro-austerity parties shows that the working classes want a turn to the LEFT. Unfortunately Labour sold their souls to the City of London and the banksters in charge years ago and they cannot see that pandering to these financial fraudsters is slowly killing the country.

I'm not all that well up on politics, so don't understand this. One of the most common criticisms of Milliband's Labour was that his manifesto was too far left and ignored the centre-left. You seem to be encouraging them to do exactly what they already did?

Its standard practice after an election defeat, whether Tory or Labour. "we would have won if only we had been more left/right wing". Ignoring the overwhelming evidence that being too left/right wing is why they lost.

Its peculiar to the world of politics, the belief that if you do more of the things that make you unpopular, you will suddenly become popular

Not true. The failed independence vote sealed the fate of Scotland, and it amazes me anyone expressed surprise at the GE results. Almost without fail, nationalist Scots flocked to the SNP banner - or at least enough to guarantee seats. A cursory glance at social media told me that much, and many Scots I know joined the SNP - including right-wingers, despite their core values. It was less Nicola Sturgeon than it was Mel Gibson.

Similarly with much of English working class Labour vote. Don't mistake the old traditional died-in-the-wool Labour vote with left-leaning beliefs. That loyalty lingers thanks to decades of the unions and a laudable yet slightly illogical loyalty to the family vote. Most of the working class I know care little for leftist policies, they want plenty of work at a decent wage, immigrants out, terrorists dead, paedos castrated and cheap beer and fags. The union loyalty is dying out and UKIP are the only party saying what they're thinking.

I've said it many times. You could drink in a working men's club or pub and hear conversations that would make Nick Griffin whince, yet those same men would go out and vote Labour. Union/family loyalty, nothing more.

Since the turn of the last century (and certainly with the arrival of the Nazi Party in Germany when the practice really began to gear up) it's been common to see political entities which anyone prior to WWII would consider "Right Wing" dress themselves in the clothes of the Left. Basically it's the [ipromise[/i of socialism without socialism.

As mentioned, the Nazi Party really were the masters of this black art. Those on the Right never cease to gleefully point out the "Socialist" in National Socialism. But the Nazi Party, whilst promising a socialist revolution, never had any intentions of delivering such.

True, there was a [isocial element[/i to Nazism. A strong one, too. But this was primarily centred around the Cult of Leadership, sexual politics and the nations rampant war economy.

You have to remember, the Nazis were in direct competition with the socialists during the time of the Wiemar Republic. So it was politically expedient to blur the definition of socialism in order to capture new members.

The true litmus test of whether Nazism equated to socialism was the question of [ulabour[/u. A truly socialist system embraces labour unions. Indeed, such are at the very core of policy. The Nazis embraced labour unions - [iand then murdered them[/i.

Comparing Milliband's Labour with Nazism is somewhat extreme. But it's fundamentally the same argument. Labour is not a socialist party. It is not a "Left Wing" party (or even centrist).

Labour is a right wing party. The Conservative Party is further to the right. UKIP are not too distant from fascist.

I should say that the entire parliamentary political class (I don't consider today's political parties exist in any form other than name - which means this is effectively a one party state with multiple factions) will likely take two steps further to the right this term. And yes, unless this trend is reversed or diverted somehow (how, I'm not sure) we are going to have problems in the future.

That criticism is unfounded because it wasn't left wing at all.

About the most left wing things they proposed were allowing existing departments in hospitals to bid to provide services (such as radiology or whatever) whereas the Tories exclude them (only private companies allowed to bid...) and allowing rail franchises to be run as the east coat main line was rather than be compulsorily sold off.

If you thought they were left wing its because the propaganda worked.

That statement just shows the confusion that people thinking in daft so called "left" and "right" terms causes.

The person they need to stand has ruled himself out due to having a young family. Dan Jarvis.

Ex-Major from the Parachute regiment who resigned his commission in the army when he was selected to stand in the by-election for Barnsley in 2011.

The exact opposite of a career politician who would leave the Sun and the Daily Mail dumbfounded in trying to criticise him. I mean can you imagine those papers trying to criticise how an ex army Major who served in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan eats a bacon butty?

He also went to my old Uni, Aberystwyth, so even better!

All this of course is about mostly about image not his politics (though if you rise to Major in the Army yet end up a Labour MP I reckon you must have some conviction) but in this day and age Miliband's ratings show no matter how decent a person you are, unless you have the right image you won't win.

Confusion over political terms such as "Left-Wing" or "Right-Wing" might be common among the electorate today. But this wasn't always the case. Sure, in every society there are people who claim to be apolitical (a political statement in itself), but journey back a hundred years or so and you'd discover a country literally awash with political fervour. In Manchester alone there were over 200 newspapers published each week - the majority of which were fiercely political.

The joke that you could put a Labour donkey up for election in many northern towns and it would win was certainly no joke back then.

In the North West you voted Labour because you'd FOUGHT bloody battles on the picket line against fascist thugs to win the rights people take for granted today.

Back then people knew something most either don't or don't want to right now: Government concedes NOTHING and if you aren't prepared to fight for your rights - be prepared to lose them.

It doesn't really. In fact it is a poor example because being racist isn't the prerogative of the right. Working class people particularly of my parents generation would be trade unionists and would vote Labour not out of tribalism but because they knew no one else was going to stand up for their rights. That doesn't mean a good percentage of them weren't racist.

It is this sort of view that totally fails to understand the UK electorate and which if it prevails will see Labour in opposition for many years to come.

Firstly it is clear that the deluded Milliband's union backed strategy of appealing only to his core vote (the so called 35%) in addition to a policy move to the left from the previous 'New Labour' model was a massive failure. His tactic of ignoring the wealth creators, of being hostile to business in favour of a concentration on minority issues may have been welcomed by his followers from the 'left wing metro elite' and the leftie media but did not go down well with the suburban and country voters.

Secondly if we look at the results in Scotland it is quite simplistic to suggest the working classes want a turn to the left. In fact the two right of parties increased their share of the vote (Conservatives by 5% and UKIP by 173%) The capitulation of both Labour and the Lib Dems who are both left wing parties provided the big switch since the 2010 election with other lefties like the Trades Union & Socialist Coalition and the Scottish Socialist Party also losing half their votes to the SNP. The increase in the turnout over 2010 provided the other voters and it is interesting to note that the number that voted for the SNP in 2015 was 10% down on their vote in the referendum.

So you could say that far from being a jump to what is already a largely left wing electorate, it was a more of a selfish nationalist result as the voters see the SNP winning a better deal for them than the old Westminster based parties could.

Absolute nonsense. He wasn't remotely "hostile to business". He wanted to reduce business rates for SME's by forging a planned cut in corporation tax. So corporation-tax wise no business would be worse off and SME's would have been better off. If you are referring to things like restrictions being placed on zero hours contracts, then any ordinary voter who voted against Labour for that was a turkey voting for Christmas. And to say he lurched to the left is a joke. He did no such thing.



Where you get the Tories up by 5% I have no idea. In 2010 they got 16.7% of the vote and in 2015 14.8%. Their share of the vote went down, not up. Your figure for UKIP is also meaningless. The got 1.6% (v 0.9% in 2010) which is 47,078 votes in all. So based given you based the rest of your post on a bunch of erroneous stats I think we can dismiss the conclusions.