[Bonanzoid]

What do you all think of 'Red' Ed being voted new Labour leader? I don't know heaps about him, but from what I've seen and read so far I think it might prove to be a good appointment. He's announced the death of New Labour apparently, and that's always good!

[dimtimjim]

Couldn't care less, stupid Labour *ers.

[DevilsDuck]

He aint Brown, so thats a damn good start.

He in theory will have to screw up big time not to win the next election.

The libs will lose so many votes because of the coalition with the con men and the con men will lose so many votes as they are taxing the poor to give to the rich again, which is family friendly.

[McGuinness-89]

He aint Brown, so thats a damn good start.

Racist.

[DevilsDuck]

OMG.........lol

[Yudster]

My heart wants a return to a socialist Labour party, but his policies smack of window dressing, pandering to the disenfranchised Left and ultimately, if he actually DOES take the party in that direction (which I doubt he will), will make him unelectable. And if he DOESN'T take the party in that direction, but just offers a slightly spun to the left (as opposed to moved to the left) option (which I predict is what will happen) it exposes him as a shallow lying arse before he's even been in power - so why elect him?

David would have been a far better choice, he's a better politician, and had a better chance of providing a Labour party which could actually regain a little credibility.

[DevilsDuck]

Ed is old Labour though. In theory he will do what the working class want, it was the Union vote that got him the labour leadership.

What Labour will have to watch out for is the conservatives plan for re-election. They have hiked up taxes, reduced family credits and working tax etc, but coming up to an election they will suddenly start giving it all back and make themselve look all family friendly again.

[Sidders]

they are taxing the poor to give to the rich again

Are they?

[DevilsDuck]

They are reducing family credits and working tax credits, which may not be called a tax, but once again it is reducing the income of the lower income families. At a time when they will have to spend more due to the increase on VAT.

They are a conservative government.

Not sure if you saw but the lowest earning 20% of the country will be hit hardest by the cuts and the top 20% will not notice much of a change

[Sidders]

They are reducing family credits and working tax credits, which may not be called a tax, but once again it is reducing the income of the lower income families. At a time when they will have to spend more due to the increase on VAT.

They are a conservative government.

Not sure if you saw but the lowest earning 20% of the country will be hit hardest by the cuts and the top 20% will not notice much of a change

So they're not actually taxing the poor and giving it to the rich then are they.

Are you suggesting we should continue spending money the country doesn't have?

[DevilsDuck]

Ok they are punishing the poor and not the rich.

Why not increase income tax on the high earners. Why not boost the economy instead of stagnating it.

These cuts are going to increase un-employment, which will increase crime, which intern will cause them to have to increase spending again on police and councils which is where they are making the big savings.

So are you a conservative? Or a big earner? Because you obviously don't have a family or are to rich to notice the effect this government is having

[Yudster]

Ed is old Labour though. In theory he will do what the working class want, it was the Union vote that got him the labour leadership.

Winning the Labour leadership with the support of the trades unions is one thing, taking that forward to a general election is a very different situation. Has anyone thought about how electoral reform would potentially affect a more left wing Labour party in a general election? I'd be interested to hear some speculation on that.

[Sidders]

So are you a conservative? Or a big earner? Because you obviously don't have a family or are to rich to notice the effect this government is having

I actually work for the public sector in education. I actually fully support what the new government is doing even though it means all our budgets have been slashed for the next year. Under Labour we had an almost limitless budget which we could spend on anything, even stuff we didn't strictly need. Now we have to buy only essentials and look at ways of reducing cost of the way we operate. It annoys me when I think of all the pointless things that our school would waste money on under Labour.

[dimtimjim]

Agreed, there are many redundancies already in the field I work in (architecture), including in my office - which is obviously worrying. But, i'm with Sidders, surely its better than sending the whole country further into debt?! Our generation have been badly educated; if you want something, get it and worry about how you pay for it later..... The whole 'save' premise has been lost in society, and its scary! It was even lost on the * heads that ran the country for a decade. You gotta draw a line in the sand somewhere, and yes things will be hard, but somethings gotta give.

Maybe this way there will still be something left for our kids to appreciate, without a complete impolde of the system....

[Yudster]

Not strictly on point I know, but its interesting to note that what Sidders and Tim are talking about, the whole "buy now spend later" credit based lifestyle which has become the norm, was created, supported and nurtured by successive Conservative governments and gilded by New Labour. As such, I'm not sure that its right to assume that a left of centre Labour administration would stop trying to retrench and get us out of debt - you'd have to assume the opposite rather wouldn't you?

I can't remember who it was before the last election who said that whoever won it would, after their term in office, be unelectable again for a generation because of the measures it would have to take to get the country out of the mess its in. Whoever leads the country at this point in our history is going to have the same job to do, and there's no easy way to do it. And then probably the next government will reap the rewards (if there are any to be had).

[Sidders]

I can't remember who it was before the last election who said that whoever won it would, after their term in office, be unelectable again for a generation because of the measures it would have to take to get the country out of the mess its in. Whoever leads the country at this point in our history is going to have the same job to do, and there's no easy way to do it. And then probably the next government will reap the rewards (if there are any to be had).

See, for me, Labour are the ones that got us into this mess, so they are the ones that are unelectable.

[DevilsDuck]

I think the bank collapse was Labours fault. They should have put in stricter measures on the banks lending powers

I don't think what they are doing is the only way to do it. I think we would be better off if they stimulated growth, the governments debt does not need to be repaid tomorrow and is a structured long term debt. All you have to do is look at the French to see we are not in a bad position. Atleast our debt is less than our GDP. Our debt is lower than the US as a percentage of GDP

[John22]

I'm too young to vote but I think he'll be good...

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

So are you a conservative? Or a big earner? Because you obviously don't have a family or are to rich to notice the effect this government is having

I actually work for the public sector in education. I actually fully support what the new government is doing even though it means all our budgets have been slashed for the next year. Under Labour we had an almost limitless budget which we could spend on anything, even stuff we didn't strictly need. Now we have to buy only essentials and look at ways of reducing cost of the way we operate. It annoys me when I think of all the pointless things that our school would waste money on under Labour.

If you work in a School which budgets of yours have been cut?

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

I think its irrelevant who the Labour leader is if the Tory government is perceived to have "fixed" the economy in 5 years time they will get re-elected. The scale of the cuts is so huge and depressing though they have to keep the Public Sector in the publics mind as being a drain on the country.

[DevilsDuck]

they have to last 5 years without pissing off the lib dem back benchers though. they haven't got much of a majority

[Yudster]

I can't remember who it was before the last election who said that whoever won it would, after their term in office, be unelectable again for a generation because of the measures it would have to take to get the country out of the mess its in. Whoever leads the country at this point in our history is going to have the same job to do, and there's no easy way to do it. And then probably the next government will reap the rewards (if there are any to be had).

See, for me, Labour are the ones that got us into this mess, so they are the ones that are unelectable.

Well, relatively recent history gives a lot of scope for argument on the point of who caused it - my generation point at Thatcher as the cause of all evil, those older than me point to Heath/Wilson and your generation points to Blair/Brown I would guess. But party politics are largely irrelevant nowadays, as demonstrated by the current coalition. As Gaspode said, each government will be judged on the contemporary perception of its success or failure - it people think they have reason to be happy with it, they'll get re-elected. If people think they've failed, the opposition will get in. I think fixing the mess will take more than five years for anyone though, and maybe demonstrating that we are on the right track (if we are) will be tough.

[foot-loose]

I think the bank collapse was Labours fault. They should have put in stricter measures on the banks lending powers

The banks collapsed across the world.

[Yudster]

I think the bank collapse was Labours fault. They should have put in stricter measures on the banks lending powers

The banks collapsed across the world.

I still blame Thatcher.

[DevilsDuck]

no.....really? so because a lot countries * up that makes it ok?