Has Ed Miliband lost the plot?

[Eater Sundae 12]

Ed won the leadership ballot because of union support, against the preferences of the party grass roots membership and the MPs. If he now doesn’t deliver what they want, or looks like changing the rules to reduce their power in future, then they can get rid of him as fast as they brought him in. If they do not want a more politically central Ed Milliband, they can either support a more left wing replacement who will toe their line, or, if they think that would be too damaging to their election prospects, then they could go for a different centrist leader, but one who is more charismatic than Ed, ie a “New Blair” type. If they're going to get a centrist leader (not what they expected when they supported Ed), they might as well have a better one.

 

I think Ed Milliband's leadership is balancing on a knife edge at the moment, and he will have to tread very carefully if he is to survive.

[Manlinose 10]

Ed won the leadership ballot because of union support, against the preferences of the party grass roots membership and the MPs. If he now doesn’t deliver what they want, or looks like changing the rules to reduce their power in future, then they can get rid of him as fast as they brought him in. If they do not want a more politically central Ed Milliband, they can either support a more left wing replacement who will toe their line, or, if they think that would be too damaging to their election prospects, then they could go for a different centrist leader, but one who is more charismatic than Ed, ie a “New Blair” type. If they're going to get a centrist leader (not what they expected when they supported Ed), they might as well have a better one.

 

I think Ed Milliband's leadership is balancing on a knife edge at the moment, and he will have to tread very carefully if he is to survive.

 

as far as i remember, it takes 20% of labour mp's to seek a change of leadership when there isn't a vacancy - the union's don't have the power, by themselves, to force a change of leader on the labour party - it would require 52 MP's to support a leadership challenge

 

also they don't have enough of a vote, unilaterally, to elect a leader - again from memory the unions and other affiliated organisations hold a third, MP's hold a third and constituency labour parties hold a third - any leader needs much broader support than just the unions

 

as someone posted earlier, historically the labour party is very soft on its leaders, compared to the conservatives at least - very rarely do they kick one out - i have no idea why it is the case, but it is

 

i would be very surprised if ed miliband is not the leader of the labour party at the next election (unless he decides to resign) - if for no other reason than i can't see anyone else who is likely to be more successful - and i think that is a sad reflection on the labour party

 

from what i have seen and heard ed miliband is a decent bloke, but he doesn't give the impression of being a prime minister in waiting

[truman 10]

as far as i remember, it takes 20% of labour mp's to seek a change of leadership when there isn't a vacancy - the union's don't have the power, by themselves, to force a change of leader on the labour party - it would require 52 MP's to support a leadership challenge

 

also they don't have enough of a vote, unilaterally, to elect a leader - again from memory the unions and other affiliated organisations hold a third, MP's hold a third and constituency labour parties hold a third - any leader needs much broader support than just the unions

 

as someone posted earlier, historically the labour party is very soft on its leaders, compared to the conservatives at least - very rarely do they kick one out - i have no idea why it is the case, but it is

 

i would be very surprised if ed miliband is not the leader of the labour party at the next election (unless he decides to resign) - if for no other reason than i can't see anyone else who is likely to be more successful - and i think that is a sad reflection on the labour party

 

from what i have seen and heard ed miliband is a decent bloke, but he doesn't give the impression of being a prime minister in waiting

 

Genuine question..how many Labour MP's are union sponsored..?

[Vague_Boy 10]

Whether it's the unions, Labour or whoever undertakes vote rigging is irrelevant.

 

TRANSLATION: Because it's Labour getting it in the neck, it's all "irrelevant".

 

I have a feeling that Mecky would be finding it oh so much more relevant if it were the Conservatives getting all this bad publicity.

 

We'd never hear the end of it.

[Manlinose 10]

Genuine question..how many Labour MP's are union sponsored..?

 

i genuinely don't know - i suspect an awful lot more than 20% - how many are sponsored by unite? - again i don't know, but again i suspect more than 20%

 

sponsorship doesn't mean control - i understand the suggestion (if that is the right word) that union sponsorship gives the unions some influence over how those sponsored mps vote, but i'm not sure it gives them that much influence

 

and it should be remembered that the recent actions of unite are not supported by many of the other unions affiliated to the labour party - i haven't seen many reports, but there was one in the times last week or over the weekend suggesting that the other unions weren't happy with their brothers

[geared 303]

His brother as Labour leader would have been the better choice

David Cameron has a slight edge on charisma and regardless of policies the image of a leader does matter to some of the voting public

 

This for sure, such a bad move letting Ed take control.

[truman 10]

i genuinely don't know - i suspect an awful lot more than 20% - how many are sponsored by unite? - again i don't know, but again i suspect more than 20%

 

sponsorship doesn't mean control - i understand the suggestion (if that is the right word) that union sponsorship gives the unions some influence over how those sponsored mps vote, but i'm not sure it gives them that much influence

 

and it should be remembered that the recent actions of unite are not supported by many of the other unions affiliated to the labour party - i haven't seen many reports, but there was one in the times last week or over the weekend suggesting that the other unions weren't happy with their brothers

 

It was just a thought.. you don't put someone in power without the wherewithal to remove them if they "go native" .. if Ed were to displease his union backers I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to give him a hard time...I wonder if the other unions are upset with the means rather than the end..?

[alchresearch 214]

and it should be remembered that the recent actions of unite are not supported by many of the other unions affiliated to the labour party - i haven't seen many reports, but there was one in the times last week or over the weekend suggesting that the other unions weren't happy with their brothers

 

Not just recent actions. Many teachers weren't happy about the strike they had to take the other week, and there was a mass exodus of members from one particular union a couple of months ago. All nicely hushed up though.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Not just recent actions. Many teachers weren't happy about the strike they had to take the other week

"Had to take"? Someone forced them not to work and stopped them attending? That's a major and newsworthy revelation.

[geared 303]

there was a mass exodus of members from one particular union a couple of months ago. All nicely hushed up though.

 

To be expected tho, the unions power and influence comes from the number of people it represents/has control of.

 

If everyone leave then the union is pretty much useless.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

To be expected tho, the unions power and influence comes from the number of people it represents/has control of.

 

If everyone leave then the union is pretty much useless.

Apart from for its Executive who'd continue to enjoy their perks.

[truman 10]

Apart from for its Executive who'd continue to enjoy their perks.

 

If there are no subs coming in how do they pay for the perks?