Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 48 total)
  • Milliband has resigned!
  • phil40
    Free Member

    Just popped up as breaking news on my iPad that millibars has resigned as Labour Party leader.

    Interesting about who could get it, I think Ed Balls saw himself as next in line.

    geoffj
    Full Member

    Markie
    Free Member

    It’s no Blue Steel, but it has a certain something…

    phil40
    Free Member

    Damned autocorrect

    Milliband!

    Apologies for the wrong forum

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    Innevitable really.

    The commentary I heard this morning was that the leadership contest will have to more significantly distance itself from the past, meaning that the cadidates for leader will likely skip a generation.

    Chukka Umunah would be a very interesting choice.

    P-Jay
    Free Member

    I don’t think David will have another go at it, as above it’ll probably be a relatively unknown who’ll bring a new generation into the Shadow Cabinet with them.

    wanmankylung
    Free Member

    Andy Burnham.

    breatheeasy
    Free Member

    I think Ed should have stayed for a while longer – that way he could have absorbed all the negativity like a sponge, fell on his sword and a new start from then.

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    Deja-vu, hora posted a pic of Chukka a few hours ago. We have too many election threads 😐

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Better yet,

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32633719

    Nigel Farage has resigned as leader of UKIP having failed to gain the seat of Thanet South, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
    But he said he would consider running for the job again when the leadership contest is held in September.
    Speaking about his defeat, he insisted he had “never felt happier”, with a “weight lifted off his shoulders”.

    Incidentally, Al Murray’s reaction at the vote count was priceless. Video here:

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-08/pub-landlord-shocked-as-farage-misses-out-in-mp-bid/

    MSP
    Full Member

    meaning that the cadidates for leader will likely skip a generation.

    Skip a generation, he was 45, are they going to appoint someone fresh from their gcse’s.

    They need some new blood, some from working backgrounds and normal lives who have experienced some lows instead of being on a constant career path where everything has lucked out for them.

    I think Alan Johnson would be a good interim leader to rebuild the party and get back to it’s roots, but he is realistically too old now to take them into another election, he would be 69 at the next one.

    breatheeasy
    Free Member

    But he said he would consider running for the job again when the leadership contest is held in September.

    Without liking the man, that seems like a crafty move from him – kept to his word about resigning, but knows the party is basically a one-man band (i.e. him) so probably a shoe-in to be re-elected come Sept.

    brooess
    Free Member

    Someone on Radio 4 was making an interesting point that Labour need a new stance not just a new leader.
    They need to be more than a party of re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the masses – they need to be a party that supports creation of wealth and then its fair re-distribution…

    I think that’s sensible and more in touch with the times tbh…

    globalti
    Free Member

    Spot on. The old Labour has lost its relevance. The party needs a completely new stance, perhaps something to do with business with ethics.

    breatheeasy
    Free Member

    Lord Reid nails it for me:-

    “They (the public) thought we were on the wrong side of all the major arguments – our economic competence, on the question of creating wealth rather than just distributing wealth, on the question of immigration, on the question of reform of the public services,”

    Mark
    Full Member

    Social Capitalism.
    An approach of awareness of the need for profit in a company in order to fulfil the duty of care that company has to it’s employees first.. shareholders second.

    ourmaninthenorth
    Full Member

    They need some new blood, some from working backgrounds

    I’m sick of this phrase “working families” (and, by extension, “working backgrounds”). It’s so watered down, it’s meaningless.

    Which is one of the major failings of the current Labour Party. No idea who or what they stand for.

    MSP
    Full Member

    The old Labour has lost its relevance

    No it is needed now far more than it has been for a long long time.

    FunkyDunc
    Free Member

    The reality is that a leader just needs to be charasmatic and pleasent on the eye, not some one who makes you want to leave the room whenver they come on TV

    Cougar
    Full Member

    On the upside,

    This year’s Celebrity Come Dancing is going to be fantastic.

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    Social Capitalism.
    An approach of awareness of the need for profit in a company in order to fulfil the duty of care that company has to it’s employees first.. shareholders second.

    Mark the spanner in the works here is that without shareholders money there would be no company. The alternative you describe is a co-operative and they are much less popular than people starting their own businesses and being in charge

    binners
    Full Member

    The old Labour has lost its relevance

    I’d say that a lot of the SNP policies that appealed to so many people were very ‘Old Labour’

    MSP
    Full Member

    And without employees there would be no company. Both can be fairly treated as stakeholders in the company.

    Tom_W1987
    Free Member

    Labour would have lost with the Scottish vote as well.

    I believe that most of the times Labour have won in the past, could have bee won without Scotland. Labour need to focus on winning seats in England, Scotland is a lost cause that needs to float off into the North Atlantic.

    DezB
    Free Member

    We have too many election threads 😐

    Dunno what you mean. I just counted, there’s only 12! TWELVE!!

    bananasandwich
    Free Member

    You have an iPad…. cooool !

    gobuchul
    Free Member

    Dan Jarvis is the man.

    Not a “professional” politician, real life experience.

    The Tories would sh!t themselves.

    allthepies
    Free Member

    Oh I dunno, did anyone see that Greg Wallace programme last night in the milk dairy? Robots whizzing about everywhere, replacing 300 workers in one hall alone.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    There’s only one man for the job. I’m off to Iona with a shovel.

    kudos100
    Free Member

    Good. Useless ****

    If his brother was running they might have had a fighting chance.

    How can you possibly win an election when you have a face like a slapped arse?

    Mark
    Full Member

    Not a cooperative – that means shares for employees. And it doesn’t exclude shareholders from a return on investment either, it just means that directors of a company, who already have a fidiciary duty to the company and shareholders laid down in law, would also have a fidiciary duty of care to their employees that was laid above that of shareholders. It’s pretty simple attitude change and one that a lot of companies, with shareholders, already follow – Singletrack included. Shareholders still get a return but it generally isn’t at the levels of a company that considers employees as tradable/disposable assets/expenses.
    It moves a company away from the desire to make profit for the sole benefit of shareholders to making profit in order to provide stable employment and benefits to employees AS WELL AS shareholders.

    End result is a more stable company, happier more secure employees, and a lower but less risky and volatile return for shareholders.

    It’s an ideology that can be laid down in a legislature if enough effort is put into it.

    In simple terms it’s a marriage of profit lead capitalism and socialist principals of workers rights. As far as I can can tell there’s been too much focus on one or the other (capitalism and growth of profits and dividends or socialism that eschews profit as something bad and evil). The solution is, as it tends to be, somewhere in the middle… But not in a limp Lib Dem way 🙂

    ….and that’s as publicly political as I am going to be today 🙂

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Cougar – Moderator
    On the upside,
    This year’s Celebrity Come Dancing is going to be fantastic.

    😀

    The social capitalism model (who invented that mouthful??) seems a little shortsighted especially when articulated in front of the people excluded from the definition – the customers or subscribers!

    Personally, I would advocate a model that looks after customers, employees and shareholders alike. They are all key stakeholders than need investing in. Doing it in one at the exclusion of the others is folly IMHO!

    chewkw
    Free Member

    Chuka! Chuka! Chuka!

    You know you want to … go on … Chuka! Chuka! Chuka!

    Chuka for the next Labour leader.

    Chuka! Chuka! Chuka!

    (a bit like Sontarans chant) 😆

    MSP
    Full Member

    Doing it in one at the exclusion of the others is folly IMHO!

    Which is the current system.

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    Mark and MSP companies have those duties according to employment law and we have some of the most employee friendly employment law in the world. We could certainly do more around minimum/living wage and zero hours contracts but we already relatively uncompetitive with say, the USA and Asia certainly.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Not in my company MSP. That would kill us.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    So was Edstone his Sheffiield?

    Mark
    Full Member

    Like I said, it’s more of an attitude change from profit for shareholders and if that comes at the cost of employees then all is good. – It’s that last bit that needs modifying. Companies exist in and because of society – in my mind that means they can show their appreciation of that society by not making dividends to shareholders the sole purpose of the company. A company’s purpose is to benefit it’s shareholders and that’s all hunkdory, but it also exists to contribute to society by paying tax and employing people. Just a redressing of focus to the latter is all I’m saying 🙂

    Lots of companies operate this way already. It’s not revolutionary really.. It could just do with spreading a bit more I reckon. Become more of a trend or ideology to drive a political movement… or something.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    If the headlines tomorrow don’t read BALLS SACKED I’ll be very disappointed.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Still no comment on the customer Mark – that is quite revolutionary! 😉

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 48 total)

The topic ‘Milliband has resigned!’ is closed to new replies.