Anyone but David Milliband, because I am laying him on betfair 
Otherwise I really couldn’t care less. Cruddass would be good to ensure they don’t hold power again during my lifetime.
Maybe they should put John Prescott in charge, if only for the comedy value at PMQs.
Seriously - of the candidates under discussion, Johnson is the least objectionable but hardly the man to drive any sort of change in the party. I’m not seeing anyone at the moment that really fills me with hope for the future of the party (and certainly not Harriet Harman). All the really principled ones resigned over the Iraq war and/or are dead. Maybe I should check the expenses scandal reports and see who diddled the taxpayer out of the least money…
Because the tory Leopard does not change its Thatcherite spots.
It always has been the party of privilege and we know that its way of dealing with the crisis will be to make the poor pay and the rich richer.
And unlike when New Labour emerged from the wreckage of the original labour party the current conservative party has not ejected its lunatics. It’s the same nasty old party with a nice public schoolboy front-man.
We know that their spending cuts will deflate the economy and make things worse.
I hope the Lib-democrats in the new Conrat Govt will ameliorate this.
The signs aren’t good with all major Offices of State in the hands of essentially Neo-cons.
There was no enthusiasm for Labour but the last period of Tory rule was brutally destructive from the point of view of Labour’s natural constituency.
I do welcome the Freedom Bill.
New Labour were vile authoritarians after 9/11 and much of what they wrought needs sweeping away.
I had to use Google to refresh my memory.
(Bolded text added). Link to article. I know from reading The Independant that Johann Hari hates the Conservatives but hopefully it shows the differences between the different party member’s priorities.
There’s nothing knee-jerk about opposing the Tories. We oppose them because we know what side their bread is buttered on.
This is the sort of thing I was referring to earlier 
For sure they’ll have different priorities, but I don’t think their actual views are all that different.
Me too.
Whereas New Labour adopted many ideas that could be classed as Thatcherite. Blair himself stood as a Tory at University IIRC.
I’m not a Tory voter, but give Cameron a chance, he may not be as bad as you think and he’s certainly better than Blair or Brown.
Hopefully this defeat will give the Labour party time to re-organise and re-focus so that next time they gain power they can do it without adopting all the worst traits of the Tories as well as their own authoritarian, big government and spending policies.
Ah, who indeed. An excellent question.
I have voiced strong opinion on just this subject recently.
I cannot see a single possible candidate that I’d like to see as a future PM. The idea of a Milliband in the office is terrifying. I cannot stand watching the elder Milliband speak. He manages to take the worst mannerisms of Blair and Cameron and add his own to the diabolical mix.
This is simply not true. The couldn’t get the votes if they were: there simply aren’t that many privileged people. The Tories are rather the party of those who aspire to better themselves.
At least that explains why I’ve never been inclined to vote for them. Aspire to better myself? No thanks, I’m as good as it gets!
Well, there’s already been an Irish PM (sort of), a Jewish PM (sort of) and a female PM… (sort of).
Sorry, I had that joke from ages ago and I’ve been dying to try it out again. Even though it doesn’t quite work here. Ah well…
Actually, Lord Palmerston was (Anglo-)Irish, though as an Irish peer he was eligible for election to the House of Commons and was in fact elected from English constituencies.
About this point that Labour (and some Tory MPs) have been making today, regarding the sudden announcement that it will now require a 55% No Confidence vote in Parliament to bring down the government, rather than 50+%.
While I’m sympathetic to the coalition, they do have a point. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with the 55% number per se – other parliaments have much more onerous No Confidence requirements – but the idea that they can reformulate the constitution on the spot like that, to suit current circumstances, is troubling.
Some people, many of them Liberal Democrats, have said that we need a clear written constitution that can not easily be changed. Maybe they’re right.
The finely-tuned 55% threshold power grab will not get through the Commons. It’ll be the old 50% + 1. Oh, it’s going to be * so* awkward.
Are there enough dissenters to oppose the 55% change? The coalition has a 70-seat majority, on paper.
Hmmm – is there anything in statute law that requires a government to resign on losing a confidence vote? Otherwise, it’s merely a convention – one of long precedent, to be sure. But for a P.M. to say, “Okay, the vote was 318 No confidence, 316 Confidence, 16 absentees or abstentions – that’s not necessarily reflective of the nation’s lack of confidence in the Government” does make sense. Now, if he ignored multiple or lopsided no confidence votes, then the Leader of the Opposition would be justified in going to see the Queen and asking that he be dismissed or Parliament dissolved. (And I’m speculating here – what would happen if Cameron did lose a confidence vote by a slim margin and ignored it? Riots in the streets? Dogs and cats living together?)
Legally, one Parliament cannot bind another. This Parliament could pass a five-year fixed term elections bill. And when elections are held in 2015, the incoming Parliament could repeal it and hold a snap election in six months if they so chose.