Ken Livingstone, duh.

Even with Ed, the worst case scenario for Labour is still to be the largest party after the next election. You people try to have a leadership contest and the instability there may just keep Cameron in power.

Predicted winner of the Labour power struggle therefore....

David Cameron!

@ Invictus

How did you come up with that worst case scenario, out of interest?

For those interested the UK's premier political commentators and most reliable forecasters (the bookies) currently have a labour majority at odds of 3:1 and a tory majority at odds of 4:1. Labour slightly ahead, but too close to call.

That's because nobody expects either side to get a majority any more, really.

Not really. It means they think the chances of someone getting a majority is around 50/50. Personally I would say it was rather more likely than that, but that's just opinion

Have you changed you opinion on how many seats UKIP will get in May Octavious?

I think Ed is a decent bloke, but what I think (and what labour party members think) is not really that important. What matters is what the public think, and they just don't relate to him. It's always going to be an uphill struggle for any labour leader, look at Foot and Kinnock - good men, who were anything but faceless politicos and they were derided by the press, and now Ed is derided for not being distinctive.

I think Labour would do well to go for Harriet Harman. I also think they need a new shadow chancellor, Chuka could be good. A woman and a black guy ticket could be good.

More importantly they have to sort out their policies and stratagy. Their Europe policy is frankly a joke, they need to clearly state what they will do with benefits and job creation, have a clear policy on immigration, housing, and the constitution.

They also need to have a sound policy on HS2 and Heathrow.

Whilst their economics policy should be clear, they arn't going to get people's trust on that between now and the next election, so should lead on other items.

The thing I hope they don't do is be negative about UKIP / LD and Tories. The media always hold the parties to account over their policies anyway - Labour should concentrate on its own message.

@ Maniac

Not really. I've not seen anything to make me think differently. It'll be interesting to see if Carswell can hold on to his seat.

Harman would be an awful choice. She has a list of attackable points as long as your arm (some fair, some not) and generally isn't very good. You might as well give the job to Mandelson. He is equally as ghastly (actually, rather more so), but at least he has an air of competence.

@Maniac
It's simply too late to ditch Ed before the election, but Chuka Umunna would be an excellent replacement afterwards. Very sad about Ed. I voted for him.

That worst case scenario of mine comes from reading the Telegraph, New Statesman, and Independent pretty much every day.

Governments almost always lose support, so the Tories are unlikely to beat their unimpressive 2010 share this time. UKIP is also dividing the right wing vote. Constituency boundaries which favor Labour have been unchanged. All very good things for Labour.

Labour shouldn't be worried about winning in May 2015. They should be worried about winning the second election in 2015 when there's a new Tory leader. The polls I've seen seem to show that *any* plausible coalition is likely to not be mathematically possible. Labour would be better off trying to do a good job as a minority government for a few months and hope for the best against Boris later in the year.

@ Thomas

Out of interest, when you voted for him what did you imagine he'd do differently (aside from being more popular)? He seems a decent enough chap who has largely performed as expected. He's not one of the great charismatic public speakers, but that was obvious before he got the job. He's made a few more gaffes than he would have wanted, but that's just one of those things.

@ Invictous

Lol! Sod the papers and the pollsters. Stick with the bookies!

@octavious - bookies odds don't reflect what the bookies think will happen, they reflect the level that will make them the most money. The two are fundamentally different, and this difference in incentives means that bookies aren't particularly reliable as predictors of future behaviour.

"More importantly they have to sort out their policies and stratagy. Their Europe policy is frankly a joke, they need to clearly state what they will do with benefits and job creation, have a clear policy on immigration, housing, and the constitution.
They also need to have a sound policy on HS2 and Heathrow."

So right Maniac, I read somewhere that Ed could not understand the aspirations of the lower/aspiring middle class and I think they are spot on, he does not have enough life experience to effectively communicate with all people, he does not have the common touch.
What about the Yvette Cooper/Andy Burnham ticket, I like that in either order.

But before or after the election? It's not like Milliband having problems connecting with the average voter is a new thing. Staging a coup just a few months before the election is not exactly the way to make the public suddenly think Labour is MORE fit to run the country.

You'll "win" enough by default to have Milliband be PM in a short-term minority government if things stay more or less as they are up to polling day. A snap election after Labour tries to pass its most popular policies maybe enough to create a proper government.

Why all this "Soinso/Whatshisname ticket" nonsense, by the way? The British public vote for Parties and Party leaders. Hardly anyone gives a damn about who the supposed number 2 is. I doubt you'd even find much agreement from the public over what the number 2 position actually is.