The infighting has brought its first casualty - Postman Alan quits front bench politics
(perhaps he'll go back to shelf-stacking?)

From BBC News -

Shadow chancellor Alan Johnson is resigning from Labour leader Ed Miliband's frontbench team, citing "personal issues".

He is replaced by Ed Balls, previously the shadow home secretary. Mr Balls' wife, Yvette Cooper, takes over the home affairs brief.

Mr Johnson said he had "found it difficult" to cope with issues in his private life while shadow chancellor.

His resignation comes after just three-and-a-half months in the job.

It follows several recent gaffes when discussing tax and economic matters.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12242397

The poor bloke was put in the job by Miliband to keep out Balls. It was appalling leadership, as you just don't appoint someone so ill-equipped purely to control your rivals. Now Balls is in and Miliband looks weakened.

Bizarre: a rumour going around is that Alan's bodyguard had an affair with his wife. If true, how sad.

Locked Out wrote:
How desperately sad. Whatever you think of Alan Johnson's politics - or qualifications for whichever of the posts he held, in both government and opposition - it looks like an honest, decent man has been laid low by by emotional circumstances that he cannot deal with. I hope he finds all the support he needs and, from what I have seen of his sheer likability I'm sure he will. A sad day for British politics when we see a politician, perhaps of no great stature as a political card sharper but possessed of a personal humility and humour which set him apart from the stuffed suits and the spin merchants, resign in this way. Politicians are often the authors of their own fate. Not, it would appear, this time. I wish him well.

Well said.

Agreed - I'm an Alan Johnson fan; might even have voted Labour if he'd been leader.

Locked Out wrote:
How desperately sad. Whatever you think of Alan Johnson's politics - or qualifications for whichever of the posts he held, in both government and opposition - it looks like an honest, decent man has been laid low by by emotional circumstances that he cannot deal with. I hope he finds all the support he needs and, from what I have seen of his sheer likability I'm sure he will. A sad day for British politics when we see a politician, perhaps of no great stature as a political card sharper but possessed of a personal humility and humour which set him apart from the stuffed suits and the spin merchants, resign in this way. Politicians are often the authors of their own fate. Not, it would appear, this time. I wish him well.

What tosh !

This is the man who wanted - based on absolutely no exidence whatsover - to take away our freedoms and instill 90 days detention !

When he became "Shadow Chancellor" he made so many gaffs that he was an embarrassment.

Whatever someone's "likeability" (substitute stupidity) they are very dangerous when they practise without any knowledge / experience etc.

Even the police "had it in for him" !

Prunella Minge wrote:
The poor bloke was put in the job by Miliband to keep out Balls. It was appalling leadership, as you just don't appoint someone so ill-equipped purely to control your rivals. Now Balls is in and Miliband looks weakened.

Yes, Prunella - and now the Commie Unions have exactly what they want
- loony "union puppets" in ALL 3 top Labour jobs !

Red Ed Mk 1 will have to do as he is told or he'll be replaced by Red Ed Mk 2

In The Know wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
The poor bloke was put in the job by Miliband to keep out Balls. It was appalling leadership, as you just don't appoint someone so ill-equipped purely to control your rivals. Now Balls is in and Miliband looks weakened.

Yes, Prunella - and now the Commie Unions have exactly what they want
- loony "union puppets" in ALL 3 top Labour jobs !

Red Ed Mk 1 will have to do as he is told or he'll be replaced by Red Ed Mk 2

commie unions ?..oh if only

he's a light shade of pink to me.

veritas wrote:
commie unions ?..oh if only.

Give them time, veritas .... give them time.
They have only just wheedled their way back into control.

All this talk of "likeable" made me think .... were Thatcher or Churchill likeable?
I doubt it - but they were competent and good at their jobs.
(Did anyone see Gavin Esler interview Postman Alan this week - when it became clear that he didn't have the faintest idea what the current NI rate was?)

Has everyone forgotten how "likeable" B-Liar was ?
"Trust me, I'm Tony" ?

This is not a popularity contest to elect a May Queen.

If we had realised how we were being fooled by "likeable" smarmy B-Lair we would not have allowed ourselves to be dragged into 2 (ongoing) wars - which will have consequences for generations to come!

yes T.Blair was the original wolf in sheep's clothing but he there was no way that he was remotely a Labour PM except in name only.

Don't know why you hate unions...you would be down the mines without them on tuppence an hour with a piece of stale bread

veritas wrote:
Don't know why you hate unions...you would be down the mines without them on tuppence an hour with a piece of stale bread

Not so, veritas - the Unions made many trades unprofitable ... take the Miners for example, by the time the pits were closed no one in this country could afford coal - it was cheaper to import it from Australia.

The Unions destroy everything they come into contact with (like all Communists). It's all about "equalizing" everything on the bottom line ("from the cradle to the grave" ????)

that's a bizarre analysis ITK.

far from Communists 'destroying' everything -whatever one thinks of them they made Russia the powerhouse it is today. They changed it from a feudal society into an industrialised one with 50 years. (in just 20 years they had built a system that was able to destroy the Nazis in WW2)

Same same Vietnam.

Trade Unions got you and every other working person in an ordinary job all the benefits they have today. Those benefits which are slipping away are doing so in direct proportion to the decline of unions.

The reason corporations have become so rich in the industrialised nations is because the working people have been able to buy their goods and services.

From the Reagan years on we have had a basically unfettered financial and corporation system that is all powerful and is in danger of destroying capitalism.

If you think the 2008 collapse was something...at which time the conditions were ideal to re-arrange the whole system and put all the checks in place to prevent another(Obama/Blair/Brown's biggest failure..Cameron likewise)...wait until the next crash which will dwarf 2008. And it will be sooner than latter.

You talk of unions like the great bogeyman when they are powerless against the might of corporations now..who are aided by governments whose duty now is to serve big business (it's called fascism).Or Nanny State Capitalism where if you are powerful enough you get to take back all those working people's taxes to prop yourself up ( banks !)..no questions asked..no responsibility taken and no obligations.

Your notion on unions is rather quaint..I only wish they had a fraction of the power you think they have.

# lecture ends here. It's good to be a baby boomer and not have to care anymore !

veritas wrote:
Your notion on unions is rather quaint..I only wish they had a fraction of the power you think they have.

Have you seen today's Sunday Times frontpage headline, veritas ?

It's the story about Lie-Bour Party donors deserting in droves now they see it being taken over by the loony Unions LOL!!!!