In recent general elections, it seems to be becoming "the done thing" for the leader of a major party to go if he or she leads them to defeat. So very possibly, if the Conservatives actually get a majority on Thursday, Gordon Brown may be pressured to resign and Labour will have a leadership election. Who do you think should take over?
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London (Conservative) (you know, floppy hair, acts like a buffoon) has produced his own analysis and it's at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election...
. I suspect that there might be a little attempt at party political sabotage here, as Labour wouldn't be daft enough to have a leader in the House of Lords. There's no law against it, but it's just unthinkable to have a Prime Minister or potential Prime Minister who isn't in the Commons. That rules out Lord Mandelson. Of course one of the things that got dropped in the last few days of the last Parliament was the bit of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act which would have enabled him to resign and be a candidate for MP again, so it might happen... but certainly not under a Tory government.
Boris is of course just being Boris, so don't take the whole article seriously. The wonderful thing with Boris is you never quite know when he's being serious. My own personal view, for what it's worth, though, is that as he says, the current deputy leader, Harriet Harman, is indeed bossy, bullying and nannying, and if she is chosen (this is the woman who said that out of the leader and deputy leader posts, one at least has to be held by a woman because you can't trust men to run things - I'm NOT kidding), one may well conclude that Labour has lost its collective marbles.
And then there's Ed Balls, who is in very real danger of losing his seat. A potential voter told him the other day that they hadn't seen him around much. He replied, "Yes you have". Telling a voter to their face that they're lying doesn't sound like good tactics to me.
Anyway... what do you think?