For how much longer can Ed Miliband go on as leader of the Labour Party?

I fear Ken Livingstone may have had his time.

Whoever is leader, the Labour Party will get nowhere until they can shed their New Labour legacy, and all those who claim prominence in the party because of it. David Miliband is perhaps the greatest millstone around his brother's neck, regardless whether he is in the Cabinet or out of it. Do Labour supporters really have to stomach that their party is still being represented at senior level by the likes of Alan Milburn and John Hutton?

The problem with New Labour is that it sold its soul to Murdoch in order to get into Office, and can hardly now claim to be a credible alternative to the Tories or the Liberal Democrats, who have had to do the same thing for precisely the same reason.

For this reason, Labour's greatest asset right now is Tom Watson, and they should be looking after him, preparing him and training him in the rigours of the front bench.

But you cannot pin the hopes of a party on one man in case he is neutralised by White Van Man, as indeed happened to David Penhaligon, destroying the chances of the Liberal/SDP Alliance in 1987.

Post New Labour, what does the Labour Party stand for? I am not convinced Ed Miliband knows; but to be fair to him, I don't think anyone else knows either. This is what is showing him up at PMQs.

The Labour Party should be about getting everyone who wants to work back to work. I get very irritated when I hear priority being given to free childcare. Young career women are not the main victims of this current recession. It is men of all ages, especially the middle-aged, and school and college leavers of both sexes. It is also those who can no longer rely on their savings to keep them in old age and face trying to get into or stay in the workplace at over 70 years of age.

No-one mentions the underclass - those whom society has given up on. Prominent of these are not the tramps, vagrants and chavs (although a lot of chavs are in good enough jobs to go to nightclubs), they are those who have been out of work for more than 6 months and are therefore deemed permanently unemployable. Are we to give up entirely on these simply because their CVs are rubbish and cannot be improved by cosmetic styling, or a bit of slave labour?

Borrowing our way out of a recession is no longer an option, any more than cutting your way out. This is why there is a recession. So the Labour Party needs to come up with a Plan C.

Redefining a social conscience, not just for a few middle class do-gooders, but for everyone rich or poor, right from the street beggar to the Queen.- that surely must be the first priority for a revitalised Labour Party?

Cameron can kid us "we are all in this together ", but is there a politician and a party that can make us actually believe it?

Short answer is until someone with more charisma comes along.

Of those on offer when Gordon Brown was leaving I thought David Miliband or Ed Balls offered a slightly better choice although Balls had an added problem because of his surname.

What I am really more disappointed about is the fact that even if Labour came up with the most intelligent, most experienced, most knowledgeable, most well connected (in terms of world leaders), he or she would not succeed unless they also were able to relate to the public through the media.

Unfortunately such a persons politics, thoughts, ideas, plans etc., albeit the best in the world, would always come second as, again unfortunately, we in UK are becoming more like the USA in that we vote for the person showing up better in the media than the person with the better political mind.

PMQ's is like an old Victorian Punch & Judy Show and the 'Professors' running it are today's Media.

To be honest I don't think ordinary people could give a damn about Cameron and Milliband as people.

For Labour to get re-elected again requires a strong and talented team with ideas rather than a smug figurehead like Tony Blair. It should actually be easy to get re-elected if the leader is seen as a victim whilst the Party as a whole offers hope. But while these politicians continue to act like County Cuncillors filling places for the long term, voters are going to become ever-more cynical.

How much longer? Until the Unions get talked into letting him go 'for the good of the Party'. That'll 18 months to a year before the next election.

If you are a Tory supporter, you will not consider Ed Milliband a threat, unless the Lib Dems change sides and join Labour and a host of Tory MP's abstain or cross the floor. I notice that most of the remarks made about Milliband are to do with his charisma, and nothing much to do with his parties policies. The fact is that because Tory and Labour policies are so similar, nobody expects things to change in the slightest, no matter who wins the next election. But to be fair to Milliband, he may appear to be an un charismatic figure, but at least he is not in the slightest arrogant, like Cameron. He is not a stuck up Tory elitist Etonian. Cameron will lose favour soon enough. There is only a certain amount of blame time that Cameron can put on Labour. After that, if things dont improve, the public will start to blame blame the Tories and they will once again be in opposition. It is inevitable, no matter how long it takes.

I would suspect they will give him until the middle of next year and if he hasn't improved by then, someone will most likely challenge him for the leadership. There are alternatives and pretty good alternatives. Alan Johnson for one and Yvette Cooper for another. Both of these would probably connect to the electorate far better than Ed is doing. Johnson, from a working class background was a bad choice for shadow chancellor, but he'd make a great PM. Yvette Cooper is quite bright, well spoken and as a first female leader of the Labour Party she would prove very popular.

Ordinarily, a leader this poor wouldn't last very long. The problem with the Labour Party is that they lack any sort of alternative. Yes, Balls or D. Milliband might be more popular, but they'd both make mediocre leaders at best. Tom Watson (suggested above) has no credibility - expenses scandal anyone? - and would be an even worse choice. As such, I can see Ed lasting a fair old while - unless he makes some seriously terrible mistakes in the next few years, I can see him hanging on until the next election - which, as a Tory, is fine by me!

Possibly until his party loses 3 successive elections, but more likely the internal Party infighting by other hopefuls will see him replaced before then. The Labour Party always likes to show a united front, as to do otherwise frightens away the voters, but the 'frustrated wouldbes' who stand seething in the wings, do sometimes explode onto centre stage and show us who has an eye on the top job.

I couldn't top Elmbeard's answer so I won't try but I think Ed Miliband is hopeless and the only Labour man I can see myself voting for would be good old Ken.

Past Ken there's sadly no better alternative to Ed, shame that I think he's a moron and won't be voting for him.

He will need to lose at least one election.

The Labour Party traditionally picks a left wing loser after an election defeat. Although in this case they did have a strange rush of good sense when they actually picked his brother, only their own Byzantine voting system thwarted them.

They usually get persuaded by some loony lefty (e.g. Dr Luxembourg) the reason they lost was because they were not Left Wing enough and then pick some completely hopeless loser. This time the Unions did the job for them.

Remember the Michael Foot manifesto 'the longest suicide note in history'?

Until Ken Livingstone, becomes athe leader and turns the Party to it's old trade union roots. In addition the Liberals may make coalitionwith Labour because the Cons have betrayed themabout the issue of Proportional representation

Hoe this helps