Oops, The New Labour Mask Has Slipped Off.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I just love what I seem to perceive is 'an air of bewilderment'.

 

All down to the media.

 

Nothing to with what she said or in the condescending manner in which she said it.

 

No. Just the papers stirring things again.

 

i'm talking about Labour's piss poor showing in the polls, not just this incident, which to me is all about what virtually every politician believes about the electorate in general, we are plebs/chavs, who cannot grasp the finer points of the stuff that they have either historically ****** up or in the process of ******* or planning to **** up in the future.

[Red-Robbo]

That's it? you are saying this is down to press and the press only?.

I'm interested in why people like Batman (a few posts back) think Miliband is "the worst Labour leader in history". I'm asking the question really. He hasn't been in power, so what are people going by? The fact that he's geeky? I'm interested in ex-Labour voters' opinions, not really yours Es as you frequently tell us how you despise "Socialists".

I can't help feeling the constant drip feed of "oh he's hopeless" and "oh he's a weak leader" is part of a campaign orchestrated from 45 Millbank. If you can't attack the party policies, attack the leader. It's predictable, and they do it every election year. They've just started a bit earlier this time.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I'm interested in why people like Batman (a few posts back) think Miliband is "the worst Labour leader in history". I'm asking the question really. He hasn't been in power, so what are people going by? The fact that he's geeky? I'm interested in ex-Labour voters' opinions, not really yours Es as you frequently tell us how you despise "Socialists".

I can't help feeling the constant drip feed of "oh he's hopeless" and "oh he's a weak leader" is part of a campaign orchestrated from 45 Millbank. If you can't attack the party policies, attack the leader. It's predictable, and they do it every election year. They've just started a bit earlier this time.

 

I haven't even mentioned Miliband on this thread ( until now), I have simply asked the question 'why are Labour doing so poorly?' and you blame the press, I then asked 'is that it?' and get this rant.

[screech]

I don't know how some are turning this into a UKIP thread, the thread was about the Labour shadow cabinet MP who has forgotten where their party has come from, and that there are many many thousands of ordinary folk who feel a sense of pride in their own country and are happy to show it. Something this dippy cow feels she needs to belittle and frown upon.

This is where I believe me and Labour, part company, the old Labour believed in the people who made this country and stood up for them and gave them a voice, this new breed have been accused of losing touch with the people they always claimed to represent, and yesterday she must have enforced those views.

[Red-Robbo]

I haven't even mentioned Miliband on this thread ****il now), I have simply asked the question 'why are Labour doing so poorly?' and you blame the press, I then asked 'is that it?' and get this rant.

 

To answer that would take an essay, which would touch on a European-wide disilusionment  with the old parties of government and a replacement with new populist parties from the right (and left in some countries), separatists, and greens. It would also encompass the changing demographics of Western Europe, and how aspirant white collar workers feel more connection to the party interests of their bosses than to those of the more traditional working class.

 

Polls suggest though that Miliband is unpopular, and Labour would do better with another leader. Which is why I mentioned him in the reply to your question to me.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

To answer that would take an essay, which would touch on a European-wide disilusionment  with the old parties of government and a replacement with new populist parties from the right (and left in some countries), separatists, and greens. It would also encompass the changing demographics of Western Europe, and how aspirant white collar workers feel more connection to the party interests of their bosses than to those of the more traditional working class.

 

Polls suggest though that Miliband is unpopular, and Labour would do better with another leader. Which is why I mentioned him in the reply to your question to me.

 

Absolutely and the 'old parties' only have themselves to blame, they treat the electorate in the most arrogant way possible, whether in power or in opposition if they get a bad by election result or bad council results and trot the line 'we hear you, we will change' and do they bollox, they just carry on in their own selfish way.

 

They rely on history believing that when it comes to a general election, the latest 'emerging' peoples party will fade away as unhappy voters dust off their rosettes and return to the fold, but one day that might not actually happen and next May is shaping up to be that particular day and the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems (the old parties) still IMHO still do not get that, they have absolutely nobody to blame but themselves, this is their mess and has been building up for a long time.

 

Here in France Hollande is far less popular than Miliband and so far the best that the right can come up with is ******* Sarkozi again, I believe the 2nd most unpopular President in French history and every poll since the beginning of the year is saying that Le Pen's National Front would win an outright victory.

 

Don't blame the people, blame the established politicians, it's not as if they haven't had enough warning and IMHO blaming the press in a way is like sneering at the people (like yesterdays faux pas) by saying your brainwashed by believing it, the politicians of whatever persuasion have brought this upon themselves, not the people, not the press.

[Red-Robbo]

Absolutely and the 'old parties' only have themselves to blame, they treat the electorate in the most arrogant way possible, whether in power or in opposition if they get a bad by election result or bad council results and trot the line 'we hear you, we will change' and do they bollox, they just carry on in their own selfish way.

 

They rely on history believing that when it comes to a general election, the latest 'emerging' peoples party will fade away as unhappy voters dust off their rosettes and return to the fold, but one day that might not actually happen and next May is shaping up to be that particular day and the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems (the old parties) still IMHO still do not get that, they have absolutely nobody to blame but themselves, this is their mess and has been building up for a long time.

 

Here in France Hollande is far less popular than Miliband and so far the best that the right can come up with is ******* Sarkozi again, I believe the 2nd most unpopular President in French history and every poll since the beginning of the year is saying that Le Pen's National Front would win an outright victory.

 

Don't blame the people, blame the established politicians, it's not as if they haven't had enough warning and IMHO blaming the press in a way is like sneering at the people (like yesterdays faux pas) by saying your brainwashed by believing it, the politicians of whatever persuasion have brought this upon themselves.

 

 

But what are our "emerging parties"?  Ukip - the old right-wing of the Tory party, led by a financier from a privileged background, hardly mould-breaking; the SNP - a hotch-potch of ideologically opposed factions only united by believing that having a glorified county council running things will bring them prosperity; and the greens - the classic protest vote for people who don't have to use cars much?

 

You say people aren't bewitched by constant press propaganda, but I read the opinions that the Mail, Sun, Telegraph etc would like people to hold being faithfully reproduced in this forum all the time. Take this thread. Dwelling on one petty tweet by a relative non-entity who I'd be willing to wager the OP had never heard of before her faux pas appeared in the papers. What about the real issues? Where is the real debate? Don't look to the papers - or this forum - for that,

[Esmond Million's Bung]

But what are our "emerging parties"?  Ukip - the old right-wing of the Tory party, led by a financier from a privileged background, hardly mould-breaking; the SNP - a hotch-potch of ideologically opposed factions only united by believing that having a glorified county council running things will bring them prosperity; and the greens - the classic protest vote for people who don't have to use cars much?

 

You say people aren't bewitched by constant press propaganda, but I read the opinions that the Mail, Sun, Telegraph etc would like people to hold being faithfully reproduced in this forum all the time. Take this thread. Dwelling on one petty tweet by a relative non-entity who I'd be willing to wager the OP had never heard of before her faux pas appeared in the papers. What about the real issues? Where is the real debate? Don't look to the papers - or this forum - for that,

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you here I really do, but surely you can see that the people have really had a gut full of being completely ignored by the 'old parties'.

 

At the last election Brown's run in with one of his own in Rochdale could not have highlighted how far out of touch even the leader was, talk about immigration ergo you are a racist/bigot.

 

Camerons bollox about not paying the latest EU payment, the public ain't stupid they knew he would have to pay it and his speech was a crock of shit.

 

The people are fed up with politicians completely ignoring the wishes of the electorate and worst of all, saying us 600 + MP's know what's best for you and anyway it's going to happen, the people have had enough, you said as much.

 

Milliband's problem was highlighted for me on last weeks 8 out of 10 cats, they massacred him, every one of them, even Kirsty Young mocked his appearance on desert island discs, even I felt a modicum of sympathy for him, but ultimately the party elected him. Edit:- and probably because his brother mirrored Blair just a little bit too much for their liking.

 

and as for the real debate, the 'old parties' don't want a debate, because they do not know what to do, they are so far out of touch with reality and yesterdays faux pas was a nothing story of course it was but it just shows the sneering superior attitude that MP's have for the electorate and people have had enough, the people she sneered at are the people that are paying the most for what the ******* bankers did, they know that but the politicians still choose to treat them like chavs.

[Red-Robbo]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you here I really do, but surely you can see that the people have really had a gut full of being completely ignored by the 'old parties'.

 

At the last election Brown's run in with one of his own in Rochdale could not have highlighted how far out of touch even the leader was, talk about immigration ergo you are a racist/bigot.

 

Camerons bollox about not paying the latest EU payment, the public ain't stupid they knew he would have to pay it and his speech was a crock of shit.

 

The people are fed up with politicians completely ignoring the wishes of the electorate and worst of all, saying us 600 + MP's know what's best for you and anyway it's going to happen, the people have had enough, you said as much.

 

Milliband's problem was highlighted for me on last weeks 8 out of 10 cats, they massacred him, every one of them, even Kirsty Young mocked his appearance on desert island discs, even I felt a modicum of sympathy for him, but ultimately the party elected him. 

 

 

But i don't see you getting any "new" politicians. Today's big news, Ukip's latest by-election win, brings us what? a Thatcherite MP who'd have stayed in the Tories had he not agreed with their European referendum timetable. The party's full of them: Farage - a former conservative activist, Neil bloody Hamilton and so on and so on. Where's your new ideas, your new thinking?

 

Two years ago, we had a chance to change things slightly. Begin knocking down the old two-party state apparatus. Forget tactical voting and have genuine choice reflected in our legislature. But of course, this threatened the old hegemony and had to be challenged. And what happened. We bottled it. Led astray by an effective campaign, people worried about some minute rise in the minuscule cost of elections, that the ballot paper might be a bit harder for their aunty Mabel to understand, that Nick Clegg might be in government for 5 seconds longer than anyone but him wanted. We bottled it, yet now we're saying - we don't like the old status quo And, yes, the press were chief cheerleaders for the bottling it tendency.

 

This country needs a vast shake up: Changes to the electoral system, MPs pay and conditions of service, regional devolution, an elected second chamber, selection rules for party leaders and other senior appointments, fairer political funding rules, press ownership regulation, right down to installing electronic voting in the Commons so they can get through more business in a day. if Estonia can do it, why not us?  The trouble is most people are being swayed by the stuff they read and think change would be bad.

 

Say hello to your new boss, just the same as your old boss...

[Esmond Million's Bung]

But i don't see you getting any "new" politicians. Today's big news, Ukip's latest by-election win, brings us what? a Thatcherite MP who'd have stayed in the Tories had he not agreed with their European referendum timetable. The party's full of them: Farage - a former conservative activist, Neil bloody Hamilton and so on and so on. Where's your new ideas, your new thinking?

 

Two years ago, we had a chance to change things slightly. Begin knocking down the old two-party state apparatus. Forget tactical voting and have genuine choice reflected in our legislature. But of course, this threatened the old hegemony and had to be challenged. And what happened. We bottled it. Led astray by an effective campaign, people worried about some minute rise in the minuscule cost of elections, that the ballot paper might be a bit harder for their aunty Mabel to understand, that Nick Clegg might be in government for 5 seconds longer than anyone but him wanted. We bottled it, yet now we're saying - we don't like the old status quo And, yes, the press were chief cheerleaders for the bottling it tendency.

 

This country needs a vast shake up: Changes to the electoral system, MPs pay and conditions of service, regional devolution, an elected second chamber, selection rules for party leaders and other senior appointments, fairer political funding rules, press ownership regulation, right down to installing electronic voting in the Commons so they can get through more business in a day. if Estonia can do it, why not us?  The trouble is most people are being swayed by the stuff they read and think change would be bad.

 

Say hello to your new boss, just the same as your old boss...

 

I think you over estimate todays power of the press, they are as discredited as the politicians IMO.

 

As for your first sentence, the public plainly don't care who they get from UKIP, they are voting for the party, it would be interesting to see UKIP put up somebody who is normally reviled in a target seat, it's almost like the public are saying, I know they are a bunch of ***** but if it's the only way to make the 'old parties' take notice so be it.

 

The saddest thing about last nights result in Rochester, the Tories will believe that they can win it back in May and will still not take UKIP as a serious threat.

 

RR you are blaming the people again and it's the politicians that are the problem, they don't want a debate and they don't want change, it's only the people that want change.

[Come on Eileen]

7 million 'working' people are also "benefit claimants",so your post doesn't make any sense!

Yes it does, I haven't said no working people vote Labour, some would even argue that many in the public sector are working people...it's just that most working people don't vote Labour.

[Red-Robbo]

I think you over estimate todays power of the press, they are as discredited as the politicians IMO.

As for your first sentence, the public plainly don't care who they get from UKIP, they are voting for the party, it would be interesting to see UKIP put up somebody who is normally reviled in a target seat, it's almost like the public are saying, I know they are a bunch of ***** but if it's the only way to make the 'old parties' take notice so be it.

The saddest thing about last nights result in Rochester, the Tories will believe that they can win it back in May and will still not take UKIP as a serious threat.

RR you are blaming the people again and it's the politicians that are the problem, they don't want a debate and they don't want change, it's only the people that want change.

But when given the chance of change, most Britons rejected it, Es. That's what I'm saying.

Now we're voting in numbers for a party that is so old school, the only new thing about it is its name.

As I say, we need a wholesale constitutional shake up on this country. That's not going to happen by replacing the "nice" Tories with the "nasty" Tories.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

But when given the chance of change, most Britons rejected it, Es. That's what I'm saying.

Now we're voting in numbers for a party that is so old school, the only new thing about it is its name.

As I say, we need a wholesale constitutional shake up on this country. That's not going to happen by replacing the "nice" Tories with the "nasty" Tories.

 

So it's democracy you have a problem with then?, the funny thing is Labour wouldn't have even allowed a vote on the matter had they won an outright victory in 2010 and obviously nor would the Tories, in fact Labour were so underwhelmed by the whole debate the party didn't even hold an official position on the matter, they were in disarray, but guess what UKIP were in favour of it, so perhaps another faux pas.

[Red-Robbo]

So it's democracy you have a problem with then?, the funny thing is Labour wouldn't have even allowed a vote on the matter had they won an outright victory in 2010 and obviously nor would the Tories, in fact Labour were so underwhelmed by the whole debate the party didn't even hold an official position on the matter, they were in disarray, but guess what UKIP were in favour of it, so perhaps another faux pas.

Of course Labour and Conservatives didn't want to break up their cosy duopoly and obviously all the smaller parties support PR.

Labour are in favour of Lords abolition - long overdue, why should a mix of retired placemen, cronies, aristocrats and bishops have any say whatsoever in my life? - which is good. They also want this constitutional conference, which might be a glorified talking shop designed to keep Labour's Scottish MPs, or it could be a much-needed opportunity to review how democracy in this country should work.

The problem with conservatives - and I'm talking generally here, not specific to Cameron's mob - is that the things they want to "conserve" are not always good for the country, and the things they are happy to let go should have been "conserved ".

[Red-Robbo]

The alternative view. Well worth a read before deploying those lazy "champagne socialist" cliches, so beloved of the Sun and its champagne supping editorial board.

 

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/tweeting-picture-house-not-act-class-warfare-whatever-sun-says

[Esmond Million's Bung]

The alternative view. Well worth a read before deploying those lazy "champagne socialist" cliches, so beloved of the Sun and its champagne supping editorial board.

 

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/tweeting-picture-house-not-act-class-warfare-whatever-sun-says

 

Problem is Ed made the decision not the press and perhaps he jumped the gun.

 

This is a good read, but I suspect you will tell me otherwise.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/former-labour-minister-frank-field-hits-out-at-ed-miliband-for-being-soft-on-immigration-9809122.html

[Red-Robbo]

Problem is Ed made the decision not the press and perhaps he jumped the gun.

This is a good read, but I suspect you will tell me otherwise.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/former-labour-minister-frank-field-hits-out-at-ed-miliband-for-being-soft-on-immigration-9809122.html

Did you even read my link? That's precisely what the article said.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Did you even read my link? That's precisely what the article said.

 

At ease old bean, I read your link and my link was from somebody in the middle of it who has managed to remove his head from his arse, that's another to add to the list just over 600 to go and then they might actually get it, instead of saying they get it but not caring enough to actually change or just making populist soundbites.

 

The story is the media reacted as the media does and Ed had a premature firing incident.

[Red-Robbo]

At ease old bean, I read your link and my link was from somebody in the middle of it who has managed to remove his head from his arse, that's another to add to the list just over 600 to go and then they might actually get it, instead of saying they get it but not caring enough to actually change or just making populist soundbites.

The story is the media reacted as the media does and Ed had a premature firing incident.

Frank Field - to his credit - has long recognised the harm that unchecked immigration has done to working class communities.

He was there back when Boris was still calling for an illegal immigrant amnesty and unrestricted Commonwealth access to the UK.

[bristolborn_and_red]

Thirty years ago for 51 weeks of the year Neil Kinnock appeared an ideal choice for Prime Minister and I reckon he'd have been a very good PM.

Unfortunately in the 52nd week of the year came the Party Conference when Labour supporters such as Scargill and Scanlon would address the conference and announce the sort of policies that they'd ensure would be carried out as soon as Labour get back in power.

As a result, we all kept Thatcher in Nr 10.

That was why Tony Blair decided Labour had to ditch it's roots and traditions.

 

And its roots were the working class of this country. In effect, he sidelined the lot of them just so he could be Prime minister. I was a Labour party member in the nineties but when he scrapped clause four that was it for me. After this lurch to the right you  could separate the tories and Labour with a piece of rice paper. What followed was the rise of all these champagne socialists and my,how quickly they did rise to the top. Millionaires who know nothing of how the rest of us live. That's why that women tweeted what she did as she had no idea that ordinary bristish people might sometimes draped flags around their house still why would she when you only travel from Islingtion to Westminster

[chipdawg]

And its roots were the working class of this country. In effect, he sidelined the lot of them just so he could be Prime minister. I was a Labour party member in the nineties but when he scrapped clause four that was it for me. After this lurch to the right you could separate the tories and Labour with a piece of rice paper. What followed was the rise of all these champagne socialists and my,how quickly they did rise to the top. Millionaires who know nothing of how the rest of us live. That's why that women tweeted what she did as she had no idea that ordinary bristish people might sometimes draped flags around their house still why would she when you only travel from Islingtion to Westminster

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what it is about her tweet that is so offensive or snobbish. It's becoming increasingly clear that she didn't think she'd done anything wrong and that it's only Ed and The Sun that thought she had. Perhaps there is some context I've missed or a nuanced interpretation that will shed some light on this

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what it is about her tweet that is so offensive or snobbish. It's becoming increasingly clear that she didn't think she'd done anything wrong and that it's only Ed and The Sun that thought she had. Perhaps there is some context I've missed or a nuanced interpretation that will shed some light on this

 

There's your answer Dawg, ask Ed,  by all accounts Labour MP's said he was incandescent, more angry than they had ever seen him before, so to evoke such emotions from the leader it must have been perceived as something very serious or of course perhaps it was a knee jerk reaction from somebody 6 months away from a general election someone who shouldn't be having knee jerk reactions?, perhaps she was one of the leaders of the 'plot' to remove him to give Labour an even chance at the next election?. Perhaps it was Ed trying to show his tough side after his limp wristed answer avoiding run in with Mylene Klaas earlier in the week.

 

For me the tweet was arrogant, ill timed and aimed at what 'should' be Labour's core vote and it was Labours 2014 'Rochdale bigot' moment and sort of reminds that core vote, this is what we actually think about you.

 

But there is a message here, think before you tweet.

[Red-Robbo]

[chipdawg]

There's your answer Dawg, ask Ed, by all accounts Labour MP's said he was incandescent, more angry than they had ever seen him before, so to evoke such emotions from the leader it must have been perceived as something very serious or of course perhaps it was a knee jerk reaction from somebody 6 months away from a general election someone who shouldn't be having knee jerk reactions?, perhaps she was one of the leaders of the 'plot' to remove him to give Labour an even chance at the next election?. Perhaps it was Ed trying to show his tough side after his limp wristed answer avoiding run in with Mylene Klaas earlier in the week.

For me the tweet was arrogant, ill timed and aimed at what 'should' be Labour's core vote and it was Labours 2014 'Rochdale bigot' moment and sort of reminds that core vote, this is what we actually think about you.

But there is a message here, think before you tweet.

Obviously it was a knee jerk reaction from Milliband and one that will reflect poorly upon him in the long term. But that doesn't really answer my question. What was arrogant and ill conceived about a picture of someone's house with the words "image from Rochester"? As I asked earlier in this thread, if a UKIP or even Tory official had tweeted that, would the reaction to it have been the same? I would suggest not. The only way that can be construed as patronising, arrogant or in any way equivalent to Brown's bigot gaff is if you make wild and unsubstantiated assumptions about Ms Thornberry's character and opinions- which is what The Sun did and what many people- Ed Milliband chief among them- seemed to have willingly gone along with

As for 'Klass Gate' it is worrying for Labour that he couldn't best a professional reality TV contestant in a political debate, but her assertions about the price of a garage in London are far more 'snobbish' and arrogant than any picture that Thornberry could tweet

[Esmond Million's Bung]

[Red-Robbo]

Every word you say about her is absolutely true and yet she made him look silly, he never answered one question, if he can't handle a 'dozy bint', doesn't bode well does it?.

and your last sentence is spot on, but Ed acted before the 'shitstorm' really took hold and again shows a weakness.

She won't be the last apparently 'intelligent' politician who will do this, they just cannot help themselves.

The right-wing press and "anti-Socialist" posters like yourself though would damn him whatever he did. If he kept her in the shadow cabinet, that would be portrayed as "weakness" too.

[The Batman]

You must be too young to remember Michael Foot, he of the Longest Suicide Note in History manifesto..

 

I was born in 85 - funny you should mention Foot though, was Miliband's opinion poll as low as Foot's (which was a record low), Miliband has no leadership skills, his speeches are dull and unimaginative, the "look natural" moment on GMB was cringworthy and hilarious at the same time. Claims he wants to be the first Jewish leader, despite the fact that he has the same Jewish heritage as Disraeli who was PM 140 years ago. He's a clown, an absolute clown.

 

It aint just him though, Ed Balls really has no idea on anything, would not trust him to buy me a chocolate bar let along run the economy. When he's been on the Sunday Morning shows, he simply has nothing to add. Every budget response has been trying to smear Osbourne, yet offers no better alternative. It's so scary that he and Miliband could be running the country next year.

 

Andy Burnham should have (and still should) answer for all the deaths at Mid Staffs. It's a very taboo subject here in the Midlands

 

He had Diane Abbott in the shadow cabinet for years despite her being an openly racist politician. if it was the other way around, there is no way she'd be allowed to carry on. Thankfully she is no longer on the shadow cabinet but she's still the MP for her constituents.

 

Harriet Harman - Don't know about you but I am not a fan of paedophile supporters, she was also the MP behind the bill to hide MP's expenses from the Freedom of Information Act before the MP expenses scandal came about all those years ago.

 

Course, all of these people are multi-millionaires who bang on about the evil fascist Tories who are only interested in money. What do they know about representing the working class??? nothing, bugger all. Bollinger Bolsheviks (:-D) the lot of them, despite them banging on about how socialism is the way forward, even though Miliband is the son of a Millionaire Marxist (ha) and has never held a "normal" job in his life. yeah he understands us and all the workers.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

The right-wing press and "anti-Socialist" posters like yourself though would damn him whatever he did. If he kept her in the shadow cabinet, that would be portrayed as "weakness" too.

 

The same 'right-wing press' that peace lover and stud muffin Blair was happy to embrace?, your anger is projected in the wrong direction my friend, in their hope to find a leader they thought they could manipulate the unions forgot one important point, to wield that manipulation 'their' man had to be electable and eventually in a position of power, so blame the unions initially perhaps?.

 

As for anti socialist posters like me, i'm sure I said some weeks ago, Ed is doing a fine job on his own, because from May this year Labour has managed to squander an election winning lead.

 

Surely the dream ticket should have been Dave and Ed and not Ed and Harriett and blame the party and Ed for that perhaps?.

[Red-Robbo]

The same 'right-wing press' that peace lover and stud muffin Blair was happy to embrace?, your anger is projected in the wrong direction my friend, in their hope to find a leader they thought they could manipulate the unions forgot one important point, to wield that manipulation 'their' man had to be electable and eventually in a position of power, so blame the unions initially perhaps?.

 

As for anti socialist posters like me, i'm sure I said some weeks ago, Ed is doing a fine job on his own, because from May this year Labour has managed to squander an election winning lead.

 

Surely the dream ticket should have been Dave and Ed and not Ed and Harriett and blame the party and Ed for that perhaps?.

 

Neither you not anyone else commenting here has been able to persuade me why Miliband is supposed to be such a disaster. I put an open question out earlier and answer came there none.

 

Because he's a bit geeky? (like Clem Atlee, this country's greatest peacetime PM); because he has a slight lisp? (like Churchill!) because he's *gasp* Jewish?

 

Even this Thornberry thing - the artificial souffle of press pretend outrage that this thread was originally about - doesn't demonstrate weakness IMO. Someone fairly obscure tweeted something that was very foolish as it allowed opponents of the party to write an alternative script to distract from the coalition's Rochester disaster. Miliband moved swiftly and removed her from his front bench. If she makes a gaffe like that at such a critical time it is sensible I think to sideline her. Come the election, no-one will remember her name, apart perhaps from the voters of Islington, where I should imagine her stance has enhanced her re-electability. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Neither you not anyone else commenting here has been able to persuade me why Miliband is supposed to be such a disaster. I put an open question out earlier and answer came there none.

 

Because he's a bit geeky? (like Clem Atlee, this country's greatest peacetime PM); because he has a slight lisp? (like Churchill!) because he's *gasp* Jewish?

 

Even this Thornberry thing - the artificial souffle of press pretend outrage that this thread was originally about - doesn't demonstrate weakness IMO. Someone fairly obscure tweeted something that was very foolish as it allowed opponents of the party to write an alternative script to distract from the coalition's Rochester disaster. Miliband moved swiftly and removed her from his front bench. If she makes a gaffe like that at such a critical time it is sensible I think to sideline her. Come the election, no-one will remember her name, apart perhaps from the voters of Islington, where I should imagine her stance has enhanced her re-electability. 

 

Robbo, just look at the polls, his popularity has always been pretty low and now he is bordering on toxic for the Labour party, Labour voters don't like him, it would appear his party are becoming exasperated, perhaps we should blame Wycombe FC and their financial irregularities?, they haven't been blamed so far. He is just not popular. it happens.

 

As for your 2nd sentence Major and Brown were pretty weird as well and Thatcher apparently was a woman.

 

Sadly John Smith didn't get his chance, Blair was the right man at the right time in the right place (but a ****) but apart from those two, since Harold Wilson Labour have made some dodgy choices IMO.