Preferably one who is 'good looking enough to be PM', as a poll commissioned by the Sunday Times the other weekend put it.

I don't think it's just Milliband's weakness, no one in the Labour Party is winning too many arguments at the moment. I do think it's up to Milliband to inspire the rest of his party though, and he has failed to do that so far.

There has been a plethora of opportunities for Labour (and Milliband) to point out the government's shortcomings in a number of areas, but they fail to seize these opportunities with alarming consistency. Sadly, you're right that politics is becoming increasingly about image, but Labour should be using that to their advantage. It should be very easy for an opposition leader to paint the Tories as a bunch of self-serving bastards who don't give a rat's ass about the majority of the electorate, so how come he's making such a spectacularly poor job of it? Say what you like about Gordon Brown, but he had spades more gravitas that this sorry lot.

I think the big problem is that they don't actually know what they'd do. They're still wedded, in so many ways, to the neo-liberal model, and they're also still in love with big business. They don't want to be seen as old-fashioned socialists, so they're largely - or seem to be - waiting for someone to come up with an alternative economic approach. I can see that being the Greens, to be honest, since the at least seem prepared to ask big questions about why, for instance, we need perpetual growth.

Just having a quick look on their website and they do seem to be ticking all the right boxes, for me at least. I do know that they spoke out against ESA/DLA reforms. They want minimum wage to be "60% of net national average earnings (currently this would mean a minimum wage of £8.10 per hour)." and they are against the privatisation schemes of the NHS which this government are persuing. Hmmm might be worth a serious consideration?

cod'ead wrote:Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmm no they didn't Cameron and his lap-dog have been eager to blame the last administration for awarding contracts to RBS executives that prevented the major shareholder, us, from having any say in the bonus awards to Philip Hester and his mates. The only problem with that appears to be that there's nothing in the contracts that prevents the biggest shareholder from having a say in the matter. In the section on bonuses, the contract states: "The executive [Mr Hester] may, at the discretion of the Remuneration Committee, be entitled to participate in any Bonus Scheme as approved by the Remuneration Committee, the terms of which may, at the sole discretion of the Remuneration Committee, require the Executive to defer a proportion of any bonus awarded to him." Sources at RBS confirmed that the Remuneration Committee's recommendations had to be put to a full vote of shareholders at the annual general meeting, which the Government controls. Although that vote is advisory, the source confirmed it would be "inconceivable" that the Government's wishes would not be followed. The contract and RBS's position would appear to be at odds with comments by Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg on the issue. So, it's all round to Phil's for cocktails then eh? If Miliband does not tear Cameron a new arsehole at today's PMQs, he should resign in shame. Let's hope he resigns in shame as his performance yet again was pathetic.

cod'ead wrote:Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmm no they didn't Cameron and his lap-dog have been eager to blame the last administration for awarding contracts to RBS executives that prevented the major shareholder, us, from having any say in the bonus awards to Philip Hester and his mates. The only problem with that appears to be that there's nothing in the contracts that prevents the biggest shareholder from having a say in the matter. In the section on bonuses, the contract states: "The executive [Mr Hester] may, at the discretion of the Remuneration Committee, be entitled to participate in any Bonus Scheme as approved by the Remuneration Committee, the terms of which may, at the sole discretion of the Remuneration Committee, require the Executive to defer a proportion of any bonus awarded to him." Sources at RBS confirmed that the Remuneration Committee's recommendations had to be put to a full vote of shareholders at the annual general meeting, which the Government controls. Although that vote is advisory, the source confirmed it would be "inconceivable" that the Government's wishes would not be followed. The contract and RBS's position would appear to be at odds with comments by Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg on the issue. So, it's all round to Phil's for cocktails then eh? If Miliband does not tear Cameron a new arsehole at today's PMQs, he should resign in shame. Let's hope he resigns in shame as his performance yet again was pathetic.

I find your stance on growth odd. You have often railed againt "perpetual growth" but you moan because you perceive Tory policy to be anti-"growth." I think you have the same problem as Labour.

It is sad that in modern society men are judged by their looks and made to feel they have to be "sexy" to be valued.

Well Cameron in his early days in charge was going on a lot about the "green agenda", changing the Conservative party logo from the iconic blue torch of freedom to some scribbled green tree to symbolise "nature" and that crap.

Now he is in power he has embraced the tree-huggers' "zero growth economy" and told us that it's not about GDP its about happiness.

This may be the way to market austerity, get us all to sit round smoking pot saying we haven't got any material possessions any more but we've got love and peace and hare krishna.

Now that's a party I would support, where do I sign?

The economy is currently geared up to the demands of the City etc that we need constant growth – see Tesco getting a slap on the wrist last year for not having grown 'enough', according to the City. And it 'punished' the company accordingly, with its share price suffering. So to please the City, Tesco has to go out and open more and more stores. It doesn't matter that it makes vast profits – that's not enough. The City wants more. So what happens when all the little independent traders have been driven out of business altogether; when only the big four supermarkets remain? Where does the growth come from then? Abroad? There's finite possibilities there too – and more competitors. Eventually, further growth will be impossible.

And in the meantime, of course, meaningful consumer choice has been further reduced and, given what we know of the way businesses behave, more producers will have gone to the wall or off-shored jobs as they search to cut as much off costs as possible in order to undercut the opposition.

The UK's economy in general is shrinking – hence we're on the cusp of a double dip (some would say we're already in it), with businesses failing and people being made jobless (to be blasted as feckless scroungers etc by the likes of the Daily Mail and its imbecilic readership). We obviously need to grow it if we are to create jobs etc and, therefore, get rid of the deficit.

But why do we need perpetual growth, which cannot be sustainable and is, as illustrated above briefly, bad for the economy as a whole?