?

Do you dispute what I said?

Nope not at all - its just that Ed Milliband's idea of what is Socialism will be a million miles away from what his fathers idea of Socialism was - remember we are speaking of a time BEFORE the second world war, a time when both left and right wing governments across Europe bore no relation at all to what you perceive as left and right politics - Milliband could not sell his father's peers politics of 80 years hence to even the most ardent Socialist in his party today and nor will he - his will be a version of Blair's who in turn was more Thatcher-ite than any Labour Prime Minister before him, there is very little to choose from these days - thats half the problem and its why 2015 will return another minority government and possibly another coalition.

Please define socialism

But it is justified to examine his father's opinions isn't it? Perhaps not in the way that the Daily Mail did but to some extent?

Ed often brings up his father's influence on his own political leanings, his father was a socialist, and Ed has said he is bringing back socialism.

Should we perhaps rake over some of Thatcher's less "pleasant" views for Ajw, since speaking ill of the dead seems to be OK by him?

There is no harm in examining his fathers opinions as long as you keep them in the context of their times, the world was a totally different place socially and politically when his father was a 17 year old, whole European countries were under the control of right wing dictators with no hope of just waiting around for five years and electing them out - in my own lifetime there have still been European countries ruled by right wing dictators and army colonels, I even went on holiday to one of them and they wouldn't let you pass through customs if they thought your hair was too long (Greece).

Keeping Milliband Senior's political beliefs in context is what the DM should have done, what they would have done if they had any serious journalistic purpose, but like most newspapers, they don't, they simply serve to feed a limited number of eager followers with more propaganda, left or right.

And I'll repeat, Ed Milliband could not sell his fathers version of Socialism to his own party let alone the country even if he sincerely believed it was the way forward, which I doubt.

He does seem to be shifting his party to the left. This is all before the election too. What happens if he were to secure a majority? He would have free reign to to as he likes. I could hardly see Labour politicians lining up to disagree with any of his policies especially immediately after Milliband became the man who brought Labour back into office. He would even be able to argue he has a mandate for socialist policies.

Its never going to happen.

You will never sell a Labour Party of the flavour of, say, Kinnock to the public and he in turn was quite diluted compared to Foot, and those are just the ones within your lifetime, go back further and you have no chance of marketing that sort of Labour party - the Labour party of 2015 will have policies similar to Blairs, or be dead in the water.

You will not see any party with anything more than the narrowest of working margins unless its a coalition after the 2015 election and at the moment the party who are lining all of their ducks up are the Tory party, the bringing forward of the first time buyer guarantee to kick in immediately could be a master stroke that costs very little in hard cash terms, will be a crowd pleaser and could accelerate a pick up in consumer confidence - its been much easier to obtain credit this year than at any time since 2007.

What is so wrong with socialist policies?

He couldn't sell anything.