Ajw71 wrote: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.
So what? If it gives the electorate a bit of a choice for the first time in years that would be a good thing, surely? The electorate will then decide one way or the other.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14395 Location: Chester
Ajw71 wrote:Saw this post which I thought was excellent....
You would but that is because you are either thick or to ready to be spoon fed want you wish to believe.
Quote:"The stench of hypocrisy...
Campbell, Miliband, the Independent etc are all choosing to attack the headline of the Daily Mail article, rather than what was actually written in it. Interesting.
I read the article and it's key point was both that Ralph Miliband was an unrepentant Marxist AND that he was the defining influence on the politics of Ed Miliband, who is set to become the next prime minister of Britain.
His influence on Ed has been confirmed by Miliband himself in numerous speeches, and by the insider McBride, who wrote that his father's memory and sustaining his politics was the main reason Ed Miliband opted to fight his brother David for the Labour leadership. (David rejected his father's views).
Ralph Miliband's own mentor was his former lecturer Harold Laski, an influential leftwing militant who declared: "If Labour did not obtain what it needed by general consent, we shall have to use violence even if it means revolution".
I argued yesterday that the Daily Mail has a legitimate point to explore and highlight such political lineage in a potential future British prime minister. That it also finds this lineage "deeply disturbing" is a legitimate opinion, not a 'smear'.
This is where you should have given up reading. The concept of political lineage is ridiculous. If there is such a thing Eric Pickles is a Communist. Pickles has described himself as "massively inclined" towards communism as a boy. Why? Perhaps its because his great grandfather founded the Independent Labour Party and his parents was all out and out Labour party supporters.
If Eric P can say he is not longer a card carrying commie how come the DM can assume Ed M is? Only because it wants to. It has no evidence he is.
In any case half the argument is R Milliband "hated" Britain which is ridiculous. Wouldn't you agree?
Quote:If David Cameron's key political influence had been a father who was a fascist, who in turn was mentored by a violent uniformed fascist who believed in the revolutionary overthrow of democracy, would we expect the Independent/Guardian/BBC, to bring this to our attention, or to ignore it?
I'm pleased to see this morning that the Guardian's independently minded media blogger Roy Greenslade backs me up in this reasoning with an article headlined: "It is legitimate to explore Ralph Miliband's political views".
The Daily Mail is on less firm ground with its headline that Ralph Miliband 'hated Britain', but again, that is little more than a legitimate opinion. Some people read Ralph Miliband and concluded he hated Britain in its present guise, others didn't.
This is stupid. I am a republican. If I wrote I wanted the Monarchy abolished does that mean I hate Britain? You can't read between the lines like that. Unless R Milliband came out and said "I hate Britain" in so many words you can no more conclude that than you could say I hate Britain because of my views on this current government or the Monarchy.
I assume you'd be on here slagging of a Labour administration so if you ever do, I'd better report you to the authorities as someone who hated Britain hadn't I? Or at least if you dropped dead I should write an obituary that said that because lets face it, being dead you could not sue me.
Quote:But what is noticeable about the hysteria and Labour spin that followed this article is its utter hypocrisy. The Guardian has been at the forefront of this, but the Guardian staffers themselves are masters of the art of digging dirt, taking quotes out of context, distributing insults and generally attempting to destroy Labour's political opponents.
And as for this stuff about not damning someone based on what they said when they were 17. I'm delighted to see that the Guardian, Independent, and Labour's forum supporters have finally all woken up to this. Now will they all perhaps stop criticizing David Cameron for the school he attended when he was 12-17? Hope so."
David Cameron isn't dead. He can defend himself against slander and libel. R Milliband can't mount a defence to what he said when he was 17 because you can't libel the dead (as the DM knows) and in any case he isn't the one trying to run the country. It's completely legitimate to slag off our current PM for doing whatever he did at 17 if its relevant to what goes on now so it is therefore totally stupid to draw any parallel with what DC did at 17 to what RM did 70 years ago aged 17 and what EM states he wants to do now.
If you dropped dead tomorrow and I accused you of being a rapist at aged 17 your come back would be what exactly?
Now do you get the disingenuous stupidity of the last paragraph quoted above?
Who wrote this dirge you quoted anyway? I feel the urge to go and call him out for idiot he plainly is.
Personally after that I reckon Dacre and his deputy who deafened the Mails stance on Newsnight should resign.
Ajw71 wrote:Saw this post which I thought was excellent....
You would but that is because you are either thick or to ready to be spoon fed want you wish to believe.
Quote:"The stench of hypocrisy...
Campbell, Miliband, the Independent etc are all choosing to attack the headline of the Daily Mail article, rather than what was actually written in it. Interesting.
I read the article and it's key point was both that Ralph Miliband was an unrepentant Marxist AND that he was the defining influence on the politics of Ed Miliband, who is set to become the next prime minister of Britain.
His influence on Ed has been confirmed by Miliband himself in numerous speeches, and by the insider McBride, who wrote that his father's memory and sustaining his politics was the main reason Ed Miliband opted to fight his brother David for the Labour leadership. (David rejected his father's views).
Ralph Miliband's own mentor was his former lecturer Harold Laski, an influential leftwing militant who declared: "If Labour did not obtain what it needed by general consent, we shall have to use violence even if it means revolution".
I argued yesterday that the Daily Mail has a legitimate point to explore and highlight such political lineage in a potential future British prime minister. That it also finds this lineage "deeply disturbing" is a legitimate opinion, not a 'smear'.
This is where you should have given up reading. The concept of political lineage is ridiculous. If there is such a thing Eric Pickles is a Communist. Pickles has described himself as "massively inclined" towards communism as a boy. Why? Perhaps its because his great grandfather founded the Independent Labour Party and his parents was all out and out Labour party supporters.
If Eric P can say he is not longer a card carrying commie how come the DM can assume Ed M is? Only because it wants to. It has no evidence he is.
In any case half the argument is R Milliband "hated" Britain which is ridiculous. Wouldn't you agree?
Quote:If David Cameron's key political influence had been a father who was a fascist, who in turn was mentored by a violent uniformed fascist who believed in the revolutionary overthrow of democracy, would we expect the Independent/Guardian/BBC, to bring this to our attention, or to ignore it?
I'm pleased to see this morning that the Guardian's independently minded media blogger Roy Greenslade backs me up in this reasoning with an article headlined: "It is legitimate to explore Ralph Miliband's political views".
The Daily Mail is on less firm ground with its headline that Ralph Miliband 'hated Britain', but again, that is little more than a legitimate opinion. Some people read Ralph Miliband and concluded he hated Britain in its present guise, others didn't.
This is stupid. I am a republican. If I wrote I wanted the Monarchy abolished does that mean I hate Britain? You can't read between the lines like that. Unless R Milliband came out and said "I hate Britain" in so many words you can no more conclude that than you could say I hate Britain because of my views on this current government or the Monarchy.
I assume you'd be on here slagging of a Labour administration so if you ever do, I'd better report you to the authorities as someone who hated Britain hadn't I? Or at least if you dropped dead I should write an obituary that said that because lets face it, being dead you could not sue me.
Quote:But what is noticeable about the hysteria and Labour spin that followed this article is its utter hypocrisy. The Guardian has been at the forefront of this, but the Guardian staffers themselves are masters of the art of digging dirt, taking quotes out of context, distributing insults and generally attempting to destroy Labour's political opponents.
And as for this stuff about not damning someone based on what they said when they were 17. I'm delighted to see that the Guardian, Independent, and Labour's forum supporters have finally all woken up to this. Now will they all perhaps stop criticizing David Cameron for the school he attended when he was 12-17? Hope so."
David Cameron isn't dead. He can defend himself against slander and libel. R Milliband can't mount a defence to what he said when he was 17 because you can't libel the dead (as the DM knows) and in any case he isn't the one trying to run the country. It's completely legitimate to slag off our current PM for doing whatever he did at 17 if its relevant to what goes on now so it is therefore totally stupid to draw any parallel with what DC did at 17 to what RM did 70 years ago aged 17 and what EM states he wants to do now.
If you dropped dead tomorrow and I accused you of being a rapist at aged 17 your come back would be what exactly?
Now do you get the disingenuous stupidity of the last paragraph quoted above?
Who wrote this dirge you quoted anyway? I feel the urge to go and call him out for idiot he plainly is.
You didn't "say" anything, you merely quoted some un-named source. Yes, we've read that and it's froth.
As for being Miliband influenced by his father, I am influenced by Marx but am way off being a Marxist, I'm influenced by Jesus but am atheist and definitely not a Christian. That's not how it works, influence does not mean swallowing a philosophy whole.
You really are young aren't you?
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
So, back to the question in the thread title "When will Labour ditch Ed M?". The conference season has more-or-less signalled the start of the election campaign and Labour won't ditch Ed M in an election run-up, especially as he has come out of the conference season looking more lively than Cameron and Osborne who have been shiftily knitting fog to show that they are really, really against borrowing (despite doing lots and lots of it) and not mentioning their total failure to do what they said they'd do (eliminate the deficit) and doing what they said they would absolutely not do (top-down reorganisation of the NHS). Also, the shabby deliberate misinterpretation of Ralph Miliband by the Daily Wail has unintentionally (and ironically) shone a light on Ed being a normal human being with whom people can empathise, something that neither Cameron or Osborne have managed to do. In conclusion, unless the Tories win the next election (bearing in mind they didn't win the last one), Ed Miliband will stay as Labour leader.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
El Barbudo wrote:So, back to the question in the thread title "When will Labour ditch Ed M?". The conference season has more-or-less signalled the start of the election campaign and Labour won't ditch Ed M in an election run-up, especially as he has come out of the conference season looking more lively than Cameron and Osborne who have been shiftily knitting fog to show that they are really, really against borrowing (despite doing lots and lots of it) and not mentioning their total failure to do what they said they'd do (eliminate the deficit) and doing what they said they would absolutely not do (top-down reorganisation of the NHS). Also, the shabby deliberate misinterpretation of Ralph Miliband by the Daily Wail has unintentionally (and ironically) shone a light on Ed being a normal human being with whom people can empathise, something that neither Cameron or Osborne have managed to do. In conclusion, unless the Tories win the next election (bearing in mind they didn't win the last one), Ed Miliband will stay as Labour leader.
El Barbudo wrote:So, back to the question in the thread title "When will Labour ditch Ed M?". The conference season has more-or-less signalled the start of the election campaign and Labour won't ditch Ed M in an election run-up, especially as he has come out of the conference season looking more lively than Cameron and Osborne who have been shiftily knitting fog to show that they are really, really against borrowing (despite doing lots and lots of it) and not mentioning their total failure to do what they said they'd do (eliminate the deficit) and doing what they said they would absolutely not do (top-down reorganisation of the NHS). Also, the shabby deliberate misinterpretation of Ralph Miliband by the Daily Wail has unintentionally (and ironically) shone a light on Ed being a normal human being with whom people can empathise, something that neither Cameron or Osborne have managed to do. In conclusion, unless the Tories win the next election (bearing in mind they didn't win the last one), Ed Miliband will stay as Labour leader.
Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
Seems the Mail on Sunday (there's a link to the DM there somewhere) gatecrashed a memorial service for Ed's uncle (at which he was speaking) to try and get comments on the original story about RM for publication this weekend
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14395 Location: Chester
Just when you think the Mail group of Newspapers couldn't be any more stupid or stoop any lower they do this:
According to a Labour source, the Mail on Sunday reporter at the memorial event for Ed Miliband's uncle spoke to several of Miliband's relatives. With at least one of them, she clasped his or her hand and said "I just want to give your family my condolences" before revealing that she was from the Mail on Sunday and trying to turn the conversation to Miliband's father.
I wonder if Hague and Cameron etc can still avoid a direct criticism of the Mail now?
Just when you think the Mail group of Newspapers couldn't be any more stupid or stoop any lower they do this:
According to a Labour source, the Mail on Sunday reporter at the memorial event for Ed Miliband's uncle spoke to several of Miliband's relatives. With at least one of them, she clasped his or her hand and said "I just want to give your family my condolences" before revealing that she was from the Mail on Sunday and trying to turn the conversation to Miliband's father.
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
DaveO wrote:Just when you think the Mail group of Newspapers couldn't be any more stupid or stoop any lower ...
Oh, given their predilection for publishing pictures of underage girls, with sexualised copy online, while portraying itself as a defender of children against sexualisation and 'pornification', I personally have no illusions about how Dacre and his rabble will go.
Rumour has it that Rothermere is furious. Having just given Dacre a new, year-long contract.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 131 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
