[Closed] David Milliband - snidey little shit?

The whole thing of political parties changing their views just to get elected gets on my wick. Stick to your principles or join another party if the one you're in doesn't suit you!

I'd rather Derek Hatton and the militants than new labour. But saying that, I'd rather new labour than Dave and all his Eton educated toffs.

Renationalise everything. Shareholders are the root of all evil in my eyes.

somafunk - Member

Snidey whiney cockbag outburst here

Personally i think Ed Milliband did not take the Labour Party far enough to the left for me to ever consider voting Labour but apparently David considers that they need to build on New Labour and the Tony Blair years.

Do you really David?, you're a snidey little backstabbing cockbag whom i have an intense dislike for as you remind me of Blair, but i expect we will see you surface in UK politics at some point in the next 4 years.

Regardless of everything you've said, he would have won more votes for his party than Ed since he doesn't come across like a epicene, lisping, IT consultant with all the charisma and leadership qualities of a wet lettuce.

Differing political views = snidey?

I know who's the whiner on this thread.

The whole thing of political parties changing their views just to get elected gets on my wick

It's democratic. Give the people what they want - that's the whole point.

It's democratic. Give the people what they want - that's the whole point.

This!

It's the essential truth of politics - if you dont represent the beliefs and wishes of the electorate, then you will forever remain a voice in the wilderness!

Like it or not, You can do f*** all from the opposition benches.

Has someone turned off the swear filter?

molgrips - Member

It's democratic. Give the people what they want - that's the whole point.

That's the point of voting to choose between parties. It's not the entire point of having a political party.

I thought you'd be kept far too busy with your new job [i]Al's coffee shop reports[/i] to bother with such a thread as this,

I know who's the whiner on this thread

Yep…..we know too so be a good chap and close the door on your way out,

While I don't think they should be going back to champagne socialism he did sort of have a point Here,

...David Miliband said there was "absolutely no point in blaming the electorate" for the election result.
"They didn't want what was being offered," he said...

Can't really argue with that can you...

LOL, bit upset there?

It's not so much what he said (alright…it is) but rather they way he comes across on the various interviews i've seen where he almost manages to suppress a grin from the left hand corner of his mouth and his the way his eyes light up when he mentions mistakes/shortcomings.

He's not one to be trusted in my consideration. But then who do you place trust in, and how do you formulate that trust on someone you will most likely never meet?, i guess it's impossible to truly judge on character alone but it's a good place to form a basis for an opinion.

LOL, bit upset there?

nope, I'm just perplexed as to your thought process (and the outcome) before you post a reply.

how do you formulate that trust on someone you will most likely never meet?, i guess it's impossible to truly judge on character alone but it's a good place to form a basis for an opinion.

Indeed.

I got the feeling that he is enjoying his current job to be bothered with internal labour party politics anymore

Why shouldn't he be extended his moment of schadenfreude after bis brother and the party machine screwed him over

It's not like he didn't warn right from the start that what happened on Thursday was inevitable, it's also not like he was on his own - Mandelson, Blair, Dan Hodges etc. have been saying this for years, it seems now that behind the scenes Lord Sugar was saying much the shame too - in the end they were all proven right!

I don't know why David Miliband's opinion are always treated with such importance, apart from the obvious reason that the Tory press like him of course.

He was MP for only 12 years and he wasn't a particularly outstanding minister.

Why his opinion should be valued so highly and above so many other Labour MPs I really don't know.

Likewise Peter Mandelson whose utterances are treated like little pearls of wisdom despite the fact that he is a failed politician who had to be given the unelected post of European Commissioner after resigning in disgrace not just once but twice, ffs.

But again the Tory press likes the man who is "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich", so the failed politician who likes to regularly criticise the Labour Party is given all the publicity that he seeks.

he doesn't come across like a epicene, lisping, IT consultant

1. Ta, didn't know what epicene meant, now I do.
2. OI! I'M AN IT CONSULTANT!

Kindly thtop inthulting uth! 🙂

Perhaps it's because they won elections?

Really somafunk?

You are actulay saying there's something going on here other that not liking what I say and finding something completely unrelated to flame me for?

🙄

you're a snidey little backstabbing cockbag

It's democratic. Give the people what they want - that's the whole point.

Could not agree less.

The point of politics is to gain power to shape the nation to the philosophy of your desire, not to obtain power at all costs. I want political parties to have empassioned debates about their beliefs and then when they decide the party line to persuade the voters their vision for the nation is the best for the nation. I want politicians to be prepared for power but not diatorted for power. A thinking politician is one that can be persuaded to change their beliefs but one that changes their beliefs for the sake of popularity is a waste of skin.

shortbread_fanylion - Member
The whole thing of political parties changing their views just to get elected gets on my wick. Stick to your principles or join another party if the one you're in doesn't suit you!

Labour are gubbed, they have no clue.

The point of politics is to gain power to shape the nation to the philosophy of your desire

You can't shape anything without being elected!

But what's the point in shaping it to something that does not represent what you think is right? The only point would be if being in power was the primary objective. That does not mean you can't try to be persuasive - your role should be to win the voters over to your way of thinking not to blow in the wind.

Of course you can. You can set the agenda.

And an effective opposition can have massive effect.

I was quite pleased to see DM pop-up with a big-fat [i]I TOLD YOU SO[/i] for the labour party.

Considering the circumstances around the 2010 leadership contest, I think he's been pretty dignified about the whole thing - I think he at least deserved this one small poke.

The sad truth is that Blairism has afforded many people who have drifted to the right through wealth, success or just a plain old hardening of the political arteries the delusion that they are somehow still on the “left”.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/may/07/labour-risks-failing-the-english-just-like-it-did-the-scottish ]Irvine Welsh in the Graun[/url]

I'm increasingly middle-aged and increasingly rich, but I still find this stuff pretty easy: Labour is my party. It is not the party that promotes my economic interests. Those will look after themselves very nicely for the moment. I don't need to be in the Labour party, working to convert the Labour party into a(nother) voice for affluent lawyers.

🙂

The only point would be if being in power was the primary objective

You are actulay saying there's something going on here other that not liking what I say and finding something completely unrelated to flame me for?

It's all about you Al, it's always all about you 😆

It is. These are politicians we are taking about after all. Sociopaths that crave power.

I suspect you are right that the number of conviction politicians is at an all time low, especially in the main parties (no point in being a power hungry sociopath in the greens after all). I also suspect we as a general public get the politicians we deserve if we are not capable of seeing through the slick, sound bite heavy win at all cost merchants we seem to like to vote in.

ve if we are not capable of seeing through the slick, sound bite heavy win at all cost merchants we seem to like to vote

Yeah the Labour Party got the leadership it deserved

Sensible interview from a sensible bloke. He would be primeminister today if it wasn't for the unions.

Regardless of everything you've said, he would have won more votes for his party than Ed since he doesn't come across like a epicene, lisping, IT consultant with all the charisma and leadership qualities of a wet lettuce.

Maybe, but while CallMe and his snooty pals at Oxford were trashing restaurants and burning money in front of beggars, Ed Miliband was doing something useful.

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2015-05-05/exclusive-ed-milibands-first-ever-tv-appearance-as-a-fresh-faced-student/

Considering the circumstances around the 2010 leadership contest

which were ?

Sometimes it's about what you are doing not what you have done, the class warfare distraction is one of the reasons the far left don't really get it some days.

The thing that gets me is just how closely they're linked to American Politics...

Ed Miliband spent time at Harvard with John Kerry

Both Labour and Conservative election campaigns were run by Obama aides

The thing that gets me is just how closely they're linked to

It's also good that people get to know how allies and adversaries think.

Who you've been in the same country as is a touch tenuous all told...

And thankfully I'm not the type who is easily scared.

But if you fancy a bit of further understanding of how deeply Labour's campaign manager, David Axelrod is linked to Obama, [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Axelrod ]here's a swift education[/url]

The Tories [s]campaign manager[/s] adviser Jim Messina is equally [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Messina_%28political_staffer%29 ]planted firmly in Obama's pocket[/url]

Both Labour and Conservative election campaigns were run by Obama aides

The Labour one wasn't really according to the FT he only set foot in this country about 3 times.

People talk about conviction politics but that is dead. Politics like everything else is now being run by the data guys, think Sky's marginal gains approach. A big chunk of the Tories win was due to better tactical analysis on the ground, and being able to respond quickly to whether messages were popular or not. Obviously picking a leader that wasn't a complete liability also helped. 😆

[quote=jivehoneyjive said]
The Tories campaign manager Jim Messina

I thought he was an adviser and Crosby was running the show ?

Yep political people who specialise in running campaigns come and get some work at a rich election while there isn't an election going on in the US. It probably helps that they speak English. Probably one of your weaker conspiracies there. Most people in that end of politics will move round and jump between jobs especially if they are good, hope the Labour guy got paid well

The Labour one wasn't really according to the FT he only set foot in this country about 3 times.

Similarly Jim Messina was based in the US whilst the campaign was underway, but nonetheless, both he and Axelrod were key players...

There were of course [url= http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/british-elections-jim-messina-david-axelrod-117759.html ]many others from US politics involved behind the scenes[/url]

I think I'm with the poster that said it's basically him popping up to say "I told you so"- Labour lost the 2015 election in 2010 when they picked the wrong brother. They either had to man up and go full left Old Labour and stand up for their voters or keep on keeping on with New Labour, not whatever this weird Tory Light without Austerity thing was.

An interesting take nabbed off twitter:

[b]Trident. Rendition. Iraq. That mug. I can't believe people mistook Labour for a left-wing party[/b]

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-most-embarrassing-part-of-the-election-seeing-people-mistake-labour-for-a-leftwing-party-10237192.html ]Most embarrassing part of the election? Seeing people mistake Labour for a left wing party[/url]

I thnk a Labour Party under the leadership of someone like Michael Foot that took it's inspiration from Marx and Engels and possibly Mao's Little Red Book would be a fabulous development.

Perhaps ernie would consider a career change?

😀

It's interesting that so many people passionately believe that a fairly talentless and inexperienced politician, with no proven leadership skills, would have definitely won the general election for Labour.

The only thing I can put it down to is that they read it in the Sun, Telegraph, or Daily Mail. Or someone who did told them.

would have definitely won the general election for Labour

I didn't say that- but having Ed as leader definitely lost them it. David gave the impression of being a more confident leader, which is what you need to bluff your way to the top. Look at Dave- he's useless, but is confident about it so gets away with it.

Perhaps ernie would consider a career change?

Judging by your comments on the other thread Woppit you really are keen for a puerile argument today.

Sorry ernie, I thought you were all for that sort of thing. 🙂

The only thing I can put it down to is that they read it in the Sun, Telegraph, or Daily Mail. Or someone who did told them.

More likely they've seen the TV interviews and noticed he's not an embarrassment.

If David really was a snidey little shit he'd have stayed on as an MP and had a go at Ed at every opportunity.

Taking yourself out of the country and keeping your mouth shut for 5 years are IMO not the traits of a snidey little shit.

Didn't David M spend some time plotting against Brown leading up to 2010 and in the end fell flat on his face which may be one reason why he wasn't elected as the Labour Leader following the election? Having a second unelected PM following the unelected Brown probebly wouldn't have gone down well with the general public either.

Taking yourself out of the country and keeping your mouth shut for 5 years are IMO not the traits of a snidey little shit.

To be fair, I agree with this. I'm sure he has been handsomely rewarded financially recently by the (IRC) but his actions after the leader elections were spot on in terms of giving his brother and the party the best chance to move on.

The whole thing of political parties changing their views just to get elected gets on my wick.

What is the point of having a view if you're never elected and never influence anything?

If David really was a snidey little shit he'd have stayed on as an MP and had a go at Ed at every opportunity.

Taking yourself out of the country and keeping your mouth shut for 5 years are IMO not the traits of a snidey little shit.

+1

Like Alan Sugar, he kept quiet and waited for a sensible time to voice his opinion.

What is the point of having a view if you're never elected and never influence anything?

What is the point of a politician without a view they believe in? Politicians are for setting policies - the real work of implementation is done by the civil servants who have the actual capability to manage the task. A politician without passion for their beliefs is worthless; which is why I suspect so many folk are so disengaged with politics and frequently state 'they are all the same'. They appear all the same for so many people because so many of them are trying to mirror the beliefs of the middle ground voter and not offend rather than having any real vision for the future.

Labour was too far left to be elected @jj. UKIP finished second in many Labour constituencies (in fact eyeballing the map more than it did to the Tories).

Perhaps it will do Labour a favour if UNITE start a new left wing party then it will end the debate about where Labour should be and they can focus on the center ground. UK politics has moved to the right in the last 50 years. We are still further left than the US, further to the right than France.

If Labour moves left its going to be consigned to history. Look at the map, to form a government it needs to win seats from the Tories which it's not going to do if it goes left from here.

It's a sad day when a Labour party plonked here on a political map:-
[img] [/img]

is too far left.

Perhaps it will do Labour a favour if UNITE start a new left wing party then it will end the debate about where Labour should be and they can focus on the center ground. UK politics has moved to the right in the last 50 years.

Absolutely, there's no way Old Labour could ever get elected, there are too many aspirational middle class voters who are completely turned off by it.

footflaps - Member

What is the point of having a view if you're never elected and never influence anything?

None- that's why you have to convince people to vote for you. Something the Labour party failed to do over the last period- neither selling their own message or countering their opposition's.

I'm not sure why this takes on such a binary state, in these discussions. There's more than one way to get elected, it's not this way or that way. You can figure out exactly what the electorate will vote for, and offer that, but if that means you end up with policies you don't want, it might be you've lost before the election even happens. Or, you can run on the platform you want to, and persuade others of its merits.

And of course, that means there's more than one way to not get elected.

There's more than one way to get elected, it's not this way or that way.

I have to agree with Tony Blair on this, you'll only get a majority in the House of Commons if you fight on the central ground. Labour chose a left of centre stance (which personally I like), and paid the price.

None- that's why you have to convince people to vote for you.

But there's a limit to how much people can be persuaded. Which is why parties end up having to shift their position.

BD I've read the Irvine Walsh article a couple of times now, and I'm no clearer about what he's trying to say. 😕

What is the point of a politician without a view they believe in? Politicians are for setting policies

Surely Labour Party policies are traditionally set by the members, not the politicians?

Taking yourself out of the country and keeping your mouth shut for 5 years are IMO not the traits of a snidey little shit.

It was a fairly cushy form of exile...

He still behaved impeccably e.g. he could have been sniping from the sidelines for the last 5 years.

footflaps - Member

I have to agree with Tony Blair on this, you'll only get a majority in the House of Commons if you fight on the central ground. Labour chose a left of centre stance (which personally I like), and paid the price.

Hands up everyone who thinks they ran a brilliant campaign and only failed because they were just too left wing?

Some people want to use this result as proof that a left-of-centre campaign can't win. That, to me, is just Obvious Bullshit- considering all the factors that went into this failure, attributing it all to one is just illogical.

Personally, I do think that a competent left-of-centre campaign could win. After all, an incompetent, somewhat leftwing one just got to within 6% of the tories. But that's just opinion. What is fact, is that this election wasn't settled on just that one thing.

That stupid stone thing didn't do Labour any favours, who ever came up with that should be shot.

What would be the key messages of a competent true left-of-centre campaign that could attract a Parliamentary majority?

I think the worrying thing from this election is there isn't necessarily the cohort of voters in key constituencies who can be relied on to respond even to centre-left messages.

All the decent majorities of recent decades have been secured by parties on a centre-right or further message.

They had zero press backing and an uncharismatic leader. I suspect the main issue was lack of press backing which was all down to the left of centre stance which doesn't appeal to the billionaire press moguls. I doubt you'll ever get a left of centre party with Murdoch's backing...

...and yet some people think that the Murdoch-backed SNP is a leftist party!

[i]Hands up everyone who thinks they ran a brilliant campaign and only failed because they were just too left wing?[/i]

Not me...but I believe all you Lefties make so much noise and believe everything you say so vehemently, you sometimes don't see the wood for the trees!

For example...despite the policies, the UK population were never going to elect the two Ed's, so the rest is purely semantics!

I am always surprised at "press backing" comments hardly anyone reads the newspaper these days. People form their opinions based on what they see on TV and on the streets in their neighbourhood.

I am always surprised at "press backing" comments hardly anyone reads the newspaper these days. People form their opinions based on what they see on TV and on the streets in their neighbourhood.

Just about every morning news show covers the papers. Who Murdoch backs gets coverage on all the TV stations etc. Newspapers often set the news agenda which TV then follows as in most cases they have a political agenda directed by their owners. Far more influential than TV.

40 % still read neswpapers

I guess hardly [ as its less is it barely?] anyone just voted for the Tories

They do have tremendous power[ how much is worthy of debate] and "red ed" clearly was not given an even handed approach by the written media who are largely foreign owned and pretty right wing
I dont think its fair to say "it's the the sun wot won it" but the lack of support and constant scathing and personal attacks certainly did not help his credibility. What do you think the ratio was of attack on ed v attack on cameron in the media? 10 -1 higher? Its not helpful to an informed debate

The majority of adults in the UK (95%) say they follow the news. Television is by far the most-used platform for news, with 75% of UK adults saying they use TV as a source of news; this figure has seen a small decrease since 2013 (78%). There has been growth in the number of those who use any internet or apps for news, with over four in ten (41%) doing so this year, compared to just under a third last year (32%). This is particularly evident in the 16-34 age group, where use of internet or apps for news has increased from 44% in 2013 to 60% in 2014. Newspapers are used by four in ten (40%), the same as last year (40%), and radio by just over one-third (36%), the same as last year
(35%)

Labour lost the election the day after they elected EM. Personally I think DM behaved impeccably and said nothing that a lot of New Labour voters weren't thinking. UK politics has moved on.

I have listened to that three times and I dont see what he has done to warrant the claim he has savaged his brother

Rockape63 - Member

Not me...but I believe all you Lefties make so much noise and believe everything you say so vehemently, you sometimes don't see the wood for the trees!

For example...despite the policies, the UK population were never going to elect the two Ed's, so the rest is purely semantics!

The irony of saying "you lefties can't see the wood for the trees" then agreeing with me 😛 I think maybe I'm not the one with a problem seeing?

Labour chose a left of centre stance (which personally I like), and paid the price.

That now often repeated claim really must be candidate for most monstrous lie of recent political history.

Usually people who make this ridiculous claim don't even bother to provide any evidence of the alleged left-wing stance taken Miliband.

I remained totally mystified as to what this absurd allegation was actually based on until a couple of days before the election when I read an FT article in which they repeated the claim and qualified it by referring to Miliband's election promise to freeze gas and electricity prices for 20 months, and to reinstate the 50p top rate of income tax.

I kid you not, some practically meaningless gimmick to freeze energy prices for 20 months and to slap an extra 5p tax on higher earners was the only evidence provided to backup the claim that Miliband was "left-wing", ffs.

In the case of the energy price gimmick Miliband took it precisely because as a committed right-winger it was all that he could offer. Time and again public opinion has been shown to be far to the left of the Labour Party with regards to the utilities with a majority of even Tory voters backing nationalisation of gas and electricity.

But spineless, cowardly, and right-wing as the Labour Party is today, it was completely incapable of backing public opinion and nationalisation was off the agenda, the price freeze gimmick was some pathetic sop to make up for Labour's lack of left-wing commitment, not proof of left-wing commitment ffs. Seriously - ffs, how can people come out with such bollocks ?

Labour this election was well to the right of public opinion. Certainly when it came to nationalisation of the energy and rail companies. On that issue Labour was even to the right of Tory voters.

Labour this election was well to the right of public opinion. Certainly when it came to nationalisation of the energy and rail companies. On that issue Labour was even to the right of Tory voters.