[Closed] Ed Milliband. A question for the public sector strikers...

The Labour Party has been bought and paid for.

It is in serious financial trouble, and is almost solely funded by the unions. It doesn't have permission to say anything against the strikes.

Naturally hes doing what any labour government would do....

bend over- give the unions everything then spend! spend! spend! their way out of the recession.

Worked for Brown until £1,000,000,000 (trillion) of debt was built up.

I don't think its the Labour party you need to be worried about being bought and paid for:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-finance-analysis/party-funding

This might explain the current pro big-business, anti worker policies going through parliament.

He cannot win - Cameron has tried to manouver him into backing the strikes publicly so the tory press can go after him, he knows the strikers have a goo d case but cannot say it as ( at leat in his mind) he cannot afford to be pillories in the tory press

he is also a weak and stupid which does not help

.....and he looks like Mr Bean..... 😛

I think the bloke is a pointless waste of space, personally

Bloody hell; I have to agree with Hora! 😯

Jeeze, a decent Labour leader (of a decent Labour party, not this current shower of self-serving shite) would be savaging CallMeDave and leaving the Tories in tatters. That Labour can't find anyone who can take on such a pathetic Tory party and leader is a joke, and a disgrace to British politics.

i feel sorry for poor ed.. 1st he got elected by mistake as union voters didnt know which bro was which.. 2nd he inheireted a party in a mess.. they could nt blame todays woes on anyone else and frankly the previous leader chancellor had basked in the glow of free money that came home to roost whilst he was PM

the labour party should make a robust statement.. frankly this is the truth.. we re all going to live a lot longer so we ll have a pension for longer and that ll cost money so to reduce the overall costs and yet all enjoy a decent std of living the max publiuc sector pension will be 25k and you can have it from 65. you cant have it earlier you cant have a lump sum you get 25k at 65 and then till you drop dead..

all PS workers would pay 6% toward it regardless of income..

let the lkabour party reflect thier core voters not the accountancts managers that have jumped on the PS easy street.. and claim 50k pensions whilst still in 120k jobs at 55..

He's utterly unelectable, but it doesn't matter as there's no chance that Labour would get in at the next election anyway. There's still too much bad post-Blair/Brown feeling in the country at large.

They'll lose the next election, he'll go as leader (if he hasn't already by then) and then, hopefully, they have someone credible coming up through the ranks who can take over.

Let's just hope they don't pick a succession of no-hopers like the Tories - IDS, Michael Howard...

Or, of course, they could just boot him out and make his brother leader, like they should have done in the first place.

binners, you may be surprised at who public sector workers vote for, union membership doesn't automatically equal labour support. The world is not that black and white (although that will be news to some).

Hes struggling Ed isn't he? You can hear it in his voice can't you? The strain. A sort of strangled throat noise.

This aren't even going to be the John Smith Labour years are they?

More like the Ian Duncan Smith wilderness years.

Ian Duncan Smith? He makes IDS look like a towering political giant

.....and he looks like Mr Bean.....

And talks like a kazoo.

His one redeeming feature seems to be that he's not David Cameron. :/

I think the bloke is a pointless waste of space, personally

Bloody hell; I have to agree with Hora!

And I agree with both Elf and Hora.

It should be a great time to be a Labour leader in opposition but no, he is making the party look like mugs.

IHN - Member

He's utterly unelectable, but it doesn't matter as there's no chance that Labour would get in at the next election anyway. There's still too much bad post-Blair/Brown feeling in the country at large.

Have you seen the Polls? Cameron and Clegg are so hated that the lib dems will not split the leftish vote again and teh tory vote will drop. Given where we are int ehelectoral cycle with the polls so bad for Cameron and Clegg trhere is no chance of a tory reelection I only hope the coalition collapses - the sooner this shower are out the better. laboutr would get a in now no matter who was leader

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Don't forget though TJ, that Tory Voters don't admit to being Tory Voters when questioned? Obvious really, as what the question really means is "do you have a soul?"

Would you seriously vote for Ed? And expect him to actually improve matters. He clearly couldn't run a bath! Let alone the country

He is my MP and if you think he is pro union you are mistaken he is a joke.
Its time the unions had a rethink of who they support as new labour is almost a tory party , the unions will start to lose members if it keeps going on supporting new labour .

Ian Duncan Smith? He makes IDS look like a towering political giant

True - but I hope he doesn't end up like IDS who has in time become a politician who perhaps deserves more time and credit.

Watching the broadcast from Westminster live - hasn't Balls-up ever being told that ranting tends to erode one's credibility? He can make valid points in a calm and measured manner and then perhaps people may listen.

I imagine most public sector workers are natural labour voters

Why?

A realistic alternative view is; I imagine most public sector workers are as interested in politics as the rest of the UK voters

he is also a weak and stupid which does not help

I just wish we had a politician who really cared about our country/patriotic and fought our corner tooth and nail in Brussels.

Not being a secret Europhile, soundbites thrown out and seemingly backdoor deals with big business.

Yes that was Bliar as well.

hasn't Balls-up ever being told that ranting tends to erode one's credibility?

Just another politician. Regardless of the colour tie he wears - all lying, thieving scum.

So, if Labour are now a centerist/centre-right party, with the Tories further to the right (but not much), how come the unions and old-skool Labour don't split from the Blairites and set up another party?

Surely that would get the support of the traditional Labour vote and the unions, and reflect better the concerns of the "working man"?

how come the unions and old-skool Labour don't split from the Blairites and set up another party?

Because they know they would be unelectable?

how come the unions and old-skool Labour don't split from the Blairites and set up another party?

Money, basically. New Labour spent a lot of time and effort courting all sorts of wealthy people to back their cause, including large elements of the British Media, and although a fair bit of that support has evaporated, they're still essentially beholden to corporate interests (like anything's ever bin different really).

Promoting a political party takes a tremendous amount of resources, and I doubt very much that an 'Old Labour' could ever muster much financial and media support and influence in order to be able to compete with the Tories, New Labour or even the Limp Dems. They'd be down struggling with yer Green Party and yer UKIP etc. Sadly, Britain as a nation has moved too far to the Right, politically, and it will be a long time before it can be dragged back over towards the Left again, if ever.

Small steps. What New Labour shooduv done, is once they captured the Middle Class vote, is gently steer things back towards the Left, but Bliar and his chums were too busy feathering their own nests and appeasing their corporate puppet-masters, to do such a thing. Gordon Brown was hung out as the Sacrificial Lamb of Socialism, and was slaughtered.

And now we have the Millibastards.

For shame. 😥

I've just found myself agreeing with Elfin [i]and[/i] Hora.... it's a dark day indeed 🙁

Binnrs - I think they correct for that now in the polls

willard - Member

So, if Labour are now a centerist/centre-right party, with the Tories further to the right (but not much), how come the unions and old-skool Labour don't split from the Blairites and set up another party?

Surely that would get the support of the traditional Labour vote and the unions, and reflect better the concerns of the "working man"?

this is why the SNP got a majority in Scotland in part.

When I were a lad the SNP were to the right of the labour party - now they are to the left - both have moved ( all to simplistic but you get the gist)

Wasn't there a thing on the news the other night about limiting the amount an individual can contribute to a party to £10k - in an attempt to level the playing field, and curb the excessive spending, and back handers.

Obviously, the government said it was outrageous and that "now was not the time to be doing such a thing".

[i]Have you seen the Polls? Cameron and Clegg are so hated that the lib dems will not split the leftish vote again and teh tory vote will drop. Given where we are int ehelectoral cycle with the polls so bad for Cameron and Clegg trhere is no chance of a tory reelection I only hope the coalition collapses - the sooner this shower are out the better. laboutr would get a in now no matter who was leader[/i]

Remember why Labour were out of power for so long in the 80's and 90's? It wasn't because everyone loved the Tories, far from it, but everyone did know that they were not having Foot/Kinnock as prime minister. Unfortunately, the Tories now, as then, are seen as the best worst option.

Surely that would get the support of the traditional Labour vote and the unions, and reflect better the concerns of the "working man"?

See, there's no such thing left as 'the working man'.

There's the underclass, created by Thatcherite greed, and then those who aspire to become 'Middle Class' but who probbly mostly wont ever achieve that, then the traditional Middle Classes. The romantic idea of the 'Working Classes' has all but evaporated; no-one really wants to be seen as 'Working Class', cos there's no longer any [i]glory[/i] in it. You aren't salt of the Earth decent hardworking ordinary folk who make up the backbone of Britain, you're someone on a low wage with few prospects, unless you jump onto the Middle Class Dream Express.

People who were 'proud' of their Working Class-ness were merely deluded to the point of accepting their social status. Brainwashed into believing the Establishment mantra. People were never really happy being 'Working Class' anyway, they just meekly accepted it as the reason for their own lack of social mobility, and stagnated in complacency.

Sigh.

Same shit, different wrapping. The only difference now, is that the Lumpenproletariat now 'beleive' they can climb up the social ladder, seduced by consumer goods and home ownership. You're all still scrabbling round in the dark, looking for the light switch. And Enlightenment is no closer.

Remember why Labour were out of power for so long in the 80's and 90's? It wasn't because everyone loved the Tories, far from it, but everyone did know that they were not having Foot/Kinnock as prime minister. Unfortunately, the Tories now, as then, are seen as the best worst option.

maggie would have been a 1 term PM, were it not for the Falklands war, spin and deception meant far more than the reality.

Elf, you forgot to put X-Factor in your list of aspirations...

Serious question though, if the unions are subsidising Labour now, what's to prevent them stopping the funding to that and contributing to a new party that suits their interests better (assuming Ed stops toeing the line, or they get tired of him)?

IHN - look at the polls - without a miracle Cameron will be out at the next election. The majority of the public have seen straight thru him and Clegg. Labours lead in the polls is 5+ % and has been for months in most polls - enough to give a serious majority and the Lib Dems to be wiped out

With a decent leader labour would be out of sight

Elf, you forgot to put X-Factor in your list of aspirations...

Good point actually. This Instant Gratification culture we live in means people want the rewards without the effort. I see less and less people who are truly willing to put the graft in, and more trying to figure out how to do as little as possible, and still get paid. In all sorts of jobs. I'd say conscientiousness amongst people I know is lower amongst those who work in't private sector; at least some of those in't public sector jobs have an ounce of wanting to do the 'right thing'.

This is of course worse amongst the young uns. No sorry it's true; where's the examples to show them that you can get somewhere purely through hard work? For many, their parents have slogged away for years without getting very far. I don't blame the kids for not wanting to work in a dead-end job. They want the sudden rewards offred to an 18-year old fotballer; £40k a week, fast car, nice house, bling bling etc... At least in the old industries and trades you could possibly at least gain respect of others for sticking at it. Who wants to put that much effort into working for Tescos? Such industries don't want you staying put working your way up the ladder anyway; they prefer to have a high churn and keep wages low. They don't respect their staff, and consequently their staff don't respect them. As long as profits are good, that's all that matters.

(Goes off to practice Rhianna's 'RudeBoy' in front of mirror, dreaming of stardom....)

Same shit, different wrapping. The only difference now, is that the Lumpenproletariat now 'beleive' they can climb up the social ladder, seduced by consumer goods and home ownership. You're all still scrabbling round in the dark, looking for the light switch. And Enlightenment is no closer.

Elfin - when I was young there was an education system that provided "a" ladder. Then Cartland and her cronies destroyed it - misguided ideological nonsense that condemned many to where they are now.

without a miracle Cameron will be out at the next election. The majority of the public have seen straight thru him and Clegg. Labours lead in the polls is 5+ % and has been for months in most polls - enough to give a serious majority and the Lib Dems to be wiped out

[i]I see less and less people [/i]

fewer and fewer. Sheesh. 🙄

[i]With a decent leader labour would be out of sight[/i]

Now there I'd agree with you.

The problem is, I've no idea who I'd vote for next time and I think most people are the same. I'm certainly not a 'natural' Tory, I don't think Labour are capable and my usual LibDem vote would be even less useful than last time as, like you say, no other b*gger is going to vote for them.

Honestly, at the moment, I'd probably vote Tory *shudder*

the utterly vapid and pointless Ed Milliband

Could it possibly be that you may have preconceptions clouding your vision?

"The Government's has a responsibility to stop strikes happening. I don't think they have exercised that responsibility"

Its pretty clear to me what he's saying, and in a world where the oppositions role is to oppose I would say hes being pretty direct in that opposition. Not necessarily over stating the issue, but then there are so many nowadays theres no real need to.

With a decent leader labour would be out of sight

Not necessarily. A good team is a pre-requisite.

[i]With a decent leader labour would be out of sight [/i]

And therein lies the problem! They've an utterly unelectable muppet at the helm. But labour knew for ages before the last election that Gordon Brown was an electoral liability. Did they MTFU and get rid of him? Nope. They crossed their fingers and hoped for the best

They'll do exactly the same this time around

And you'd be hard pushed to find anyone with less economic credibility than Ed Balls. I know. Lets make him shadow chancellor!

fewer and fewer. Sheesh.

See; proof of my Educational Deprivation, Nettles. 😐

(You sound like my mum btw! Oh, and you forgot to use a capital letter at the beginning of your statment 😉 )

Elfin - when I was young there was an education system that provided "a" ladder.

Thing is, this 'ladder' seems to be all about material gain, rather than bettering yourself as a person through education and being a valuable member of your community/society. I hear people talking aobut others in terms of their material wealth; 'oh, so-and-so's done well for [b]themselves[/b]; got a nice house, nice car etc', yet no mention of their character and Human/social qualities. I know some right ruthless *s who've made a lot of money, gain the 'respect' of their peers, yet are still 'orrible *s who shaft others just to get another rung up, and don't care who they hurt. And others who've dedidcated themselves to some very worthy and valuable causes, yet aren't looked on as favourably, just cos they ain't bought their own house yet etc etc. A person's value to society is worth less than the clothes they wear, it often seems...

And you'd be hard pushed to find anyone with less [s]economic[/s] credibility than Ed Balls.

FIFY

I struggle with long sentences

Damned if he supports damned if he does not
Hence the focus group led opinion less vapid oxygen thief is left confused in a repeating loop of indecision ...this pretty much sums up everything about him tbh.
Not a great leader [ understatement of the day] wont last IMHO

I struggle with long sentences

Well you won't bloody learn anything then will you?

And then you'll be stuck in your low-paid job with only a 32" telly while everyone else has gone 50" Plasma.

And people will [i]laugh[/i] at you, for being so worthless.

You'll deserve it, too. 😐

I struggle with long sentences 😆

Thing is, this 'ladder' seems to be all about material gain, rather than bettering yourself as a person through education and being a valuable member of your community/society.

Agree with you there.

So much for "Education, Education, Education," ....err, excuse our choice of children's schooling. And now there is the equally absurd position where OE DC feels compelled to make the opposite choice. Madness!

And then you'll be stuck in your low-paid job with only a 32" telly while everyone else has gone 50" Plasma.

Nuts, that's me told...

How much do you think culture has changed because of the perceived safety of our society? Post-second world war (and I take no shame in using my grandad as the example here) people worked hard and diligently to rebuild a life and a country interrupted and shattered by seven years of war. When retirement came, they enjoyed caravanning and, even though I was younger then, I can't remember there being anything like as much fear being pedalled then as there was now.

Is fear leading to an increase in short-term goals and materialism in the young and, more widely, in the rest of the population?

Going back to the OP and EM's seeming reluctance to support tomorrow's strike, which part of the Labour Party's values, are the strikes infringing?

The values Labour stands for today are those which have guided it throughout its existence.
• social justice
• strong community and strong values
• reward for hard work
• decency
• rights matched by responsibilities

[i]Is fear leading to an increase in short-term goals and materialism in the young and, more widely, in the rest of the population? [/i]

Fear of what?

IHN - look at the polls - without a miracle Cameron will be out at the next election.

Oh...

Sorry didn't read all that, but yeah pretty much what Binners said somewhere up there ^^^ They elected the wrong brother ... seriously, you have to wonder, the man can't speak properly (I actually have to turn off/over when he comes on cause the lisp and comedy intonation is too irritating), looks permanently surprised and ultimately makes the party totally unelectable; although of course Labour are not alone in history for making these schoolboy errors.

Different point in the electoral cycle.

Its almost unprecedented how quickly lib dem and tory support has evaporated and how quickly in the electoral cycle

The did it on purpose. Labour don't want power at the moment, they are already being blamed for the current state of the economy. They do not want to be blamed for messing it up any further, as is they can shift blame to the Torys. They also don't want to make the hard decisions, regardless of your political views it is obvious to all that we are going to be feeling some pain for a while yet.
So, they throw Ed at the leadership knowing he's a nob and they are off the hook for a while until things get better/easier when they'll get a showman like Blair in again.

Its almost unprecedented how quickly lib dem and tory support has evaporated and how quickly in the electoral cycle

Try again

Labour will in the next election as the torys are going to continue to make the economy worse - the austerity measures are part of the problem not the solution. We see the classic and normal tory mismanagement of the economy with inflation and unemployment rising along with low growth.

Just hope we can avert the worst of the damage to the NHS and other public services.

Aracer - thats not the same part of the electoral cycle. 2006 labour had been in power 9 years

I'm with wrecker on this one. Labour are just waiting for Cons to do the dirty, maybe they will tidy up the economy blah blah blah but will hack so many people off they will come unelectable.

I suspect Ed M will bimble along for a couple of years until possibly it looks like we're on an upturn and the bigger Lab hitters will come out and try to grab the leadership.

Worst case is they spark a farce in the Labour party and voters see the squabbling, and Cons 'tough love' actually works and we sail into the next election on a positive note - that's when it might get tricky.

TJ - you're Ok, you will have full independence. But for the rest of us:

Labour will in the next election as the torys are going to continue to make the economy worse

So Labour screw up, the Tory's make it worse, Labour get back in and screw it even further...blimey we really are in trouble. So should we emigrate to Scotland or further afield?

Cept Labour din't really 'screw up', did they? They left the Health Service in a healthier state than when they took over in '97, and lots of other public sector things were greatly improved under Labour. People are quick to forget this.

That Bliar took us into needless conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus wasting billions and billions and billions of pounds, coupled with a Global Recession what was the Yanks' fault anyway, really din't help the bank balance, but thank Gawd we din't have to suffer the Tories through that period, cos by now we'd be going asking the Greeks for help if we had....

So Labour screw up, the Tory's make it worse, Labour get back in and screw it even further...blimey we really are in trouble

Lets see - under labour we had unprecedented period of stable and sustainable growth and we were weathering the global storm well. tories come in and immediately unemployment rises, growth slows as a direct result of their policies.

Cept Labour din't really 'screw up', did they?

Well not to begin with, perhaps, but ......they did a pretty good impression by the end.

But then again, the failure were due to external events eg, global financial crisis as Gordon and Ed kept reminding us, whereas the success was purely internal. Well done them. Makes you proud.

TJ - the correlation is so obvious, why do so many people not get it?

It's true. Things got significantly worse almost the exact moment the Tories took over. Plus there's a hell of a lot more public dissatisfaction, which is growing at an alarming rate, which simply woon't be happening if Labour were still in charge.

THM has any govt been any different?
Did george not blame the Euro crisis today at the start of his speech for his/the failings and for any potential drop in growth / recession here before it even happened.

You think if it turns out fine and it "works" will george
1. Than the euro zone for sorting it out for him
2. Take all the credit himself.
And if it does not turn out fine what will he do?

We should all be wary of using our politics to decide whether it "worked" or we are no better than the politicians.
Whomever was in power before or after would be struggling to some degree- there is no magic cure all

We should all be wary of using our politics to decide whether it "worked" or we are no better than the politicians.

2x in a day!!!

And we will be (Taleb's) lucky fool who, " benefits from a disproportionate share of luck but attributes his success to some other, generally, very precise reason." [Fooled by Randomness]

Again, Elfin its amazing that people don't get it, eh?

So TJ and Elfin - there is of course a major difference in the economic policies of the Labour Party and the Tories. Labour wanted to make cuts of 2.2% of GDP pa and the Tories 3.0% p.a. The fiscal tightening proposed by the Tories £24bn and Labour £19bn - a paltry (in rel terms) £5bn. So we have a £1.6bn economy and a massive argument between Balls and Osborne over £5bn of cuts.......remind me what that is, of course 1/3 of 1% of GDP.

So there we have it, the massive difference that leads nicely into the conclusion that, "under labour we had unprecedented period of stable and sustainable growth and we were weathering the global storm well. tories come in and immediately unemployment rises, growth slows as a direct result of their policies."

I think I will stick to the fooled by randomness idea!

I actually think Brown did OK during his time as PM. He clearly had his personality faults & wasn't very 'telegenic', but I think he really saw it as his duty to help the poorer members of society rather than just representing the interests of the rich and powerful. Unfortunately for him, the Murdoch press had it in for him (eg 'bigoted woman-gate') - Brown must be loving the current Murdoch crash'n'burn act. For my money, I wish Tony Benn was a few years younger & could take over the Labour leadership, then we'd see, oh yes, then we'd see...

Lets see - under labour we had unprecedented period of stable and sustainable growth and we were weathering the global storm well. tories come in and immediately unemployment rises, growth slows as a direct result of their policies.

lol

It would be good to see some strong leaders in Westminster from any party, the current three big hitters are fairly useless, more interested in not offending anyone than actually doing anything constructive.

Out of the present lot I'd probably vote Tory, although that would do nothing as I live in Newcastle.

I have a lot of respect for IDS, I don't think he was ever the right person to lead the party but he is a principled man and is doing a lot of work at present trying to push positive reforms.

OMG - just watched Rachel Reeves on Newsnight. Like the OBR, I think TJ and co need to revise their forecasts downwards.

She is Oxford and LSE educated and worked at BoE and HBOS - what the h**l happened to the poor lady?

I have a lot of respect for IDS, I don't think he was ever the right person to lead the party but he is a principled man and is doing a lot of work at present trying to push positive reforms.

+1 and Frank Field

I actually think Brown did OK during his time as PM. He clearly had his personality faults & wasn't very 'telegenic', but I think he really saw it as his duty to help the poorer members of society rather than just representing the interests of the rich and powerful.

he was the worst kind of social manipulator who clearly didn't understand anything beyond his own little bubble hence "bigotgate" etc

as for his management of the economy and "prudence", yo-yo income taxes, banishing "boom and bust" etc etc 🙄

IDS? Frank Feild? Both know nothing muppets with whose ideas are laughable

although of course Labour are not alone in history for making these (public) schoolboy errors.

FTFY

big_n_daft - Member

as for his management of the economy and "prudence", yo-yo income taxes.....

What's "yo-yo income taxes" ?

Have a look at what income tax did under Gordon Brown :

[img] [/img]

Are you suggesting that income tax went up and down under Gordon Brown ?

If so, following your claim on another thread yesterday that the trade unions donate £30 million plus to the Labour Party, it's clear that you're not very good when in comes to "facts" big and daft. Or is your political position so weak that you have to rely on lies ?

now you see 10% income tax rate
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/itarchive.htm

now you don't
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm#1

or did the 10% rate never happen? 😉

on Union funding
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/09/30/labour-party-funding-on-trade-union-life-support/

I can't find the reference that stated that affliations plus central donations plus local donations get close to £30million so could be complete bollocks

So you [i]do[/i] mean that taxes went up and down under Gordon Brown, with your reference to "yo-yo income taxes".

Yes, there was a starting rate of income tax as well as a basic rate, and this starting rate was scrapped. But you can hardly characterise Brown's time in office with income taxes going up and down.

So I'll settle for my second suggestion - your political position so weak that you have to rely on lies.

There's plenty to criticise Gordon Brown for without having to embellish it with lies.

The problem for someone like you is that is that any criticism of Brown is undermined by the fact that you're a Tory. In other words, you would screw up Britain even more.

and this starting was scrapped.

remind me, wasn't it introduced just before a General Election and scrapped just after one? 😉

The problem for someone like you is that is that any criticism of Brown is undermined by the fact that you're a Tory. In other words, you would screw up Britain even more.

seeing as you only know I didn't vote for GB that's a sweeping assumption

didn't you vote Green?