[Closed] Why do so many people have a problem with Miliband ?

[quote=agent007 said]
He'd appear to say anything to get into power, even denying that they had any part in the financial crisis in the UK (cause it was a global thing wasn't it).

No, he has said that "we got things wrong on bank regulation" so he is putting his hand up as to how hard the UK Banks were hit.

David 'extraordinary rendition' Miliband carries a lot of baggage from Blair and nulabour, Im not sure he'd have done much better

Agreed, they'd be in with a much better chance.

Don't be silly. If DM was leader all we'd have heard for the last 6 months would have been his culpable involvement in Iraq and accusations of being Tony Blair MkII. It'll take some time before his past associations with the two most poisonous aspects of recent british politics are forgotten. No doubt that's why he's currently out in the US doing charity work?

@Northwind, you are giving "the press" too much power and credit. The vast majority of people don't read a newspaper. Miliband comes across poorly on TV which is where most people see and hear politicians, the TV companies run a clip of him speaking and that's when/where people form an opinion

@dazh you may have got Iraq raised as an issue by Greens and SNP but the Tories wouldn't have attacked David Milliband on that

@Northwind, you are giving "the press" too much power and credit. The vast majority of people don't read a newspaper. Miliband comes across poorly on TV which is where most people see and hear politicians, the TV companies run a clip of him speaking and that's when/where people form an opinion

Which I guess would mean that people think that Miliband comes across the same as Cameron then, since they're neck-and-neck?

the Tories wouldn't have attacked David Milliband on that

I'm not so sure. If there's one thing the tories are very good at, it's covering over their past actions or policies and brazenly using the very same things to attack labour.

the Labour government was relying more on the projected incomes of the financial markets than any other government in the world and then spent way more money than was prudent.

If it was the case that somehow this was all a Labour miss-management issue then how come pretty much all of Europe and the US had a near identical experience re the liquidity crash, back refinancing, ongoing recession / very slow recovery?

NB Even though spending was rising during the mid-2000s, at the time the economy imploded total debt as a % of GDP was still lower than when Labour took over in 1997. It's just that post crash, GDP dive bombed so the current spending looked a hell of a lot less affordable (although it actually turned out of be very easy to afford e.g. we've not come close to missing a single debt repayment and can refinance it all very cheaply).

I'm fairly sure that many previous PMs were accused of being "not prime ministerial" before they attained the office and then were held up as representatives of all that their successors were not when the next election came along. John Major was too dull, Tony Blair was too young/vacuous, Gordon Brown too angry, David Cameron too lightweight. It just seems that nobody seems prime ministerial until they actually become prime minister.

Has to be infinitely better than Cameron. With his elitist paedo cronies.

Lithuanian Marxist Jew, what's not to dislike?

I think the general consensus amongst economists is that they didn't.

1) 10 years of being responsible for financial market regulation (or lack of it)
2) the Treasury would have had a role in approving the RBS/ABN Amro deal (the primary cause of the failure of the bank)
3) responsible for consumer credit legislation (ie allowing debt levels to rise unchecked)
4) responsible for running up a substantial deficit thus making recovery more difficult
5) encouraging Lloyds to buy HBOS thus crippling what would otherwise have been a strong bank
6) allowing local authorities to deposit cash balances with Icelandic banks resulting in £100's millions of losses for taxpayers

I think my wife put it best when she said 'he's just too ugly to be taken seriously with other world leaders'

O RLY?

[img] [/img]

Pretty sure the world took this man seriously.

some people dont like geeks...

[img] [/img]

Try listening to his Dessert Island Disc appearance (is that the word for a radio programme?). It's on the BBC Iplayer/listen again, I thought it rather illuminating and a little sad.

"Has to be infinitely better than Cameron. With his elitist paedo cronies"

At least the Paedo elite are not biased to their party allegiances.

They are across the board, and you dont have to be rich either.

I have a problem with him because he is an arsehole politician who wouldn't know the truth if it came up and slapped him in the arse. He is however slightly better than the evil **** PM that we have at present. It's like choosing which bollock you want to chop off - in an ideal world neither, but if you are given no choice you choose to get rid of the annoying one.

"Has to be infinitely better than Cameron. With his elitist paedo cronies"

It's a good job we don't have the evidence of what several Labour councils did / didn't do over the course of a decade in order to stop thousands of young girls being systematically drugged, kidnapped, sold for sex and generally abused. Oh, wait...

So it's not a party political issue - it's an issue of our society at all levels not doing enough to protect the vulnerable.

So it's not a party political issue - it's an issue of our society at all levels not doing enough to protect the vulnerable.

Mainly seems to be too much deference to those in power / who are popular. No one dared challenge Jimmy Saville, DJs, MPs etc at the time and so they were all effectively untouchable.

Interesting article on the why behind the venomous attacks from the the right wing media on Milliband: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9438172/ed-milibands-biggest-critics-dont-hate-him-for-how-hes-failed-they-hate-him-for-how-hes-succeeded/