How exactly did he "stab his brother in the back"? How did David have any more of a right to the leadership than Ed? Just because he was a few years older? :lol: I mean really.

 

And he didn't effectively end David's career at all, David chose to throw his toys out of the pram and quit politics just because he didn't get what he wanted, rather than swallow his pride and play for the team like virtually EVERY defeated leadership contender for a political party has done in history.

 

second part is possibly true-ish (though he claims he did it to avoid an ongoing media soap opera second-guessing every-time Ed did something)

 

first part - not "right" to leadership, david had just been at the front of the party for quite a while and had more political experience and more voter appeal - Ed lacks in that department still - and just shows a lack of brotherly concern (and like most powerful politicians a willingness to do anything to get that power - is he THAT different in political views from bruv Dave? I don't think so! He just wanted the job and was willing to sweet talk unions to edge out his brother). One might venture an opinion that block union voting, rather than democracy, got him the top job. He's certainly been spectacularly unimpressive so far: opposition? I don't think so. The Libdems have done more to temper Tory policies than he's done to put up any realistic opposition ones..... (even though he made a virtue of being a new broom to sweep clean, turns out he's still "closely-working" with useless inexperienced 'bankers' to get cash for the party. Borrow I mean. More debt. You know, like New Labour did. So much for the new broom......)

 

 

 

 

 

It's remarkable how little you know for someone who clearly attempts to follow British politics.

first part - not "right" to leadership, david had just been at the front of the party for quite a while and had more political experience and more voter appeal - Ed lacks in that department still - and just shows a lack of brotherly concern (and like most powerful politicians a willingness to do anything to get that power - is he THAT different in political views from bruv Dave? I don't think so! He just wanted the job and was willing to sweet talk unions to edge out his brother). One might venture an opinion that block union voting, rather than democracy, got him the top job. He's certainly been spectacularly unimpressive so far: opposition? I don't think so.

 

He was more politically-experienced, true, but if that was the main qualification, there were a whole heap of Labour figures who were more experienced than either Miliband, so was David (and Ed) stabbing Alan Johnson or Alistair Darling or whoever in the back by not letting them be leader? And saying he has more voter appeal is very debateable, and as I've said before, I personally feel he would've been doing worse than Ed if he was leader. And the polling evidence that David would be more popular is inconclusive at best - a poll I saw a few months ago did have a narrow majority of people preferring David to Ed as leader, but then, when people were asked to imagine how they would vote in an election if David was leader, Labour's score was dragged down by a couple of % compared to their real score (with Ed as leader) in the same poll, so...

 

Don't get me wrong, I do think people find it weird that two brothers went up against eachother, but they find BOTH Milibands weird for that, not just Ed, and I definitely think David would've had the exact same "he stabbed his brother in the back!!!!11" issue if he'd beaten Ed to it. I really don't think most people buy the line that Ed in particular was "disloyal" to not stand aside just because his brother was older.

 

The Libdems have done more to temper Tory policies than he's done to put up any realistic opposition ones.....

 

Erm. No. :P

The previous question was whether he was a good local MP. Regardless of his national role, he isn't.

 

...and I gave a perfectly good reason why MP's in cabinet aren't there. Whether his constituency think he is or isn't will be answered in the near future.....

 

perhaps give a few examples why he (as opposed to other cabinet members) is a poor local MP...?

It's remarkable how little you know for someone who clearly attempts to follow British politics.

 

me? I dont clearly attempt to do anything, or follow anything. I'm far more interested in pop music. The advantage I have over party loyalists is I'm not approaching topics from a pre-decided viewpoint, and I'm fairly capable of pointing out a few home-truths based on facts and observation. Points of discussion panels is to then give another viewpoint with a few examples countering my (or anyone else's) opinion. That's how people get past rhetoric and bias and test their own opinions, as Danny has above putting forward some good points.

 

or I could just throw in an insulting one-liner instead of bothering to do that, much much quicker.....

Edited November 20, 201311 yr by popchartfreak

me? I dont clearly attempt to do anything, or follow anything. I'm far more interested in pop music. The advantage I have over party loyalists is I'm not approaching topics from a pre-decided viewpoint, and I'm fairly capable of pointing out a few home-truths based on facts and observation. Points of discussion panels is to then give another viewpoint with a few examples countering my (or anyone else's) opinion. That's how people get past rhetoric and bias and test their own opinions, as Danny has above putting forward some good points.

 

or I could just throw in an insulting one-liner instead of bothering to do that, much much quicker.....

My pre-decided viewpoint is a complete fallacy, I'm just decisive enough to nail my colours to a particular mast. I'm more than happy to criticise the party when I don't like what they're doing.

My pre-decided viewpoint is a complete fallacy, I'm just decisive enough to nail my colours to a particular mast. I'm more than happy to criticise the party when I don't like what they're doing.

 

I'm very happy to hear that you're so decisive. Thatcher was decisive too, so were all the senior bankers, and Blair. Decisively led us into Iraq. Not trying to change the subject, just pointing out decisiveness is not necessarily a blessing or healthy for the well-being of others. It CAN be if used rightly, obviously. I decisively decided back in the 70's when I was part of the "setting the world to rights Student uni discussions till 4 in the morning" club that the two main parties had serious flaws, and that the Liberals policies at that time were least likely to cause long-lasting damage and most-likely to push fairness. I've seen nothing in the last 35 years to cause me to change that viewpoint, though each party (in amongst the catastrophes) have examples of good work.

 

PS, in terms of card-carrying authentic socialism, I was one of the 3 million on the dole in the early 80's for years, Ive worked in several factories on low-page jobs, Ive been a member of UNISON since the 80's, have always gone on strike and been on the picket line, my fees support the Labour party, and I have friends who are local activists. Not that I have to justify my opinions, but if I want to criticise bad errors of judgement they make and vote for someone else, I feel I'm perfectly entitled. Oh, and I have a degree too. Thanks!

 

Looking forward to hearing the examples....

Edited November 21, 201311 yr by popchartfreak

The previous question was whether he was a good local MP. Regardless of his national role, he isn't.

One of the reasons I am in favour of multi-member constituencies is that is almost impossible to have a senior government role and be a good constituency MP. The further the constituency is from Westminster, the harder that gets. Of course, having a job which means attending various conflabs overseas just adds to the difficulty.

One of the reasons I am in favour of multi-member constituencies is that is almost impossible to have a senior government role and be a good constituency MP. The further the constituency is from Westminster, the harder that gets. Of course, having a job which means attending various conflabs overseas just adds to the difficulty.

 

Its a lot easier than it was 20 or even 10 years ago

 

There is little need for face to face meetings with constituents in the electronic age when everyone has email or VOIP services etc

 

All someone has to do is email an MP now, something that was not possible 15 years ago

Its a lot easier than it was 20 or even 10 years ago

 

There is little need for face to face meetings with constituents in the electronic age when everyone has email or VOIP services etc

 

All someone has to do is email an MP now, something that was not possible 15 years ago

That's why it is a lot harder than it was 20 years ago. MPs now receive more correspondence than ever. That's one of the reasons why the proposal to reduce the number of MPs was so ludicrous. There are roughly the same number of MPs now as there were in 1945 but the number of constituents is a lot higher and a lot more is expected of the local MP. The days when they paid an annual visit to their constituency to open a fete (having consulted a map to remind themselves where their constituency was) are long gone.

That's why it is a lot harder than it was 20 years ago. MPs now receive more correspondence than ever. That's one of the reasons why the proposal to reduce the number of MPs was so ludicrous. There are roughly the same number of MPs now as there were in 1945 but the number of constituents is a lot higher and a lot more is expected of the local MP. The days when they paid an annual visit to their constituency to open a fete (having consulted a map to remind themselves where their constituency was) are long gone.

 

They have office staff / secretaries who handle the emails though? I would not imagine for example Cameron sitting at a laptop going through emails from constituents complaining about potholes or complaining they spent 5 hours in A+E, the secretary would handle the emails, bar the absolute life or death ones, same goes for the majority of MP's

 

 

They have office staff / secretaries who handle the emails though? I would not imagine for example Cameron sitting at a laptop going through emails from constituents complaining about potholes or complaining they spent 5 hours in A+E, the secretary would handle the emails, bar the absolute life or death ones, same goes for the majority of MP's

Which, of course, is why they claim for secretarial staff and then get hammered for it in the press. Even so, the number of people expecting to be able to meet their MP is greater than it has ever been.

I'm very happy to hear that you're so decisive. Thatcher was decisive too, so were all the senior bankers, and Blair. Decisively led us into Iraq. Not trying to change the subject, just pointing out decisiveness is not necessarily a blessing or healthy for the well-being of others. It CAN be if used rightly, obviously. I decisively decided back in the 70's when I was part of the "setting the world to rights Student uni discussions till 4 in the morning" club that the two main parties had serious flaws, and that the Liberals policies at that time were least likely to cause long-lasting damage and most-likely to push fairness. I've seen nothing in the last 35 years to cause me to change that viewpoint, though each party (in amongst the catastrophes) have examples of good work.

 

PS, in terms of card-carrying authentic socialism, I was one of the 3 million on the dole in the early 80's for years, Ive worked in several factories on low-page jobs, Ive been a member of UNISON since the 80's, have always gone on strike and been on the picket line, my fees support the Labour party, and I have friends who are local activists. Not that I have to justify my opinions, but if I want to criticise bad errors of judgement they make and vote for someone else, I feel I'm perfectly entitled. Oh, and I have a degree too. Thanks!

 

Looking forward to hearing the examples....

Pretty much all of that is completely irrelevant to you not having a clue what constitutes backstabbing. Congratulations on all of the above, although given you yourself say "well I'm decisive as well" I don't quite understand the logic in then comparing me to Thatcher or Blair. Presumably the old Lib Dem delusion that both major parties are the same and they're the only ones who can do things differently. Ironic for a party that was founded to exploit the vacated centre ground in the '80s.

Which, of course, is why they claim for secretarial staff and then get hammered for it in the press. Even so, the number of people expecting to be able to meet their MP is greater than it has ever been.

 

I have no objection at all to a member of parliament claiming expenses for their office staff, perfectly reasonable, as long as they are claiming for the exact amount the staff were paid, and don't pull fast ones like 'hiring' their wife as a secretary

I have no objection at all to a member of parliament claiming expenses for their office staff, perfectly reasonable, as long as they are claiming for the exact amount the staff were paid, and don't pull fast ones like 'hiring' their wife as a secretary

There's nothing wrong in my view with an MP employing their partner as a secretary as long as they are actually doing the job. After all, a lot of the communication between the MP and their secretary is likely to take place in "unsocial" hours. Besides, I was referring to the press, not any BJ member.

Pretty much all of that is completely irrelevant to you not having a clue what constitutes backstabbing. Congratulations on all of the above, although given you yourself say "well I'm decisive as well" I don't quite understand the logic in then comparing me to Thatcher or Blair. Presumably the old Lib Dem delusion that both major parties are the same and they're the only ones who can do things differently. Ironic for a party that was founded to exploit the vacated centre ground in the '80s.

 

Well, you're fond of putting words in my mouth aren't you? So it was the backstabbing line that annoyed! Good of you to clarify your blanket statement sweeping every opinion I have as not knowing much about much. Backstabbing, I think I explained, Danny put forward some good points and I'm happy to temper it down and just say I'm certainly glad he's not my brother! Personally, I would have discussed it beforehand with mine and one, but not both of us, would have gone for it. I have a low opinion of him, just as many here seem to have of Clegg. Not that I'm especially a fan of his, either, he was just lucky to inherit what Charles Kennedy set-up.

 

I didn't compare you to Blair, Thatcher or anyone. I pointed out that being decisive isnt in itself a virtue, you need to know what you're being decisive about and I was retorting to your innuendo that my apparent MOR opinions was down to wishy-washy lack of commitment. Cheers!. My opinions are based on hard life experiences and politics over that period, not cut n pasted second-hand internet facts and propaganda. As for centre-ground, Blair's New Labour (in my opinion, from shortly after he was elected) is that he came up short in many areas, unions being one of them. He had over a decade to reverse the toothless unionism that Thatcher created and he. did. sod. all.

 

If i have one observation and word of advice for you, it's to stop treating anyone who has an alternate viewpoint with you as an enemy and therefore a target for insulting, it doesn't do you any favours. We are all thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings, and you have no idea what's going on in anyone's life at any time. We are not emotionless pod people queuing up for a leading role in the next Invasion Of The Body Snatchers remake. If you don't agree with something and have a good counter argument say it. If you want to discuss the merits of LibDem policy, as you've started to above, fine, go for it! Don't hold back!

 

cheers!

 

 

Well, you're fond of putting words in my mouth aren't you? So it was the backstabbing line that annoyed! Good of you to clarify your blanket statement sweeping every opinion I have as not knowing much about much. Backstabbing, I think I explained, Danny put forward some good points and I'm happy to temper it down and just say I'm certainly glad he's not my brother! Personally, I would have discussed it beforehand with mine and one, but not both of us, would have gone for it. I have a low opinion of him, just as many here seem to have of Clegg. Not that I'm especially a fan of his, either, he was just lucky to inherit what Charles Kennedy set-up.

 

I didn't compare you to Blair, Thatcher or anyone. I pointed out that being decisive isnt in itself a virtue, you need to know what you're being decisive about and I was retorting to your innuendo that my apparent MOR opinions was down to wishy-washy lack of commitment. Cheers!. My opinions are based on hard life experiences and politics over that period, not cut n pasted second-hand internet facts and propaganda. As for centre-ground, Blair's New Labour (in my opinion, from shortly after he was elected) is that he came up short in many areas, unions being one of them. He had over a decade to reverse the toothless unionism that Thatcher created and he. did. sod. all.

 

If i have one observation and word of advice for you, it's to stop treating anyone who has an alternate viewpoint with you as an enemy and therefore a target for insulting, it doesn't do you any favours. We are all thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings, and you have no idea what's going on in anyone's life at any time. We are not emotionless pod people queuing up for a leading role in the next Invasion Of The Body Snatchers remake. If you don't agree with something and have a good counter argument say it. If you want to discuss the merits of LibDem policy, as you've started to above, fine, go for it! Don't hold back!

 

cheers!

I'm quite worried that you took such an obviously flippant comment to heart, really.

 

Whether other brothers would have behaved differently to the Milibands is irrelevant. Why should two perfectly able politicians decide not to stand against each other just because they happen to be related? It's not backstabbing to believe you could do a better job than your sibling. Besides, this argument wasn't even interesting in 2010. The fact that you still apparently define the man by it is ridiculous.

I'm quite worried that you took such an obviously flippant comment to heart, really.

 

Whether other brothers would have behaved differently to the Milibands is irrelevant. Why should two perfectly able politicians decide not to stand against each other just because they happen to be related? It's not backstabbing to believe you could do a better job than your sibling. Besides, this argument wasn't even interesting in 2010. The fact that you still apparently define the man by it is ridiculous.

 

it wasn't flippant. You make a habit out of personal one-liner insults (Ive seen it before with others who's opinion you don't like) rather than put forward logical reasons and arguments. It's petty. Lazy. Shows a lack of appreciation of other people's feelings. If you intend it to be flippant put a smiley face after it. At least you'll just look like a bit of a .... rather than a .... B-)

 

Oh, hope that didn't offend, I'm just being flippant. :lol: Thanks for being concerned about me (a bit after the event though).

 

I dont define Milliband by that act. More than happy to define him by this week's acts. The Labour party are desperately trying to deflect the forthcoming saga of the Co-op banker.

 

Milliband made a virtue out of not being New Labour in bed with bankers (which has caused so many millions misery) - the main reason he got slightly more votes than his brother. Turns out he's "closely-linked" to a "senior Labour-party activist banker" who's corrupt, a crook, incompetent to the extent he nearly destroyed the Co-op (and by the by, the FSA look like complete twats yet again). He can't even bankroll his own party without borrowing money (more debt!) or check that the people he is dealing with have proper banking experience (considering his position and recent FSA behaviour): That really doesn't bode well for his ambition to run a country if he can't even competently run his own party, and keep it in the black rather than borrow on the never-never - exactly why we are all in the sh 1 t.

 

So I guess we'll see how this affects Labour's image at the next election now. Suddenly, David looks like the better choice, perhaps....

 

 

 

 

 

it wasn't flippant. You make a habit out of personal one-liner insults (Ive seen it before with others who's opinion you don't like) rather than put forward logical reasons and arguments. It's petty. Lazy. Shows a lack of appreciation of other people's feelings. If you intend it to be flippant put a smiley face after it. At least you'll just look like a bit of a .... rather than a .... B-)

 

Oh, hope that didn't offend, I'm just being flippant. :lol: Thanks for being concerned about me (a bit after the event though).

 

I dont define Milliband by that act. More than happy to define him by this week's acts. The Labour party are desperately trying to deflect the forthcoming saga of the Co-op banker.

 

Milliband made a virtue out of not being New Labour in bed with bankers (which has caused so many millions misery) - the main reason he got slightly more votes than his brother. Turns out he's "closely-linked" to a "senior Labour-party activist banker" who's corrupt, a crook, incompetent to the extent he nearly destroyed the Co-op (and by the by, the FSA look like complete twats yet again). He can't even bankroll his own party without borrowing money (more debt!) or check that the people he is dealing with have proper banking experience (considering his position and recent FSA behaviour): That really doesn't bode well for his ambition to run a country if he can't even competently run his own party, and keep it in the black rather than borrow on the never-never - exactly why we are all in the sh 1 t.

 

So I guess we'll see how this affects Labour's image at the next election now. Suddenly, David looks like the better choice, perhaps....

Implying that David would have dealt with it better when he comes from the wing of the party that's more keen to cosy up to big business? Okay.

 

I don't see what a bizarre smiley with sunglasses could have to do with being flippant, just incredibly annoying.

 

So you don't define him by it - so when you referred to him as "back-stabbing Miliband" you were just throwing an inconsequential insult in for the sake of it. Or exactly what you're accusing me of doing. Funny that.

Wait, Ed Miliband talking to the head of the Co-op bank means he's 'closely linked'? ANY leader of the Labour Party would've talked with the head of the Co-op Bank. The two groups have had links going back about a hundred years and the Co-op Bank has always lent money to the Labour Party, because it's so closely linked to the Co-operative Party which is twinned with Labour. The Labour Party doesn't decide who the head of the Co-op Bank is, and the head of the Co-op Bank is a bit different from the head of most banks as it's a mutual - mutuals aren't the organisations that got us in this crisis. Overall, it's a really, really shallow reason to criticise Ed.

 

And FYI popchartfreak, buying drugs and having orgies may be sleazy, but it isn't corruption.