Clever Pun political hot topic: Did Labour get it wrong?

DonDaddyD

OK, I'm neither Tory, Lib or Labour. I can see the gains and loses with each political belief and I often find my political position a mixture of each.

I have no real love for the Coalition and now believe that the Country needs strong opposition not just to oppose or 'protect' those marginalised by widespread changes, but for all percspectives on proposed policy and legislation to be raised, heard and considered.

Right now for Government to work effectively and as a whole, we need the opposition, which is the Labour party.

However, it seems that there is a power vacuum since Gordon left with rightful succession being touted as though the party is a Monarchy and the remnants of the pro-Blair rebels emerging far louder than when their leader was ousted. I have no faith that Labour can function properly or effectively outwardly while they have such infectious internal maligna

The result, Ed Miliband. My problem? When I see him on TV, he doesn't look strong or a leader. He isn't a guy I can get behind, follow or get excited about. I fear that when he is fully unleashed at Cameron he'll be chewed up and giving to Clegg as scraps. I mean these guys had to take on the tyrant Brown and they all but won.

So I ask did Labour get it right with Ed the Lesser (Miliband)?

Will he last the term and lead the party through and Election?

Would you have prefered to have seen David the Elder (Miliband)?

Lastly, its early days but of those faithful and now silent Labour voters on here can you see yourself wanting to vote for him?

gtvlusso

I think Ed is the least weirdest of the pair......

Must admit that I am a bit of a commie....and always been a lefty labourite...burn me!

Answering the questions:

So I ask did Labour get it right with Ed the Lesser (Miliband)?

No

Will he last the term and lead the party through and Election?

Probably not

Would you have prefered to have seen David the Elder (Miliband)?

Definitely not - he is weird!

Bring back John Smith!!!!

rolf_f

When you get to the point that you are about the same age or older as cabinet ministers/PM etc (getting younger by the year) you start to appreciate how utterly ordinary and ignorant they are. Pretty much all as bad as each other and all seemingly totally without substance or depth. It probably doesn't matter who is picked to run what party - the results are much the same anyway.

Gazzaputt

So I ask did Labour get it right with Ed the Lesser (Miliband)? No.

Will he last the term and lead the party through and Election? No.

Would you have prefered to have seen David the Elder (Miliband)? Yes.

Lastly, its early days but of those faithful and now silent Labour voters on here can you see yourself wanting to vote for him? I vote for the party not the man.

Clever Pun

Gazzaputt wrote:

Lastly, its early days but of those faithful and now silent Labour voters on here can you see yourself wanting to vote for him? I vote for the party not the man.

well actually you vote for your local constituent don't you?

technically that is

Nifer

David was too Blairish for my liking - I would have preferred Burnham. Ed just looks like a complete goon IMO.

notsoblue

I much preferred David Miliband. Having heard him speak (mostly about foreign affairs and Europe) I agree with a great deal of what he says. While I have no strong feelings against Ed, I think its a shame David isn't Labour leader.

spen666

gtvlusso wrote:

...

Must admit that I am a bit of a commie....and always been a lefty labourite...burn me!

....

Bring back John Smith!!!!

I always thought communism was the way of the past- but calling for stiffs to be brought back to lead the labour party.....

greg66_tri_v2.0

There is no functioning Opposition ATM, for two relatively understandable reasons.

First, the Govt is still in the honeymoon period, when there isn't a lot of point in throwing big rocks at the windows. The audience isn't yet ready to listen to trenchant criticism of what the Govt is doing.

Secondly, Ed Moribund wants to rewrite what the Labour party stands for - "clean sheet of paper" was the phrase used on the radio this am. So he can't be very proactive, as he has no policies. He can be reactive, but that's about it. Even on that front he's a bit muted.

I would have thought Ed needs only to dig out the Labour manifesto from 1974 or 1979 to get the party to where he wants it, but I suppose he has to go through the motions first.

Although I'm not a fan of Presidential style politics, it doesn't seem to me that EM has the weight for the job; much like IDS. He comes across as an enthusiastic head of the sixth form common room.

I spied at the weekend that in the polls the LD are sitting around 12%. So did they do the right thing supporting the coalition. Or have they irreparably damaged their base of support by signing up to too many of the baby-eaters' ideas?

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

I spied at the weekend that in the polls the LD are sitting around 12%. So did they do the right thing supporting the coalition. Or have they irreparably damaged their base of support by signing up to too many of the baby-eaters' ideas?

I know many people who have been voting Lib Dem for their whole adult lives that are unlikely to every again as a result of whats happening in the Coalition :S

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I spied at the weekend that in the polls the LD are sitting around 12%. So did they do the right thing supporting the coalition. Or have they irreparably damaged their base of support by signing up to too many of the baby-eaters' ideas?

I know many people who have been voting Lib Dem for their whole adult lives that are unlikely to every again as a result of whats happening in the Coalition :S

Ouch.

The quid pro quo would be for Conservative voters to vote tactically in favour of the LD, in constituencies where Labour's main challenge comes from the LD.

I wonder whether the swings will outdo the roundabouts.

rjsterry

I'm with Simon Jenkins in that I think some LibDem supporters need to grow up a bit. There is no way that as part of a coalition with the Conservatives the LibDems would be able to implement every policy they espoused at the election, but, crucially, they will be able to implement a lot more of them than they would had they been in opposition. Jenkins also pointed out that you can't be for PR and it's tendency to produce hung parliaments, but against compromise within a coalition.

Having two of the three main parties in government does mean that Labour's position as the only significant opposition is all the more important. At the moment, it's too early to tell whether EM is able to provide a robust enough opposition or not, but I hope he is.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

I'm with Simon Jenkins in that I think some LibDem supporters need to grow up a bit. There is no way that as part of a coalition with the Conservatives the LibDems would be able to implement every policy they espoused at the election, but, crucially, they will be able to implement a lot more of them than they would had they been in opposition.

You bought that spin did you?

Simple terms: Election manifesto - abolish tuition fees. Vince Cable (a LibDem MP) - increase tuition fees.

I don't think there supporters need to grow up, I think the LibDem MPs need more integrity and a backbone.

What if they had won the elction outright and then did that?

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm with Simon Jenkins in that I think some LibDem supporters need to grow up a bit. There is no way that as part of a coalition with the Conservatives the LibDems would be able to implement every policy they espoused at the election, but, crucially, they will be able to implement a lot more of them than they would had they been in opposition.

You bought that spin did you?

Simple terms: Election manifesto - abolish tuition fees. Vince Cable (a LibDem MP) - increase tuition fees.

I don't think there supporters need to grow up, I think the LibDem MPs need more integrity and a backbone.

What if they had won the elction outright and then did that?

Err, they wouldn't have won outright. I might be a LibDem supporter, but I'm realistic, and broken manifesto promises are ten-a-penny; they are aspirations at best. With a bit of googling, I could find a list of broken Labour promises, and probably a matching list for the last Tory government. Look at it another way, if you think the Tories are going too far with the cuts, what do you think they would be like without LibDem moderation?

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm with Simon Jenkins in that I think some LibDem supporters need to grow up a bit. There is no way that as part of a coalition with the Conservatives the LibDems would be able to implement every policy they espoused at the election, but, crucially, they will be able to implement a lot more of them than they would had they been in opposition.

You bought that spin did you?

Simple terms: Election manifesto - abolish tuition fees. Vince Cable (a LibDem MP) - increase tuition fees.

I don't think there supporters need to grow up, I think the LibDem MPs need more integrity and a backbone.

What if they had won the elction outright and then did that?

Ever stopped to think for a moment DDD


So Con say one thing re Education - Libs say another- what happens if no compromise?

Co-alition government is a compromise and that means Libs will not get there own way on everything.

As for WHAT IF libs won the election? Well - you may have failed to noticce, but they didn't win the election

bigmat

I would have preferred David Miliband. Ed seems a bit too left, I honestly think Blairite policies represent the best option for taking the country forward. DM is far more electable as well, I think Cameron would have been a lot more worried standing across from him at Prime Minister's question time.

Re Lib Dems, fair enough being in a coalition is all about compromise. The problem is, a lot of their support is on the left of centre and they will quite rightly say that the Lib Dems had the opportunity to form a centre left coalition rather than side with the Tories, where it was inevitable that they would be forced to sell their voters down the river on big issues like tuition fees. They could implode completely if they don't sort things out by the next election. Labour will take Vince Cable, the tories can have David Laws and Nick Clegg will be without a seat!

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

Ever stopped to think for a moment DDD

He's too focused on brand development

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

Ever stopped to think for a moment DDD

So Con say one thing re Education - Libs say another- what happens if no compromise?

Co-alition government is a compromise and that means Libs will not get there own way on everything.

As for WHAT IF libs won the election? Well - you may have failed to noticce, but they didn't win the election

Me think? Never.

The point of the matter is that there was no clear compromise on the LibDems part, there appeared to be no debate. In fact they appeared to be the driving force behind the want to raise tuition fees. Which, is the complete opposite of what they pledged and why some of their voters/supporters voted for them.

Yes the Libs, didn't win. I'm indicating that it would have been worse if they won outright, made a similar promise not to increase tuition fees and then upped them by £5,500. I think then, we would have seen some real riots.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Ever stopped to think for a moment DDD

So Con say one thing re Education - Libs say another- what happens if no compromise?

Co-alition government is a compromise and that means Libs will not get there own way on everything.

As for WHAT IF libs won the election? Well - you may have failed to noticce, but they didn't win the election

Me think? Never.

The point of the matter is that there was no clear compromise on the LibDems part, there appeared to be no debate. In fact they appeared to be the driving force behind the want to raise tuition fees. Which, is the complete opposite of what they pledged and why some of their voters/supporters voted for them.

Yes the Libs, didn't win. I'm indicating that it would have been worse if they won outright, made a similar promise not to increase tuition fees and then upped them by £5,500. I think then, we would have seen some real riots.

Blimey! You actually think that the LibDems were pushing more for a rise in tuition fees than the Tories? On what basis? I can't see how they 'appeared to be the driving force behind the want to raise tuition fees'.

daviesee

I thought Alan Johnson would have walked it (to extent that I lost at the bookies) but he stepped out of the running early.

Maybe he saw the divisions coming.

I still think he will be the next Labour Prime Minister.

AidanR

DDD, the idea isn't necessarily that they could bash out a compromise on tuition fees, but that they compromised on tuition fees as part of wider negotiations.

I think life-long Lib Dem supporters who give up on them on the basis of the coalition are unrealistic idealists. Unfortunately, politics doesn't work that way. Some get angry that Nick Clegg seems to have formed a good relationship with David Cameron. I'm happy he has - I'd rather have a properly functioning government thank you.

spen666

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Ever stopped to think for a moment DDD

So Con say one thing re Education - Libs say another- what happens if no compromise?

Co-alition government is a compromise and that means Libs will not get there own way on everything.

As for WHAT IF libs won the election? Well - you may have failed to noticce, but they didn't win the election

Me think? Never.

The point of the matter is that there was no clear compromise on the LibDems part, there appeared to be no debate. In fact they appeared to be the driving force behind the want to raise tuition fees. Which, is the complete opposite of what they pledged and why some of their voters/supporters voted for them.

Yes the Libs, didn't win. I'm indicating that it would have been worse if they won outright, made a similar promise not to increase tuition fees and then upped them by £5,500. I think then, we would have seen some real riots.

Blimey! You actually think that the LibDems were pushing more for a rise in tuition fees than the Tories? On what basis? I can't see how they 'appeared to be the driving force behind the want to raise tuition fees'.

On the basis that randomly made up "facts" wuill support an argument without foundations?

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Ever stopped to think for a moment DDD

So Con say one thing re Education - Libs say another- what happens if no compromise?

Co-alition government is a compromise and that means Libs will not get there own way on everything.

As for WHAT IF libs won the election? Well - you may have failed to noticce, but they didn't win the election

Me think? Never.

The point of the matter is that there was no clear compromise on the LibDems part, there appeared to be no debate. In fact they appeared to be the driving force behind the want to raise tuition fees. Which, is the complete opposite of what they pledged and why some of their voters/supporters voted for them.

Yes the Libs, didn't win. I'm indicating that it would have been worse if they won outright, made a similar promise not to increase tuition fees and then upped them by £5,500. I think then, we would have seen some real riots.

Blimey! You actually think that the LibDems were pushing more for a rise in tuition fees than the Tories? On what basis? I can't see how they 'appeared to be the driving force behind the want to raise tuition fees'.

All I remember was Vince Cable pushing it.... I could be wrong.

AidanR

Whether he announced them or not is irrelevant. It's not like each minister gets to make up his own policy. All of these things are worked out centrally, especially in a coalition, as part of overall policy. They are then announced by the appropriate minister.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

Err, they wouldn't have won outright. I might be a LibDem supporter, but I'm realistic, and broken manifesto promises are ten-a-penny; they are aspirations at best. With a bit of googling, I could find a list of broken Labour promises, and probably a matching list for the last Tory government. Look at it another way, if you think the Tories are going too far with the cuts, what do you think they would be like without LibDem moderation?

Well most Lib Dem supporters (ex and current) I know are lefties that defected from Labour because of the War, Tuition Fees etc. It could be argued that the Lib Dems are not and never have been left of Labour, but still, I think many disillusioned Labour supporters used them to lodge a protest vote. Given the short track record of their work in the coalition with the tories, its really no surprise that they've lost so much support.

Edit: I think it was mentioned on the News Quiz that a senior Lib Dem was asked how he would be voting re the tuition fee changes, and while stood in front of a Lib Dem campaign banner that said something like "No to tuition fees!", said that he still hadn't made his mind up...

Stevo_666

DonDaddyD wrote:

So I ask did Labour get it right with Ed the Lesser (Miliband)?

From labour's point of view, no: he's not really 'battle ready' and probably a bit too lefty to have that broad appeal needed to be electable. From the country's point of view, they got it dead right

DonDaddyD wrote:

Will he last the term and lead the party through and Election?

I hope so - see above.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would you have prefered to have seen David the Elder (Miliband)?

Nope, because he is quite electable and seems fairly competent. Although Labour seems to be so far up sh!t creek that it will take them years to become a proper threat. The elder Miliband probably (inadvertantly) got it right from his career point of view as he may come back at a time when the pendulum has swung back towards Labour rather than presiding over a party that's going through a rough period.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lastly, its early days but of those faithful and now silent Labour voters on here can you see yourself wanting to vote for him?

We'll be ice skating in Hell before that happens

tailwindhome

Stevo 666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So I ask did Labour get it right with Ed the Lesser (Miliband)?

From labour's point of view, no: he's no really 'battle ready' and probably a bit too lefty to have that broad appeal needed to be electable. From the country's point of view, they got it dead right

DonDaddyD wrote:

Will he last the term and lead the party through and Election?

I hope so - see above.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would you have prefered to have seen David the Elder (Miliband)?

Nope, because he is quite electable and seems fairly competent. Although Labour seems to be so far up sh!t creek that it will take them years to become a proper threat. The elder Miliband probably (inadvertantly) got it right from his career point of view as he may come back at a time when the pendulum has swung back towards Labour rather than presiding over a party that's going through a rough period.

Ed Miliband is a transitional leader just as IDS was for the Conservatives. Labour's problem isn't their leader but the overall lack of big hitting talent on their front bench. Now you may not have agreed with their politics or methods (or even liked them as people) but Blairs first cabinet was full of talented politicians (and Jack Straw). This talent will take a decade to assemble and until it happens Labour won't get elected.

This is bad from the countries POV also. These are tough times and the country needs an effective oppostion party.


David Miliband would IMO have been a better leader, but thems the breaks. He can now only ever be leader of the party (or PM) if his brother dies. If Ed fails there is no way 'another' Miliband will get elected