Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Ed Miliband’s Kobayashi Maru 
Author Message
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
You have to feel for Ed. On the one hand, he doesn’t want to annoy a right-wing population, because they are potential voters (so sounding like a Tory helps), yet at the same time he doesn’t want to be seen as a class traitor and upset the unions. Whatever side he comes down on, he’ll lose.

Quote:
Mr Miliband told ITV Daybreak he hated the "terrible" disruption the strike would cause, but would not condemn it.


However, Ed seems incapable of biting the bullet (or, actually ANY kind of bullet), so he shimmies around on the fence, hoping to please everyone. In doing so, he comes over as indecisive.

Labour got the wrong MIliband when they chose their leader. Labour needs a bit of a hell-raising leader - one who is not scared to differentiate his party from the LibConLab mush that they have all become.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15934518

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:03 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
paulzolo wrote:
You have to feel for Ed. On the one hand, he doesn’t want to annoy a right-wing population, because they are potential voters (so sounding like a Tory helps), yet at the same time he doesn’t want to be seen as a class traitor and upset the unions.

I don't think he's bothered about 'the unions'. I think he may be bothered about the millions of voters who are in those unions, who are probably more likely to be labour voters than vote for the alternatives. And actually more likely to vote than the average I'd suggest, given membership of a union suggests some level of socio-political awareness at least.

It's a very nice piece of right wing propaganda it is, this idea of 'the unions', this one enormous malevolent conglomerated mass that pushes poor little Labour around to do its bidding, regardless of the common good or what is right. It's also utter cobblers. It may have been true back in the 70's. It certainly isn't now. The last government didn't do everything 'the unions' wanted them to and spent far much more of it's time snuggling up to the city than it did the TUC.

Nurses? They're 'the unions'. Teachers? They're 'the unions'. OK, London Underground train drivers are 'the unions' as well and they're a bunch of [LIFTED], to be fair. But remember that anything anyone tells you is somewhat subjective. Even this.

Jon


Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:49 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:10 pm
Posts: 1057
Reply with quote
The only reason Ed is the Labour leader is because of the Union block-vote that got him elected.

I bet Cameron & Co couldn't believe their luck when Ed was made leader and not David.

_________________
Image


Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:58 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
JohnSheridan wrote:
The only reason Ed is the Labour leader is because of the Union block-vote that got him elected.

None of the party leaders are actually elected in what you'd describe as a democratic manner. Clegg was probably closest to that but Cameron was elected by, what, about 200 people?

Update: whoops, apologies to Cameron, I got that wrong. He was selected by the 1922 committee, but the elections as held among all conservative party members. He won by getting a 2/3 majority (roughly) of just under 200,000 votes.

Jon


Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:39 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
but the election [w]as held among all conservative party members using a system almost identical to the Alternative Vote

LMFTFY

;)

_________________
Jim

Image


Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:11 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
I don't think he's bothered about 'the unions'. I think he may be bothered about the millions of voters who are in those unions,
Jon

Err I think he is more concerned with the £millions that the unions give him every year to help fund the party

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:37 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
hifidelity2 wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
I don't think he's bothered about 'the unions'. I think he may be bothered about the millions of voters who are in those unions,
Jon

Err I think he is more concerned with the £millions that the unions give him every year to help fund the party

You might think that. However the point remains - if nobody wants to vote for him, it doesn't matter how much money his party does/does not have. The people who are most likely to vote labour are the people who are most likely to be out on strike. Therefore it is in his political interest to support the strike action. That explanation and the explanation involving funding are equally valid and it is almost impossible to produce any evidence that shows the one has more influence than the other. You'd require a situation where the union hierarchy were pushing Milliband to vote for something their membership and the mass of labour party supporters didn't want. That's pretty unlikely to happen. Until it does it's impossible to untangle the two influences.

In any case, it's not as if the rest are any better. The corruptive nature of the funding system is rife throughout politics but nobody has the stomach for any of the alternatives.

Jon


Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:46 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
They were talking about the alternatives the other day. It seems that the favourite is to limit party funding to £10,000 per donor, and make up the rest from the public purse. We’d be funding the political system through our taxes.

Now, I’m not too happy about the Tories getting my tax money to fund their Machiavelian deeds, but at the same time, I am less comfortable with the idea that all parties can take donations from organisations with pretty extreme agendas and then feel obliged to act on them. I think the days of “buy a politician” have to end.

My only concern with this is if it does happen, there is no reason for Labour, say, to retain links with its historic roots, and the whole band of idiots will become so closely aligned that me may as well not vote and just put the sorry fools on a rota.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:13 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
paulzolo wrote:
They were talking about the alternatives the other day. It seems that the favourite is to limit party funding to £10,000 per donor, and make up the rest from the public purse. We’d be funding the political system through our taxes.

We do that anyway, we pay MP's wages. How many MPs do you think we'd have if it was a voluntary unpaid occupation?

paulzolo wrote:
Now, I’m not too happy about the Tories getting my tax money to fund their Machiavelian deeds, but at the same time, I am less comfortable with the idea that all parties can take donations from organisations with pretty extreme agendas and then feel obliged to act on them. I think the days of “buy a politician” have to end.

Simple solution; make giving a political party - either to the party itself or it's MPs in total - over £10,000 in any single parliamentary cycle a criminal offence. Nobody gives an MP or party a suitcase full of money without expecting to get something back for it. So make out officially what it is, which is bribery.

paulzolo wrote:
My only concern with this is if it does happen, there is no reason for Labour, say, to retain links with its historic roots, and the whole band of idiots will become so closely aligned that me may as well not vote and just put the sorry fools on a rota.

You say that like it hasn't already happened.


Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:31 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12144
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Loving the thread title, Paul.

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:45 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
timark_uk wrote:
Loving the thread title, Paul.

Mark


Thankyou.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:54 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
Why won't he take sides openly?

He doesn't want to piss of public sector workers who often vote Labour, but at the same time he can't publicly support them as he knows their pension system is currently a financial black hole that can't go on, and doing so would cause him all kinds of grief.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:43 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
Why won't he take sides openly.

He doesn't want to piss of public sector workers who often vote Labour, but at the same time he can't publicly support them as he knows their pension system is currently a financial black hole that can't go on, and doing so would cause him all kinds of grief.


That’s his problem. It’s a no-win situation for him. I’d have more respect for him if he came down on one side with conviction and stuck to his guns over it. However, he won’t because taking such a stage is no doubt seen as a vote loser by his strategists.

He clearly doesn’t like the “Red Ed” moniker he was given by the tabloids. No one seems to have told him that being “Red” is not a label to be ashamed of. The problem is that you have a lot of tabloids who see “left wing” equating to Stalinist Russia - and those tabloids influence voters.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:47 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 5048
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
Why won't he take sides openly?

Because he's a pussy. Get his brother in.

_________________
Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much.
jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.


Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:01 pm
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
adidan wrote:
l3v1ck wrote:
Why won't he take sides openly?

Because he's a pussy. Get his brother in.


Who is a lizard, as far as I can tell ;)

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:52 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.