Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Can we just fast-forward to May? The night itself is going to be fascinating. Everything between now and then is going to be torturous. Four inept party leaders trying to somehow grab hold of some kind of initiative.
And that he get to say "rad" and occaisionally "tubular", and that he starts coming out to Papa Roach
more 'Rapper Pooch'!
if it was the first thing I'd heard from him he'd be pushing all my buttons
he's obviously not going over as a face so having him smash Alan Johnson from behind with a steel chair and then powerbomb him through a table seemed like the best way to get some heat for him. Missed opportunity.
So yes, yes I am.
Saw him interviewed on BBC last night, they said his approval rating was lower tha nick clegg, dunno if that is just an expression nowadays but if not that is pretty bad. He should definitely step down.
They're best off sticking with him. Hung parliament is pretty much inevitable I think. Labour changing leaders is probably Conservatives best bet of winning a majority.
That banana and bacon sarnie stuff is just for show. He's actually really into Frijj and Quavers.
Not as shit and embarrassing as the attempted coup on him this weekend, but still shit.
of political speeches done with your back to the audience? It looks fucking stupid.
Love how this is typed out like song lyrics:
That’s my duty, that’s my responsibility.
That’s our duty, that’s our responsibility.
rockin' this metropolis
Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis?
it makes my skin crawl
shut up about 'Friends', Royter
thought this was great until it got to the immigration part, which might possibly be a good idea votes-wise but jesus
kinda necessary concession i guess
good speech, will vote for
As well as paying increased income tax according to your earnings, you should pay more according to your age. Fuck the babyboomers, they didn't earn it and they ruined the country.
After too many posts getting eaten by DiS's mental past aversions to putting speechmarks anywhere, I'm too scared to reintroduce them.
Is it ok now?
Let's tax the fuck out of it before that happens!
this morning was really harsh. It felt a bit too much like personal bullying, even if it is a pretty great tabloid pun.
Miliband will be monstered like no other party leader in a General Election campaign.
Makes you wonder why the mulit-billionaire tax exiles are so scared of him...
This new thing about people being 'scared' of Ed Mili is ridiculous - especially when a couple of weeks ago there was that coordinated Labour attack saying that Cameron was too afraid to debate Ed. Some of these establishment might (though I doubt it) be afraid of a Labour government, but not of Ed personally.
Watching the Guardian's attempted UKIP hatchet job over the last week or so has been quite amusing though. Why are the 'left wing media' so crap?
However, reducing his failings in the polls to it is very wide of the mark. There's plenty of votes in left-wing populism - Miliband's been very poor at his brand of it to a wider audience. That's his fault, not the right-wing press.
All they've done is report that study that showed immigration benefits the country.
The hatchet jobs on UKIP over the past few years have all been attempted by the right-wing press in the immediate run up to an election, having built them up so much in the previous years that they've threatened Tory seats.
They've been running 'expose' stories on a near daily basis, compiling/editing video clips to show what Nigel Farage *really* thinks yada yada yada.
It's not that the right wing press are really good, it's that the left wing press are so crap. If there is any imbalance (and i'm not sure there is) then they have no one to blame but themselves really.
But then that's only because Miliband might win and the Sun always wants to back a GE winner.
No matter what happens at the GE next year - UKIP will get some seats and upset the orthodoxy. Can easily spin that as a victory.
Although Murdoch and Cameron's tentacles are firmly professionally and personally intertwined. Difficult to imagine The Sun not backing him.
But I think they'll need to stop short of ridiculing Labour voters in the way they felt free to with Kinnock.
Apart from some possible mutterings, they are all going to say they are 100% behind their leader. As if they really are, as if any business loves their dear leaders.
think that they are either going to lose their seats, or the election, or both. And that's about all there is to it. They all also know that changing the leader won't make any difference to that.
If you mean what do Cooper, Burnham and (just for a laugh) Balls think then the answer almost certainly is "I could do a better job than that mug", but again there's absolutely no mileage for them in either saying that out loud or acting on it.
rises and falls in direct proportion with their assumed ability to win the next election.
It's largely a moot point (look hard enough for dissent and, you'll find it). It's interesting this last week or so that the focus has been on Labour's internal dissent, when the Tories are in a worse, and more perpetual, state of it. And the Tories' version of it is all the more amusing because they have a leader whose personal popularity outstrips that of his party, who is almost single-handedly the reason they have any kind of a chance in 2015, and loads of them STILL want shot of him. They'll want him out even if he wins, too. Nuts.
Nick Robinson - "Do you think you'd make a good PM?"
Miliband - "Absolutely"
A good answer or a shit answer?
Saw it last night and he was deflecting Robinson's twattishness pretty decently. Came across perfectly well.
Mind you, they're all well trained for it these days re: Robinson being a dick.
You see I have my doubts. Firstly I think we can agree that that is a question EM should always be 100% prepared for and have a solid rehearsed answer for. And it looks like he did. But my problem with it is the wording (and the intonation of it, which somehow managed to come out sounding a bit creepy). I firmly believe that the first word of that answer should just be the word "Yes", confidently and firmly stated.
I realise this is agonising over minutiae, but the problem is that those minutiae relate exactly to what people claim his problem is, namely sounding like an authority figure. It's intensely frustrating to me that the one thing Ed doesn't seem to be able to crack is pretty much the only thing Cameron is any good at, namely sounding like people should take him seriously.
But your minutae agonising there is taking it too far. He said `Absolutely` and then backed it up with some very reasonable if lightweight 6pm news spiel about his case to be PM.
Obviously his answer was given perfectly in line with his image. Slightly gawky, adenoidal and with sense that he isn't *quite* natural enough at presenting himself. To dig any deeper than that is looking for stuff which isn't really there...
Personally I feel he does have to crack the statesmanlike thing at least for the showpiece media appearances. But maybe he doesn't want to or maybe he just can't. It just made me wince at the time is all, and that's not a good sign if it does that to one of your own supporters.
On the main subject my gut feeling is that he's still wedded to the "creeping across the line" strategy for next year and I'm getting less and less convinced it'll work. If they do decide that the manifesto needs a selling campaign then the only way I can see him doing it is by slogging himself to death around the country taking every opportunity going to deliver the message in person, directly to voters.
More formally known as the `35% Strategy`. Theory being that if Ed can galvanise his core support that'll be enough to see him over the line. The maths add up, and it was working fine, but the strategy was put in place before the arse fell out of Labour's support in Scotland so it's starting to look a bit shaky.
Not sure it's a good idea. Most elections are ultimately won by reaching out from core support. Both Tory and Labour strategists think that this is unlikely to happen in this election. We'll see.
Either way, if there is a majority next year it'll be from a party which won't have any more than about 34% of the electorate voting for it. That's bleak.
The Tories have little scope to gain more support from the middle ground than last time around and have a stronger party coming at them from the right, while if Labour reach out further to the middle ground then they'll just leak more support towards the Greens who seem to be getting better organised on the left, where I don't think people trust that they're serious about Miliband's change mantra. The ridiculous infighting in the last week just increases that perception that the party isn't ready to step up again and that a portion still wants to carry on as they left off in 2010. And that's ignoring the Scotland factor eroding some of Labour's electoral advantage.
I can't see a party winning a good majority anytime in the near future and on that basis, creeping across the line is all anyone's got.
The political framework is largely set in stone for the next electoral term at least by post-financial-crash austerity. Whether you agree with it or not, given the Tories wholehearted adherence to it (and the mess generated as a result because of an increasing as opposed to decreasing budget deficit - and Labour are supposed to have `crashed` the economy? Hmm...) we kind of are in a bit of a mainstream TINA situation. There Is No Alternative to further austerity/attempting to cut the deficit because we've already gone too far with it to try anything else.
So... given this, with reference to Ed Balls' spending plans unveiled at Conference 2 months ago, there is very little wiggle room to sell a new/bold political way forward. We all know the way forward. And it's fucking wank.
It's a shame because Miliband vs. Cameron would probably be the first significantly ideological battle for number 10 since the post-Blair concession that `there's no difference between the main parties now` started to become widely held about 15 years ago. There are plenty of nuances between the 2 parties but the overarching narrative is the same.
Or maybe this is The End of History™. Finally.
taxes will have to go up. But once that line has been crossed there is considerable variety available in which taxes and on who they fall. Add in that Cameron's bunch are pretty much committed to NHS privatisation and Miliband is wholesale committed to reversing it and you end up with a radically different country on two counts at least, even if the underlying theme is that we're all fucked for a few more years.
Then there's the EU stuff too of course.
that if he walks into No10 next year, Miliband's first act of leadership will be to not make Balls Chancellor.
I know, I'm just an old romantic.
But your above post highlights some key battleground issues. My hope is that the electorate actually look at the way forward being suggested by the Tories and think `holy fuck that's actually terrible` and vote Labour.
On a side note, one of my political BIG OIDEAS™ if I became PM would be to manage the NHS by a cross-party executive board/group/consensus, removing it from ideological manipulation altogether. This would remove the NHS from the political arena and be beneficial to absolutely everything regarding it. Means Labour would have one less thing to represent them positively in the eyes of the electorate but the right thing to do is the right thing to do...
Russell Parklife Brand or the Cat Bin Woman
International capitalism seems so embedded and unchallenged that maybe it does appear everlasting but it's constantly mutating too not always in advantageous ways.
about how the end of the Cold War and the downfall of communism was bad for capitalism, in that the capitalist excesses and corruption that have blighted western economies over the last however many years may well not have occurred (at least on the same scale) if "going red" were still a viable alternative.
Capitalism needed to work. Also the rush to get cash quickly in the Eastern countries meant private interests were confused with public, which of course Britain and Germany etc were happy to go along with.
I'm not really sure if I buy the whole the stronger capitalism gets the closer it is to ruin argument, but it's certainly getting more savage and I can only hope it instigates change.
We dealt with her LAST week...