-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
All those times that David had the chance to stand up and challenge Gordon Brown and he never took it. He must be ansolutely kicking himself.
But then maybe that's why he shouldn't lead Labour; he had no courage to do so. Ed quite clearly does. I just don't like Ed though :lol
Just something about him.
But then maybe that's why he shouldn't lead Labour; he had no courage to do so. Ed quite clearly does. I just don't like Ed though :lol
Just something about him.
Hah, a Tory-boy would say that.
I think this is the best result. The country needs to step toward the left again after years of Blair and the fucking up we're seeing with ConDem - there's a huge swath of Liberal voters disenfranchised by the party's direction now, and a leftist in power will benefit us all.
And of course a productive member of society would call you out on it...
I think this is the best result. The country needs to step toward the left again after years of Blair and the fucking up we're seeing with ConDem - there's a huge swath of Liberal voters disenfranchised by the party's direction now, and a leftist in power will benefit us all.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Sir Fragula said:
Wait what the fuck?! *runs to check BBC* Use a surname next time, godamn. :lol
Randy Lanzarote
Member
Oh Labour..... you are going to look back on this as your 'Iain Duncan-Smith' moment.
So, whose going to step forward in a few years to be a 'safe' pair of hands at election time?
So, whose going to step forward in a few years to be a 'safe' pair of hands at election time?
don't care about how electable this makes labour, honestly i don't think it matters; david or ed the next election will be a referendum on the coalitions economic policies, either leader serves the purpose of slipping in there and arguing they would have protected more services blahdeblahblah. i'm just happy that the opposition isn't being led by a unrepentant supporter of the iraq war and key player in our complicity with torture, it gives them at least some semblance of a moral compass.
Was that at me? I'm not Tory, nor am I Labour or Lib-Dem. I'm a floating voter, although I'd have been more happy with David. All those chances he spurned not standing. Portillo said it best: "Three things are certain in life; Tax, Death, and that David Milliband won't stand up..."Sir Fragula said:
David only has himself to blame.
Sir Fragula said:
How would you view it? Regardless of who you wanted to win it's a 0.6% difference with the majority of MPs and MEPs supporting the person who didn't get in. Not saying their votes should matter more, but now it'll be harder for the leader to work with them. Which he'll do more than with the unions.
blazinglord
Member
Well good luck. But the country is more right-wing and anti-union than lefties seem to think. Blair had it right with wooing the aspirational and middle class voters.Sir Fragula said:
I think the real test will not be on Tuesday with the leadership speech, but in the autumn and winter with the strikes. If Ed openly backs the strikes that stops people from getting to work on time and makes life generally inconvenient for the 'real people' on the ground - not ministers and their chauffeured cars (something that seems to escape the notice of RMT and Bob Crow - when was the last time you saw Boris on the tube?), then Labour is doomed.
It's a victory. He's the better of the two candidates to govern, and we still get Dave Miliband's skillset when he's inevitably given the FCO. Come election time he'll be better placed to pick up the dwindling Liberal vote and to reconnect with those core Labour voters who started to migrate to extremists.Zenith said:
This is the most amicable leadership election I've ever seen, I don't think working relationships are going to be an issue.
There was really no ideal leader out of the candidates.
Ed though will be another Neil Kinnock for Labour. He'll change the party, but not enough for it to be electable and he isn't Prime Ministerial.
After the heavy-handed New Labour project it's going to take more than 1 term in opposition for them to work out what Labour is going to stand for again.
Ed though will be another Neil Kinnock for Labour. He'll change the party, but not enough for it to be electable and he isn't Prime Ministerial.
After the heavy-handed New Labour project it's going to take more than 1 term in opposition for them to work out what Labour is going to stand for again.
Well according to that, it was the Ed Balls voters that won it for Ed; in every other round, David won. I do believe that Ed would be the better PM, but I don't think he will be elected since he doesn't seem to appeal to middle England as much as Dave, whom I think is far too much of a Blairite to do well in government.Sir Fragula said:Amused you think this is a bad result for Labour.
phisheep said:
Everything said so far seems to suggest Labour will torpedo AV using the boundary changes as an excuse (which is very rich seeing as Labour did exactly the same with them when in power, and these boundary changes atleast make some sense in principle).
AV wouldn't benefit Labour, their conversion to it was very much electioneering ahead of a likely coalition Government.
If Ed does support it, it would be a positive sign of change in Labour but I wouldn't count on it.
i find it hard to believe ed would do a u-turn on av given he spent the entire leadership campaign repeatedly saying he was for it and would campaign for it, and that his entire pitch for electoral success is about uniting labour and lib dem voters both current and disaffected under one strong centre-left roof.
TheDrowningMan
Member
DECK'ARD said:
It will depend on how the spending situation is and how unpopular the coalition is. The Lib Dems are a relic, a dead irrelevance now and the Tory brand is still toxic - both factors combined to hand Labour a big poll boost post-election.
If the spending cuts have been unpopular Labour need only competence and a steady hand to have a very real chance of victory. If the Tories are talking about Ed Miliband and trade unions in 2015, well, it will be because they've already lost it.
Welcome to the wonderful world of politics. If he wants to keep his backbenchers in check, he cannot support it, it's as simple as that. Unfortunately.Empty said:
The cuts are only popular in the eyes of those who think that they are just cracking down on scroungers when in fact, the cuts have almost the exact opposite effect. Speaking of which, I very much doubt that the new Welfare System will be in place before the 2015 election, such is the complexity of what we have now. Making everything under the one banner will do precisely fuck all.TheDrowningMan said:
Dabookerman
Member
Am I the only one who will never bother voting again?
radioheadrule83
Banned
I think Ed Milliband is the right choice out of the limited options.
I can't stand David Milliband's smarmy sounding, well-drilled spinsmanship. He's too much like Blair in front of a video camera, at a time when that really isn't a good thing.
Balls just isn't likeable IMO. Not quite as unlike-able to the general public as his buddy Brown, but still... He's big, lumbering, full of partisan bluster... his "ripping out the foundations while the hurricane approaches" attempt at coming up with a "fix the roof when the sun is shining" type soundbyte made me actually facepalm myself.
Abbot got off to a bit of a farcical start really. I don't mind her so much, but I don't think she was ever going to win.
Ed is new. He's only sat as an MP since 2005, being a non-ministerial part of the Labour party before that. He attended the London School of Economics, he's not tainted by close affiliation to either Blair or Brown, or tainted by the Iraq war, which started in 2003... he's not completely shiny shiny young politician like Blair, Cameron and Clegg... he's actually kind of goofy in some ways. And I think people will find that quite endearing rather than annoying. Its easier to believe he's a 'nice guy' because he doesn't come across quite as PR-honed and pitch perfect as the others try to be. If he weathers the pigeon holing that the media and the Conservatives are trying to do on him now (Red Ed, Union lacky and all that) - I have a feeling he'll do well. I still think that times will have to be pretty painful and that there will have to be some kind of scandal or error on the part of the coalition for the country to fully turn against the government again. The public aren't daft, they know the last 13 years of government were under Labour. They'll be reluctant to believe things have changed that much... most people I know didn't give a shit about this leadership election.
I can't stand David Milliband's smarmy sounding, well-drilled spinsmanship. He's too much like Blair in front of a video camera, at a time when that really isn't a good thing.
Balls just isn't likeable IMO. Not quite as unlike-able to the general public as his buddy Brown, but still... He's big, lumbering, full of partisan bluster... his "ripping out the foundations while the hurricane approaches" attempt at coming up with a "fix the roof when the sun is shining" type soundbyte made me actually facepalm myself.
Abbot got off to a bit of a farcical start really. I don't mind her so much, but I don't think she was ever going to win.
Ed is new. He's only sat as an MP since 2005, being a non-ministerial part of the Labour party before that. He attended the London School of Economics, he's not tainted by close affiliation to either Blair or Brown, or tainted by the Iraq war, which started in 2003... he's not completely shiny shiny young politician like Blair, Cameron and Clegg... he's actually kind of goofy in some ways. And I think people will find that quite endearing rather than annoying. Its easier to believe he's a 'nice guy' because he doesn't come across quite as PR-honed and pitch perfect as the others try to be. If he weathers the pigeon holing that the media and the Conservatives are trying to do on him now (Red Ed, Union lacky and all that) - I have a feeling he'll do well. I still think that times will have to be pretty painful and that there will have to be some kind of scandal or error on the part of the coalition for the country to fully turn against the government again. The public aren't daft, they know the last 13 years of government were under Labour. They'll be reluctant to believe things have changed that much... most people I know didn't give a shit about this leadership election.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
radioheadrule83 said:
With you on that. I don't really understand why anyone thought of David M as a successor leader (though I must be out of step because so many people apparently did). He's shown really good followership skills to the point of embarassment, but nothing like leadership skills.
Balls messed it up by being too partisan and there's no way back.
I'm pleased Diane Abbott was there but to a large extent disappointed she was not a more credible candidate - looked like tokenism from the beginning and she didn't help her own cause much (not sure she took it all that seriously). But she's very strong on civil liberties and community based things and could have made a stronger bid. Trouble is, perhaps she knows herself that the leadership is not her bag.
Heck of a challenge for Ed. I guess it is going to take about a year/18 months to get policy settled and fires damped down, but there's a whole load of looming stuff (PMQs, strikes, strife, press, economic stance, political reform stuff) that he is going to have to handle more-or-less on the fly at the same time and carry his party with him - events can't wait for NEC conferences.
It will be interesting, and I wish him well.
i would rather have Yvette Cooper as Shadow Chancellor, but given how close the result was i understand Ed taking whatever steps necessary to keep the bitter blairites from tearing apart the party, as well as working as a quick antidote to any spin or media narrative suggesting the result meant the party was divided.
It was tokenism. It was only after some MPs made a public appeal for others to give her the minimum number of votes needed to be in the contest even if they don't want her to win so it wasn't all white men. Completely oblivious to the fact that having to let her in, and on the assumption that she would never possibly win it, only emphasised the opposite.
dr_octagon
Banned
radioheadrule83
Banned
I'm very happy that Ed Milliband has said he'll vote yes on the AV referendum and that he wants to see an elected House of Lords. I would love it if he decides to have the entire party push in that general direction.
A rejection of AV will be seen as full endorsement of FPTP... so people who want STV or some other method should probably also vote Yes. We won't get another shot at electoral reform for another generation if the No vote wins.
A rejection of AV will be seen as full endorsement of FPTP... so people who want STV or some other method should probably also vote Yes. We won't get another shot at electoral reform for another generation if the No vote wins.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Also... I read this today. Do you remember the news stories and Panorama episode centering around 9000 or so public sector workers (civil service and quango employees) earning more than the Prime Minister?
I always found that quite distasteful given that the great majority of civil servants are on less than £21k...
But I read another great article on it today... it makes the point that comparisons to the PMs salary are largely stupid and useless, and also highlights the fact that the report itself into this salary 'scandal' cost the UK taxpayer £650,400+ through Freedom of Information requests. Essentially: a right wing journalistic body wanted to create an alarmist article about public sector pay, so they bombarded government departments with Freedom of Information requests. Those requests wasted time and money, racking up a manpower and research bill of two thirds of a million quid!
I always found that quite distasteful given that the great majority of civil servants are on less than £21k...
But I read another great article on it today... it makes the point that comparisons to the PMs salary are largely stupid and useless, and also highlights the fact that the report itself into this salary 'scandal' cost the UK taxpayer £650,400+ through Freedom of Information requests. Essentially: a right wing journalistic body wanted to create an alarmist article about public sector pay, so they bombarded government departments with Freedom of Information requests. Those requests wasted time and money, racking up a manpower and research bill of two thirds of a million quid!
I would have gone for Andy Burnham personally but it doesn't really matter because I have no intention of voting Labour for a long time. Very happy with the current government and think that LD and CON are being very grown up about working through their differences for the greater good. If an election were held tomorrow I'd vote LD again.
Oh and here are today's YouGov voting intentions:
CONS 39%, LAB 40%, LD 12%, Others 9%
I would imagine there's a historical trend of announcing new leaders and getting poll bumps.
Oh and here are today's YouGov voting intentions:
CONS 39%, LAB 40%, LD 12%, Others 9%
I would imagine there's a historical trend of announcing new leaders and getting poll bumps.
dr_octagon
Banned
David had tones of Blair about him (and was a sure bet to win the leadership bid) whereas Ed isn't as refined. Although he is portrayed as weird, Ed is likeable and there is scope for him to improve. He's not a clone or trying to be like someone else which is a good thing.Wes said:
Chinner said:
It depends really, but I can't see myself voting Conservative, as I don't agree with their policies and ideology (mainly the old guard who are slowly starting to die off) but I do like Cameron. Surprisingly he actually doesn't seem full of bullshit, which is refreshing for a PM.
I don't like Labour. The current lot are, in my opinion, overly prone to bureaucracy and putting a lot of money into stuff that doesn't work. (My dad was a project manager on the NHS IT project for South Manchester and he said the stupid design of the system and crap upper management meant that it was doomed from the start) Ed Milliband seems fine but I doubt he'll change my view.
LD have proven themselves to be pragmatic and responsible in this government, and while they have given up some policies they wanted to put in they did what was best for the country.
Nicktendo86
Member
Anybody see the ITV news today? They ad footage of David clearly turning to Harriet Harman saying Why are you clapping? You voted for it" with a pretty pissed off look when Ed criticised the Iraq war.
Subliminal
Member
offshore said:
