Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
slowdive

Ed Miliband

1,127 posts in this topic

6 months and he'll be gone.

 

I think he needs a big conference.

 

Needs to start leading the agenda not following.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miliband can never escape this catastrophe, and the Tory Party propaganda machine will keep it well to the forefront ofits  public and media campaigns.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10055613/Labour-sent-out-search-parties-for-immigrants-Lord-Mandelson-admits.html

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1128850/rise-in-migrants-from-romania-and-bulgaria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw on telly that in the latest MORI opinion poll that Ed Miliband is less popular as Labour leader than Gordon Brown at his lowest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things must be serious within the Labour Party. It's been nearly a week on this thread and Steve May still hasn't rushed to Miliband's defence.

 

And, as usual, Caroline Flint is proving a wholly supportive member of the leadership group. Damning him with faint praise.

Caroline, love, it will end in tears ... no matter how pretty you look, the party will always remember the way you walked out on Gordon Brown when things got sticky. I don't think you will ever get offered a major big-three job.

Still there's always the chance that you can land a gig as one of the regulars on Loose Women.

 

 

A sympathetic person might almost feel sorry for Miliband.

 Fortunately, I can't stand him and what he stands for, so I don't.

B)

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/17/caroline-flint-ed-miliband-labour-energy-bills

Edited by Wolford6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things must be serious within the Labour Party. It's been nearly a week on this thread and Steve May still hasn't rushed to Miliband's defence.

 

Unfortunately, I've been busy, making the most of the NHS while we still have it.

 

I'm back now, and it appears that Ed M is currently in charge of the country.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10272339/Syria-Cameron-forced-to-drop-timetable-for-strikes-by-Miliband.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's doing a fairly decent job of making Cameron and the grinnin Hague (is it a grinning matter?) look like blithering idiots on Syria IMO, although it's not much of a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I've been busy, making the most of the NHS while we still have it.

 

 

 

Have you had the snip?

I hope not.

I reckon the only way Miliband can attract new supporters to the party is to breed them from within.

;) ;) :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you had the snip?

I hope not.

Sounds like a "come on" to me.

Edited by Larry the Leit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless Labour have managed to fit in a few bye-elections overnight then they've still no majority, which means the real kick in the ###### came from within the Tory ranks or the Lib Dems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless Labour have managed to fit in a few bye-elections overnight then they've still no majority, which means the real kick in the ###### came from within the Tory ranks or the Lib Dems.

Cameron won't leave himself open as a leader that started another non-winnable war, unless he can say the house supported him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a sensible and reasonable move, Parliamentary democracy in action,  so clearly it wasn't Miliband's idea.

 

Also, Steve May, rest assured the NHS is safe  in the long term, as Labour will not get re-elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the first of the party leaders cracks over the bill to restrict lobbyists.  Just think of the charities!  I suppose it's a new version of "just think of the children/terrorists/paedophiles".

 

It's blatant scaremongering about a law that's long overdue.  The only way to limit the power of lobbyists in Parliament is to first be open about who they are and how much they're spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the first of the party leaders cracks over the bill to restrict lobbyists.  Just think of the charities!  I suppose it's a new version of "just think of the children/terrorists/paedophiles".

 

It's blatant scaremongering about a law that's long overdue.  The only way to limit the power of lobbyists in Parliament is to first be open about who they are and how much they're spending.

There was an interesting discussion about this on Radio Five Live earlier, where a woman from a lobbying firm said that it's flawed, because it's very limited in its scope - i.e many lobbyists won't have to be registered, so nothing will change. Her suggestion was, in fact, that the bill has been designed to look good, but won't make a difference. Also, will it cut down on the "jobs for the boys" culture in Whitehall, where whatever government's in charge appoints advisors from the private sector with vested interests (see the department of health, which now seems to be staffed by people who were previously big in private healthcare companies, the same companies that will benefit from carving up the NHS). Also, will it stop political parties from selling spaces at "private dinners" with major players in the party (E.G Cameron's supper at number 10 club, and the other one where you get access to Gideon)?

If you're going to have a bill to cut dopwn on lobbying, make it one that actually makes a difference. This bill seems to be as much about cutting down union influence on Labour than any attempt to actually cut down on corruption and vested interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! Matrix Chambers again! Cherchez the fee earning lawyers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting discussion about this on Radio Five Live earlier, where a woman from a lobbying firm said that it's flawed, because it's very limited in its scope - i.e many lobbyists won't have to be registered, so nothing will change. Her suggestion was, in fact, that the bill has been designed to look good, but won't make a difference. Also, will it cut down on the "jobs for the boys" culture in Whitehall, where whatever government's in charge appoints advisors from the private sector with vested interests (see the department of health, which now seems to be staffed by people who were previously big in private healthcare companies, the same companies that will benefit from carving up the NHS). Also, will it stop political parties from selling spaces at "private dinners" with major players in the party (E.G Cameron's supper at number 10 club, and the other one where you get access to Gideon)?

If you're going to have a bill to cut dopwn on lobbying, make it one that actually makes a difference. This bill seems to be as much about cutting down union influence on Labour than any attempt to actually cut down on corruption and vested interests.

  the same companies that will benefit from carving up the NHS

 

a myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting discussion about this on Radio Five Live earlier, where a woman from a lobbying firm said that it's flawed, because it's very limited in its scope - i.e many lobbyists won't have to be registered, so nothing will change. Her suggestion was, in fact, that the bill has been designed to look good, but won't make a difference. Also, will it cut down on the "jobs for the boys" culture in Whitehall, where whatever government's in charge appoints advisors from the private sector with vested interests (see the department of health, which now seems to be staffed by people who were previously big in private healthcare companies, the same companies that will benefit from carving up the NHS). Also, will it stop political parties from selling spaces at "private dinners" with major players in the party (E.G Cameron's supper at number 10 club, and the other one where you get access to Gideon)?

If you're going to have a bill to cut dopwn on lobbying, make it one that actually makes a difference. This bill seems to be as much about cutting down union influence on Labour than any attempt to actually cut down on corruption and vested interests.

I get your point, I really do.  There's a good bit of political shenanigans going on here but it's a wedge in the door.  If in 2015 Labour get into power then they can amend it to include other areas that were missed.

 

I find it quite amusing hearing lobbyists calling the bill flawed and useless.  If it were truly useless and unlikely to adversely affect lobbyists then I think they'd be sitting back chuckling away rather than highlighting the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It not the lobbyists who are shouting the loudest.  It's charities and campaign groups who think the law will overspill and include them.

 

Greenpeace not allowed to campaign before an election, conservative home not allowed, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to have a bill to cut dopwn on lobbying, make it one that actually makes a difference. This bill seems to be as much about cutting down union influence on Labour than any attempt to actually cut down on corruption and vested interests

 

Its an old tory bugbear, those awful unions!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017