Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
slowdive

Ed Miliband

1,127 posts in this topic

There's some quite major stretching of the truth in that article!  It makes it look like Ed single-handedly stood in the way of the missiles to stop them being fired.  In reality, if you watch the video of the vote result again you'll see a Labour front bench that realised that they'd been too successful in their cause, private briefings to the media after that confirmed that.  Also, that Parliamentary vote was not an authority for a strike, either unilaterally or with USA/France, but authority to go into negotiations with a big stick behind their back; if anything, that's where Ed was most successful and really should be taking praise, Ed did well and showed some real strength in his negotiation with Cameron and Clegg, he stopped a single vote that passed power to strike to Cameron and ensured Parliament had the sole final say in a second vote.

 

I suppose today's history writers are more than ever the media with their deliberately skewed views and opinions rather than facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some quite major stretching of the truth in that article!  It makes it look like Ed single-handedly stood in the way of the missiles to stop them being fired.  In reality, if you watch the video of the vote result again you'll see a Labour front bench that realised that they'd been too successful in their cause, private briefings to the media after that confirmed that.  Also, that Parliamentary vote was not an authority for a strike, either unilaterally or with USA/France, but authority to go into negotiations with a big stick behind their back; if anything, that's where Ed was most successful and really should be taking praise, Ed did well and showed some real strength in his negotiation with Cameron and Clegg, he stopped a single vote that passed power to strike to Cameron and ensured Parliament had the sole final say in a second vote.

 

I suppose today's history writers are more than ever the media with their deliberately skewed views and opinions rather than facts.

 

It makes a change, though, to read a piece in a paper not noted for its support of the Labour party that manages to appraise Miliband in greater detail than 'oh, everyone thinks he's useless and looks a bit like Wallace from Wallace and Gromit'. In terms of skewed media coverage, it's usually in the other direction, which is what makes this piece stand out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Miliband sounds like an utter pratt in this debate.  He's also sounding like a 16 year old boy giving his first public speech.  Stuttering, wavering, repeating points and just looking weak, he said one unimportant sentence four times because someone was speaking.

 

I didn't think I could have a lower opinion of him but he's gone far and beyond that into grubbing for for petty political points.  His advisers probably told him that he needs to be "strong" by disagreeing with Cameron.  The stories that have come out over the last few days is that every time Cameron and Clegg agreed to meet his needs to try to get a united Parliament that he's upped the ante again just so he can be shown to be "strong".

 

Malcolm Rifkind had it right in the debate "your points are just rewordings of ours so why can't you accept the government's motion?"

A sad day when I fully back the Tories over Labour in Parliament.

 

 

 

 

There's some quite major stretching of the truth in that article!  It makes it look like Ed single-handedly stood in the way of the missiles to stop them being fired.  In reality, if you watch the video of the vote result again you'll see a Labour front bench that realised that they'd been too successful in their cause, private briefings to the media after that confirmed that.  Also, that Parliamentary vote was not an authority for a strike, either unilaterally or with USA/France, but authority to go into negotiations with a big stick behind their back; if anything, that's where Ed was most successful and really should be taking praise, Ed did well and showed some real strength in his negotiation with Cameron and Clegg, he stopped a single vote that passed power to strike to Cameron and ensured Parliament had the sole final say in a second vote.

 

I suppose today's history writers are more than ever the media with their deliberately skewed views and opinions rather than facts.

 

 

Changed your tune a bit.

 

FWIW, and I know about my pro-Labour bias so call me on it or not, but I think Ed M got this mostly right and Cameron got it mostly wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changed your tune a bit.

 

FWIW, and I know about my pro-Labour bias so call me on it or not, but I think Ed M got this mostly right and Cameron got it mostly wrong.

Nope, not a bit.  I still think he was an utter weasel by backing out of the agreements reached in negotiation with Cameron and Clegg, it's the negotiations and hard-ball he played to get to that agreement that he should be proud of.  Yes, the parties do regularly screw each other around but this was one that Miliband won in negotiations when he had no realistic expectation of winning then decided to be a weasel anyway.

 

For me, he had two ethical choices:  1. Don't join in with negotiations if you're just going to vote against it anyway, or 2. Negotiate in good faith then follow through by backing them in Parliament, especially when he won in the negotiations.

 

If Miliband had intended to win the vote then the easiest way would have been to not negotiate with Cameron and Clegg at all.  Parliament would never have voted to give Cameron power to strike Syria while the UN inspectors hadn't reported, Cameron was dreaming if he thought they would.  It would have been a far bigger defeat that Miliband could have clearly shown that he orchestrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, not a bit.  I still think he was an utter weasel by backing out of the agreements reached in negotiation with Cameron and Clegg, it's the negotiations and hard-ball he played to get to that agreement that he should be proud of.  Yes, the parties do regularly screw each other around but this was one that Miliband won in negotiations when he had no realistic expectation of winning then decided to be a weasel anyway.

 

For me, he had two ethical choices:  1. Don't join in with negotiations if you're just going to vote against it anyway, or 2. Negotiate in good faith then follow through by backing them in Parliament, especially when he won in the negotiations.

 

If Miliband had intended to win the vote then the easiest way would have been to not negotiate with Cameron and Clegg at all.  Parliament would never have voted to give Cameron power to strike Syria while the UN inspectors hadn't reported, Cameron was dreaming if he thought they would.  It would have been a far bigger defeat that Miliband could have clearly shown that he orchestrated.

 

However Miliband got there, he did the right thing in the end and led his party into the 'no' lobby in that vote. What's really interesting about the Syria issue in parliament is that we were told the 'no' vote would destroy the 'special relationship' and render the UK an irrelevance in international politics. Yet within hours, despite John Kerry's sudden public love-in with the French, Obama was toning down the military rhetoric and referring the matter to Congress himself, and we are now engaged in a diplomatic process through the UN which is what should have been happening in the first place. That is quite a major result for British influence, I would say. If the vote had gone the other way, the bombs would have been dropped by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some quite major stretching of the truth in that article!  It makes it look like Ed single-handedly stood in the way of the missiles to stop them being fired.  In reality, if you watch the video of the vote result again you'll see a Labour front bench that realised that they'd been too successful in their cause, private briefings to the media after that confirmed that.  Also, that Parliamentary vote was not an authority for a strike, either unilaterally or with USA/France, but authority to go into negotiations with a big stick behind their back; if anything, that's where Ed was most successful and really should be taking praise, Ed did well and showed some real strength in his negotiation with Cameron and Clegg, he stopped a single vote that passed power to strike to Cameron and ensured Parliament had the sole final say in a second vote.

 

I suppose today's history writers are more than ever the media with their deliberately skewed views and opinions rather than facts.

 

 

He did the right  thing...but for all the wrong reasons., and accidentally, too.  Some PPE wunderkind thought it was an opportunity to inflict a defeat on Cameron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Labour/Ed for finally saying they'd scrap the bedroom tax...  A bit late but at least they got there eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, yes,  and as a politician, he's sure to see it through, isn't he..even if he is still there!

 

But this is all based on ignorance of the facts. In some cases, this ignorance is deliberate. In Ed's case it's because he's just not up to it intellectually.

 

For a number of years now, eligible tenants in the private rented sector have received housing benefit - or Local Housing Allowance - based not on the number of rooms in their property but on the number of rooms they need.  So in effect, they have not been receiving the spare bedroom subsidy in any case.  You have a job, you live in a 2-bed rented property, you lose your job and need housing benefit. Sorry, you only need one bedroom so the state will not pay for that second one. 

 

I know it's hard to believe that the last Labour govt.left office without building any significant amount of new social housing despite their leaders lining their own  pockets by investing heavily in property speculation.

 

However, now that Ed has seen the light ( the light of (unlikely) electoral success, that is) then the people's friend  will no doubt be promising to change this, too, so that less well off private sector tenants will be treated in exactly the same way as council house tenants. Yeah, right!!!

 

Who introduced LHA- the "bedroom tax for private sector tenants on low incomes"? Well,  Local Housing Allowance (LHA) was introduced on 7 April 2008.  So let's hear it for Ed as he puts this injustice  right, tio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, yes,  and as a politician, he's sure to see it through, isn't he..even if he is still there!

 

But this is all based on ignorance of the facts. In some cases, this ignorance is deliberate. In Ed's case it's because he's just not up to it intellectually.

 

For a number of years now, eligible tenants in the private rented sector have received housing benefit - or Local Housing Allowance - based not on the number of rooms in their property but on the number of rooms they need.  So in effect, they have not been receiving the spare bedroom subsidy in any case.  You have a job, you live in a 2-bed rented property, you lose your job and need housing benefit. Sorry, you only need one bedroom so the state will not pay for that second one. 

 

I know it's hard to believe that the last Labour govt.left office without building any significant amount of new social housing despite their leaders lining their own  pockets by investing heavily in property speculation.

 

However, now that Ed has seen the light ( the light of (unlikely) electoral success, that is) then the people's friend  will no doubt be promising to change this, too, so that less well off private sector tenants will be treated in exactly the same way as council house tenants. Yeah, right!!!

 

Who introduced LHA- the "bedroom tax for private sector tenants on low incomes"? Well,  Local Housing Allowance (LHA) was introduced on 7 April 2008.  So let's hear it for Ed as he puts this injustice  right, tio.

The thing is though that the private sector is flexible enough that this hasn't caused serious hardship except in a few limited instances.  The hardship came in when it was extended to state sector housing where there's no flexibility at all.  These are typically the poorest people in the UK, excepting homeless people, and they rarely have any other options in terms of housing.

 

It doesn't take excessive intelligence to see that if you remove money from someone on basic benefits only yet expect him to still pay the same outgoings then something will have to give.  The local councils don't even have the discretion to say "we have nowhere smaller to move you and we know you've no other options so we'll excuse you from the benefit cut".

 

Then there's the news today that there's going to be an average 8% rise in gas prices this winter on the back of what seems like many years of well above inflation price rises.  It might be a cold winter for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Hell, he wants to "strengthen the minimum wage under a one nation labour". Yet can't say what that even means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was trying to present himself as a strong dynamic autocratic leader this morning on the Andrew Marr Show ... 'I lead the Labour Party / That's how I run the Party'

 

He's too stupid to realise that's precisely why people won't vote for him or it.

 

He has no track record and always comes across as talking down to people. I bet the only proper work he's ever done was Bob-a-Job Week in the cubs.

 

I imagine him as having progressed from school swot through university debating  society, policy wonker, party hack to scheming careerist. How he ended up Leader says more about the Labour Party than about him.

 

Labour supporters want a party run by a consensus-based leadership team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is though that the private sector is flexible enough that this hasn't caused serious hardship except in a few limited instances.  The hardship came in when it was extended to state sector housing where there's no flexibility at all.  These are typically the poorest people in the UK, excepting homeless people, and they rarely have any other options in terms of housing.

 

It doesn't take excessive intelligence to see that if you remove money from someone on basic benefits only yet expect him to still pay the same outgoings then something will have to give.  The local councils don't even have the discretion to say "we have nowhere smaller to move you and we know you've no other options so we'll excuse you from the benefit cut".

 

Then there's the news today that there's going to be an average 8% rise in gas prices this winter on the back of what seems like many years of well above inflation price rises.  It might be a cold winter for some.

 

 

The thing is though that the private sector is flexible enough that this hasn't caused serious hardship except in a few limited instances

 

This statement is  plain wrong.

 

However, it doe snot atke any intrelligence to see tha there IS flexibility in the public sector. It is just that they are unwilling, unable and incapable of exercising it,  and there has been no pressure and no incentive to do anything about it.The UK housing crisis reached epidemic proportions under the last Govt and Miliband's cheap pre-conference electoral stunt, designed to stave off criticism by conference groupies of his lack of..well, everything really. 

 

 

"The local councils don't even have the discretion to say "we have nowhere smaller to move you and we know you've no other options so we'll excuse you from the benefit cut".  

 

Its their fault that they they have not run their social  housing system properly. They've had long enough to sort it out and now, when hit by the realities of life, they blame the govt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was trying to present himself as a strong dynamic autocratic leader this morning on the Andrew Marr Show ... 'I lead the Labour Party / That's how I run the Party'

 

He's too stupid to realise that's precisely why people won't vote for him or it.

 

He has no track record and always comes across as talking down to people. I bet the only proper work he's ever done was Bob-a-Job Week in the cubs.

 

I imagine him as having progressed from school swot through university debating  society, policy wonker, party hack to scheming careerist. How he ended up Leader says more about the Labour Party than about him.

 

Labour supporters want a party run by a consensus-based leadership team.

 

 

and his sums don't add up..

 

and he has no idea how any of this will work in practice.

 

He does know, though, because the facts are there, that having a 50% tax rate ( well, 60% in you include the jobs tax)  on incomes of over £150k reduced the tax take, so to bring it back will give him less money with which to buy votes.

 

Anyway, everything is going to be alright!  ( that's code for if Labour gets in, we're all ed ) Red Miliband has said he is "bringing back socialism" to Britain ...

 

see 

 

So as in socialist France, we can look forward to 12 % unemployment and huge tax rises just for starters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Labour/Ed for finally saying they'd scrap the bedroom tax...  A bit late but at least they got there eventually.

You would have thought it was a no brainer for a party called Labour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. I wonder where I've heard views like that before on the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 'bedroom tax' was the wrong solution to a real problem.

There is no such thing as a "bedroom tax". If anything it is an attempt to apply the HB rules fairly and consistently - rules which have always existed BTW but have been largely ignored by successive governments. Calling it a tax is emotive nonsense and is actually looking at it the wrong way around.

Couple 1 rent from the council and have a 3 bed house and get full HB. Couple 2 have exactly the same income from the same benefits but can't get a council home so rent privately - but they only get HB for a 1 bedroom property. Why should Couple 1 be entitled to more than Couple 2 simply because they've been in their home longer and rent from the council ?

Rather than a tax it is, in actual fact, a stopping of HB overpayments to tenants which they should never have been entitled to in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. That's what I have been trying to say in my own cack-handed way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no such thing as a "bedroom tax". If anything it is an attempt to apply the HB rules fairly and consistently - rules which have always existed BTW but have been largely ignored by successive governments. Calling it a tax is emotive nonsense and is actually looking at it the wrong way around.

Couple 1 rent from the council and have a 3 bed house and get full HB. Couple 2 have exactly the same income from the same benefits but can't get a council home so rent privately - but they only get HB for a 1 bedroom property. Why should Couple 1 be entitled to more than Couple 2 simply because they've been in their home longer and rent from the council ?

Rather than a tax it is, in actual fact, a stopping of HB overpayments to tenants which they should never have been entitled to in the first place.

 

It's one of those things that sound like a good idea on a flipchart when some bloke in a suit thinks it up.   When it gets implemented, it turns out to be utterly unworkable.

 

Happens all the time.   I should bloody know - I've been that bloke in a suit a couple of times!

 

The first trick is to spot the seemingly sensible, but in practice unworkable, idea as early as possible and not do it.  

 

If you miss that, then the bigger (and far more difficult) trick is to see the effects on the ground and then put a stop to it.   It's all too easy to push on with something that's not working under the misguided belief that "If we get through these teething troubles" it will somehow come good.  Again, been there done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I have felt for some time now that the 'New UKIP' is not really right for me anymore perhaps than New Labour was right for the Dennis 'The beast of Bolsover' Skinner."  see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24222992

 

Make no mistake. I along with about 59,000,000 others, am not a fan of UKIP.  However, it will be interesting to see if  the departure of one of UKIP's most offensive members  (along with the purging of a number of UKIP local councillors will make the party more acceptable to the Conservative Party's golf-club tendency, despite Miliband making a pitch for the same constituency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had typed a long rant going through facts and figures about the bedroom tax but just can't be bothered.  If people can't see the bedroom tax, or "subsidy" clawback, as anything other than us moving towards the US benefits system where the unlucky and unfortunate get thrown into a skip then the persistent "benefits = scroungers" PR of the last three years by ministers and the media have done their job.  If you're unlucky enough to lose your job and have nothing else to go to then that's your fault for not working hard enough, get a job you slacker!

 

Just because you're on benefits does not make you a scrounger.  I know more than a few people who are in seriously bad mental states because they just cannot find work regardless of how hard they look.  I know one person who had to be admitted to hospital for severe and almost catatonic levels of depression after seeing the impacts on people of her working in the Jobcentre and having targets imposed on her to "sanction" people.  I know a few people in their 60s who cannot find work as they're fully discriminated against for daring to be a bit older then getting harassed by the Jobcentre staff about their efforts at interview yet the government is telling us that we'll probably have to work well into our 70s in the future.  It's not as black and white as the Daily Mail would have you believe.

 

In times of austerity, yes, we should look to cut where we can but it's immoral in the extreme to be punitively cutting benefits to the poorest people in Britain at the same time as commissioning things like HS2 or cutting the tax burden on large companies and higher rate taxpayers.

 

I say this quite happily as a higher rate taxpayer, I can afford to pay a bit more tax if it means not reducing those at the bottom of society to the point they have to go to food banks to survive, I'll just cut my luxuries a wee bit to fit or maybe save a wee bit less.  It seems to be more morally repugnant to the government to make someone like me reduce my unneeded luxuries than to cut benefits to those who are only beaten in poorness stakes by the homeless.

 

I think that'll do me on this subject, it just makes me see red and raise my blood pressure to unacceptable levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better to have food banks, and other charities, than not.

 

One, more thing, how much should people get? We keep hearing from the morally outraged, Owen bloody Jones and the like, yet I've never heard any of them come up with a figure as to what cash people should get.

Edited by archibald

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