Ed Milliband speech..

[beorhthelm]

WWII has finished as well.

yes, very good. forgive me for not being up on the details of how Labour vote their leader in. the block vote has been removed and replaced, as its seems above, by a well funded lobbying programme by the unions.

point remains, the union' members support of Ed won contest, however they delivered it.

 

[Simster]

Yes. Miliband could have said it before he was kicked out. Or he could have done the decent thing as Robin Cook did and refuse to serve in a cabinet that supported a war that he didn't believe it.

Exactly right.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Yep. Individuals within the trade union movement who are affiliated to the Labour Party.

Well, according to Clapham, it was the MP's who voted D Milliband in.

 

[The Large One]

Well, according to Clapham, it was the MP's who voted D Milliband in.

I think the point he's making is - in the popular vote, Ed Milliband got a lot more votes than his big brother. The vote was as close as it was because the MPs have a disproportionate sway in the voting system.

But nothing like as disproportionate as the Conservative MPs' vote in the leadership contest until 1997.

 

[keaton]

yes, very good. forgive me for not being up on the details of how Labour vote their leader in. the block vote has been removed and replaced, as its seems above, by a well funded lobbying programme by the unions.

point remains, the union' members support of Ed won contest, however they delivered it.

So your complaining members of the public voted him in rather than MPs?

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I think the point he's making is - in the popular vote, Ed Milliband got a lot more votes than his big brother. The vote was as close as it was because the MPs have a disproportionate sway in the voting system.

But nothing like as disproportionate as the Conservative MPs' vote in the leadership contest until 1997.

But he only got more of the popular vote because the unions were pushing him to his members.

If that mail I posted earlier said Vote D Milliband rather than E Milliband who do you think would have won?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I also think David Milliband has something of the "Tony Blair" about him in terms of his fairly moderate stance, his broad appeal and his fairly slick presentation. Unfortunately for him, Blair seems to be anathema to Labour to the extent the party want to stick Afghanistan squarely on his shoulders, and the desire to distance themselves from Blair has come at the wrong time for David.

 

[ROSM]

At least Clegg had the bollocks to say as much before he reached his political nadir. The same could not be said of far too many gutless Labour MPs, including Ed Milliband.

You have a point there Simster although Ed Milliband wasn't even an MP at the time of the vote on the Iraq war (D Milliband was) and has been public in his opposition to it both before and after his election as an MP. The one that I was upset with (as was David Milliband) was Harriet Harman who applauded the comments by her new leader and had to be reminded by Milliband snr that she'd voted for it.

I wrote on here before the leader was announced that a David Milliband win would have Lib dems flocking to the labour party but that an Ed Milliband win would be the best news for Nick Clegg. I dont believe Ed is as left wing as the media would have us believe - his immigration policy is positively centrist/right for example. But no single party in this country can win by appealing to its core vote alone and so a solid top team is required and the shadow cabinet elections will be as important if not more so.

 

[beorhthelm]

theres somthing about Ed Miliband thats coming across in the many features and interviews about the brothers. as the younger bother, Ed has tended to follow his brothers lead, clearly different personality and views, but the same general path none the less.

i wonder, really a genuine thought, what path will he follow now? does his drive rely on competing with big brother? any of the Labour supporters thought on what this might mean if so?

 

[drew]

Same as Clegg then - this is more acceptable in the UK than in just about any other country in the world or so it seems. For me it is far more acceptable than the likes of Blair and Bush, thinking they were somehow doing gods work on Earth. That mindset belongs somewhere in the middle ages.

When the hell did Blair suggest he was doing gods work on earth?

 

[clapham_gull]

Well, according to Clapham, it was the MP's who voted D Milliband in.

No according to you.

I couldn't give a stuff who is leader of the Labour Party frankly, but if you are going to misrepresent me, I'll gladly add another post to this thread.

Not exactly sure what your agenda is, but at best it's one of someone who will gladly suck up all the bollocks they print in the newspapers.

I know it doesn't sit nicely with you but the fact is that if the union member votes were treated equally the winner would have won by a bigger margin. It's all published - go and have another a look.

Your odd argument implies this. 49% of the voters vote for candidate one, 48% vote for candidate two. The last three percent decide to vote for candidate two as well. So the last group of voters "made all the difference...". What a lot of nonsense and fortunately most intelligent people can see right such a facile argument.

Unlike yourself - I'm fully aware of how their voting system works because as a member of union I get a chance to vote. Like most other Union members I couldn't be bothered to vote either. Not that I could be bothered to vote for Tony or any of his cronies either from the start.

For the record my fellow members didn't back the winner. If there was an email telling me who to vote for (which I doubt), it's quite clear it was largely ignored..

Anyway back to the fantasy land of the Night Garden.....

 

[Jesus Gul]

Ed reminds me a bit of Nicholas Cage...so they should be OK

 

[Billy the Fish]

It gets worse, in an interview with Nicky Campbell he has proclaimed he doesn't believe in God.

I've just gained alot more respect for Ed Milliband.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

point remains, the union' members support of Ed won contest, however they delivered it.

and your point is?

 

[sten_super]

You have a point there Simster although Ed Milliband wasn't even an MP at the time of the vote on the Iraq war (D Milliband was) and has been public in his opposition to it both before and after his election as an MP. The one that I was upset with (as was David Milliband) was Harriet Harman who applauded the comments by her new leader and had to be reminded by Milliband snr that she'd voted for it.

Excuse my ignorance, but I didn't really see the problem with this. Isn't that the benefit of hindsight? Surely she's entitled to change her opinion in the 8-odd years between then and now?

For the record my fellow members didn't back the winner. If there was an email telling me who to vote for (which I doubt), it's quite clear it was largely ignored..

Anyway back to the fantasy land of the Night Garden.....

I appreciate that union members had freedom in terms of who they could vote for; nonetheless most unions engaged in positive adverstising for Ed, and refused any of the other candidates the opportunity to advertise in any way, shape or form directly to their members. These unions clear have an agenda in terms of the way that they want their members to vote, which to me (having never been a member of a union) seems a particularly partisan way to run a leadership contest.

 

[clapham_gull]

Excuse my ignorance, but I didn't really see the problem with this. Isn't that the benefit of hindsight? Surely she's entitled to change her opinion in the 8-odd years between then and now?



I appreciate that union members had freedom in terms of who they could vote for; nonetheless most unions engaged in positive adverstising for Ed, and refused any of the other candidates the opportunity to advertise in any way, shape or form directly to their members. These unions clear have an agenda in terms of the way that they want their members to vote, which to me (having never been a member of a union) seems a particularly partisan way to run a leadership contest.

Odd opinion, as newspapers are quite free to persuade people to vote in one way or another at general elections and it passes without comment.

What do think is most persuasive to a Union Member - the media or an email from the branch representative ?

Of course Unions have an agenda, in the same way the Institute of Directors has one.

 

[sten_super]

Odd opinion, as newspapers are quite free to persuade people to vote in one way or another at general elections and it passes without comment.

What do think is most persuasive to a Union Member - the media or an email from the branch representative ?

Of course Unions have an agenda, in the same way the Institute of Directors has one.

But a newspaper is an optional purchase which an individual undertakes, and is likely to pick one that matches his/her preferences. Union membership is often (in my wife's experiences) foisted upon someone and is in many vocations compulsory.

I actually don't have a problem with the union saying 'vote Ed', what I have more of an issue with is the fact that they deny any other candidate access to membership lists or the ability to contact union members.

 

[Dandyman]

But a newspaper is an optional purchase which an individual undertakes, and is likely to pick one that matches his/her preferences. Union membership is often (in my wife's experiences) foisted upon someone and is in many vocations compulsory.

QUOTE]

The closed shop ended about 30 years ago.

 

[Simster]

point remains, the union' members support of Ed won contest, however they delivered it.

There is something nausiatingly grating about a Tory having a pop at the way union influence determines the election of Labour leaders. At the end of the day, it's a system that the Labour party are happy with. Yes, union leaders can make recommendations but so what?

We have a massive right wing press in this country, mostly foreign owned. They fill their columns with lies and mistruths all year round in an effort to influence the entire population to vote Tory (except where Labour decide to cow tow to big business). I don't recall you piling in against this tactic. Freedom of the press and all that are so precious to you Tory types, I wonder why?

 

[Iggle Piggle]

No according to you.

I couldn't give a stuff who is leader of the Labour Party frankly, but if you are going to misrepresent me, I'll gladly add another post to this thread.

Not exactly sure what your agenda is, but at best it's one of someone who will gladly suck up all the bollocks they print in the newspapers.

I know it doesn't sit nicely with you but the fact is that if the union member votes were treated equally the winner would have won by a bigger margin. It's all published - go and have another a look.

Your odd argument implies this. 49% of the voters vote for candidate one, 48% vote for candidate two. The last three percent decide to vote for candidate two as well. So the last group of voters "made all the difference...". What a lot of nonsense and fortunately most intelligent people can see right such a facile argument.

Unlike yourself - I'm fully aware of how their voting system works because as a member of union I get a chance to vote. Like most other Union members I couldn't be bothered to vote either. Not that I could be bothered to vote for Tony or any of his cronies either from the start.

For the record my fellow members didn't back the winner. If there was an email telling me who to vote for (which I doubt), it's quite clear it was largely ignored..

Anyway back to the fantasy land of the Night Garden.....

Ohhh. Time of the month?

If you think that the unions sustained campaign to get E Milliband in didn't influence the wafer thin margin of the result, You are the one living in the night garden.

Unlike most of the union members, I didn't get sucked into thier campaign for Student Ed and voted for D milliband has he has far wider appeal to the electorate. Something quite important if you want to win an election and something the Tories learnt when getting Cameron over Davies.

And WTF do you mean, i''f there was an e-mail which I doubt''. Do you really think I could be arsed to sit and type that?

As I posted above. If the unions had back D Milliband who do you think would have got in?