I'm sensing a bit of a bromance here, Moniker. Would you also agree with Galloway that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest catastrophe of modern times?
It's a shame that you are unable to enjoy the brilliance of Scotland's Galloway because of ideology. Luckily Scots kids are more open minded.
This article by Dan Hodges is a keeper, it will go a long way to explaining why Labour under Ed Miliband was never ever going to win the next GE.
"There were promises that Miliband would seize the agenda, catch the public mood, drag the political centre to the Left. Instead, he squandered the gift that was the Tory annus horribilis of 2012, handed the mantle of opposition leader to Nigel Farage, and watched impotently as the public mood shifted decisively to the Right. It is time to face facts: Miliband is not coming good. There will be no Clause Four moment.
And yet, two weeks ago, I thought I was witnessing one. There was a flurry of dramatic announcements, including a pledge to match Tory spending limits, a welfare cap and the dropping of Labour’s long-standing commitment to universality in the benefits system. Yesterday saw another major intervention, as the party pledged to extend academy independence to other state schools.
But then I realised that, amid all the excitement, something was missing: the leader of the Labour Party. Ed Balls was deployed on spending and universality, Stephen Twigg, the shadow education secretary, on education. Various shadowy “Labour sources” trailed the policy shifts on child benefit and the welfare cap. Miliband himself appeared once – to announce that the cap on welfare would not actually involve a reduction in anyone’s benefits – then disappeared again
For Labour, the policy changes we have seen over the past few weeks mark a significant political advance. But for Miliband, they represent a comprehensive retreat. Everything of significance he has done or said since becoming leader has been shown to be wrong. He told the shadow cabinet in December that the Tories had made a major strategic blunder on welfare, and he intended to fight it. Then came the Mick Philpott affair, the ensuing public backlash, and Miliband found himself utterly routed on the issue. The white flag of surrender, in the form of Labour’s own welfare cap, was duly hoisted.
The Labour leader had also claimed that the public mood had shifted decisively against austerity, and the Coalition’s deficit reduction strategy. Yet despite the worst economic slump for over a century, the Conservatives continued to out-poll Labour on economic competence. Once again, the white flag had to be raised, this time in the form of a commitment to stick to Tory spending limits.
In one of his first decisions after taking the top job, Miliband announced he would oppose Government cuts to child benefit. Asked if millionaires should still receive the payment, he claimed: “I’m in favour of that, yes, and I’m in favour of it because it’s a cornerstone of our system to have universal benefits.” Then, the predicted middle-class backlash against the cut failed to materialise – up went the white flag for a third time.
If Miliband was smart, he would have spent the past fortnight making a virtue out of necessity. He would have taken clear ownership of these significant U-turns, signalled a major change of direction for his party and framed the whole thing as a bold rebranding of Labour in the run-up to 2015. But he is not smart, so he did none of those things. He attempted to minimise his personal exposure, by allowing others to take the lead on the announcements. He tried to downplay their significance. Worst of all, he tried to give an impression to his own party that he was reluctantly acceding to this change of stance, and that his instincts lay in a different ideological direction."
David Miliband has won, says Dan Hodges. "There are three main reasons why David Miliband won. The first was Ed’s willingness so readily to trade electability for perceived ideological purity. The party’s loyalty has been sorely tested in the years since dawn broke over Festival Hall. But never again will we view power as an optional extra.
The second was David Miliband’s political courage. He was slow to respond to attempts to define him as Blair’s successor, and the sheer audacity of his brother’s turn left surprised him. But he never departed significantly from his core strategy, nor joined in a scorched earth assault on the party’s past. Time will grant Gordon Brown the political rehabilitation he deserves. But the price we paid for unpopular and indecisive leadership will not be forgotten.
The third reason lies in the resilience and vision of the party itself. The defeat hit hard. We should have had time to regroup and lick our wounds before launching into a leadership contest. But, in the end, we saw beyond the impact on ourselves; our guilt, envy, hatred, love, fear, hope. We looked outward. And saw that the flags of the old guard could simply be lowered. There was no need to tear them down. The Blairite and Brownite camps were now deserted. Their few remaining followers dispersed. Change could be embraced. It did not need to be enforced.
This Saturday, David Miliband will be elected. It will not mean that we are on the path back to power. Nor that we have fully come to terms with our election defeat. But we will have a new leader. And the right one. For the moment, that is enough
Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph front page: Quitting EU would 'wreck the economy' #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/3Hib0SulTk
Swivel eyed loons said the same thing about the United Kingdom's failure join the Economic and Monetary Union. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph front page: Quitting EU would 'wreck the economy' #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/3Hib0SulTk
Swivel eyed loons said the same thing
It's hard to keep up I know, but Ken Clarke didn't call the kippers "swivel eyed loons", Clarke said Farage and the kipper politicians were "clowns" and that those attracted to UKIP are "waifs and strays" who are simply "against" foreigners and immigrants.
Whereas while Cammie preferred to call kippers "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" it was tory activists who were branded "swivel-eyed loons".
Not to be confused with Michael Howard who merely thought UKIP were "cranks, gadflies and extremists".
And as we have already ascertained it was Theresa May who famously came up with the tories as the "nasty party", for reasons that pass understanding.
"Remember the Tuesday in 2010 four days before the LAB leadership results were announced?"
And we should remember the reaction when the exit poll showing that the Libdems had lost seats was announced at 10pm as the polls closed at the last GE.
Dan Hodges noted two points in that article that still resonate today. "The first was Ed’s willingness so readily to trade electability for perceived ideological purity." "This Saturday, David Miliband will be elected. It will not mean that we are on the path back to power. Nor that we have fully come to terms with our election defeat. But we will have a new leader. And the right one. For the moment, that is enough"
The Labour party voted for David Miliband, the most powerful Unions back Ed Miliband, neither represent the UK electorate. And under the Labour party voting system, it was still a very close run thing. David Cameron's election as Conservative Leader was a far more straight forward and clear cut victory. Like Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband never not got that kind of decisive mandate, and it shows today in the way he is running his Leadership operation. And this is despite the changes in the Labour party rules that allowed him to take more control of the content of the Shadow Cabinet in Opposition.
@fitalass You are on another planet. Ed Miliband has never traded electability for ideological purity. Where are there any examples of his ideologically pure stands?
Dan Hodges noted two points in that article that still resonate today. "The first was Ed’s willingness so readily to trade electability for perceived ideological purity."
@fitalass You are on another planet. Ed Miliband has never traded electability for ideological purity. Where are there any examples of his ideologically pure stands?
Dan Hodges noted two points in that article that still resonate today. "The first was Ed’s willingness so readily to trade electability for perceived ideological purity."
Ed Miliband chose to become the 'anyone but David Miliband' choice of the Unions as his route to winning the Labour Leadership. Note Dan Hodges careful use of the word "perceived" when describing Miliband's ideological purity.
The moon is obscured in deep gloom, his brother becomes bright red in colour. The great one hidden for a long time in the shadows will hold the blade in the bloody wound
The king is troubled by the queen's reply. Ambassadors will fear for their lives. The greater of his brothers will doubly disguise his action, two of them will die through anger, hatred and envy.
You think if Hodges started posting quatrains from Nostradamus anyone would notice? (or indeed care) I imagine the Telegraph would be quite pleased at this more mystical turn from him and his eager readers would lap it up and scry his words for Blairite meaning.
Watching the 1959 results. It seems odd that the people are cheering or booing so enthusiastically, as if they think the results actually matter, when the reality (to which they seem to be oblivious) is that most of them are long since dead.
Watching the 1959 results. It seems odd that the people are cheering or booing so enthusiastically, as if they think the results actually matter, when the reality (to which they seem to be oblivious) is that most of them are long since dead.
I am not sure that they were dead at the time, which may have positively impacted on their view of events.
Watching the 1959 results. It seems odd that the people are cheering or booing so enthusiastically, as if they think the results actually matter, when the reality (to which they seem to be oblivious) is that most of them are long since dead.
I am not sure that they were dead at the time, which may have positively impacted on their view of events.
It is such an insular, narrow-minded attitude which is so bamboozling and kerfufflious to the consciousness.
Talking of the Telegraph, I always get some amusement that when one searches for it through google the first entry is usually Daily Telegraph Obituaries. It explains some of the comments you find below the line on the site.
Hodges has long since become a characature of himself. The days when anyone in the Labour party would take his views even half seriously have long passed and he is in danger of losing his tory readership through sheer repetition and hyperbole.
Each month he feels the need to crank it up one more step. I dread to think what Ed will be getting accused of next month. He really needs to take a break.
Another YouGov showing UKIP at the lower end of its recent polls with no impact on the overall lead. The Conservative belief that they're Tories on holiday was, I think, largely fool's gold, as was the Labour belief that they only hurt Tories, though they do seem to hurt Tories a bit more. Basically they started as a Tory revolt but now draw somethine from everyone and even more from past non-voters. They are still doing jolly well and could yet break through with a good by-election, but I'm starting to feel that it won't decisively affect the GE outcome whether they do well or not.
Dan Hodges lol - he seems bent on parodying himself.
In his latest commentary, addressed to the Conservatives he says, "I simply want to draw your attention to the fact that, despite all the things that vex you, Cameron remains your party’s greatest electoral asset.
Yes, Labour holds a steady 8-9% lead, enough to secure an overall majority. But the striking thing is how small this is, not how large. In past parliaments, governing parties have often lagged 20 points or more behind at this stage. They have invariably gained ground as the election drew near. Of course nobody can guarantee that the same thing will happen between now and 2015. Maybe, what with the dynamics of coalition politics and the recent surge of UKIP, this time will be different. On the other hand, if the Tories remain within touching distance of Labour after three years of falling living standards, it should be able to win back quite a few votes if, as now seems likely, the story of the next two years is of steady, if unspectacular, economic growth.
When we ask people to choose between the main leaders, rather than the parties, the Cameron advantage starts to become clear. YouGov regularly asks people who would make the best Prime Minister. Our latest figures are: David Cameron 32%, Ed Miliband 21%, Nick Clegg 5%. A further 41% say ‘none of them’. A nine-point voting-intention deficit converts to an 11-point leader advantage......
However, the main effect of Miliband’s unpopularity is to swell the ranks of the ‘don’t knows’ when people are asked who would make the best prime minister....
Among Conservative voters, by the way, Cameron is extremely popular: 85% think he is doing well. The figure for Miliband among Labour voters is much lower: 57%.
That said, only 18% of UKIP voters think Cameron is doing well; and the Tories must win many of these people back if the party is to win the next general election. The hard-headed question is whether replacing Cameron would improve the Tories’ prospects.......
YouGov’s latest figures show that just 10% of the public think the Conservatives are united; 73% regard them as divided. These are terrible numbers. They help to explain why the party lags behind its leader in public affection. To heighten that reputation further with an open battle to depose Cameron would risk doing the party far more harm than good.
The best way for the Tories to overturn Labour’s modest lead would be to show that they have overcome their internal divisions. This means rallying behind Cameron, not replacing him......
Every democracy needs people like them with their glorious stubbornness and their refusal to sacrifice their dreams of tomorrow to the compromises of today. Thank goodness they exist.
However, those anti-Cameron Tories need to realise that their principles have a price. To divide their party, dispose of its greatest electoral asset and drive it further to the Right will not win them victory in 2015. Instead it will guarantee their party’s defeat. "
Journalists complaining about cost saving at the Lough Erne G8 Summit, yearn for the profligacy of the Blair-Brown era:
This summit is being run on a tighter budget than Gleneagles. Journalists were charged 150 pounds each to attend. In 2005, each received a goody bag containing a 750ml (25 fluid ounce) bottle of Scotch whisky. This time the bottle of whisky is 50ml.
Where is Alanbrooke when the hospitality of his homeland is being called into question?
Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph front page: Quitting EU would 'wreck the economy' #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/3Hib0SulTk
Swivel eyed loons said the same thing
It's hard to keep up I know, but Ken Clarke didn't call the kippers "swivel eyed loons", Clarke said Farage and the kipper politicians were "clowns" and that those attracted to UKIP are "waifs and strays" who are simply "against" foreigners and immigrants.
Whereas while Cammie preferred to call kippers "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" it was tory activists who were branded "swivel-eyed loons".
Not to be confused with Michael Howard who merely thought UKIP were "cranks, gadflies and extremists".
And as we have already ascertained it was Theresa May who famously came up with the tories as the "nasty party", for reasons that pass understanding.
It is worth repeating that this 'knocking copy' has worked with a significant proportion of the electorate, so far. This does not apply to older men who are unhappy with the direction our political masters are taking us, nor to the wwc who are used to being sneered at.
The sum of this 'knocking' has made the aspirational middle class uncomfortable with the idea of voting UKIP. We struggle to assuage their doubts.
UKIP's success is still dependent on how effectively we can persuade our wwc supporters to actually vote.
Comments
So they were just savouring him as a piece of performance art, rather than applauding his actual views? Fair enough-ski.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJrWFoq2GIQ
And who would Monica like to be the cat?
"There were promises that Miliband would seize the agenda, catch the public mood, drag the political centre to the Left. Instead, he squandered the gift that was the Tory annus horribilis of 2012, handed the mantle of opposition leader to Nigel Farage, and watched impotently as the public mood shifted decisively to the Right. It is time to face facts: Miliband is not coming good. There will be no Clause Four moment.
And yet, two weeks ago, I thought I was witnessing one. There was a flurry of dramatic announcements, including a pledge to match Tory spending limits, a welfare cap and the dropping of Labour’s long-standing commitment to universality in the benefits system. Yesterday saw another major intervention, as the party pledged to extend academy independence to other state schools.
But then I realised that, amid all the excitement, something was missing: the leader of the Labour Party. Ed Balls was deployed on spending and universality, Stephen Twigg, the shadow education secretary, on education. Various shadowy “Labour sources” trailed the policy shifts on child benefit and the welfare cap. Miliband himself appeared once – to announce that the cap on welfare would not actually involve a reduction in anyone’s benefits – then disappeared again
For Labour, the policy changes we have seen over the past few weeks mark a significant political advance. But for Miliband, they represent a comprehensive retreat. Everything of significance he has done or said since becoming leader has been shown to be wrong. He told the shadow cabinet in December that the Tories had made a major strategic blunder on welfare, and he intended to fight it. Then came the Mick Philpott affair, the ensuing public backlash, and Miliband found himself utterly routed on the issue. The white flag of surrender, in the form of Labour’s own welfare cap, was duly hoisted.
The Labour leader had also claimed that the public mood had shifted decisively against austerity, and the Coalition’s deficit reduction strategy. Yet despite the worst economic slump for over a century, the Conservatives continued to out-poll Labour on economic competence. Once again, the white flag had to be raised, this time in the form of a commitment to stick to Tory spending limits.
In one of his first decisions after taking the top job, Miliband announced he would oppose Government cuts to child benefit. Asked if millionaires should still receive the payment, he claimed: “I’m in favour of that, yes, and I’m in favour of it because it’s a cornerstone of our system to have universal benefits.” Then, the predicted middle-class backlash against the cut failed to materialise – up went the white flag for a third time.
If Miliband was smart, he would have spent the past fortnight making a virtue out of necessity. He would have taken clear ownership of these significant U-turns, signalled a major change of direction for his party and framed the whole thing as a bold rebranding of Labour in the run-up to 2015. But he is not smart, so he did none of those things. He attempted to minimise his personal exposure, by allowing others to take the lead on the announcements. He tried to downplay their significance. Worst of all, he tried to give an impression to his own party that he was reluctantly acceding to this change of stance, and that his instincts lay in a different ideological direction."
I was with you all the way until 'Dan Hodges'.
What others? The detractors of your hero Galloway?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io_puqxc_Ks
This was Dan Hodges:-
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/09/21/david-miliband-has-won-says-dan-hodges/
David Miliband has won, says Dan Hodges.
"There are three main reasons why David Miliband won. The first was Ed’s willingness so readily to trade electability for perceived ideological purity. The party’s loyalty has been sorely tested in the years since dawn broke over Festival Hall. But never again will we view power as an optional extra.
The second was David Miliband’s political courage. He was slow to respond to attempts to define him as Blair’s successor, and the sheer audacity of his brother’s turn left surprised him. But he never departed significantly from his core strategy, nor joined in a scorched earth assault on the party’s past. Time will grant Gordon Brown the political rehabilitation he deserves. But the price we paid for unpopular and indecisive leadership will not be forgotten.
The third reason lies in the resilience and vision of the party itself. The defeat hit hard. We should have had time to regroup and lick our wounds before launching into a leadership contest. But, in the end, we saw beyond the impact on ourselves; our guilt, envy, hatred, love, fear, hope. We looked outward. And saw that the flags of the old guard could simply be lowered. There was no need to tear them down. The Blairite and Brownite camps were now deserted. Their few remaining followers dispersed. Change could be embraced. It did not need to be enforced.
This Saturday, David Miliband will be elected. It will not mean that we are on the path back to power. Nor that we have fully come to terms with our election defeat. But we will have a new leader. And the right one. For the moment, that is enough
It's hard to keep up I know, but Ken Clarke didn't call the kippers "swivel eyed loons", Clarke said Farage and the kipper politicians were "clowns" and that those attracted to UKIP are "waifs and strays" who are simply "against" foreigners and immigrants.
Whereas while Cammie preferred to call kippers "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" it was tory activists who were branded "swivel-eyed loons".
Not to be confused with Michael Howard who merely thought UKIP were "cranks, gadflies and extremists".
And as we have already ascertained it was Theresa May who famously came up with the tories as the "nasty party", for reasons that pass understanding.
And we should remember the reaction when the exit poll showing that the Libdems had lost seats was announced at 10pm as the polls closed at the last GE.
Dan Hodges noted two points in that article that still resonate today.
"The first was Ed’s willingness so readily to trade electability for perceived ideological purity."
"This Saturday, David Miliband will be elected. It will not mean that we are on the path back to power. Nor that we have fully come to terms with our election defeat. But we will have a new leader. And the right one. For the moment, that is enough"
The Labour party voted for David Miliband, the most powerful Unions back Ed Miliband, neither represent the UK electorate. And under the Labour party voting system, it was still a very close run thing. David Cameron's election as Conservative Leader was a far more straight forward and clear cut victory. Like Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband never not got that kind of decisive mandate, and it shows today in the way he is running his Leadership operation. And this is despite the changes in the Labour party rules that allowed him to take more control of the content of the Shadow Cabinet in Opposition.
You are on another planet. Ed Miliband has never traded electability for ideological purity. Where are there any examples of his ideologically pure stands?
Never in the field of political commentary has an ultra-Blairite caused so much laughter to so many with so few words of wisdom.
The moon is obscured in deep gloom,
his brother becomes bright red in colour.
The great one hidden for a long time in the shadows
will hold the blade in the bloody wound
85
The king is troubled by the queen's reply.
Ambassadors will fear for their lives.
The greater of his brothers will doubly disguise his action,
two of them will die through anger, hatred and envy.
Little Ed is doomed indeed
You think if Hodges started posting quatrains from Nostradamus anyone would notice? (or indeed care) I imagine the Telegraph would be quite pleased at this more mystical turn from him and his eager readers would lap it up and scry his words for Blairite meaning.
"finally some common sense from the Telegraph!"
http://oi41.tinypic.com/r6zqu1.jpg
Hodges has long since become a characature of himself. The days when anyone in the Labour party would take his views even half seriously have long passed and he is in danger of losing his tory readership through sheer repetition and hyperbole.
Each month he feels the need to crank it up one more step. I dread to think what Ed will be getting accused of next month. He really needs to take a break.
That must mead rEd is a great leader with great policies and is nailed on for the GE then.
Not one leftie poster has tried to take on the Hodges argument - just played the man.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), Hodges' piece of paper does seem to have the same message always written on it. On the other hand, at least it isn't blank.
Dan Hodges lol - he seems bent on parodying himself.
Londoners are at risk from exploding pavements:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22934155
WE ARE CURRENTLY NO LONGER ACCEPTING ANY COMMENTS , DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY , RE TONY BLAIR AND WENDY DENG
THANK YOU
In his latest commentary, addressed to the Conservatives he says, "I simply want to draw your attention to the fact that, despite all the things that vex you, Cameron remains your party’s greatest electoral asset.
Yes, Labour holds a steady 8-9% lead, enough to secure an overall majority. But the striking thing is how small this is, not how large. In past parliaments, governing parties have often lagged 20 points or more behind at this stage. They have invariably gained ground as the election drew near. Of course nobody can guarantee that the same thing will happen between now and 2015. Maybe, what with the dynamics of coalition politics and the recent surge of UKIP, this time will be different. On the other hand, if the Tories remain within touching distance of Labour after three years of falling living standards, it should be able to win back quite a few votes if, as now seems likely, the story of the next two years is of steady, if unspectacular, economic growth.
When we ask people to choose between the main leaders, rather than the parties, the Cameron advantage starts to become clear. YouGov regularly asks people who would make the best Prime Minister. Our latest figures are: David Cameron 32%, Ed Miliband 21%, Nick Clegg 5%. A further 41% say ‘none of them’. A nine-point voting-intention deficit converts to an 11-point leader advantage......
However, the main effect of Miliband’s unpopularity is to swell the ranks of the ‘don’t knows’ when people are asked who would make the best prime minister....
Among Conservative voters, by the way, Cameron is extremely popular: 85% think he is doing well. The figure for Miliband among Labour voters is much lower: 57%.
That said, only 18% of UKIP voters think Cameron is doing well; and the Tories must win many of these people back if the party is to win the next general election. The hard-headed question is whether replacing Cameron would improve the Tories’ prospects.......
YouGov’s latest figures show that just 10% of the public think the Conservatives are united; 73% regard them as divided. These are terrible numbers. They help to explain why the party lags behind its leader in public affection. To heighten that reputation further with an open battle to depose Cameron would risk doing the party far more harm than good.
The best way for the Tories to overturn Labour’s modest lead would be to show that they have overcome their internal divisions. This means rallying behind Cameron, not replacing him......
Every democracy needs people like them with their glorious stubbornness and their refusal to sacrifice their dreams of tomorrow to the compromises of today. Thank goodness they exist.
However, those anti-Cameron Tories need to realise that their principles have a price. To divide their party, dispose of its greatest electoral asset and drive it further to the Right will not win them victory in 2015. Instead it will guarantee their party’s defeat. "
This summit is being run on a tighter budget than Gleneagles. Journalists were charged 150 pounds each to attend. In 2005, each received a goody bag containing a 750ml (25 fluid ounce) bottle of Scotch whisky. This time the bottle of whisky is 50ml.
Where is Alanbrooke when the hospitality of his homeland is being called into question?
I see the night cafe is open for breakfast now - excellent news.
Completely off-topic, it's the first day of Ascot and a few selections from the stable of Stodge:
2.30 ELUSIVE KATE (e/w)
3.05 KINGSGATE NATIVE (e/w)
3.45 MAGICIAN
4.25 WAHAAB (e/w)
Betting PostBacked Nieminen to beat Lopez in the AEGON International at 2.54. He's got a 6:2 head-to-head lead, including the last match on grass.
Whereas while Cammie preferred to call kippers "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" it was tory activists who were branded "swivel-eyed loons".
Not to be confused with Michael Howard who merely thought UKIP were "cranks, gadflies and extremists".
And as we have already ascertained it was Theresa May who famously came up with the tories as the "nasty party", for reasons that pass understanding.
It is worth repeating that this 'knocking copy' has worked with a significant proportion of the electorate, so far. This does not apply to older men who are unhappy with the direction our political masters are taking us, nor to the wwc who are used to being sneered at.
The sum of this 'knocking' has made the aspirational middle class uncomfortable with the idea of voting UKIP. We struggle to assuage their doubts.
UKIP's success is still dependent on how effectively we can persuade our wwc supporters to actually vote.