Missing the bit about Cameron's Dad hating Britain and everything it stands for. Can you point it out?
Probably because Cameron Senior didn't hate Britain and everything it stood for? Whereas Adolphe "Ralph" Miliband was a racist who hated the English - by his own admission - and "almost" wanted us to lose the war TO THE NAZIS because he hated us so much, despite being a migrant here. Oh yes, and he was a Marxist, too, and he wanted to destroy all the major British institutions.
But all that is apparently "off-limits", whereas the financial arrangements of Cameron's stockbroker father are highly important and totally fair game.
Like I said, repulsive Lefty hypocrisy. But we expect nothing less, of course.
Not only that, he wanted us to lose the war TO THE NAZIS, and was Jewish.
Yes: the Guardian piece is wrong. It would not have been newsworthy had it been about Mr Thomas, Senior, and therefore crossed a line.
However, I would like you to put the two pieces - the Mail and the Guardian one - side-by-side for a moment. Cast aside your natural tendency to flail and attack anyone around you for a second, and actually read the two pieces at the same time.
I'll wait while you do it, if you want.
OK, now tell me that the Mail piece was anything more than a pretty nasty hatchet job, based on a few comments made by a 17 year old.
TBH that the LSE Ralph Miliband Lecture was delivered by one of the Gaddafi regime doesn't help either.
I think that says more about the LSE than about Ralph Miliband. After all, Miliband Senior died in 1994, and the lecture was in 2010.
I've read both. I don't particularly admire either.
However if forced to choose, the Mail's is more important and more jusified as it tells us something about Ed Miliband's personal ideology, as it provides evidence he shares some of it with his father.
Yes: the Guardian piece is wrong. It would not have been newsworthy had it been about Mr Thomas, Senior, and therefore crossed a line.
However, I would like you to put the two pieces - the Mail and the Guardian one - side-by-side for a moment. Cast aside your natural tendency to flail and attack anyone around you for a second, and actually read the two pieces at the same time.
I'll wait while you do it, if you want.
OK, now tell me that the Mail piece was anything more than a pretty nasty hatchet job, based on a few comments made by a 17 year old.
TBH that the LSE Ralph Miliband Lecture was delivered by one of the Gaddafi regime doesn't help either.
I think that says more about the LSE than about Ralph Miliband. After all, Miliband Senior died in 1994, and the lecture was in 2010.
I heard a rumour that a friend's sister's dog dug up a note written by the 5-year old Ralph clearly showing that even then he was mapping out a lecture series in which he would plan to invite members of oppressive regimes to speak long after his death. Evil, calculating, and even worse, clearly a bit precocious and nerdy.
Missing the bit about Cameron's Dad hating Britain and everything it stands for. Can you point it out?
Probably because Cameron Senior didn't hate Britain and everything it stood for? Whereas Adolphe "Ralph" Miliband was a racist who hated the English - by his own admission - and "almost" wanted us to lose the war TO THE NAZIS because he hated us so much, despite being a migrant here. Oh yes, and he was a Marxist, too, and he wanted to destroy all the major British institutions.
But all that is apparently "off-limits", whereas the financial arrangements of Cameron's stockbroker father are highly important and totally fair game.
Like I said, repulsive Lefty hypocrisy. But we expect nothing less, of course.
Yes, he hated the English so much he risked his life alongside them, lived with them and raised his family here. Your hatred of the English blinds you to that. But. I am interested in this notion of having our whole lives judged by things we do at 17. What were you doing at around that age?
Yes: the Guardian piece is wrong. It would not have been newsworthy had it been about Mr Thomas, Senior, and therefore crossed a line.
However, I would like you to put the two pieces - the Mail and the Guardian one - side-by-side for a moment. Cast aside your natural tendency to flail and attack anyone around you for a second, and actually read the two pieces at the same time.
I'll wait while you do it, if you want.
OK, now tell me that the Mail piece was anything more than a pretty nasty hatchet job, based on a few comments made by a 17 year old.
I've read both. I don't particularly admire either.
However if forced to choose, the Mail's is more important and more jusified as it tells us something about Ed Miliband's personal ideology, as it provides evidence he shares some of it with his father.
The Guardian's IS just a hatchet job.
Are your diaries from your teens available? Would you like your daughter to be judged on the contents of said diaries?
I'm with SeanT on this. If someone goes into politics, especially to be next PM (which in Red Ed's case will never happen), then they should expect scrutiny. Since Red Ed has lurched his party back to Michael Foot type 70's socialism, and his Marxist roots are showing, we have every right to know more.
Ashcroft is right though: this could hardly have played into the Conservatives' hands better. When was the last time a socialist managed to get elected PM in Britain? Answers on a postcard. Assuming you don't count Brown, and Callaghan for all his faults wasn't that far left, it has been a long time.
I'm with SeanT on this. If someone goes into politics, especially to be next PM (which in Red Ed's case will never happen), then they should expect scrutiny. Since Red Ed has lurched his party back to Michael Foot type 70's socialism, and his Marxist roots are showing, we have every right to know more.
Ashcroft is right though: this could hardly have played into the Conservatives' hands better. When was the last time a socialist managed to get elected PM in Britain? Answers on a postcard. Assuming you don't count Brown, and Callaghan for all his faults wasn't that far left, it has been a long time.
I think most of us are capable of knowing that Ed is a nutjob, without knowing what his father - while still a teenager - wrote in his diary.
I've read both. I don't particularly admire either.
However if forced to choose, the Mail's is more important and more jusified as it tells us something about Ed Miliband's personal ideology, as it provides evidence he shares some of it with his father.
The Guardian's IS just a hatchet job.
I imagine a nerve has been struck. The Mail has put together a hatchet job on his father, based around a lie, in order to attack him. The good news for Ed is that in doing this now the Mail's future attacks on him lose potency. There's no need to engage further. And the attack is so vile it will not be picked up and run with by others. So job done.
I have no intention of entering this sordid little frenzy but can anyone explain why the Mail might write their 'story' at this time and point... why it might cause such a reaction ....
I just can't understand what might have triggered them to do so..... it's not like ed hasn't been around for years and years.
what could it be in recent days which meant they thought it might be relevant to anything or of interest to anyone now?
The more I think of the issue its something that the Conservatives should take up.
Thatcher was big on a share owning democracy and breaking up oligarchic cartels so it would be a much needed way for the present Conservative leadership to show that they were on the side of the average person rather than the rich.
Just as a taster, ar, and to reassure you that I don't always take the side of corporatist robber barons, here are some research findings to contemplate:
£1 invested in June 1999 in the decile portfolio consisted of the lowest incentive pay firms would have produced a cumulative return of 321% by December 2010. The same £1 invested in the portfolio consisted of the highest incentive pay firms would have return returned 82%, which only marginally beats the 50% cumulative return of FTSE All Share Index.
Executive pay is a subject being look at very closely by academics, politicians and investors. And there is a culture change underway. But a major roadblock has been encountered.
The general assumption has been that cash rewards were wrong and that deferred bonuses in the form of share options were better incentives. The problem is that this assumption has been undermined by research and academic analysis. It appears that the relationship between deferred equity incentives and company performance is inverse.
Unsurprisingly there are many competing factors and counter-arguments but there is currently little consensus on this issue.
Note: Quote from "CEO Compensation and Future Shareholder Returns: Evidence from London Stock Exchange"; Nick Balafas and Chris Florackis; University of Liverpool (UK)
One problem which giving remuneration in the form of share options creates is that it leads to the executives concentrating on the management of the share price, with a constant stream of manipulations, announcements and takeovers, rather than management of the business.
This IIRC was what lay behind the Marconi disaster.
In fairness to the Mail - Ralph Milliband was to any fair-minded person, a nasty piece of work eg. implicit support on ideological grounds for the Khmer Rouge. - Ed Milliband has associated himself with his father - eg. supporting "Milliband Foundation"
Yes: the Guardian piece is wrong. It would not have been newsworthy had it been about Mr Thomas, Senior, and therefore crossed a line.
However, I would like you to put the two pieces - the Mail and the Guardian one - side-by-side for a moment. Cast aside your natural tendency to flail and attack anyone around you for a second, and actually read the two pieces at the same time.
I'll wait while you do it, if you want.
OK, now tell me that the Mail piece was anything more than a pretty nasty hatchet job, based on a few comments made by a 17 year old.
I've read both. I don't particularly admire either.
However if forced to choose, the Mail's is more important and more jusified as it tells us something about Ed Miliband's personal ideology, as it provides evidence he shares some of it with his father.
The Guardian's IS just a hatchet job.
Wouldn't a more accurate version be to say that it provides [possible] evidence that Ed Miliband shares an element of an ideology that you don't like with his father, and therefore it's acceptable? I don't much like the ideology that leads people to engage in offshore tax avoidance, which is legal, rather like holding Marxist views, and could reasonably argue that the Guardian story is acceptable because it shows something about Cameron's personal ideology &c &c. Tbh I think that the factual content of both *is* fair game for those reasons.
The tone, on the other hand... as SO has alluded, it would be easier to see the articles as equivalent if the Guardian led with a headline like "Offshore tax revelations about PM's father PROVE Cameron brought up to hate poor people and avoid paying fair share of tax".
Missing the bit about Cameron's Dad hating Britain and everything it stands for. Can you point it out?
Probably because Cameron Senior didn't hate Britain and everything it stood for? Whereas Adolphe "Ralph" Miliband was a racist who hated the English - by his own admission - and "almost" wanted us to lose the war TO THE NAZIS because he hated us so much, despite being a migrant here. Oh yes, and he was a Marxist, too, and he wanted to destroy all the major British institutions.
But all that is apparently "off-limits", whereas the financial arrangements of Cameron's stockbroker father are highly important and totally fair game.
Like I said, repulsive Lefty hypocrisy. But we expect nothing less, of course.
Jeez calm down.
He was 17 and, as I remember it from the quotes I've seen, in a fit of anger said something like - "ha - if only the Brits lost, that'd teach them".
He was 17. If he had written "I hate my parents" in a poem, would you charge him with incitement to patricide?
And then, because he was evidently more sensible and had written what he wrote in a fit of exasperation, he went off to join HMF and fought against the Nazis for three years.
I'm with SeanT on this. If someone goes into politics, especially to be next PM (which in Red Ed's case will never happen), then they should expect scrutiny. Since Red Ed has lurched his party back to Michael Foot type 70's socialism, and his Marxist roots are showing, we have every right to know more.
Ashcroft is right though: this could hardly have played into the Conservatives' hands better. When was the last time a socialist managed to get elected PM in Britain? Answers on a postcard. Assuming you don't count Brown, and Callaghan for all his faults wasn't that far left, it has been a long time.
I think most of us are capable of knowing that Ed is a nutjob, without knowing what his father - while still a teenager - wrote in his diary.
Yes but if this article, and the person behind it, gave Red Ed an enduring motivation then I think there's a serious point to be made here. The article argues that Red Ed was inspired, and is obsessed, about continuing his father's legacy in marked contrast to his brother. Indeed, it suggests this may have propelled Ed to stand against David. This is all fair game.
As the Mail said, we should all be rather worried.
Missing the bit about Cameron's Dad hating Britain and everything it stands for. Can you point it out?
Probably because Cameron Senior didn't hate Britain and everything it stood for? Whereas Adolphe "Ralph" Miliband was a racist who hated the English - by his own admission - and "almost" wanted us to lose the war TO THE NAZIS because he hated us so much, despite being a migrant here. Oh yes, and he was a Marxist, too, and he wanted to destroy all the major British institutions.
But all that is apparently "off-limits", whereas the financial arrangements of Cameron's stockbroker father are highly important and totally fair game.
Like I said, repulsive Lefty hypocrisy. But we expect nothing less, of course.
Yes, he hated the English so much he risked his life alongside them, lived with them and raised his family here. Your hatred of the English blinds you to that. But. I am interested in this notion of having our whole lives judged by things we do at 17. What were you doing at around that age?
I'll be sure to let you know when I am planning on becoming prime minister. Until then, you can have a wild stab in the dark.
What applies to one 17 year old applies to all of them. You are judging a dead man on something he wrote at 17; I can only assume you are also happy for posterity to judge you by your actions at a similar age. What your children do or don't go on to do is irrelevant. As is what you do with the rest of your life. And your hatred of Britain, England and all our institutions is made clear by what you did then. Indeed, you still celebrate it. And you plan to monetise your utter contempt for our laws, way of life and institutions. Sickening.
Those defending the Daily Mail on here today are the same sort of people whose parents would have defended the Daily Mail in the 1930's when it supported Hitler and the Nazis
Those defending the Daily Mail on here today are the same sort of people whose parents would have defended the Daily Mail in the 1930's when it supported Hitler and the Nazis
Got out of the wrong side of the bed again this morning Mark?
OK, now tell me that the Mail piece was anything more than a pretty nasty hatchet job, based on a few comments made by a 17 year old.
I've read both. I don't particularly admire either.
However if forced to choose, the Mail's is more important and more jusified as it tells us something about Ed Miliband's personal ideology, as it provides evidence he shares some of it with his father.
The Guardian's IS just a hatchet job.
The tone, on the other hand... as SO has alluded, it would be easier to see the articles as equivalent if the Guardian led with a headline like "Offshore tax revelations about PM's father PROVE Cameron brought up to hate poor people and avoid paying fair share of tax".
Tax evasion may be unpleasant, but it is hardly a mortal threat to the country's survival.
Ralph Miliband was an avowed Moscow-siding Marxist when the west was engaged in an existential war with Soviet Communism.
The fact you cannot see the REAL moral difference says it all.
Well, it says that you and I clearly aren't going to find many points of agreement about the existential threat to western society posed by elements of the current economic paradigm being relentlessly pursued by various elites. But then I'd also be surprised if we defined morality identically, if only because you refer to REAL moral differences as if to suggest that you enjoy privileged access to metaphysical truths that strike me as a little less knowable. Still, I'm sure we can both tolerate differences of opinion like grown-ups, right?
Those defending the Daily Mail on here today are the same sort of people whose parents would have defended the Daily Mail in the 1930's when it supported Hitler and the Nazis
OMG. I'm going to treasure this comment for ever. Are you actually having a brain haemorrhage as you write?
No. But having applied the SeanT test I am only just beginning to understand your depth of loathing for England and the English. It is horrifying. And then I need to work through what Dave's trip to apartheid South Africa tells us about his views on race. This judging whole lives by what people do in their youth thing is fascinating.
Those defending the Daily Mail on here today are the same sort of people whose parents would have defended the Daily Mail in the 1930's when it supported Hitler and the Nazis
Or like Ralph Miliband who supported Soviet Russia when they were murdering millions as well?
Wow, is producing gigapixels of outrage over what a teenager said or wrote a particularly English thing? Thank God Miliband Sr didn't say he'd be supporting any football team but England, or Ed would be dead in the water.
Those defending the Daily Mail on here today are the same sort of people whose parents would have defended the Daily Mail in the 1930's when it supported Hitler and the Nazis
Or like Ralph Miliband who supported Soviet Russia when they were murdering millions as well?
OMG. I'm going to treasure this comment for ever. Are you actually having a brain haemorrhage as you write?
No. But having applied the SeanT test I am only just beginning to understand your depth of loathing for England and the English. It is horrifying. And then I need to work through what Dave's trip to apartheid South Africa tells us about his views on race. This judging whole lives by what people do in their youth thing is fascinating.
Nah, it's bollocks. I was an optimistic altruist and all around lovely person when I was 17, and look at me now.
He doesn't know the price of milk because he has a milkmaid.
I'm not sure of the price of milk or bread, and I do all the shopping. I also regularly bake bread (I can recommend a mix of half wholemeal, half bread flour, with a shredded olives in).
The idea that knowing these figures to the nearest penny somehow means you 'understand' poor people is laughable. It's another farcical attack line.
Those defending the Daily Mail on here today are the same sort of people whose parents would have defended the Daily Mail in the 1930's when it supported Hitler and the Nazis
Or like Ralph Miliband who supported Soviet Russia when they were murdering millions as well?
Just like HM Government 1941-45 you mean?
Well we didn't have a choice at that point in time did we?
Apologists for Stalinism have a great deal to answer for. Perhaps some of them might read,a and reflect upon Martin Amis's Koba the Dread amongst other books.
He doesn't know the price of milk because he has a milkmaid.
I'm not sure of the price of milk or bread, and I do all the shopping. I also regularly bake bread (I can recommend a mix of half wholemeal, half bread flour, with a shredded olives in).
The idea that knowing these figures to the nearest penny somehow means you 'understand' poor people is laughable. It's another farcical attack line.
My local Lidl has recently installed a bakery, and I've been buying their Rye bread for £1.59 a loaf.
But I shop at the wrong German discount supermarket and have the wrong plumbing to be an "Aldi mum".
Those defending the Daily Mail on here today are the same sort of people whose parents would have defended the Daily Mail in the 1930's when it supported Hitler and the Nazis
Or like Ralph Miliband who supported Soviet Russia when they were murdering millions as well?
He doesn't know the price of milk because he has a milkmaid.
I'm not sure of the price of milk or bread, and I do all the shopping. I also regularly bake bread (I can recommend a mix of half wholemeal, half bread flour, with a shredded olives in).
The idea that knowing these figures to the nearest penny somehow means you 'understand' poor people is laughable. It's another farcical attack line.
The difference is he is affecting the amount of money the poorest people have so he should know what impact a change in the price of a loaf makes. Fact that you have enough money to not have to care does not affect any poor person.
OMG. I'm going to treasure this comment for ever. Are you actually having a brain haemorrhage as you write?
No. But having applied the SeanT test I am only just beginning to understand your depth of loathing for England and the English. It is horrifying. And then I need to work through what Dave's trip to apartheid South Africa tells us about his views on race. This judging whole lives by what people do in their youth thing is fascinating.
Nah, it's bollocks. I was an optimistic altruist and all around lovely person when I was 17, and look at me now.
I'm not so sure. Spurs still make me miserable and I still like The Jam. The contempt I showed for British society by drinking underage in the pub has gone though. That said, I may not always stick to the speed limit, so perhaps there is an enduring loathing there.
He doesn't know the price of milk because he has a milkmaid.
I'm not sure of the price of milk or bread, and I do all the shopping. I also regularly bake bread (I can recommend a mix of half wholemeal, half bread flour, with a shredded olives in).
The idea that knowing these figures to the nearest penny somehow means you 'understand' poor people is laughable. It's another farcical attack line.
The difference is he is affecting the amount of money the poorest people have so he should know what impact a change in the price of a loaf makes. Fact that you have enough money to not have to care does not affect any poor person.
Why just bread and milk? Why not other things that effect the poor, like: other foodstuffs, individual electricity tariffs, water rates, local transport costs, mobile phone bills, etc, etc. I think the fact he doesn't know these are a sign that he's EVIL and doesn't care for the poor.
Indeed, he should be an encyclopaedia of tractor stats.
I've read both. I don't particularly admire either.
However if forced to choose, the Mail's is more important and more jusified as it tells us something about Ed Miliband's personal ideology, as it provides evidence he shares some of it with his father.
The Guardian's IS just a hatchet job.
I imagine a nerve has been struck. The Mail has put together a hatchet job on his father, based around a lie, in order to attack him. The good news for Ed is that in doing this now the Mail's future attacks on him lose potency. There's no need to engage further. And the attack is so vile it will not be picked up and run with by others. So job done.
The Mail will return to this, again and again.
Miliband should have kept his mouth shut, and whined to Justine behind closed doors. Or his brother, if they remain on speaking terms. And it's hardly 'Statesman Like' to air this grievance in the open - it's not as if he isn't able to speak to the editor directly, unlike the average Joe.
After last weeks threats to grab privately owned land, it would hardly be a surprise if he called for those newspapers he considers 'Enemies of the Public' to be seized by a Labour controlled State.
Behold 'The Peoples Daily', of Kensington High Street. Dacre would be demoted to Lavatory Cleaner ,Class 1.
Has OGH backed his beloved Burnley for promotion to the Promised Land? Currently in second place after 8 games, they look to be good value at 7/1 with Laddies and others.
DYOR.
Is there a market on Derby being relegated?
Are you serious TSE? If you want to throw your money away Hills and others are offering odds of 16/1 against Derby being relegated.
Since you have such a negative view of Derby's prospects how would you like a £20 straight evens money bet that Derby finish in the bottom half, i.e. in the last 12 places of this season's Championship? You say they will, I say they will finish in the top half?
Comments
I'm with SeanT on this. If someone goes into politics, especially to be next PM (which in Red Ed's case will never happen), then they should expect scrutiny. Since Red Ed has lurched his party back to Michael Foot type 70's socialism, and his Marxist roots are showing, we have every right to know more.
Ashcroft is right though: this could hardly have played into the Conservatives' hands better. When was the last time a socialist managed to get elected PM in Britain? Answers on a postcard. Assuming you don't count Brown, and Callaghan for all his faults wasn't that far left, it has been a long time.
BNP MP sentenced to death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24344868
Now, I've grabbed your attention, the MP is a member of the Bangladesh National Party, so it probably isn't as newsworthy as y'all first thought.
I just can't understand what might have triggered them to do so..... it's not like ed hasn't been around for years and years.
what could it be in recent days which meant they thought it might be relevant to anything or of interest to anyone now?
Tricky.
This IIRC was what lay behind the Marconi disaster.
- Ralph Milliband was to any fair-minded person, a nasty piece of work
eg. implicit support on ideological grounds for the Khmer Rouge.
- Ed Milliband has associated himself with his father - eg. supporting "Milliband Foundation"
The tone, on the other hand... as SO has alluded, it would be easier to see the articles as equivalent if the Guardian led with a headline like "Offshore tax revelations about PM's father PROVE Cameron brought up to hate poor people and avoid paying fair share of tax".
He was 17 and, as I remember it from the quotes I've seen, in a fit of anger said something like - "ha - if only the Brits lost, that'd teach them".
He was 17. If he had written "I hate my parents" in a poem, would you charge him with incitement to patricide?
And then, because he was evidently more sensible and had written what he wrote in a fit of exasperation, he went off to join HMF and fought against the Nazis for three years.
Calm down.
As the Mail said, we should all be rather worried.
No. But having applied the SeanT test I am only just beginning to understand your depth of loathing for England and the English. It is horrifying. And then I need to work through what Dave's trip to apartheid South Africa tells us about his views on race. This judging whole lives by what people do in their youth thing is fascinating.
The idea that knowing these figures to the nearest penny somehow means you 'understand' poor people is laughable. It's another farcical attack line.
Sheesh...
But I shop at the wrong German discount supermarket and have the wrong plumbing to be an "Aldi mum".
За Родину! За Сталина!
http://www.great-victory1945.ru/za_rodinu_za_stalina.jpg
The difference is he is affecting the amount of money the poorest people have so he should know what impact a change in the price of a loaf makes.
Fact that you have enough money to not have to care does not affect any poor person.
Indeed, he should be an encyclopaedia of tractor stats.
Miliband should have kept his mouth shut, and whined to Justine behind closed doors. Or his brother, if they remain on speaking terms. And it's hardly 'Statesman Like' to air this grievance in the open - it's not as if he isn't able to speak to the editor directly, unlike the average Joe.
After last weeks threats to grab privately owned land, it would hardly be a surprise if he called for those newspapers he considers 'Enemies of the Public' to be seized by a Labour controlled State.
Behold 'The Peoples Daily', of Kensington High Street. Dacre would be demoted to Lavatory Cleaner ,Class 1.
Since you have such a negative view of Derby's prospects how would you like a £20 straight evens money bet that Derby finish in the bottom half, i.e. in the last 12 places of this season's Championship? You say they will, I say they will finish in the top half?