Shades of the Guardian's miscued "we'll tell you how to vote" fiasco during the US election. But the PB Tories think this will be bad for Ed. We'll f--king see...
Tyke again speaks sense for the Tory side at 12.03. One of the brightest Tories on here.
Not a tory,family were labour supporters years back,now I'm here to bring the light that labour should be punished for 13 years of misrule and should be out of office for at least another term. ;-)
It's a very strong cartoon. Not yer usual Marf, but much more in the heavier political tradition of Vicky and Lowe. I particularly like the stark black and white. The usual splash of color is absent, denoting I think a touch more anger than usual.
He wasn't a conscript, but an underage volunteer - as a non-british citizen - , at the same historical moment that Rothermere was sending his last letters to his 'dear Fuhrer'.
Interesting that some on the right are using this debate to talk about Israel and the classic line of 'divided loyalties', with its history on the far right. Ironically the Israeli govt actually fear Miliband, because he's got a record of making more outspoken attacks on Israeli policy than any other british political leader since the war. After one comment that was considered not sufficiently supportive a few years ago - according to Dan Hodges, of all people - the Israeli ambassador even went to speak to Miliband personally to express his concerns.
It was a complete one-off for me. I got the impression they put the toast to the queen in, because they wanted to toast the Israeli president...
Sort of a Norman Tebbit cricket test isn't it? If you don't think Indians or Pakistanis living in the UK should support England first at cricket then you cannnot be that put out that Jews put Israel ahead of the UK in wedding toasts
Shades of the Guardian's miscued "we'll tell you how to vote" fiasco during the US election. But the PB Tories think this will be bad for Ed. We'll f--king see...
Bobby calm down dear. You really shouldn't keep referring to PB Tories as a homogeneous mass. The fact that Cammo lent his support to Ed suggests he appreciates the danger of this backfiring. However as SeanT mentioned in the previous thread left of centre people like yourself don't seem to get so exercised when the boot is on the other foot (as it so often is)
So you are saying that Miliband is lying about his Dad. That's a big call and highly libellous if you cannot prove it.
I didn't say he was lying; I said that he HADN'T said his father was at Normandy. What he said was
"It was June 1944 and the Allies were landing in Normandy. A 20-year-old man, who had arrived in Britain as a refugee just four years earlier, was part of that fight."
Which has been turned, by the lefty tweeters etc., into "Miliband's father was a D-Day vet"
"part of that fight" implies he was on a boat involved in the landings, but could easily mean "he was in the navy, and the navy were a big part of D-Day, so he was part of it, even though he was actually in the North Sea/Med at the precise time".
If he was underage he would have needed his father's permission to join up. So much for the anti-British Milibands.
I think this whole Miliband row is unseemly and haven't even read the article. I think Cameron was right to say what he said about it and I hope the left refrain from any personal attacks about family backgrounds in the future (I hold my breath in hope)
I really dont know anything about Miliband Snr or his wartime activity and if he did volunteer he was certianly brave . He still could be doing it more for the hatred of Nazis (as he surely did hate them being Jewish) than for his love of Britain though
It was a complete one-off for me. I got the impression they put the toast to the queen in, because they wanted to toast the Israeli president...
Wherever Jews have been, historically, they have been at risk of persecution or expulsion, often both.
When they congregate they therefore toast the State of Israel as this symbolises the fact that there is now a Jewish homeland from which no one can expel them (albeit many have tried). They also toast, in this case, the Queen, out of gratitude for hosting them, aware that the privilege can be withdrawn at any moment (unlikely as it may seem today).
The miliband father story looks like it's backfiring big against the mail.
If other media outlets are talking about the Daily Mail, that means the Daily Mail is winning. Their business model is trolling, and they're world-beatingly good at it.
I can't help feeling that SeanT is incandescent with rage that while he's tossed off another piece of EU clickbait for the Telegraph, the Daily Mail has shown how provoking a furore is really done.
It was a complete one-off for me. I got the impression they put the toast to the queen in, because they wanted to toast the Israeli president...
Wherever Jews have been, historically, they have been at risk of persecution or expulsion, often both.
When they congregate they therefore toast the State of Israel as this symbolises the fact that there is now a Jewish homeland from which no one can expel them (albeit many have tried). They also toast, in this case, the Queen, out of gratitude for hosting them, aware that the privilege can be withdrawn at any moment (unlikely as it may seem today).
I didn’t know that – thanks for clearing up that matter, which on hearing makes perfect sense.
Shades of the Guardian's miscued "we'll tell you how to vote" fiasco during the US election. But the PB Tories think this will be bad for Ed. We'll f--king see...
Bobby calm down dear. You really shouldn't keep referring to PB Tories as a homogeneous mass. The fact that Cammo lent his support to Ed suggests he appreciates the danger of this backfiring. However as SeanT mentioned in the previous thread left of centre people like yourself don't seem to get so exercised when the boot is on the other foot (as it so often is)
I suspect Cameron is aware that backing Miliband against the nature of the Mail's hatchet piece may provide Cameron with some cover of his own against use of his background against him - at least from official Labour sources.
I can't help feeling that SeanT is incandescent with rage that while he's tossed off another piece of EU clickbait for the Telegraph, the Daily Mail has shown how provoking a furore is really done.
Think how the Times must feel. Hardly anybody's talking about their attempt to troll UKIPpers with the Hitler moustache thing at all.
Reading all this stuff about what Milliband Senior did or didn't do, a thought struck me. Is Paul Dacre the most unpleasant person in British public life?
Whilst I am no fan of Paul Dacre, were it not for him (and others), the murderers of Stephen Lawrence would still be walking the streets.
Point taken, but wasn't that because Dacre realised the nice man painting his house was Lawrence Senior? And decided to look into things further?
The miliband father story looks like it's backfiring big against the mail.
If other media outlets are talking about the Daily Mail, that means the Daily Mail is winning. Their business model is trolling, and they're world-beatingly good at it.
"My dad was in the Royal Navy for D-Day. I will never forget him telling me that when he looked out from on deck on the morning of 6 June all he could see was ships, large and small, as far as the eye could see, covering the water."
Which does seem to move Ralph a little closer to the beaches...
Shades of the Guardian's miscued "we'll tell you how to vote" fiasco during the US election. But the PB Tories think this will be bad for Ed. We'll f--king see...
Bobby calm down dear. You really shouldn't keep referring to PB Tories as a homogeneous mass. The fact that Cammo lent his support to Ed suggests he appreciates the danger of this backfiring. However as SeanT mentioned in the previous thread left of centre people like yourself don't seem to get so exercised when the boot is on the other foot (as it so often is)
I suspect Cameron is aware that backing Miliband against the nature of the Mail's hatchet piece may provide Cameron with some cover of his own against use of his background against him - at least from official Labour sources.
In the continued absence of a "like" button I agree with you on that.
I think the problem with the 'arresting the terminal decline of European countries by all clubbing together' concept is that it is seems to be based on the idea that one addled old drunk lying in the gutter would be any less intoxicated and abhorrent if he were joined by 24 other addled old drunk all sharing the same bottle of Mad Dog 20:20
There are 28 members of the EU now - keep up.
Arresting the terminal decline of European countries is more likely by adopting policies that will produce more competitive economies and more dynamic populations than by clubbing together. In reality, the EU's generally been part of the problem in that respect, the the Eurocrisis may have finally knocked some sense into both the Club Med economies and the Commission in that respect.
However, in geopolitics, there are Powers Of The First Rank and Others. Britain, France, Italy, Germany and the rest are all currently Others. Some are fairly significant Others but none is a POTFR. For the last 20 years, there's only been one of those: the US. Soon there will be a second - China - and not long after, a third: India. The European states can choose either to swim in the eddies of these giants or to make their own waves.
I'm reminded of the comment of an Austrian prince to a Czech nationalist in the late 19th century, when he asked whether he'd give Bohemia to Germany or Russia, as those would be the only options were it 'liberated' from Austro-Hungary. It was highly prescient, though of course the Czechs didn't have the luxury of choosing: first Germany, then Russia (or the USSR) took it for themselves. As soon as they regained independence in 1989, one of the first foreign policy priorities of the country was to effectively throw itself back into the modern version of that from which it had escaped eight decades earlier.
One comment after the article with 8 'likes', so far. They are coming out of the woodwork.
Well at least Ed can rest easy knowing that the other part of his background, his ethnicity, and its connection to the radical Left, is absolutely and strictly off limits for discussion of any kind.
There is not one other group of people who enjoy this privilege, not one.
The trouble is the EU has gone way beyond that ,controlling huge amounts of money which are then funnlled out inefficiently and unfairly and possibly corruptly (when was the last time the accounts were signed off?). it also interferes too much in non trade law as to make every country the same . Surely the big advantage of having free movement of labour and people is that people can move to different systems and regimes if they so wish. Wahst the point of free movement when all countries have to be the same?
The trouble is once you have a bureaucracy - they have to have something to do. You see the same problem with our Civil Service. Not to mention the jobsworth idiots the local councils employ who come up stupid bylaws & other random wastes of money.
I can't help feeling that SeanT is incandescent with rage that while he's tossed off another piece of EU clickbait for the Telegraph, the Daily Mail has shown how provoking a furore is really done.
Think how the Times must feel. Hardly anybody's talking about their attempt to troll UKIPpers with the Hitler moustache thing at all.
I have seldom been this serene. Just finished writing a book which has been tormenting me for months, and now I gaze out onto the Libyan sea, like an Atlantic eel that has spawned, only with private fitness suite.
I also agree with you, antifrank, on the Mail. The Miliband piece was brilliantly judged as trollery and polemic. Just on the right side of actively offensive, but cleverly vicious nonetheless.
Hats off to Mr Levy. No tribal loyalty there, it seems.
As a rabid right winger Mr Levy has shown every loyalty to his tribe.
No-one could ever accuse Dan Hodges of being unpredictable, bless him.
He's doing very well out of being predictable, though.
True enough. He has a winning formula that works very well for the Telegraph demographic. He might have disclosed in his piece that he is also paid by the Mail and so has skin in the game, but I don't suppose we should expect that kind of disclosure from him.
One comment after the article with 8 'likes', so far. They are coming out of the woodwork.
Well at least Ed can rest easy knowing that the other part of his background, his ethnicity, and its connection to the radical Left, is absolutely and strictly off limits for discussion of any kind.
There is not one other group of people who enjoy this privilege, not one.
I can't help feeling that SeanT is incandescent with rage that while he's tossed off another piece of EU clickbait for the Telegraph, the Daily Mail has shown how provoking a furore is really done.
Think how the Times must feel. Hardly anybody's talking about their attempt to troll UKIPpers with the Hitler moustache thing at all.
I have seldom been this serene. Just finished writing a book which has been tormenting me for months, and now I gaze out onto the Libyan sea, like an Atlantic eel that has spawned, only with private fitness suite.
I also agree with you, antifrank, on the Mail. The Miliband piece was brilliantly judged as trollery and polemic. Just on the right side of actively offensive, but cleverly vicious nonetheless.
Hats off to Mr Levy. No tribal loyalty there, it seems.
As a rabid right winger Mr Levy has shown every loyalty to his tribe.
One comment after the article with 8 'likes', so far. They are coming out of the woodwork.
Well at least Ed can rest easy knowing that the other part of his background, his ethnicity, and its connection to the radical Left, is absolutely and strictly off limits for discussion of any kind.
There is not one other group of people who enjoy this privilege, not one.
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics Ladbrokes: It's 6/4 that Cameron says "Hard Working Families" during Conference speech. http://bit.ly/15Fk6Af #cpc13
Looks decent.
More like 1/2
Ah....good to know the Power Of PB can still move the markets, Richard!
No, I meant 1/2 is my estimate of the correct odds. It was still 6/4 a moment ago
Based on past performance I should steer well clear of the Buzzword bingo, but the 6/4 looks too generous - I'd price it at ~4/5. Is Shadsy on holiday?
Feel a little dirty for thinking it but I wonder if the fact that Ed Miliband is ethnically Jewish and getting more known for being due to the likes of this article will mean Respect do better in ceriain places than they would have done if Brown was still PM. That 3/1 on Respect winning in Bradford East is tempting. I believe Oona King lost a few votes due to perceived jewishness in Bethank Green and Bow
So you are saying that Miliband is lying about his Dad. That's a big call and highly libellous if you cannot prove it.
I didn't say he was lying; I said that he HADN'T said his father was at Normandy. What he said was
"It was June 1944 and the Allies were landing in Normandy. A 20-year-old man, who had arrived in Britain as a refugee just four years earlier, was part of that fight."
Which has been turned, by the lefty tweeters etc., into "Miliband's father was a D-Day vet"
"part of that fight" implies he was on a boat involved in the landings, but could easily mean "he was in the navy, and the navy were a big part of D-Day, so he was part of it, even though he was actually in the North Sea/Med at the precise time".
Still a load of bollocks and why anybody cares is beyond me, he is still just as crap as yesterday.
Does anyone know the intrinsic value of buzzword bingo? If you back (say) the top 10 to level stakes each time how much of a percentage return would you get?
More anti Miliband ammunition below from Foxoles as a comment to the Dan Hodges blog.
Sunday Times ran this a few years ago (now paywalled, I imagine)
'David Miliband’s family ‘lied’ to enter
THE family of David Miliband, the foreign secretary, was branded untrustworthy and misleading by Home Office and Foreign Office officials when it tried to migrate to Britain, documents to be released tomorrow will reveal.The foreign secretary will find his department thought that his father and grandfather played fast and loose with the truth and lied to immigration officers.
The government papers accuse Miliband’s late grandfather, Samuel, a Polish migrant, of exaggerating the antisemitism he faced in Belgium after the second world war in order to move to Britain. A hand-written Home Office report from March 8, 1949, doubts the Milibands’ honesty, stating: “Mili-band, father and son, have so misrepresented the case in the past, I am afraid we can place no reliance on their statements.”Samuel’s claim that he faced “Nazi” style antisemitism were dismissed as “very thin”.
His son Ralph (the foreign secretary’s father) was accused by the Home Office of making repeated “misrepresentations” to support Samuel’s application.The files also reveal that when embassy officials interviewed Samuel directly he admitted the claims of Nazi-style persecution were untrue and that he was not being expelled from Belgium.
The revelation of the way in which the foreign secretary’s forebears talked their way into Britain is particularly piquant given Labour’s record on migration. When David Miliband took up the post last year, he said immigration would remain a key issue. Since then, however, Labour has continued to preside over record levels of immigration despite concern among voters that the rate is too high.
The documents, obtained by The Sunday Times under a freedom of information request, reveal how a struggle over migration played a key part in the fortunes of the Miliband family.When the Germans overran Belgium in May 1940, Samuel and Ralph fled because they were Jews. They were given refuge in Britain. Ralph stayed and later became an influential Marxist academic and close friends with Tony Benn and other Labour grandees until his death in 1994.
Samuel returned to Belgium in 1946. Finding his business destroyed and refused a work permit, he tried to return to Britain. Between 1948 and 1954 he applied nine times to be made a British citizen or to have six-month visas extended.The documents, which include reports from Special Branch, show that immigration officials recorded Samuel had “misrepresented the case” when he claimed there was growing antisemitism in Belgium.They also cast doubt on his claims that he needed to visit his son Ralph in England because the young academic was suffering “nervous depression”.A letter sent on behalf of Ernest Bevin, then foreign secretary, in May 1948 stated: “Mr Miliband was interviewed by a representative of His Majesty’s embassy and stated there had never been any question of his expulsion from Belgium.“The suggestion the Belgian authorities are adopting a ‘Nazi’ or antisemitic policy . . . seems to be without foundation.”
After the war, hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were left homeless and stateless and millions of people were beginning to understand the enormity of the Holocaust. In 1948, however, Belgium was under the relatively liberal rule of Paul-Henri Spaak, the Socialist.
Martin Conway, a historian at Balliol College, Oxford, said there was almost no evidence of government or police persecution of Jews in Brussels after the war. “It could not be said they were forced out of Belgium because of antisemitism,” he said.Harold Laski, the eminent intellectual, came to the aid of the Milibands. In personal correspondence with James Chuter Ede, then home secretary, Laski asked him “as one socialist to another” to allow Samuel residency to show the world that the West was more compassionate than “the Russian way”. In the end Samuel’s application was successful.
Yesterday David Miliband and his brother Ed, the Cabinet Office minister, declined to comment. The Foreign Office said: “This is a personal matter for the foreign secretary.”
The documents have echoes of the position Michael Howard found himself in when he was Tory leader. While his party was opposed to mass immigration, Howard was forced to admit that his father had lied about his circumstances when he applied for British citizenship in 1947. '
That RedEd came out with a spirited defence of his father is only to be expected - his father was clearly THE seminal influence in his life.
The Mail's attack on his father was nasty and unnecessary.
I have a nasty thought, though, namely that RedEd sat and thought about the political implications of what (if anything) he was going to do in response to the Mail article, rather than acting as any normal son would have done in similar circumstances.
After all, he forgot to put his name to his son's birth certificate and got married only when it was politically essential to do so: he's a perfect example of a scheming piece of neo-Marxist low-life, as the way he became Labour leader long ago indicated.
It's why I agree with Jack W (amongst many) - he'll NEVER become PM, since he's completely unelectable, just like Foot, Kinnock, Brown, Hague and ID-S. Indeed, Cameron wasn't, either, in circumstances when a 'normal' Conservative leader** (cf 'posh toff' who claimed being 'heir to Blair' was a GOOD thing to be (ye gods, just how dumb and gullible can you be?') would have won with a good, if not overwhelming majority.
** I.e. someone from a typical family living in rural Britain with a grammar-school (or minor public school) education who did NOT read PPE/Law at Oxford and who was aged in their late 50's -early 70's and with a good record in industry/Armed Forces/ 'real world' long before entering politics in his mid 40's. Also someone who spoke with a neutral/vaguely regional accent, had a good head of (greying) hair and was comfortably over 6' tall and willing to decry 'Green' issues as bunkum designed to raise tax revenue (something that I'd hope they'd repeat for the 'new mothers back to work asap' mantra which has increasingly destroyed families since the 1980's)
Comments
I didn't think National Service 39-45 was optional.
Labour again taking the spotlight off the tory conference like when brown went to Iraq
It was a complete one-off for me. I got the impression they put the toast to the queen in, because they wanted to toast the Israeli president...
Well done to PB for publishing it.
Interesting that some on the right are using this debate to talk about Israel and the classic line of 'divided loyalties', with its history on the far right. Ironically the Israeli govt actually fear Miliband, because he's got a record of making more outspoken attacks on Israeli policy than any other british political leader since the war. After one comment that was considered not sufficiently supportive a few years ago - according to Dan Hodges, of all people - the Israeli ambassador even went to speak to Miliband personally to express his concerns.
"It was June 1944 and the Allies were landing in Normandy. A 20-year-old man, who had arrived in Britain as a refugee just four years earlier, was part of that fight."
Which has been turned, by the lefty tweeters etc., into "Miliband's father was a D-Day vet"
"part of that fight" implies he was on a boat involved in the landings, but could easily mean "he was in the navy, and the navy were a big part of D-Day, so he was part of it, even though he was actually in the North Sea/Med at the precise time".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24344547
The miliband father story looks like it's backfiring big against the mail.
I really dont know anything about Miliband Snr or his wartime activity and if he did volunteer he was certianly brave . He still could be doing it more for the hatred of Nazis (as he surely did hate them being Jewish) than for his love of Britain though
Wherever Jews have been, historically, they have been at risk of persecution or expulsion, often both.
When they congregate they therefore toast the State of Israel as this symbolises the fact that there is now a Jewish homeland from which no one can expel them (albeit many have tried). They also toast, in this case, the Queen, out of gratitude for hosting them, aware that the privilege can be withdrawn at any moment (unlikely as it may seem today).
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Sept13_PolMon_charts.pdf
If Red Ed want's to accelerate this process during the Con Conference then Sun Zhu would recommend not interrupting your enemy.
What is this previously unheard of new phenomenon that you speak of ?
"My dad was in the Royal Navy for D-Day. I will never forget him telling me that when he looked out from on deck on the morning of 6 June all he could see was ships, large and small, as far as the eye could see, covering the water."
Which does seem to move Ralph a little closer to the beaches...
Arresting the terminal decline of European countries is more likely by adopting policies that will produce more competitive economies and more dynamic populations than by clubbing together. In reality, the EU's generally been part of the problem in that respect, the the Eurocrisis may have finally knocked some sense into both the Club Med economies and the Commission in that respect.
However, in geopolitics, there are Powers Of The First Rank and Others. Britain, France, Italy, Germany and the rest are all currently Others. Some are fairly significant Others but none is a POTFR. For the last 20 years, there's only been one of those: the US. Soon there will be a second - China - and not long after, a third: India. The European states can choose either to swim in the eddies of these giants or to make their own waves.
I'm reminded of the comment of an Austrian prince to a Czech nationalist in the late 19th century, when he asked whether he'd give Bohemia to Germany or Russia, as those would be the only options were it 'liberated' from Austro-Hungary. It was highly prescient, though of course the Czechs didn't have the luxury of choosing: first Germany, then Russia (or the USSR) took it for themselves. As soon as they regained independence in 1989, one of the first foreign policy priorities of the country was to effectively throw itself back into the modern version of that from which it had escaped eight decades earlier.
Splendid to see Comrade Ratty again, thanks Marf!
Couldn't find a pic of Ed Miliband's Dad as a WW2 Brit sailor so here's one of the then owner of Daily Mail instead. pic.twitter.com/CFsODh9oXa
'Lefties ? outraged ? on twitter ? '
The same Lefties that were outraged at McBride's smears,pass the sick bag.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100239016/if-ed-miliband-wanted-his-father-to-be-off-limits-he-should-have-kept-quiet-about-him/
This should get the debate moving - Dan hodges ;-)
He used the phrase three times during this morning's radio interview, so it is obviously 'wired in'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky 2h
Daily Mail: "His father - to whom he constantly refers in his speeches - was a proponent of one of the world's most poisonous doctrines"
Well at least Ed can rest easy knowing that the other part of his background, his ethnicity, and its connection to the radical Left, is absolutely and strictly off limits for discussion of any kind.
There is not one other group of people who enjoy this privilege, not one.
Jewish Marxist, Ed Milliband, son of of radical Jewish Marxist, Ralph Milliband. How could anyone doubt that he is the right man to lead Britain?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1158691/GEOFFREY-LEVY-Eric-Hobsbawm-useful-idiot-chattering-classes.html
Thanks @tim
Sunday Times ran this a few years ago (now paywalled, I imagine)
'David Miliband’s family ‘lied’ to enter
THE family of David Miliband, the foreign secretary, was branded untrustworthy and misleading by Home Office and Foreign Office officials when it tried to migrate to Britain, documents to be released tomorrow will reveal.The foreign secretary will find his department thought that his father and grandfather played fast and loose with the truth and lied to immigration officers.
The government papers accuse Miliband’s late grandfather, Samuel, a Polish migrant, of exaggerating the antisemitism he faced in Belgium after the second world war in order to move to Britain. A hand-written Home Office report from March 8, 1949, doubts the Milibands’ honesty, stating: “Mili-band, father and son, have so misrepresented the case in the past, I am afraid we can place no reliance on their statements.”Samuel’s claim that he faced “Nazi” style antisemitism were dismissed as “very thin”.
His son Ralph (the foreign secretary’s father) was accused by the Home Office of making repeated “misrepresentations” to support Samuel’s application.The files also reveal that when embassy officials interviewed Samuel directly he admitted the claims of Nazi-style persecution were untrue and that he was not being expelled from Belgium.
The revelation of the way in which the foreign secretary’s forebears talked their way into Britain is particularly piquant given Labour’s record on migration. When David Miliband took up the post last year, he said immigration would remain a key issue. Since then, however, Labour has continued to preside over record levels of immigration despite concern among voters that the rate is too high.
The documents, obtained by The Sunday Times under a freedom of information request, reveal how a struggle over migration played a key part in the fortunes of the Miliband family.When the Germans overran Belgium in May 1940, Samuel and Ralph fled because they were Jews. They were given refuge in Britain. Ralph stayed and later became an influential Marxist academic and close friends with Tony Benn and other Labour grandees until his death in 1994.
Samuel returned to Belgium in 1946. Finding his business destroyed and refused a work permit, he tried to return to Britain. Between 1948 and 1954 he applied nine times to be made a British citizen or to have six-month visas extended.The documents, which include reports from Special Branch, show that immigration officials recorded Samuel had “misrepresented the case” when he claimed there was growing antisemitism in Belgium.They also cast doubt on his claims that he needed to visit his son Ralph in England because the young academic was suffering “nervous depression”.A letter sent on behalf of Ernest Bevin, then foreign secretary, in May 1948 stated: “Mr Miliband was interviewed by a representative of His Majesty’s embassy and stated there had never been any question of his expulsion from Belgium.“The suggestion the Belgian authorities are adopting a ‘Nazi’ or antisemitic policy . . . seems to be without foundation.”
After the war, hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were left homeless and stateless and millions of people were beginning to understand the enormity of the Holocaust. In 1948, however, Belgium was under the relatively liberal rule of Paul-Henri Spaak, the Socialist.
Martin Conway, a historian at Balliol College, Oxford, said there was almost no evidence of government or police persecution of Jews in Brussels after the war. “It could not be said they were forced out of Belgium because of antisemitism,” he said.Harold Laski, the eminent intellectual, came to the aid of the Milibands. In personal correspondence with James Chuter Ede, then home secretary, Laski asked him “as one socialist to another” to allow Samuel residency to show the world that the West was more compassionate than “the Russian way”. In the end Samuel’s application was successful.
Yesterday David Miliband and his brother Ed, the Cabinet Office minister, declined to comment. The Foreign Office said: “This is a personal matter for the foreign secretary.”
The documents have echoes of the position Michael Howard found himself in when he was Tory leader. While his party was opposed to mass immigration, Howard was forced to admit that his father had lied about his circumstances when he applied for British citizenship in 1947. '
Dacre has indeed f***ked up almost as hard as when he tried the risible 'Nazi' crap on Clegg.
The Mail's attack on his father was nasty and unnecessary.
I have a nasty thought, though, namely that RedEd sat and thought about the political implications of what (if anything) he was going to do in response to the Mail article, rather than acting as any normal son would have done in similar circumstances.
After all, he forgot to put his name to his son's birth certificate and got married only when it was politically essential to do so: he's a perfect example of a scheming piece of neo-Marxist low-life, as the way he became Labour leader long ago indicated.
It's why I agree with Jack W (amongst many) - he'll NEVER become PM, since he's completely unelectable, just like Foot, Kinnock, Brown, Hague and ID-S. Indeed, Cameron wasn't, either, in circumstances when a 'normal' Conservative leader** (cf 'posh toff' who claimed being 'heir to Blair' was a GOOD thing to be (ye gods, just how dumb and gullible can you be?') would have won with a good, if not overwhelming majority.
** I.e. someone from a typical family living in rural Britain with a grammar-school (or minor public school) education who did NOT read PPE/Law at Oxford and who was aged in their late 50's -early 70's and with a good record in industry/Armed Forces/ 'real world' long before entering politics in his mid 40's. Also someone who spoke with a neutral/vaguely regional accent, had a good head of (greying) hair and was comfortably over 6' tall and willing to decry 'Green' issues as bunkum designed to raise tax revenue (something that I'd hope they'd repeat for the 'new mothers back to work asap' mantra which has increasingly destroyed families since the 1980's)