Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ed Miliband’s ‘immorality’ might explain why he lost the 2015
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ed Miliband’s ‘immorality’ might explain why he lost the 2015 general election and why voters never really took to him
Anthropologists at Oxford University have identified what they believe to be seven universal moral rules. We asked Brits which they thought was the single most important:Help your family – 38%Divide resources fairly – 18%Respect others' property – 16%https://t.co/WoS2oPccRe pic.twitter.com/gwMcQtgh8r
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Cambridge Five anyone?
There were plenty of other reasons not to vote for him but I don't think that factored into my thinking.
He is after all a politician........
As a second son, I am with Ed Miliband. There is no role for primogeniture in democratic politics.
It was not a stab in the back*, it was a fair contest.
*be careful of the anti-semitic overtones of this phrase btw.
Archer's assault on Oxford University was equally impressive. Backed by Dover College, his application as a mature student for a one-year Diploma of Education at Brasenose was accepted.
By now, according to his letter of recommendation, his academic achievements encompassed six O-levels, three A-levels, a two-year anatomy course at the University of California, as well as being an "FIFPC".
It was 30 years later, when Crick was researching his biography of Archer, that he discovered that the FIFPC was a body-building club, advertised through newspapers and which you paid to join to help develop muscles through home exercise.
Getting to Oxford, albeit by a back-door route, would transform Archer's life. He prolonged his one-year course to three with "extra research".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334660/He-lied-his-way-to-the-top.html
The #edstone alone would have made it worthwhile.
David couldn't beat his brother because Ed was more appealing to the Labour selectorate than him, I suspect some of the kickback was driven by those angry that people had chosen the wrong brother (in their mind)
The Labour selectorate then went and made those people even more furious by choosing the wrong one again, I don't think Dan Hodges has calmed down yet...
Also Oxford had a nest of traitors.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5434139/Oxford-traitor-spied-Russia-revealed.html
I might consider it fair that I keep what I earn. A communist might consider it fair that all resources are divided equally.
I just shows how he selectorate changed, and how progress can be backwards as well as forwards.
A quick look at Sunday Times. Anonymous piece from a Civil Servant detailing the contempt said service has for the decision ro leave and for the voters who took that decision. Author afraid to show out that he is a leaver himself. Elsewhere an anecdote of Blair lobbing Macron to refuse British requests if Parliament votes for delay - telling him to hold firm and the UK will remain. Sigh.
Those people who are convinced the report says ABC will show a google list of people indeed saying that the report says ABC. Not because it did, but because they too read a press release or another journalist/infuencer saying that it indeed say ABC.
Communists with resources have historically been quite keen to make sure their families are properly looked after. Usually with a Swiss bank account.
A referendum was needed because a large section of the public did not agree with being in the EU (at various levels): and that's why leave won. Whilst the EU is much more of an issue for the Conservatives than Labour, there are *many* Labour leavers.
It's easy to see scenarios where an EU referendum would have occurred before or after 2020, even if Ed had won.
It became received wisdom on PB that Miliband was a bit rubbish but around 2012/2013 he had a modest opinion poll lead which if carried into the general election would have seen him become Prime Minister
Ed then reneged on that.
(The best theory I've heard is that Ed Miliband only stood in the 2010 leadership contest to make sure he was seen as contender worthy of being appointed to a senior shadow cabinet by David Miliband rather than it being seen as nepotism.)
Lets stop sending £650,000 a year to New York to fund David's salary - and spend it on the NHS instead (or on helping refugees)!
And Scotland. You should never forget Scotland ...
Not that I'm particularly holding a candle for Oxford - a plague on both of them.
As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.
The Oxford spies were quickly rounded up. Or were they? During the 1970s, rogue elements of MI5 convinced themselves that the head of MI5 and even the Prime Minister, both Oxford men, worked for the other side.
There have been suggestions of further expansion to include one of the Pacific Islands such as Fiji or Tonga but that hasn't happened yet.
* Help your family
* Help your group
* Return favours
* Be brave
* Defer to superiors
* Divide resources fairly
* Respect others’ property
I looked but I couldn't find:
* Serve the public trust
* Protect the innocent
* Uphold the law
* An OCP product shall not act against any senior OCP official
So obviously some omissions there...
Didn’t he go to a summer school so he “studied *in* Oxford”
As others have said, through a combination of their own stupidity and naivety and some superb campaigning by the Conservatives, the LDs were destroyed and Labour took some of the pickings too but the SNP emerged as the completely dominant force and indeed a third Parliamentary force close to where the LDs had been in 2010.
The collapse of the LDs across Britain and of Labour in Scotland disproportionately favoured the Conservatives who feasted on the LD carcass in England and Wales but had nothing to lose to the SNP in Scotland. Those English gains pushed Cameron over the majority line.
Oddly enough, I think Ed M was inconsequential in what actually happened - the SNP provided a useful foil but I have always thought (and still do) they would have done a deal with the Conservatives had they been in the same position as Clegg's LDs were in 2010.
As a member of one planning committee and the former chairman of another how many times have I heard it said that applicants should be treated "equally". To many members, mainly it is true members with an axe to grind against people who had clearly done better than them in life that was all.
The truth is, to treat applicants equally IS NOT ENOUGH. You should always treat applicants FAIRLY. Usually, but not absolutely always treating applicants fairly includes treating them equally.
Seriously for those out there who are potential chairs of planning or licensing committees you will surely be better respected by your colleagues, the public and the press if you always bear this in mind. Of course your officers will hate you and will do anything to be rid of you.
I have watched all six episodes and while I won't give the plot away it demonstrates the dangers of not adequately funding care for those with dementia.
I believe this government's just about only policy implementation - capping utility bills - was pinched from Ed and roundly condemned by Tories at the time.
Badum-tish!
What other definition are you using?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/2f91721d-9512-3c2a-9e0f-4453897183c8
The only "argument" is precedent, and the rule of law.
I know Brexiteers don't like that...
The Kray twins will be smiling down from heaven then. Quite a thought.
Not saying Labour would have won but Cameron wouldn’t have got his majority and there wouldn’t have been a referendum .
Ed M never sought to nullify attacks re Labour spending . The message should have been Labour had to repair the damage done to the NHS and education under the Tories.
See the second photo on this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32328664
A bit more imagery of a ruthless tough-guy who won the leadership as an underdog wouldn't have done him any harm
Which one of Corbyn and May are you thinking of for the latter one?
Unpleasant though it is, it's much better than the truly horrible mental image I had before.
But the best nickname of course was William I: William the Bastard to his friends, and William the much worse to his enemies.
Corbyn is much better in this regard. He does not pander to the enemy.
They always seem so unconcerned about doing the same to the country.
There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.