politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Milibands go to war against the Daily Mail – this could
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Milibands go to war against the Daily Mail – this could be a key moment
Of all the newspapers in the UK the Mail is the most influential politically. Its circulation remains more buoyant than the rest and it has the biggest online presence.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I mean do they want reminding what they said about Hitler and The Blackshirts in the 30s?
Let us not forget that the Mail is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) paper in terms of both print, and online.
They've also never really been chummy with Cameron, so looks like that's changing in terms of their treatment of labour.
I was 17 during Euro 96.
I compared Terry Venables to Edward Longshanks.
За Родину! За Сталина!
http://www.great-victory1945.ru/za_rodinu_za_stalina.jpg
It may take push polling to a new level.
Is Ed Miliband the son of a Marxist who hated The UK fit to be PM?
We could have headlines like "Did Ed's father kill Diana and cause house prices to crash?"
PMI shows UK manufacturers take on staff at fastest rate since May’11 as output growth surges => unemployment to fall pic.twitter.com/upJLVcaKaJ
Has he got something to hide?
That is no more evidence he hated Britain, as serving in the Navy for 3 years is for loving it.
» show previous quotes
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.
Meanwhile we're talking about Ed Miliband during the Conservative conference, which is great for Ed Miliband.
I'm not saying Labour and the Mail cooked this up between them for their mutual benefit, but if they had done, this is what they'd be doing.
He said when he was at school his father was ill and his father wanted his sons to be academic successes, so he didn't want to stress his father or make his health worth by getting bad grades.
Perhaps if more of the Left in the UK had suffered in the same way as those in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Russia from the arbitrary arrests, the forced labour and Article 58 of The USSR's penal code they might understand why apologists for Stalinist socialism are fair game.
Bah I need a refresher on the Longshanks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html
Cameron's parents, and the choices they made for their children have always been seen as 'fair game' by many.
Why should it be any different for Miliband?
Then we have the Ralph Miliband lecture at the LSE in Oct 2010 delivered on 25 May 2010 by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi ....10 months later on 6 March 2011, David Miliband finally was critical of the LSE's decision, but two days later gave a lecture at LSE on 8 March where he made reference to the school's early history of economic liberalism combined with social justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics_Gaddafi_links
Someone will now deny that Jack Jones TUC Head was not paid by the KGB for 45 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218922/JACK-THE-TRAITOR-Special-investigation-reveals-Union-boss-sold-secrets-KGB-45-years.html
In January 1977 a Gallup opinion poll found that 54% of people believed that Jones was the most powerful person in Britain, ahead of the Prime Minister.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/5530388/kinnock-and-the-kremlin/
'It was an experience of great interest to me to meet Premier Stalin ... It is very fortunate for Russia in her agony to have this great rugged war chief at her head. He is a man of massive outstanding personality, suited to the sombre and stormy times in which his life has been cast; a man of inexhaustible courage and will-power and a man direct and even blunt in speech, which, having been brought up in the House of Commons, I do not mind at all, especially when I have something to say of my own. Above all, he is a man with that saving sense of humour which is of high importance to all men and all nations, but particularly to great men and great nations. Stalin also left upon me the impression of a deep, cool wisdom and a complete absence of illusions of any kind. I believe I made him feel that we were good and faithful comrades in this war – but that, after all, is a matter which deeds not words will prove.'
Anyone who thinks that was his real view rather then propaganda is rather gullible, or is otherwise blinded by their prejudices.
In any case, he is the one who has repeatedly emphasised how much he was influenced by his father's political views. He can hardly complain if journalists write articles about how extreme those views were.
I don't think it will hurt Ed M too much tbh, to me this is the same as when The Sun attacked Gordon Brown's handwritten note to the widow of a soldier. All it will serve to do is elicit sympathy for Ed from undecideds.
How can you fault a person for loving their father? It's a step too far IMO.
2) Ed Miliband was right to respond, though the tone of his response wasn't great.
3) I doubt Labour had been hoping for an endorsement from the Mail, but they might have hoped for its relative quiescence or a flirtation with UKIP. Both now seem unlikely.
I note that in the comments below that Cameron has stood up for Miliband in regard to his dad, yet Miliband did not do that when the Guardian smeared Cameron's dad. Speaks volumes for Cameron's character.
How would have World War II turned out?
The carpet bombing of mainland Europe and then the atomic bombs dropped on German cities in
1945?
But, as I said, it was Ed Miliband, not the Daily Mail, who brought up the subject of his father. What on earth did he expect - that journalists would murmur, "Ah, yes, Miliband Snr, a very wise man?"
* See here, if you can stand the turgidity of the prose:
http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=700
- George Washington
- Michael Collins
- Ezer Weizman
So service does not equate to loyalty. I am sure that others can add to the list....On a semantic point: Miliband Pere made an attack on "the English". Miliband Minor ays "he loved the British". Sounds a bit "Jack Straw"-like to me....
The spat will simply reinforce everyone's prejudices and change little. DM haters will rant about the press and Miliband haters will say Red Ed. Something for all political anoraks.
On the other hand I do wonder to what extent this will be the start of Miliband reaping what he sowed at Leveson. Will the other rags join in ?
German Jews Pouring Into This Country
http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/p480x480/734509_10152214380462662_1540491707_n.jpg
His other mistake was to promise price regulation of energy - an international commodity that is traded daily and is subject to supply and demand. The UK can only control UK energy prices when it is self-sufficient in energy - which it is not. Not only does the UK have insufficient gas storage facilities, but it has to import even more of its energy as N Sea production declines. Of course fracking would help, but the Greens who are quite happy to use hydrocarbons to get to their protest sites, do not want economic energy sources for the UK.
Iain @Iain_33
Labour frontbencher Kevin Brennan attacking Dave for being "out of touch" for having home made bread
It felt (after seeing the result) like a 50/50 shot, so 3.9 (got up to 4.6 at one point) was well worth a shot, even though it didn't come off this time.
A hint, the Rothermere family still own one of those papers. It ain't the mirror.
We can't all be Caesars and win all the time, we're all mere Hannibals, and win as many as we lose.
Though they were friends, he never agreed with his fellow Marxist Eric Hobsbawm over the latter's refusal to condemn Stalinism's 30 million dead, or the brutal Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956,
Of course it's not intended to be a 'balanced' account, any more than an article by George Monbiot or Polly Toynbee is. It's a polemic - this is the Mail, after all, the alter ego of the Guardian.
The Mail's not behind a paywall. Yet.
Rothermere is definitely looking at it though and he'll start with a 'freemium' trial period before going full paywall.
I suspect we have all got ssomething in our past or in our own associations that we'd rather wasn't in the public domain. Cameron took enormous flak for what he did or didn't do at University and now Ed Miliband is facing the same vilification which is a curious desire of the Mail and some other papers to denigrate those who aspire to political office.
As to the other nonsense spouted by some on here about Labour "returning to Michael Foot 70s socialism", I'd have thought that one 1983 Labour Manifesto pledge would be heartily endorsed as it is to my knowledge the last time either of the two main parties committed to withdrawal from the EU (or EEC as it then was). I've not heard Ed Milinband offer to give up the nuclear deterrent or withdraw from NATO so it's clearly not a re-hash of 1983.
What Miliband has done is cease genuflecting at the altar of business and it's no surprise to see those who think that some aspects of privatisation (the practice, not the theory) have not served the consumer well find themselves in agreement with him.
And so they should: Ed Miliband has, deliberately or accidentally, said some very worrying things. He can't have his cake and eat it. If he wants to portray himself as a moderate, why is he positioning himself on the far left? He quite clearly said a few days ago that he was 'bringing back socialism'. Fair enough, and certainly his speech at the Labour conference confirms that, so why on earth should he complain if the media believe him and accuse him of wanting to bring back socialism?
Actually I agree with your thought, but am not sure how far along the Nationalisation route EdM would go, having got one under his belt - so-to-speak. If something works once it is very tempting to follow the same path and McLuskey would be right behind him.
Ben Brogan summed it up well here
"For nearly 20 years, up until that speech in Brighton on Tuesday, Labour had held no fear for the Tories. True, a generation of Conservatives grew to dread the pain of being thrashed in a general election by Tony Blair’s New Labour. The habit of defeat forced many to their knees and left them in a permanent cringe of embarrassment at being a conservative. But for most Tories, let’s admit it, life under Labour came to be no better or worse than if they had been in charge. Compared to the days of mass nationalisations, 98 per cent marginal tax rates, mounds of rubbish in the streets and an imminent sell-out to the Soviets, the prospect of a Labour government ceased to be frightening after 1994. When, in the course of the 1997 campaign, John Major put a pair of demon eyes on Mr Blair’s image, no one believed it.
And once they weren’t frightened of him, they ceased to worry about losing either. Instead, conservatives could indulge their internal ideological arguments and – in the case of some MPs – enjoy the easy life of Opposition, with its inconsequence and decent possibilities for outside earnings. Labour plucked the goose so gently that the well-off never noticed enough to worry. I remember one Tory frontbencher assuring me before the 2005 election that the problem with victory was that it would mean hard work. Lucky for him, Michael Howard didn’t come close.
Mr Miliband’s lunge to the Left should change all that... > http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100238827/cameron-is-betting-that-britain-is-still-a-country-of-grown-ups/
However noble Miliband thought he was being in his reply, he should have just bitten his lip and let the story wither away. It was a dumb move to respond to the Mails goading, with the obvious result.
“The question is whether this will damage EdM or will help him” – Hard to say, but it would have been better not to have been in this position in the first place.
They gave him a pretty tough time and he didn't always handle it too well, but his response to the Miliband/Mail question at the end was first class. He calmly responded that if anybody publicly attacked his dead dad, his natural instinct would be to spring sharply to his defence. He then called for the exercise of better judgement in the public discussion of such matters and left it at that.
He's at his best when his shows his human and humane side.
The Mail's article is pretty nonsensical rubbish, but does Miliband replying reveal a bit of a thin skin?
Who gives a shit what Dacre is foaming at the mouth about from day to day?
Dacre panicked and tried the absurd Nazi smearing on Clegg himself at the height of the election campaign and it didn't make a blind bit of difference, save that everyone laughed at the Mail for a while. Cameron is only PM right now because Clegg and the lib dems allow it so a tiny bit of a spin failure from planet Dacre and that was when circulations were higher.