Merged The "Miliband loop" / 'Ed speaks human'?

geni said:
Declaring that the negotiations are rubbish and that the tories should expect the unions to pull out is going to be viewed as an attempt to influence the unions.
Click to expand...

So be it.

geni said:
So he should have supported the unions striking and non striking? Because that is going to be one seriously wishy-washy soundbyte.
Click to expand...

No, he should have respected the unions decision to either strike or not strike, but not come out as actively supporting it or trying to influence it. In the same way you can be supportive of the right to have abortions, without saying that you believe everyone should have abortions. I also don't care even a tiny bit about the use of the term "wishy-washy".

geni said:
I love the way you seem to think you can extract the totality of his views from the clip. Its thinking like that that resulted in the above clip in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the totality of his views if he isn't stating them. He had ample opportunity to do so, and chose not to.

geni said:
You have a stance? So far you have a bunch of criticism.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a stance. The labour leader should not be trying to court the right-wing press.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Not at all. Cruddas must have recognised that David -who is not the Blairite many feared- is a politician of immense intelligence who has far more integrity than his brother.
Click to expand...

You've lost me. Are you saying cruddas is (relatively) right-wing because he supported david over ed, or are you saying cruddas is left-wing because he supported david over ed?
 
stokes234 said:
So be it.
Click to expand...

You want labour to lose the next election then?


No, he should have respected the unions decision to either strike or not strike, but not come out as actively supporting it or trying to influence it. In the same way you can be supportive of the right to have abortions, without saying that you believe everyone should have abortions. I also don't care even a tiny bit about the use of the term "wishy-washy".
Click to expand...

So "I'm fully supportive of the unions right to stike but have no opion with regards the rightness of doing so"?


I don't care about the totality of his views if he isn't stating them. He had ample opportunity to do so, and chose not to.
Click to expand...


15 second soundbyte? I doubt it.


Yes, I have a stance. The labour leader should not be trying to court the right-wing press.
Click to expand...

No thats a criticism.

A stance would be

"I support the unions in their decision to strike in defence of the rights of the working man"

Or

"I oppose the unions in their decision to strike in an attempt to maintain the unaffordable and discredited pension system"
 
geni said:
You want labour to lose the next election then?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. Can you prove that "not directly opposing the unions" loses you elections in the UK?

According to yougov - "On balance the public remain opposed to the government’s proposed changes to public sector pensions by 47% to 37%However, while they oppose the pension changes, they also tend to oppose the strike – 40% of people support the teacher’s strike on Thursday, 49% of people oppose it."

Is that an automatic election loss? Considering labour need to win back the left-wing votes they lost to the libdems and general apathy.

Furthermore (from sunday):

"More people think the government acted “unreasonably” in dealing with strike action than the government, according to YouGov yesterday.

43% of people thought the unions acted “reasonably”, while 46% thought they acted “unreasonably”.

In contrast, only 36% thought the government acted “reasonably”, while 51% thought they acted “unreasonably”.

The government also got more of the blame for strike action (36%) than unions themselves (33%). A further 22% felt they both deserved blame."

Doesn't seem like a cut-and-dried example of everyone hating the unions.

geni said:
So "I'm fully supportive of the unions right to stike but have no opion with regards the rightness of doing so"?
Click to expand...

That's not how i'd put it, but something along those lines would be preferable to what we got.

geni said:
15 second soundbyte? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

He could have changed one of those 5 times for pointing out the concessions that the unions have already made. If it wasn't shown he wouldn't be to blame.

geni said:
No thats a criticism.

A stance would be

"I support the unions in their decision to strike in defence of the rights of the working man"

Or

"I oppose the unions in their decision to strike in an attempt to maintain the unaffordable and discredited pension system"
Click to expand...

I was giving my stance on labour policy itself. As for ed miliband, he could have said:

"I don't outright support the strikes, but they are the result the government should expect if they continue to force such harsh pay and pension cuts on public sector workers. The unions have already made significant concessions, accepting a pay freeze, a national insurance increase, and new public sector workers are already set to retire later. And as a labour MP, I won't cross a picket line."
 
Last edited:
stokes234 said:
You've lost me. Are you saying cruddas is (relatively) right-wing because he supported david over ed, or are you saying cruddas is left-wing because he supported david over ed?
Click to expand...

Neither. Just that Cruddas recognises the better candidate.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Neither. Just that Cruddas recognises the better candidate.
Click to expand...

I did see a comment from d.miliband recently saying that people need to stop assuming that the private sector is better than the public sector. Can't remember where, though.

Still, it would be nice to see an actual left-wing candidate. We've got some left-wing labour mps in wales we could potentially export.
 
The crisis that faces Labour's more left-wing supporters is that they are unable to break their obsession with ye olde Labour. Old Labour doesn't necessarily mean Left Labour. Indeed, with its commitment to religion and prohibition, it was arguably conservative in some of its rhetoric. The principles that we associate with the central core of the Labour movement, where 'power, wealth and opprtunity are in the hands of the many, not the few' and where the state exists to ensure that the liberty of one does not deny the liberty of others, and are the central tenants that Labour supporters and members should strive for. If it is achieved through policy we associate with 'old Labour', such as public ownership, then sure, we go for public ownership. But it seems some members are so wrapped up in the romaticism of policy such as public ownership they stop short of asking whether it would be a good idea for society.

Personally, I think in the age of The Big Society and the Tea Party, the most important thing Labour should do is to reaffirm its belief in government. His consistent support of the latter is why I voted for MiliD.
 
Last edited:
stokes234 said:
No, I don't. Can you prove that "not directly opposing the unions" loses you elections in the UK?
Click to expand...

Support these strikes and you are kind of locked into supporting them all and that will not end well.

He could have changed one of those 5 times for pointing out the concessions that the unions have already made. If it wasn't shown he wouldn't be to blame.
Click to expand...

You would never have heard it. Thats not how soundbytes work.


I was giving my stance on labour policy itself. As for ed miliband, he could have said:

"I don't outright support the strikes, but they are the result the government should expect if they continue to force such harsh pay and pension cuts on public sector workers. The unions have already made significant concessions, accepting a pay freeze, a national insurance increase, and new public sector workers are already set to retire later. And as a labour MP, I won't cross a picket line."
Click to expand...

Now try saying that inside 15 seconds at a reasonable speed. Oh and not crossing a picket line would A)Bit pointless a B)if it wasn't kinda dicey from a legal POV secondary action see. After all his pension isn't being cut.
 
geni said:
Support these strikes and you are kind of locked into supporting them all and that will not end well.
Click to expand...

Nah, you're not. If conditions change you can use those changing conditions as a reason to change your position. However, remember I didn't actually say he should support the strikes.

geni said:
You would never have heard it. Thats not how soundbytes work.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, depending on what the news decided to go with. But he has plenty of opportunity to give his own press release or write an article for a newspaper or post on his own blog, and at no point have I heard anything from him about the concessions the unions have already made.

geni said:
Now try saying that inside 15 seconds at a reasonable speed. Oh and not crossing a picket line would A)Bit pointless a B)if it wasn't kinda dicey from a legal POV secondary action see. After all his pension isn't being cut.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if it didn't get included in the soundbite he wouldn't be to blame. But as I say above, he could easily point this fact out, but he doesn't.

As to pointless? It's a gesture, and one that many union members would appreciate.

As to legal action? Welsh labour refused to cross the picket line around the senedd, and they're not facing any. I think you might be confusing "refusing to cross" with "actively joining" a picket line, as I believe that would be illegal if he wasn't part of the strike himself.
 
What's 1+1?
2

What's 3-1?
2


What's 5-3?
2


Sometimes, the answers are the same because the questions are functionally identical.

Perhaps the journalists are to blame not just for "letting polticians away with it", but for asking the wrong questions in the first place?
 
Soapy Sam said:
Perhaps the journalists are to blame not just for "letting polticians away with it", but for asking the wrong questions in the first place?
Click to expand...

There is something of a tradition that it is acceptable for a politician to act as if the journalist's first question is "what is your answer to my first question".
 
It was Maggie Thatcher who invented this. Don't answer the question, answer the question you want to answer, and only talk about that. Politicians since then have merely refined the art, to the point of absurdity. IRRC, show also inventd the "say the same thing three times" trick.

"We need to fix the economy, we should fix the economy and we will fix the economy."
 
Last edited:
My brother's an astrophysics genius or something. He is about as detached from politics as can be. He made the effort to phone me the other day to ask about this Ed Miliband 'fool' (real word redacted due to cursing).

I've never been moar proud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom