Ed Miliband Leader

I do not like him at all, he has the charisma of a slug.

Ed Miliband being victorious is excellent news for the Tories.

I think David should've become the leader, not Ed :| Now things ARE screwed.

So, labour is being lead by a man who doesnt actually have the backing of the party. How people could be stupid enough to vote labour after this is mystifying.

I'm a member of Labour and personally voted David Milliband my first preferance, with Ed Milliband 2nd, Andy Burnham 3rd, Ed Balls 4th and Diane Abbott 5th. Obviously, I wasn't too happy with the result, but Ed Milliband at least deserves a chance. At the election, not even a Labour supporter can deny that Labour were clearly rejected by the public, and Ed is possibly right when saying ALOT of changes are going to be needed and not everyone in Labour is going to support it - heck, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown just spent 16 years taking Labour furthur to the right, and Ed looks set to take right back to the left again.

For those saying Ed Milliband isn't experianced enough; they said Obama was inexperianced, they said David Cammeron was inexperianced, they said Tony Blair was inexperianced, they said Abroham Lincoln, one of the most successful presidents of the USA was inexperianced. Get the point?

And to the post above me about Ed not having the backing of the party...it is not the members of the party who decide the outcome of a election, it's the general public!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frodo13.

I'm a member of Labour and personally voted David Milliband my first preferance, with Ed Milliband 2nd, Andy Burnham 3rd, Ed Balls 4th and Diane Abbott 5th. Obviously, I wasn't too happy with the result, but Ed Milliband at least deserves a chance. At the election, not even a Labour supporter can deny that Labour were clearly rejected by the public, and Ed is possibly right when saying ALOT of changes are going to be needed and not everyone in Labour is going to support it - heck, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown just spent 16 years taking Labour furthur to the right, and Ed looks set to take right back to the left again.

For those saying Ed Milliband isn't experianced enough; they said Obama was inexperianced, they said David Cammeron was inexperianced, they said Tony Blair was inexperianced, they said Abroham Lincoln, one of the most successful presidents of the USA was inexperianced. Get the point?

And to the post above me about Ed not having the backing of the party...it is not the members of the party who decide the outcome of a election, it's the general public!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjYPc_1N9g

To quote Peter Hitchens 'this is an absurd proposition'.

The Labour Party is nowhere to the right, the illusion for this is only because the Tories have moved to the so called centre-right which is the same thing as centre-left. Fabianism is winning in this country against the wishes of the people and has been since the war (with the exception of the Thatcher government and even that did not dare touch certain areas). I keep hearing this 'red Ed' nonsense when infact 'red Ed' is just the same as David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair - they all agree on the European Union, foreign affairs, education, the economy (to an extent), virtually everything.

To reinforce this point I will again use Peter Hitchens and would advise anybody interested in politics to read his book, the Cameron Delusion. The reason why people such as yourself and many Conservatives continue to wage war against eachother come election time is very simple - policy actually does not matter to you aslong as 'your lot' are in power. Tribalism is what i'm getting at and it is simply proven by the fact that you voted for David Miliband (a right-winger in the words from where you are coming from) yet now you have 'red Ed' you say the party needs to move to the left. So what do you actually think or are you just voting for who has the best chance to get the red party back into office as I suspect?

Here is a piece on Ed Miliband which rings perfectly true;

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....questions.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

Now to the matter of the alleged 'Red Ed', the youthful Miliband whose election as Labour leader has prompted almost the entire political media. It contains two delusions. The first is that the trade unions are some sort of repository of revolutionary thought, longing to drag the Labour Party back to the days of Militant, Michael Foot etc.

Piffle. The unions have for years been a powerful and effective pressure group, operating mainly through the EU and its regulatory powers, who have under Labour and Tory governments alike suceeded in securing the imposition on this country of extensive and powerful laws on British workplaces, which the militant shop stewards of 30 years ago couldn't have dreamed of.

The idea that the battles of the 1980s - over nationalisation, union power and so forth, are still in progress is likewise nonsense. The left learned form the collapse of the USSR. It didn't learn that it was wrong. It learned that its methods needed revision. Specifically, it learned that direct state ownership of the economy doesn't work. Instead, they turned to regulation, which allows the state an enormous role in the economy, without the direct detailed responsibility required by nationalisation. Most reasonable people, having experienced privatised utilities - gas, electricity, telecommunications etc, can see that the problems of these industries under state control (especially for consumers) were much more to do with monopoly (which more or less persists) than with ownership. And also that there are some industries, notably railways, which only a wholly dogmatic person would privatise. They are plainly better run by the state.

The division between left and right is now really in the areas loosely described as 'sex, drugs and rock and roll', plus of course the use of the education system to impose equality of outcome on its victims. And on the abolition of national sovereignty and its replacement by global or supranational governance, backed up where necessary with liberal military intervention.

In this division, the Tory, Liberal Democrat and Labour Parties are all on the left, signed up to the sexual revolution, the moral revolution, the cultural revolution, comprehensive education, EU membership, etc.

In which case the real problem is not 'Red Ed', but 'Red Dave' Cameron, 'Red Nick' Clegg and indeed 'Red Dave' Miliband, whose political differences with his brother are too tiny to be perceived without a powerful electron microscope.

And that leaves aside the very strange but true development - that the main qualification for high office these days is not experience, but the lack of it.
You do wonder, looking at these people, whether they have left their lunchboxes at home. Ed himself, with his wide, wide eyes and look of perpetual surprise, seems particularly in need of a mother's love and care.

as the coolest labour supporter on the forum

i am happy although i tricked dan (undertaker) on msn saying i was considering ukip

Quote:

Originally Posted by immense

as the coolest labour supporter on the forum

i am happy although i tricked dan (undertaker) on msn saying i was considering ukip

lmao that was hilarious, i cant remember did you reveal you were making it up the whole time? was quite late at the time.

I think it is a new era for Labour. Will be nice to see his ideas

Regardless of the new Labour "leader", I highly doubt they'll win the next election unless the Tories screw things up further. A lot of people have lost faith in Labour over the past few years. They won the previous election by a small margin, this year they only just lost - I think they'll just keep going downhill tbh.

The Times have run some rather witty stories about Ed Miliband and his speeches over the past few days aswell which has got me pretty interested with all this.