Why David Miliband still matters

David's a choker. Simple as. He's finished. Unless he runs again in 5 years when his little brother fails to win the next election.

My god Mr Robinson you are putting yourself about a bit aren't you ? Blogs by the dozen , personal appearances all day, what next ? X factor maybe , can you sing ? Maybe you could be the next Subo . As far as the Mike and Bernie Milliband duo are concerned, not even X factor could find anything of any great substance to make them worth promoting.

"He is the standard bearer of those who fear that Ed Miliband will take his party to the left, will find it harder to say no than yes to his backers in the unions and will abandon the gains made in the New Labour years."

I've got three words for Ed, that he'd do well to remember.

John

Fitzgerald

and

Kennedy.

Look at what happened to him when he tried to do a deal with the dark side to win power only to welch on it once he was in... Watch your back, Eddie boy.

Good try Nick but sorry this story doesn't wash. The party is bigger than the individuals. Whether David stays or goes will soon be forgotten. Let's get back to the Coalition. The IMF has given them a pat on the back.

Don't buy that analysis, Nick. David M may well remove himself (I would in his position) but he's far from the only person in the party who wants to regain power sooner rather than later. Ed (Miliband) does, for one. It's how he gets to be PM. He's shown enormous ruthlessness to get this job, to win this election, and he'll show even more to win the next one; the one which really matters. He wants the keys to number 10. Why on earth do you think he ran? No, Nick, there'll be no "lurch to the left" outside the fantasies of labour's political opponents. EM knows he won't win that way and winning, as he's just proved, is what he's all about. Forget about L to the L, and "Red Ed" and "Union Man"; it's conservative narrative ... "tory story" ... strictly for the birds.

Why doesn't David join the Liberals. He might be in the Coalition Cabinet by Christmas - that would cock a snoop at his little bro. I seem to remember one of our most adored and successful leaders changing sides a few times.

post 3
I also thought about the Kennedy connection and that means others must have thought it too.
It must be because both boys are marketed as very good looking and immaculately well dressed.

"Forget about L to the L, and "Red Ed" and "Union Man"; it's conservative narrative ... "tory story" ... strictly for the birds."

We shall see mate, we shall see.... :o)

What we are seeing now is an attempt by the right wing press and others to big-up David at Ed's expense in the hope that Ed will be forever thought of as the wrong brother. The first challenge of Ed's leadership is to get David on board as shadow chancellor. Success on that score would result in a weak George Osbourne being paired against a true political heavyweight who commands public and that could be a big problem for the Tories. On the other hand, failure could be fatal for Ed. He will not win any elections if he continues to hang around with deeply unattractive grinning losers of history like Kinnock and union dinosaurs (that won't help anymore than recording a rap record with Gordon Brown and aiming for Christmas number one would)

My first encounter with D Milli was an NAHT conference when the President refered to him a a Year 8 boy and he looked it and sounded it. As for his brother Edward the measure of the man "I have not got married I have not had time nor did I have time to pout my name on my sons birth certificate". No one minds if he is married or not but what kind of man says that what an insult to his partner and how special will that make Daniel feel when he learns what his father thought of him. Me me me before anyone or anything. In my books not a man I want in charge of my country thank you

David isn't going anywhere... Ed will give him whatever job he wants in the shadow cabinet.....

Apologies re mistakes in last post I was very cross not my usual care

So Labour about to take a lurch to left under union man Red Ed.

All we need now is Ed Balls for chancellor. That would be a dream ticket.

"No" ... to nepotism ... that really matters.

Only job David wanted has gone my theory Ed was the decoy and it has all backfired Ed was there to take votes from the other three , oh dear what can the matter be

David would stick to Labour's plan to halve the deficit. The other Ed is pledged to abandon it.

I just don't understand this concern. The coalition isn't going down in flames any time soon: if it does, it will almost certainly be because they are wrong about the deficit (double dip, Paul Krugman appointed dictator of the world, etc).

By the time Labour policy on the deficit matters, things will be different, and Balls, Miliband A or B can always claim that what they now will do is consistent with what they always believed/said.

QED

7#

Ta SG. What brought it to my mind was that Joseph Kennedy was a Prohibition era bootlegger (not quite in the same league as Ralph, at least Ralph in his defence served in WW2 in the Navy, more than Kennedy did) who wanted to get his sons into politics... the shady deals between the Kennedy family, the mafia and the unions are legendary. Once in power, JFK and his brother reneged on the deal with disasterous consequences.

Not saying that Ed is going to have a grassy knoll moment, far from it. But lets just say the comments of "I'm my own man" will be seriously put to the test over the coming four years. If he thinks that he can just use the union vote and then not end up being in hock to them, then I think he's going to end up getting more than he bargained for.

"true political heavyweight"

What, a man who thinks that terrorism is justifiable, who thinks that the man who should have got Van Rumpuys job at the EU should be the one with the biggest motorcade (ie, Blair), was a serial bottler when it came to challenging Brown for the leadership of the party, yet was quick enough to run away from his past as soon as the party lost the election and the man who told the Indians following the Mumbai attacks that they'd had it coming??

Not forgetting that banana incident?

And that is your measure of a true political heavyweight?

Arf!!!!

Political deadweight more like!

Arf, Arf, Arf!!

Sagamix- spot on. These blogs are part of an attempt to spin the leadership election with the Tory agenda- unions, divisions between the supporters of each camp etc. NR seems keen to propogate whatever line will sound least well for labour. The union nonsense has been abandoned even by the Tories, NR appears to salivate at the prospect of labour (and Miliband) division following the election. There seems no hard evidence of this at all.

At least it all gives Peter Mandelson a role again...as keeper of the Blairite flame he'll be needed by David Miliband to plot the course back.

David needs to find Iron for his soul..he should have gone for it in 2009 in the 'Night of the Short Knives' but didn't and...well sometimes Time and Tide wait for no Miliband..

If Ed Milliband is inclined towards the left as I hope he is, the worst thing he can do is listen to the destroyers like Blair etc., on the right wing of the party, who have almost succeeded in bringing it to its knees.

He should learn from the mistakes of Obama and not try to appease the right by allowing them anywhere near government. If he has left wing convictions he should argue them strongly and openly and not be put off by the corporatists and the right wing press trying to smear him at every turn. The Labour Party is now overloaded with right wing MPs, how else could Blair have forced through the vote to attack Iraq? They must be sidelined and a serious attempt made by EM to reform the Party from the grass roots so that these pseudo Labour MPs are ousted. He must not try to settle for a false unity by trying to pacify the right, it wont work, the left should become the new centre.

If EM is firm and fair, and faces the greed and selfishness of the right wing head on, the public will follow.

Derek Simpson as Jimmy Hoffa! Surpassing yourself there, Fubar (17). Whatever next? No don't tell me, let me guess. Trevor Phillips leading a Million Man march up Oxford St. The brothers getting involved with Barbara Windsor ("Happy Birthday, Mr Prime Minister"). The Isle of Wight missile crisis.

"Albion Nine" goes to Mars ... "one small step for a chap, one giant ...".

Oh do stop it, Jobs (13).

22#

I dont normally do surrealism mate, but those ideas, funnily enough, have a strange appeal. You ever thought of getting into writing screenplays?

David matters but should take a step backwards and wait on the sidelines.

He should let Milliband and Balls become the Dream Ticket.....

.....for the Tories.....

and then reclaim top spot when the two have been ousted by the right and many of the bloggers on this site who are putting on a brave face and pretending it was what they wanted all along.

It's all been a bit of a disaster.

And it's going to get a whole lot worse when the rest of the cabinet is put together because then, there will be hardly any new faces who can truly say 'it wasn't my fault, I wasn't there when we hit the iceberg'.

David matters but not now, only when he returns to clean up, in more ways than one, after his brother.

That is, a David who apologises for past mistakes and gathers a team of new names untainted by a disastrous past.

So, the British economy is "on the mend" according to the IMF. Already!

I hope George Osborne has the decency to admit - in private at least - that, with hindsight, he inherited something of a golden legacy from Darling and Brown.

pdavies65

The IMF also said it was the policies of the Labour Govt. prior to the election had helped (Radio 4 this morning)...this was acknowledged by a Treasury spokesman....for what its worth.

Nice to see Osborne finally appear to give us the good news (he was all over Sky today)...presumably if it was not so good Danny would have been sent out...but this time the LDs were not required.

Although this blog entry is ostensibly about yesterdays man, David Miliband, it won't be too long before the narrative, the only narrative is what is coming down the line.

I am loosely connected to some senior local Government public sector figures and they are privately saying that people have absolutely no idea at all what is about to hit.

It is very sad that the general public will end paying, literally, for the debts of:

a) previous Tory Government (£320 billion)
b) the just ejected Labour Government (£400 billion)
c) the bank bailouts (£160 billion)
d) interest on that lot (£70 billion)

which all adds up to £950 billion and rising.

The political fate of David Miliband is of no consequence whatsoever.

Is this the same IMF that failed to predict the crisis...and messed up big time in Brazil during the 1980s ?

So why then is David Miliband's future obsessing this conference?
The only person obsessing is you and you appear to be either making up astory or feeding other peoples curiosity which is frankly turning in to cheap news and i'm finding annoying!

Ladies and gentlemen, YouGov 27/9/10 :

Con 39%
Lab 40%
LD 12%

David Milliband blew his chance to be PM the night James Purnell resigned. Milliband couldn't go through with it. The party knew Brown was in trouble and so did the country. I talked to some Labour supporters the other night. They think Milliband is partly responsible for their election defeat, by not ousting Brown when he had the chance.

My guess is he will walk away. The Cain and Abel saga will never drop out of the media if they stay together. Also, despite, his insistence to the contrary, I don't think he will forgive his brother or his party for depriving him of his chance to be leader. Some people can't accept coming second and he is one of them. He's demonstrated why he is not cut out to be Labour leader, let alone PM.

I have solution! Ed should offer David a job share. PAs and others do it all the time. It's about time the PM role demonstrated it is up with the times. Home working is also an important feature of modern working. Ed (or David) could do conference calls from Chequers, and use Powerpoint over a webex conference call.

In My late teens and early 20's I assumed that people in power knew more than me. Refreshingly I now understand - 30 years later - the truth is we're all just making life up as we go along. Those that want power want it for themselves first, others second. Why else would two family members feel they are now in crisis rather than use their current high profiles to achieve something worthwhile.

28. At 10:01pm on 27 Sep 2010, JohnConstable wrote:
i am loosely connected to some senior local Government public sector figures and they are privately saying that people have absolutely no idea at all what is about to hit.
--------------------------------
yes it is truly truly frightening.
in political terms i believe the lib dems will be anialated in the polls.
and the tories...........
after 13 years and a recession they failed to get a majority. this will be their last term for quite some time. and that will be the least price they should pay for unnecessarily harsh austerity measures that will destroy peoples lives.
some people seem to forget that so many people were struggling during the boom. then the recession even worse. what osborne is about to do will do more damage than he can possibly realise and there will be a reaction to suit.

Nick, in a real sense, every human being "matters", but David Miliband's future within (or without) the Labour party is not particularly significant.

The Labour Party, through its arcane rules and 'alternative' vote system has given the Trade Unions the right to override the wishes of elected MPs and other party faithful. This means the person who was not the most popular can still win by the tactical voting of people who initially supported a 'no-hoper'.

This whole process is not a good advertisement for a system of AV which the Lib Dems are now hoping to foist upon us. Having two (or more) bites of the cherry only suits candidates who do not get the most 'first choice' votes. As we have seen here, the candidate who is not the most popular actually ends up winning.

Under the rules, Ed won and David lost. (The only thing you can say in David's favour is that he probably wouldn't have been quite as bad as Ed - but that's not saying much)

The real problem is the Labour party itself and its failed Big State, tax and spend policies.

Meanwhile, those who still think AV is a good idea, take heed!

31. craig
Ladies and gentlemen, YouGov 27/9/10 :

Con 39%
Lab 40%
LD 12%
------------------------
thats just the start craig. even a combined right wing majority press assault on labour will not repair the upcoming ConDem damage.

David Miliband staying would be fractious, but then so is having Ed Balls about.

His best bet would be to give his brother a high power role and an agreement to stand aside in the future in exchange for David strong-arming the PLP into behaving themselves.

Since Ed was the Unions choice, *not* the Labour Party members, he's got an uphill struggle to control the various Labour factions no matter what is being said publicly.

The Unions have Labour over a barrel right now - financially (donations plus treasurer) and politically (Ed is only leader due to the Unions) - which means there'll be a drift, not a lurch, left towards the 80's Labour. Which were unelectable. Add to this some infighting between the remnants of New Labour (let us not forget how virulent they were), especially with a certain Lord Mandelson about, and Old Labour and I actually feel sorry for Ed Miliband.

I don't feel the least bit sorry for Labour, their impending implosion and casting to the winds is long overdue and entirely self-made. I only hope whatever replaces them deals with reality, and genuinely is interested in the workers of the UK, and not a parasitical client state.

Fubar
An interesting analogy re JFK - maybe Ed will cop off with some modern Marilyn Monroe but who would you suggest? Scarlett Johannson? Dianne Abbott? No, the shrewd money is on Caroline Flint. She's after a place in the shadow cabinet.
You heard it here first.

Mind you I don't think Ed's dad, Ralph Milliband bears much comparison with Joe Kennedy - wasn't Ralph a Communist? I vaguely remember reading a book called 'The State in a Capitalist Society' when I was an anarchist for about 2 years when it was the best way to impress girls of a certain type.

"David Miliband's future and Labour's are inextricably linked."

Good lord Nick! Do you read this stuff before you put it out?? What a load utter nonsense. The labour party is far bigger than any one man. You sound like you're writing a paragraph in a JRR Tolkein novel! Honestly I think you get so caught up in your stateside media lingo, that you don't pay any attention to what you're actually saying!!

Very vexed...

I'm assuming that the unions did not require the members to show their Party Membership Card before voting (for Ed).
.
Could it be that the machiavellian tories and LDs in the unions took a delightful 'free-shot' and voted for Ed.

Nick.

How many more Miliband-V-Miliband Blogs are you going to keep writing since this is sounding a bit thin without REAL Labour Party Conference ideas.

OK, so David might stay, or he might go, - so what, since whatever he may do next is up to him only, and either way what happens next won't make David the Labour Leader anyway.

So therefore, just leave this saga of the Band of Miliband Brothers on the back burner until we know whether or not David is staying in the Labour Party or leaving, and until then move on to writing something more worthwhile about the Labour Party Conference, and stop boring us to death with the love-in between the Miliband Brothers.

Even if D. Mili had won, how could he tell labour party and unions that thousands of public sector jobs were to go?
E.Mili is in an impossible position announcing to the unions that their members by the thousands are going to be sacked.

This is most enjoyable as a conservative supporter, watching labour commit hari kari.

Rather ironic that the man whom members and MPs from the Labour party voted for then gets up and makes a speech asking them to 'UNITE' behind his brother.

This is a pantomime

It's a great time to be a Tory...

43
But Ed doesn't need to announce job cuts. Why would he?

Tory rejoicing at Ed's election is sounding a bit forced. He might well prove a likeable and effective leader. Electable for sure. Beware complacency. Just because Labour had three terms doesn't guarantee anything. Life's not like that.

Pdavies

there's no rejoicing. There's just the recognition that the English won't vote for an assassin.

Team Miliband junior seem to have learnt nothing from the mistakes of Balls and Brown - rather were prepared to adopt exactly the same strategy.

Killing your own brother won't win you an election.

#37 Yeah the country may decided to sleep walk into the abyss of the debt fuelled spend spend other peoples money mentallity of labour, notice none of labour are poor, before they wake up to see that labour have trashed the country and say "oh my god" but the UK will be a wasteland by then

39#

Laugh:

I'm trying to cast around for an appropriate substitute for the Monroe figure who would be Islington chattering class friendly to the cause and I have to admit, beyond Jo Brand, I'm struggling a bit. Mind you, the ever publicity hungry Geri Halliwell could be an outside runner....

as for the last line of the post, thanks for the first chuckle of the morning. Amazing what lengths we'll go to when we're younger.... :o)

5. At 7:36pm on 27 Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:

David will be damned if he stays and damned if he goes. He will be vilified by one side of the party whatever happens. This should never have been allowed to happen as it plays into the other party's hands. It will also be a catalyst for further infighting and unrest. This is what happens when a party is trying to be all things to all men.

Ed will be damned if he stays left and damned if he doesn't. Where does he go for support. There are no elders of the party who have any credibility who supported his campaign. In fact "Welsh Boy" Neil is more likely to be a hindrance than a help. Lets face it he made a mess of things during his time as leader. The only thing he and his clan have been good at is making money for themselves out of the EU.

So who does have Ed have in his cabinet. Surly Ed the Balls will be there. But as chancellor I don't know. There are so few known faces with any credibility left to form a credible opposition. This could be a good thing, new broom and all that or it could be the biggest gamble of the party's life.

And with all this going on the unions have already fired a warning shot, Bob Crow has laid down the gauntlet. If Ed attends the meeting opposing the cuts he will be labeled Red Ed and be seen as the Unions man. If he does not attend then he will be seen as a unprincipled person who abandoned his supporters as soon as he got what he wanted. More importantly he will be labeled as untrustworthy. Promise one thing and do another. And this all within a few weeks of becoming leader. The honeymoon period on this one is going to be very short.

The bill to the UK taxpayer for New Labour's immigration policies:

£200 - £300 billion PER ANNUM in wages/salaries taken off British workers

£10 - £15 billion plus per annum taken by foreigners for treatment in the NHS who have never previously paid a penny into the system

£ Billions pa in housing, school and University places lost to foreigners - lives shattered and futures ruined by decreased oportunity to British couples and British students

£'s pa in costs for crime, drugs, people trafficking, tax evasion, election fraud, black markets, money sent overseas and out of the UK economy etc

The cost to British people ... is different to the cost to the government ... the cost to ordinary British people is difficult to estimate as deliberately made difficult to calculate by the govt and BBC ... but must be in the region of £400 billion a year. No wonder the living standards have nose dived for most ordinary Brits.

The notional tax on this cost amount as a loss in income to British people would be enough to clear the annual UK budget deficit

What I want to hear from Mr E Milliband is a clear and unambiguous and unreserved apology to the ordinary British people ... for their deliberate damage to Britain, by the Labour party, on the matter of UK immigration.

This is much more than an 'agency job issue' Mr Milliband.

Sorry Nick, I think you are grasping at straws to justify jumping on the bandwagon of poor reporting.

I think the media focus on DM because of the almost eastenders like issue of two brothers in competition. For some reason the media like conflict, rather than the substance of policy, even if they have to manufacture the conflict. Shame you are being sucked in.

We have a lot of very important issues at the moment: frankly a failed candidate in the labour leadership is not one of them.

Move on.

49#

Good analysis. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. And, what with the party Treasurers position being taken by a union place-person, as against Two Jags (dunno which would have been worse), if anybody seriously thinks that the unions are going to keep the financial life support machine on without wanting anything in return, then they are incredibly naive. Tony Woodley last night on Newsnight was dancing all around the houses to try and avoid answering a straight Paxman question that could have dropped Mr Ed right in it on day 1. It'll happen though.

50#

Hear hear. And then a credible plan to do something about it. THEN, they might avoid being pitched into the electoral wilderness for another 18 years.... the arrogance of 49% of the delegates questioned over the weekend thinking that they dont have to change anything, just wait for the coalition to become more unpopular to regain power and get their snouts back in the trough is staggering.

47. At 08:11am on 28 Sep 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR

Good blog on Pestons Picks about Ireland yesterday.

Bertie Wooster told us they were a flagship for us all to emulate with their cuts. They have put Ireland back into a spiral of recession which in turn forces more cuts. Their allegedly all important credit rating has been downgraded due to the failing economy. OOPS!

Coming soon to a disunited kingdom near you.

Robin @ 44 wrote:
"This is a pantomime
It's a great time to be a Tory..."

Robin @ 46 wrote:
"There's no rejoicing."

>>

Next time you do a U-turn, perhaps leave more than one comment in between. Less blatant.

53. At 09:08am on 28 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

50#

And then a credible plan to do something about it. THEN, they might avoid being pitched into the electoral wilderness for another 18 years.... the arrogance of 49% of the delegates questioned over the weekend thinking that they dont have to change anything, just wait for the coalition to become more unpopular to regain power and get their snouts back in the trough is staggering.

......................
Hear hear!

#54 yeah and whose fault was that then Mr Brown and Mr Balls and company asleep on the job, eyes wide shut. If the UK has not spent more that is was earning on the bublle levels of income then we would not be heading for meltdown and combined with post #50 issues leaving 8,000,000 people think they do not have to work to have a life-style.

This is the central problem for labour how to provide the serives they say we need but might not require and not bankrupting the country at the same time.It easy to spend other peoples money and committed to sprending their grand-childrens money too

Ps it is interesting that twice as many voted BNP than GREEN bear that in mind Red ED.

#51 jon

I'd have to agree with you, the soap like way the media has covered this has ruined the message both brothers were trying to get across

I do think that whatever David does he is going to cause waves whether he likes it or not, the media and the coalition will ensure it

I think David M should take some time out, there is bound to be some resentment under the surface somewhere - I can't see him just taking it on the chin, he expected to win the race

nautonier @ 50

You say the cost to the NHS of treating immigrants is "£10 - £15 billion plus". I wonder where you get this figure from. It is expressed in an innumerate way - either the cost is between £10 billion and £15 billion or it is over £15 billion. It can't be both. Did you make it up, or is your source innumerate?

And if immigrants really are being paid a total of £200–300 billion a year then they're contributing an awful lot of tax and NI.

Why such a downer on our friends from overseas? Personally, I'm glad the UK has always had such a welcoming policy. So is my housekeeper.

Have either of these work shy brothers ever done a day's work in the real world?

Cameron, Clegg and the undynamic duo are clones, professional politicians who have never had a proper job. Ed's stint as a paper boy 3 years back does not count.

I forever live in hope, hope that Scotland will wake up and see labour for what it is, self serving careerists, with no concern for the working woman or man.


C McK

"31. At 10:14pm on 27 Sep 2010, craigmarlpool wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen, YouGov 27/9/10 :

Con 39%
Lab 40%
LD 12%"

And all Labour have to do is keep that the same until 2015...

"60. At 10:04am on 28 Sep 2010, Calum McKay wrote:
Have either of these work shy brothers ever done a day's work in the real world?"

I understand that after his Oxford university education, Ed did work as a journalist for a very short time but then started 'working' as a labour party researcher.

I'm sure that Oxford Uni & Westminster has equipped Ed with all the knowledge he needs to represent the ordinary working man. And as if that wasn't enough, having a university professor who was a 'theoretical marxist' would surely have been a great influence. A theoretical marxist being someone who writes a lot of books about socialism whilst sat in his nice comfortable study surrounded by all the comforts that the middle class could want.

I look forward to Ed telling us what the ordinary working man feels and wants.

53. At 09:08am on 28 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
.... the arrogance of 49% of the delegates questioned over the weekend thinking that they dont have to change anything, just wait for the coalition to become more unpopular to regain power and get their snouts back in the trough is staggering.
==============================================

YouGov 27/9/10 :

Con 39%
Lab 40%
LD 12%

54. At 09:10am on 28 Sep 2010, jon112dk wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not compare the UK with Ireland. It is like comparing apples with pears. Yes there are similarities but in essence they are different. Ireland has debts greater than its GDP. Its banking sector is still in turmoil, they have not yet got to the bottom of the problem so they don't know the real size and nature of the problem.

Also the population of The Republic of Ireland on September 28th 2010 is approximately 4,459,038. (Extrapolated from a population of 4,460,000 on September 22nd 2009 and a population of 4,459,300 on June 6th 2010.) Which means it is contracting. The issue with this is that it is not now migrants who are going back home but the indigenous population. And as is always is the case it is those with sought after skills who are fleeing the sinking ship.

The size of the Debt also needs to be taken into consideration. Ireland has a population of less than 10% of that of the UK, however its national debt is well over 25% of our national debt and these are based on the figures to date. I have seen projected figure for the end of the year that places their debt at over 35% of ours. To put it into perspective Ireland has a debt of over a third of a trillion pounds with a population of half the size of London.

Let us not forget that it is not only how much they owe it is the form of the debt as well. Ireland has curentley more property on its books than any other organisation in Europe both in the public and private sector. The issue with this is that is was brought onto the books at X and is currentley worth X - 15% to 25%. Not too much of a problem if they could afford to sit on it but they can't and it is now projected that as soon as they start to off load some of their portfolio the prices will drop even further. Figure of as much as X - 50% have been bandied about. On top of this there are then the hidden debts that are now starting to surface. Not only do the developers owe to the banks they have other creditors as was shown with the firm McDaid Developments who not only left their bank holding the tab for a £36 million pound debt they have have left almost a million pounds in unsecured debts to smaller creditors. Which in itself could take many of them over the edge and so the ripple continues. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

So please do not compare the UK with Ireland, yes we have issues and they need to be addressed but ours fall into insignificance in comparison.

if an election has a lower than 40% turnout we are told that it did not reflect the will of the people rather that there was voter apathy. How come 9% turn out in the Union area is considered a victory. If the Unions cannot guarantee a minimum response from their electorate then their vote loses credibility. This is on Principle. It implies that it was mainly the activists that voted. Ed won by the rules but those rules ought to be tweaked for the future to at least provide the democracy we would demand of even a third world country. This is why David's decision is important. The Party will rally behind ED but he has a challenge of legitimacy in the wider public. Its not insurmountable but must be overcome

Con 39%
Lab 40%
LD 12%
-------
51% to the Coalition!

63#

I couldnt care less what your spurious, "one percent at the expense of the Libs" poll says mate. Labour couldnt keep anything up for five years except stealth taxes!

Remember, the polls said the Welsh Windbag was a shoo-in in 1992, before Sheffield...

Look what happened to him...


Not only did he lose, royally, he then went off and lined his pockets in Brussels for a few years with YOUR money - oh hang on, no, we still had the rebate back then didnt we? Before His Royal Tonyness gave it all back.

I agree with all of those saying that Ed is a good leader and that he should take the party swinging to the left. This will then put them in absolutely non-electable political wasteland, they will presumably show their true colours and follow the unions on their ridiculous Quixotic tilting against the cuts that the last left-wing government left us with.
After a rout at the election in 2015, it will then be time for a centreist leader to come in and finally silence the left-wing vocal idiots. The other option is that Labour stay stuck with the unions and therefore the Lib Dems become the opposition.

If the coalition demonstrate fairness in the cuts, I can see Labour being out for a long time - how will they ever decontaminate themselves from their record of taking us into massive debt and gain any fiscal credibility?

"65. At 10:41am on 28 Sep 2010, toks wrote:
if an election has a lower than 40% turnout we are told that it did not reflect the will of the people rather that there was voter apathy. How come 9% turn out in the Union area is considered a victory. If the Unions cannot guarantee a minimum response from their electorate then their vote loses credibility. This is on Principle."

Well, that last part of your post supplies the answer. Your complaint is premised on the false assumption of the Labour party having principles.

#59 no not if they are being paid minimum wages and/or in cash and paying no tax/NI at all and that is part of the problem

Near me is a fruit packer employing imigrants and providing "lodgings".
The lodging are jam-packed based around the shift patterns of the packing plant, ie there are no cold beds they are being shared.

Do you get the picture, you have been feed a untruth by labour, these people are being at the least exploited and you should be condeming that from the roof tops too.

They earn and then send it abroad and then go home after around 2 years
There costs are divided by how many are crammed into the house wheras the working family of this country is 1 to a house thier their costs are much higher.

Do you get the picture and all you can try an infer is that people that raise the issue are racists.

Also in the High tech arena their are companies importing labour to undercut the UK nationals and cramming them in to reduce costs (I can give you names but that would not be allowed)

It not about rasism its about right/wrong fairness/equility of the real world

wjhy did you not employ a UK national to be your house keeper?

Hello Chris (there in London and there at 49). Can you please, when starting a post with "sagamix wrote", at least include one or two words from the eponymous! Way you're doing it here looks like you and I are drinking from the same cup. That, as you know, has yet to happen. One day maybe - e.g. when you realise the paramount importance of reducing inequality in our society - but not thus far.

67. At 10:54am on 28 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders

The cuts / recession / unemployment etc haven't even started yet and your mates are already on the way down.

It looks very much like just sitting back and waiting for the tories to make themselves unelectable is a viable strategy.

Fubar @ 67 wrote:
Remember, the polls said the Welsh Windbag was a shoo-in in 1992, before Sheffield...

>>

As you know (or should know, considering time spent on politics sites), polls back then had a built-in bias towards Labour which was confounded by actual voting. Pollsters now correct for this, and have been pretty much spot on at the last few elections.

But of course, it is silly to make too much of opinion polls at this stage in a 5-year term. Despite Labour's slim lead, I won't be cracking open the champagne quite yet. Well, no extra bottles anyway, just the amount I consume daily to live up to my sobriquet.

IR35 @ 70 wrote:
Near me is a fruit packer employing imigrants and providing "lodgings".
The lodging are jam-packed …

>>

Are you suggesting the workers are stealing the fruit?

#65 Toks wrote:
"Ed won by the rules but those rules ought to be tweaked for the future to at least provide the democracy we would demand of even a third world country."

But somehow appropriate for a third-rate party.

Did Ed win by the rules?

There seems to be growing evidence of undemocratic processes in the trade union section (no surprise there then). Campaign literature for Ed Miliband was enclosed with ballot papers (an envelope within an envelope to circumvent the rules). Many voters (e.g. my wife) did not receive ballot papers despite paying the political levy. Others did, despite saying that they did not support the Labour Party.

No wonder only 9% of the trade union constituency were bothered, or able, to vote.

The Conservative method of electing a leader is far superior. Have the MPs chose the best two candidates (how can a candidate who is in third place amongst MPs lead them in Parliament?) Then let the two candidates put their case to the membership who elect the winner in a secret ballot (77% turnout when Cameron was elected).

If a Party can't run its internal affairs properly it can hardly be expected to run the country properly.

Todays Times leader suggest that it is now time for David Miliband to move on and look to a life outside of politics.

Which just about sums up a major problem with our democracy in England.

Because the leader made no mention whatsoever of the fact that David Miliband already has a job - as the MP for South Shields.

It is as if the constituents only exist as a vehicle for personal ambition and this reflects the fact that these 'professional' politicians get parachuted in to 'safe' constituencies by the Party machine and have no meaningful relationship with the constituency.

It is grotesque and it ain't democracy.

44. At 06:18am on 28 Sep 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:

Rather ironic that the man whom members and MPs from the Labour party voted for then gets up and makes a speech asking them to 'UNITE' behind his brother.

This is a pantomime

It's a great time to be a Tory...
___________________________________
It must be.You had a general election against one of the most unpopular PMs ever,an easy ride in the press and you still couldn't get a majority.

IR35 @ 70

I agree that some employers exploit immigrant workers. But I guess that's just capitalism, isn't it? A bit more trade union involvement would help, I imagine.

No44 RockingRobin,
It must be a great time to be a Tory waking up every morning and being totally reliant on 'Red Vince' the Business secretary to get your programme through the House of Commons.

#72
I honestly think that many in Labour actually think that if they just wait for the coalition to become unpopular by cutting services then it means that Labour will become popular. I think this is false and very damaging for the Labour party - people are much smarter than Labour think and realise that the cuts are due to Brown overspending, as Labour always do and there is also lots of resentment for a number of other things that Labour have done. The electorate understand about jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
If Labour want to get back into power, they have to decontaminate themselves and show a grown-up and responsible front. Being led by the unions is no way to get into power and until they can demonstrate that they're destined for opposition.

sagamix 71

'e.g. when you realise the paramount importance of reducing inequality in our society '

Paramount is it. I guess North Korea must be your dream society.

Of course there has been much talk of the future role of David Miliband, but I think the Labour Party will miss Alastair Darling. Although I didn't agree with his economic policy he always came across as a man of integrity, and I suspect ordinary voters may have felt the same.

I only saw excerpts of his speech, but he seemed to be warning the Labour Party not to adopt Balls policy of wasting ever-increasing amounts of public spending on debt interest payments.

No67 Fubar,
I see nominations have closed for the UKIP leadership.
Did you get your nomination in?
Is it true that UKIP only have one policy?

72#

Not quite sure which bit of "I couldnt care less" you're having trouble getting your solitary brain cell around mate. Bit short on the ol' processing power are we?

If you think that doing that, just waiting for the other side to make themselves unpopular, is a viable strategy, then on you go. Fill your boots, please!! Write to your new leader and convince him that this is the tack he should take. I'd absolutely love it to happen, for this to be official party policy!

Should I tell you what the obvious highly dangerous flaw in that plan is????

Even if the coalition does indeed make itself unelectable???

And dont forget, Red Jon, chances are, AV will be in by then too.....

Shall I tell you what the flaw is??
.
.
.
.
Nah. You can figure it out for yourself.

LMAO! Away with you and your spurious poll! Go, kiss your new Leader's shoes whilst you have the chance!

Pdavies

u-turn if you want to. This Tory's still laughing.

Red Ed has an even nicer ring to it than labour lurch the left.

But my favourite is undoubtedly Ed Miliband's deficit attention disorder.

So many own goals, so little time.

HMLO god bless em ...

pdavies65

I think you're forgetting the point we're at in the economic cycle. Any govt inheriting the mess Labour left behind (or a golden legacy as you would put it) is going to get unpopular pretty quickly. As long as they've turned things around within a year of the next election they should be fine.

No68 Peter,
'Left wing government'? Time to go back to school.
Fairness with the cuts? Have a look at the IFS report.

Hello, hello, whats this conference motion all about then????

One to exercise plain English campaigners. Labour delegates are being asked to vote on this 135-word motion:

"Every CLP and BLP affiliated to this Party and as a pre condition to continued affiliation thereto shall with effect from forthwith do and execute such acts and deeds to transfer the beneficial ownership of their respective freehold and leasehold properties legal title to which is presently held wither by individuals or by Labour Party Nominees Limited to and for the benefit of The Labour Party subject only to the CLPs' and BLPs' existing rights of occupation thereof and to their continued receipt of all rents and profits there from and the right to license and to lease the said properties from time to time subject to the prior written consent of The National Executive Committee but subject to the CLPs' and BLPs' continuing respective obligations in respect of any borrowings secured on such properties."

Hmmm. Sounds like some kind of property scam to me! "Transfer the beneficial ownership to the Labour Party"? They're not thinking of using properties not owned by them as collateral for borrowing to keep the party from the financial implosion that would be a racing certainty if the unions were to withdraw their funding?

And, in the process threatening their constituency members with the chop if they dont comply??

Surely not! What a way to run a railroad....

Any property lawyers in the house??

#75

I think the way that a party runs it's own affairs says a lot about that party - for instance the Tories select two candidates and pit these two against each other to see who is the best. Labour, in their 'inclusive' way, have an opaque and difficult to understand election process which no-one has confidence in and doesn't provide the best winner. Who feels that this is fair or 'inclusive'? I doubt whether the other candidates feel better that it was done likes this. The next step is to introduce handicaps for black, gay or handicapped candidates.

No70 IR35,
Do you think Thatcher was right to sign the Single Market Agreement that provides free movement of labour for workers who's countries are members of the EU?
I have just come out of hospital after undergoing major surgery, I lost count of the number of people that looked after me who were from countries throughout the world. Without exception they were all wonderful.

75 johnharris66

Did Ed win by the rules?

There seems to be growing evidence of undemocratic processes in the trade union section (no surprise there then). Campaign literature for Ed Miliband was enclosed with ballot papers (an envelope within an envelope to circumvent the rules). Many voters (e.g. my wife) did not receive ballot papers despite paying the political levy. Others did, despite saying that they did not support the Labour Party.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The union block vote may have gone but it would appear that they still do not wish their members to come to an independent decision.

Are there any legal avenues that either disgruntled party / union members or even concerned members of the public could use to challenge this?

"I think this is false and very damaging for the Labour party - people are much smarter than Labour think and realise that the cuts are due to Brown overspending, as Labour always do and there is also lots of resentment for a number of other things that Labour have done. The electorate understand about jumping from the frying pan into the fire."

Jon'll demand a second opinion on that!

The 'psycho-drama', is mostly in your own head, Nick. And that of other journalists desparately creating your own copy. There will, ofcourse, be stresses around who won & who didn't, and these will be aggravated TO SOME EXTENT by the brother/family thing, but PSYCHO-DRAMA? Give us a break!

#78 yeah and they have been silent on the issue too, could have a imigrants union, it would be the biggest in the country, get the picture
along with the union of the work-shy

83#

Hello Souter, I trust you're well. :-)

Did I get my nomination in, hah, not this time. I'm even more unpopular than Winston McKenzie and he's a shameless self publicist.

Do they only have one policy?

See for yourself dear boy, see for yourself. Kinda irrelevant until 2015 anyway, but see for yourself. When you know you're never going to get within sniffing distance of the HM Loyal Opposition/HoC Tradesman's Entrance doormat (let alone the Downing Street one), you can pretty much promise anything you like, knowing you're hardly ever likely to be held accountable for it... as the Libs are now finding out, to their cost.

https://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1567-ukip-manifesto

Some interesting bits in there. Something for everyone, in fact, except those looking to perpetuate the same old same old, for their own personal gain.

No82 Johnharris66,
John,I have a passionate interest in learning.Do you think I should listen to you in relation to economic questions, or the other one,you know, the one responsible for 'The General Theory'?

#71 which vision of eqaulity is that then Harriet Harman positive discrimination for people whom vote labour or could be inticed to vote labour the one that lost you the election or the equailty of the likes of equal parenting as expressed by the fathers.

Should we not feel a little bit sorry for Nick R and his team? After all where will the major political stories come from this current conference? Labour has a new, and a rather unexpected, new leader, it has not yet had its elections for the shadow cabinet, indeed we do not yet know who will stand,and so Ed will only be able to make his apologies for what went wrong in the last 13 years and perhaps share with us his vision for future Labour policies.
Can Ed square the various circles in front of him, forming a credible shadow team from those elected next week given the announcements from those former ministers who will not be standing yet at the same time wishing to show just how much things will change, balancing the views of his supporters with those of the wider electorate, without the "centre ground" he surely could not expect to win a general election? And can he find a role that his brother could accept?
Will Labour's MPs unite behind him?

88 Fubar_Saunders

Hmmm. Sounds like some kind of property scam to me! "Transfer the beneficial ownership to the Labour Party"? They're not thinking of using properties not owned by them as collateral for borrowing to keep the party from the financial implosion that would be a racing certainty if the unions were to withdraw their funding?

And, in the process threatening their constituency members with the chop if they dont comply??

Surely not! What a way to run a railroad

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Labour Party on the verge of bankruptcy? One would need a heart of stone not to laugh!

I often disagree with Nick but on this I think he's calling it about right.

DM is the voice of reason and sanity in the Labour party, the middle ground candidate best equipped to fight over the political centre ground (which is now the key area).

Without him, look at what's left (excuse the pun) - two Red Eds, an even more left-wing black-bencher and Burnham who seemed to just try to find a place to be that someone else wasn't already in.

And the B team... a postman, a discredited dwarf with pockets still stuffed full of taxpayers' cash. At least the got rid of John the Sailor man.

They are starting to look more and more like old Labour - a leader in hock to the unions (despite his denials, Blair was right that their support of Red for leader will be tied to policy demands and so will any future cash) and a whole host of loud lefties emotively screaming about anything and everything the other side do without a shred of logic or fact in support of their assertions.

David Milly could distract attention from that bunch if he were leader but I doubt even he can do it as Chancellor. There is just too much dead wood to cover without doing it from the top down.

The one thing I disagree on is that he sounds to me like a man preparing a dignified exit. To have been seen to react to the election result by petulantly storming off into the sunset would not have worked - if he were going to support Ed then I believe he would have said so by now so I believe that he is preparing to announce a carefully considered position of being unable to continue on the front benches.