Has Ed Miliband shot himself in the foot?

[trousers]

'Ed Miliband's attempts to compare the cause of the protesters to the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa was a grotesque piece of hyperbole.'

 

 

'Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, addressed Saturday's TUC "rally against the cuts" purporting to represent the "mainstream majority". He doesn't – any more than the thugs who caused mayhem in central London stand for anything other than a predilection for criminal violence. Mr Miliband is entitled to make a speech attacking Government economic policy just as the public sector unions are free to demonstrate against what they consider to be an unwarranted attack on the pay and conditions of their members. But they cannot get away unchallenged with the assertion that they represent anything other than the sectional interests of a client state built up by the last Labour government at great cost to the nation's financial health. Furthermore, Mr Miliband's attempts to compare the cause of the protesters to the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa or the campaign for civil rights in America was a grotesque piece of hyperbole that has prompted even his own colleagues to question his judgment.'

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8410498/TUC-protest-march-Ed-Miliband-does-not-speak-for-the-country.html

[dune]

No-body listens to what Mr Bean says anyway so he can't have shot himself in the foot. Whenever he speaks you just hear an irritating geek with a lisp.

[Matthew Le God]

No-body listens to what Mr Bean says anyway so he can't have shot himself in the foot. Whenever he speaks you just hear an irritating geek with a lisp.

 

William Hague, 1977 Tory party conference in Blackpool.

[dune]

William Hague, 1977 Tory party conference in Blackpool.

 

Precisely. Both Hague and Mr Bean are bearable in cabinet, but neither have the charisma required of a leader.

 

David Cameron on the other hand has a prime ministerial aura about him.

 

In my avatar he looks right at home as a club captain.

[Dimond Geezer]

Precisely. Both Hague and Mr Bean are bearable in cabinet, but neither have the charisma required of a leader.

 

David Cameron on the other hand has a prime ministerial aura about him.

 

In my avatar he looks right at home as a club captain.

 

In your avatar it looks like his head is too small for his body.

[bridge too far]

In your avatar it looks like his head is too small for his body.

 

That would be his comb-over - not as much hair as he used to have

[dune]

In your avatar it looks like his head is too small for his body.

 

I can asure you it's the same size as Matt Le Tissiers whose body I thought worthy for Davids head. I hope you're not suggesting Matts head was too small!

[thefunkygibbons]

If he wants to be taken seriously, he has to stop opposing just for opposition's sake and provide a real alternative

[badgerx16]

I suppose that the OP, and especially Dunce, won't actually have listened to the speech, and instead prefer to get all their 'facts' from the Torygraph. What he said was "We come in the tradition of those who marched before us,......", "Our cause may be different, but we come together today to realise our voice, and we stand on their shoulders, we stand on the shoulders of those who have marched in the past". You may interpret that as you wish, but he most certainly did not make a direct comparison between the Hyde Park event and other much more historic episodes. It would have been vain and naive in the extreme to have gone that far.

 

Other selected lines, probably completely ignored by our totally unbiased media: "David Cameron, you wanted to create a 'Big Society', this IS the Big Society"; "We speak today for the mainstream of Britain, because we ARE the mainstream of Britain"; "I beleive there is a need for difficult choices and some cuts, but this Government is going too far and too fast"; "I say to David Cameron, the hundreds of thousands of people here reject your attempt to divide our country".

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I suppose that the OP, and especially Dunce, won't actually have listened to the speech, and instead prefer to get all their 'facts' from the Torygraph. What he said was "We come in the tradition of those who marched before us,......", "Our cause may be different, but we come together today to realise our voice, and we stand on their shoulders, we stand on the shoulders of those who have marched in the past". You may interpret that as you wish, but he most certainly did not make a direct comparison between the Hyde Park event and other much more historic episodes. It would have been vain and naive in the extreme to have gone that far.

 

Other selected lines, probably completely ignored by our totally unbiased media: "David Cameron, you wanted to create a 'Big Society', this IS the Big Society"; "We speak today for the mainstream of Britain, because we ARE the mainstream of Britain"; "I beleive there is a need for difficult choices and some cuts, but this Government is going too far and too fast"; "I say to David Cameron, the hundreds of thousands of people here reject your attempt to divide our country".

 

So Miliband didn't actually make a link to anti-apartheid protesters? If not then the answer to our Tory friend who posted the orginal question: no he hasn't shot himself in the foot.

[SuperMikey]

Telegraph in Anti-Labour story shocker.

 

FFS.

[Verbal]

I can asure you it's the same size as Matt Le Tissiers whose body I thought worthy for Davids head.

 

If this is how your idle away your time while you wait for your redundant lifespan to conclude, I could even start to feel sorry for you. Can we stay on topic here? The Tories may be able to ignore a march of more than 400,000 people. I bet the LibDems are in full-scale panic. Once again, EM gave a rather impressive speech.

[SO16_Saint]

2 sides of the same coin, only one side is made out to be more real than the other - by whichever party you are a believer in at any given point in time.

[trousers]

Telegraph in Anti-Labour story shocker.

 

FFS.

 

I did search for alternative reports and views on Miliband's appearance at a "no cuts" rally but the left wing media seem very reluctant to highlight his speech for some unfathomable reason....

 

FFS

 

;-)

[Matthew Le God]

The Tories may be able to ignore a march of more than 400,000 people.

 

59,600,000 people weren't on the march tbf

[badgerx16]

59,600,000 people weren't on the march tbf

62% of those on the electoral role did not vote for this Government, tbf.

[bridge too far]

I did search for alternative reports and views on Miliband's appearance at a "no cuts" rally but the left wing media seem very reluctant to highlight his speech for some unfathomable reason....

 

FFS

 

;-)

 

Although the Grauniad's editorial does mention it:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/28/anti-cuts-march

 

Particularly:

 

The TUC march was a success. Ed Miliband was right to address it. But the campaign remains rooted in the agenda of the public sector unions. The Labour leader faces a much bigger task now. He needs to reach out to those who think of themselves as much as taxpayers as consumers or producers of public services. A longer march now beckons

[Viking Warrior]

The day labour start to look after me instead of their cronies will be the day I might consider voting for them .

but there is no chance while milliband and balls etc are at the helm. Blair, Brown millbans are probly out of the same charm school as Harold Wilson

 

Shame John Smith and dewar Both died . would have made exellent PM's

[dune]

The day labour start to look after me instead of their cronies will be the day I might consider voting for them.

 

This is just it. Unless you're a slob on benefits, an immigrant, or in a public sector non job the Labour party are against you.

[badgerx16]

This is just it. Unless you're a slob on benefits, an immigrant, or in a public sector non job the Labour party are against you.

Why are you such a pr!ck ?

 

( And why do I bite ? )

[dune]

Why are you such a pr!ck ?

 

( And why do I bite ? )

 

Because you're in a public sector non job perhaps.

[badgerx16]

Because you're in a public sector non job perhaps.

At least I'm in a job

[LGTL]

The day labour start to look after me instead of their cronies will be the day I might consider voting for them .

but there is no chance while milliband and balls etc are at the helm. Blair, Brown millbans are probly out of the same charm school as Harold Wilson

 

Shame John Smith and dewar Both died . would have made exellent PM's

 

Please tell me you vote Tory?! You couldn't make it up.

[benjii]

Ed Miliband is about as impressive as the contents of my handkerchief.

[SuperMikey]

Ed Miliband is about as impressive as the contents of my handkerchief.

 

If you watch PMQ's, Cameron never has an answer to Miliband's questions. He's not a particularly inspiring leader (I would've much preferred Andy Burnham), but he's a sensible and intelligent politician. Something we need right now!

[scotty]

If this is how your idle away your time while you wait for your redundant lifespan to conclude, I could even start to feel sorry for you. Can we stay on topic here? The Tories may be able to ignore a march of more than 400,000 people. I bet the LibDems are in full-scale panic. Once again, EM gave a rather impressive speech.

 

Labour managed to ignore a million people marching against the Iraq invasion, possibly the most misguided foreign policy decision in my lifetime.

[benjii]

If you watch PMQ's, Cameron never has an answer to Miliband's questions. He's not a particularly inspiring leader (I would've much preferred Andy Burnham), but he's a sensible and intelligent politician. Something we need right now!

 

Jesus Christ. No PM ever answers a question at PMQs. It is a ludicrous, somewhat unedifying, charade. Jerry Springer politics to sustain the cretinous sycophants who masquerade as political commentators or politico-wannabes. A slur on democracy.

 

By and large, the three main parties are a homogenous coallescence of self-serving, self-consuming weirdos. It makes very little difference who is on power but the sight of one of the chief protagonists in the disaster-economics of the zeitgeist displaying the gall and hypocrisy shown over the weekend was repulsive in the extreme.

[scotty]

Jesus Christ. No PM ever answers a question at PMQs. It is a ludicrous, somewhat unedifying, charade. Jerry Springer politics to sustain the cretinous sycophants who masquerade as political commentators or politico-wannabes. A slur on democracy.

 

By and large, the three main parties are a homogenous coallescence of self-serving, self-consuming weirdos. It makes very little difference who is on power but the sight of one of the chief protagonists in the disaster-economics of the zeitgeist displaying the gall and hypocrisy shown yesterday was repulsive in the extreme.

 

is it just me, or do I detect a hint of cynicism?

[bridge too far]

Looking forward to Michael "don't you love my ruby red pout" Gove deliver the latest U-turn

[solentstars]

yawn another tory bashing brigade thread for the die hards.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

yawn another tory bashing brigade thread for the die hards.

 

errrrrr, you did see the title of the thread?

[dune]

errrrrr, you did see the title of the thread?

 

He's not very bright.

[Lord Duckhunter]

400,000 marched through the capital on the Countryside alliance march-no trouble

750,000 marched against the Iraq war-no trouble.

 

Milliband had to speak at the TUC rally because he is the union's man. He dose not speak for the "mainstream majority" they spoke at the general election. The Tories stood on a platform of cutting the deficit in one Parliament, Labour on halving it. Which party won the most votes, which party had enough seats to form a coalition with the Lib/Dems and which didn't? It looks like the "mainstream majority" rejected his party only a few months ago.

 

To say you speak for the "mainstream majority" within a year of losing 91 seats and within a year of an election where the people rejected you, is arrogant in the extreme.

[Thedelldays]

I still have no idea how ed and balls would do to sort the country and it's utterly ficked finances?

 

To go on a march demonstrating about cuts then say you would have done many of the cuts yourself.. Like cutting £1bn effectively from the policing budget is rather confusing

[bridge too far]

I still have no idea how ed and balls would do to sort the country and it's utterly ficked finances?

 

To go on a march demonstrating about cuts then say you would have done many of the cuts yourself.. Like cutting £1bn effectively from the policing budget is rather confusing

 

It may confuse you but I think many people can see the difference between the two approaches. One approach is to cut fast and deep, the other approach is to cut more slowly and less deeply. Can't get much plainer than that.

[Viking Warrior]

Le god

 

Just because I do not vote labour you automatically assume I vote Tory. Well wrong

and I dont have to justify who I vote for to you either

[Thedelldays]

Really, so what is their plan then if it so plain ?

[hypochondriac]

If he wants to be taken seriously, he has to stop opposing just for opposition's sake and provide a real alternative

 

What a sensible post. I am still struggling to see what alternatives that Labour are offering which will be better than the current incumbents. I know what they will do worse, having experienced eight years of them not that long ago. As far as I can tell, the main two points are that there would have been less cuts and no tuition fees. On the first point, it is much too early to tell which approach works best in our case and on the second point I agree with tuition fees so no reason to vote Labour there.

 

As my old Dad said last week (extremely clever chap and has voted Labour and Tory in the past before anyone starts) it's a bit rich of Labour to be lecturing and criticising the Tories now when they created this mess in the first place! The Tories deserve to be given the chance to clear the mess up which wasn't created by them.

 

On other policies such as Europe and international relations, it seems to me that the coalition is doing rather well and dare I say it much better than Labour managed, certainly during the end of Blair's reign and the whole of Brown's one. We led the way with Libyan response and are taking a much stronger stance in Europe, an issue which I probably care about most of all. (I would like it to be much stronger, but I appreciate that we have committed ourselves to certain things and that for the sake of diplomacy we have to make certain concessions.)

 

When I voted Tory at the election, the reasons were because I could see that they offered very obvious alternatives to how Labour had been doing things, especially during their final term when they got too comfortable. I liked their stronger stance on Europe, the notion that people had to take responsibility for things even if that sort of talk was soundbites. With the deficit I understood that cuts were happening regardless of who was in power so in many ways this whole thing is nonsense and built up by the media to be bigger than it is. Swallow the pain for a few years, have some good times and then get on the road to recovery. It would have been the same had Labour been in power.

 

The challenge for Labour now is to offer a real alternative that will appeal to me and demonstrate why the country would be better under their leadership. I am unconvinced thus far.

[South Londoner]

The real problem is that all the leading politicians in the three main parties are professional politicians; they've never had a proper job outside of politics itself and no experience of the "real" World outside the Westminster village.

[hypochondriac]

It may confuse you but I think many people can see the difference between the two approaches. One approach is to cut fast and deep, the other approach is to cut more slowly and less deeply. Can't get much plainer than that.

 

Long term effects of either are completely unknown and their are too many intangibles to know which way to go. How I judged it is that Labour took us down this alley so why on Earth should we keep them in power to put it right. Much of the problem stemmed from them and I had little faith in their financial knowledge considering what has happened.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

It may confuse you but I think many people can see the difference between the two approaches. One approach is to cut fast and deep, the other approach is to cut more slowly and less deeply. Can't get much plainer than that.

 

In fairness BTF that is quite woolly.

[hypochondriac]

The real problem is that all the leading politicians in the three main parties are professional politicians; they've never had a proper job outside of politics itself and no experience of the "real" World outside the Westminster village.

 

I totally agree and it is in this scenario that you go for the best of a bad bunch. It seemed quite clear to me that after the mess that was Labour in its final term in office, the Tories were the only viable alternative with the most common sense policies. We simply had to have new leadership during this period and I think that most are glad we did not have another 4 years of Labour if they are honest with themselves. Who knows, it could be that Labour can learn some lessons from their election defeat and become more appealing to myself. We shall see.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It may confuse you but I think many people can see the difference between the two approaches. One approach is to cut fast and deep, the other approach is to cut more slowly and less deeply. Can't get much plainer than that.

 

That was the choice at the last election and more people voted for The Tory approach.

 

With that in mind how can Ed claim he speaks for the "mainstream majoirty". Particulary in England, have you seen the areas of blue in England?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2432632/UK-General-Election-2010-political-map.html

[hypochondriac]

That was the choice at the last election and more people voted for The Tory approach.

 

With that in mind how can Ed claim he speaks for the "mainstream majoirty". Particulary in England, have you seen the areas of blue in England?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2432632/UK-General-Election-2010-political-map.html

 

Because that term is politician speak and actually can mean whatever you want it to.

[bridge too far]

That was the choice at the last election and more people voted for The Tory approach.

 

With that in mind how can Ed claim he speaks for the "mainstream majoirty". Particulary in England, have you seen the areas of blue in England?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2432632/UK-General-Election-2010-political-map.html

 

More overall votes for Tories than for Labour but not an overall majority of votes, it has to be said. Maybe, as often happens, a lot of people were not so much disenchanted with Labour's deficit reduction plan as with Labour in general (after 13 years in power).

 

Maybe those same voters are now realising the horrific implications of the Tory cuts. Interestingly, on that march, were folk representing pensioners, a WI in Gloucestershire (that well-known communist enclave ) and large groups of people who will be directly affected by cuts to disability services, social services and libraries as well as the health and education sectors.

[hypochondriac]

More overall votes for Tories than for Labour but not an overall majority of votes, it has to be said. Maybe, as often happens, a lot of people were not so much disenchanted with Labour's deficit reduction plan as with Labour in general (after 13 years in power).

 

Maybe those same voters are now realising the horrific implications of the Tory cuts. Interestingly, on that march, were folk representing pensioners, a WI in Gloucestershire (that well-known communist enclave ) and large groups of people who will be directly affected by cuts to disability services, social services and libraries as well as the health and education sectors.

 

I still don't get your point. There was a march against cuts, there would have been a march against cuts had Labour been in power. People were warned about cuts months ago before the election even. People know these things are coming but it is built up so much by the media that the situation is actually worse in the general public's head than the reality. We will have a few crummy years and then everything will get back to normal. Deal with the fallout from ours and the bank's idiocy and stop moaning FFS. This country has lived during world wars when we had nothing and we all pulled together, yet people are up in arms about universities charging money for loads of noddy degrees. People in this country don't appreciate how lucky they are.

Edited 28 March, 2011 by hypochondriac

[Lord Duckhunter]

More overall votes for Tories than for Labour but not an overall majority of votes, it has to be said. Maybe, as often happens, a lot of people were not so much disenchanted with Labour's deficit reduction plan as with Labour in general (after 13 years in power).

 

Maybe those same voters are now realising the horrific implications of the Tory cuts. Interestingly, on that march, were folk representing pensioners, a WI in Gloucestershire (that well-known communist enclave ) and large groups of people who will be directly affected by cuts to disability services, social services and libraries as well as the health and education sectors.

 

I'm sure that the Countyside alliance had WI members, had poor little children, had pensioners and even unemployed people on it, there were after all 400,000 of them. They never claimed to be the "mainstream majority" though. If the Tories plans were so bad why is it just the Jocks and Taffs (where a far higher % of there work force is in the public sector) that rejected them. In England they has a massive majority. Is it just the English that didn't understand the cuts that were coming.

 

Didn't Labour promise cuts in excess of Maggie Thatcher's?

[bridge too far]

Hypo - my point was that, in general, people will suffer a government for a number of years but, when things start to go a bit pear-shaped, they'll vote against that government, thinking it will miraculously turn things round.

 

In my experience, from years of door-stepping for the Labour Party, I've found that most people don't bother to read manifestos. They are either entrenched party loyalists (of whatever party) or they change their vote between parties. It happened to the Tories in 97 and it happened to Labour last year.

 

But it's now that some people are beginning to realise just how deep these cuts are going to be and it's hurting them and they don't like it.

 

Talking about war-time spirit (something even I'm too young to have experienced ) is irrelevant. That was then and we had a common enemy. This is now.

 

BTW thank you for a polite and reasoned debate.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

 

But it's now that some people are beginning to realise just how deep these cuts are going to be and it's hurting them and they don't like it.

 

 

Based on what? A tiny % of the population protesting in London.

 

The next proper judgement of the British people will come in 4 and a bit years time, until then it's all opinion. My personal opinion is that there would have been cuts under Labour, but they would have been targetted to aviod upsetting their paymasters at the Unions.I doubt very much if my Council tax would have been frozen under Labour, or my tax rate raised. There would have been job losses, but Private sector employees tend not to arrange marches.

[scotty]

I still don't get your point. There was a march against cuts, there would have been a march against cuts had Labour been in power. People were warned about cuts months ago before the election even. People know these things are coming but it is built up so much by the media that the situation is actually worse in the general public's head than the reality. We will have a few crummy years and then everything will get back to normal. Deal with the fallout from ours and the bank's idiocy and stop moaning FFS. This country has lived during world wars when we had nothing and we all pulled together, yet people are up in arms about universities charging money for loads of noddy degrees. People in this country don't appreciate how lucky they are.

 

Good post, and the point about degrees does my head in every time I hear about tuition fees crippling the graduates. Blair had a "vision" I think he called it of at least half of all school leavers going on to get a degree. Didnt seem to occur to him that would effectively devalue the whole point of having one, or that it would mean a whole lot less school leavers going into the service industries, hence the ubiquitous "Polish plumbers" shipping in to supply that demand. If a potential graduate doesnt think his/her degree is going to be worth the money they are paying for it, which will in any case be written off at age 51, you have to wonder whether they are really suited to what is supposed to be an education aimed at the most intelligent and capable of our offspring. If they dont feel that its worth it, dont do it and get a job instead.