They both deserve it.

Obama was such a let down.

 

Ed was just a dud to begin with. They only voted him leader to spite his brother didn't they? 

Yes, they did Rog 

Shame really cause the bro would have been much better 

I didn't like him either Moonie  

He did a hissy fit and left politics afterwards!  

I much prefer Ed to David (although that's not saying I think he is P.M. material - yet?)

 

David always seemed rather slippery

I used both of my votes for Ed, not to spite Dave the Blair supporter, but because I thought Ed was more left wing.
I might have voted for the other Ed but he totally messed up after the Baby P incident.

I think he'll be a good PM, if given the chance.  He has a lot of good qualities and perspectives that can lead debates underneath the awkwardness. 

Garage Joe, I voted for Andy Burnham but Ed was my second choice.  I still think they've got the right man and the better Miliband.

 

 

Andy Burnham was my choice too Carnelian...I think Ed's got some decent idea's, he just doesn't come across well debating, he's awkward and it's all about style not substance these days.  He reminds me of  Michael Foot, brilliant, fair minded man, but sadly didn't have the 'look' to win an election. 

Didn't have the look, full stop Dameee 

 

 

shame though Moonie, he was well respected, even by the Tories 

I was just about to post something similar, Dame Ann.  Watching the way that people are rounding on Ed now is very much like the way they vilified Michael Foot (one of my favourite politicians).  I well remember the poisonous bile that poured out of the Daily Wail and its readers when Mr Foot's coat didn't meet their exacting standards on Remembrance Sunday. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm of the same mind Madame...like the 28 apologies by the tory press in the year Brown was booted out...3 lines on page 38 whatever..shame that people can be so easily led by the press and what party are in their pocket  I agree about Michael Foot, fair minded man, on par with John smith in my eyes 

Michael Foot was an intellectual.  He may not have looked 'the part' but, one thing is for sure, if he had been PM in 2003, we would not have joined in with Dubya's ill-fated blunder into Iraq.  When asked if he would commit British troops, Mr Foot would politely have told Dubya to 'do one', I think

Ed's response was pure New Labour speak:  “This is nonsense, I don’t accept that this matter arises. I believe that what the party wants to focus on is the country. There are huge issues that our country faces. We are determined to be a one-term opposition.”

 

I despair of politicians who can't even speak like normal people.

 

...and comparing Ed to an intellectual giant like Michael Foot is just plain silly. He forgot  to mention the defecit in his recent keynote speech f.g.s.

I like Ed. In the beginning I didn't agree with GJ about him, but he's a decent man and Rog, I think he is very clever he just has image problems and in today's climate a lot of ppl go for fag smoking, beer swilling, crap talking Farage.

 

 

I wasn't comparing him on intellectual terms Rosie, I was comparing them in terms of not being the 'norm' that attracts voters .. 

  Sorry Dame. I'm all grrr +  kick @rse today 

 

no worries Rosie  

 I'm steam cleaning the rugs today... gonna take my  out on these stains. They bettah shift! 

There is little capital in having an intellectual face off either but.

Both Oxbridge, both journalists, though to be fair Ed later got a Masters in economics after good science a-levels, and PPE.

They don't just have anyone lecturing at Havard, though having a famous Dad helps!!

As was I.

I know what you mean Col, image counts for so much when it comes to votes.

 

Ed just doesn't seem to have any particular vision beyond vote winning gimmicks. I've no faith left in New Labour overall. My own MP lost his London constituency, after having the second highest expenses claims in the whole of the UK. Then they packed him off down here to S Wales knowing its a Labour heartland and he'd get in [ he did]. People like that should be deselected.

*is not intellectual so...*

*goes to look up the meaning of intellectual*

this is so true Dammee - I'm afraid Ed does not portray well as a leader and they should have ditched him long ago

I think that those of us with the power to ditch him will wait and see if the party comes up with a left wing alternative first!

I understood all of that and it's just what politicians say.  Not particular to Labour.  I suppose people like Farage's childish attitude and Boris Johnson's quirky buffoonery. 

 

David Cameron, leader of a party that drapes itself in the union jack and bangs on about Churchill at every opportunity, didn't even know when America joined WW2! 

 

A lot of the attacks on Ed are gratuitous, nit picking and pathetic by the Tory media, much like those directed at Gordon Brown. Our media wants the bosses' party in power.  Simple as that!

 

Unfortunately we live in a country where our comically described 'free press' lets Cameron get away with murder while focusing on every minor hiccup of Ed Miliband. 

Hate to say it, but I can see another useless, banker friendly private sector loving/union bashing public school educated Blairite  on the horizon.  And so the wheel turns and the neo-libs stay in power, whoever we elect!

A fair point! I remain annoyed that people expect politics to happen to them rather than getting involved.

God, it's depressing when I feel like agreeing with Russell for a revolution.

Don't worry! Russell along with various other peepil will not be taking part in the revolution, as they will have bad backs.

The revolution will probably not be televised either.

 

(the old ones are the best)

But Russell is raising issues that Labour are just too scared to raise.  Could anyone imagine a Labour MP on Newsnight, articulating the disgust for global capitalist exploitation. 

 

Of course, Russell's a beneficiary of that - as we are to various extents, which he's well aware.

 

Labour can't even decide whether they agree with the class war Tory cuts and introduced the vile Atos regime.  The problem with always looking over your shoulder to see what the Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch think is that in the end, the potential Labour voters think you stand for what the Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch think, and you probably do. 

 

I'll vote Labour but with no passion.  Ed has more potential than Blair originally did in 1997, if he sticks to what I hope are his left wing principles.

I think it was Polly Toynbee who suggested that we voted Labour whilst wearing clothes pegs on us nose.

New Labour is rotten from the top down. Look what they did to Ann Clywd who spoke up about the appalling Welsh care failures. And yes. Ed could change that at in an instant. [ I know its from the Daily Fail but the story still holds true].

I'm no Tory b.t.w but its the Mafia like control exerted by New Labour on anyone who steps out of line that turns my stomach.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ght-retain-seat.html

I'm not!

Watched the do at the Cenotaph this morning and found myself hoping against hope that Ed wouldn't trip up whilst laying his wreath and fall base over apex.

 

(There were, no doubt, others who were hoping against hope that he would)

Farage wanted to be at the Cenotaph.  A bit sick for a man who sits in the same European parliamentary group as a holocaust denier.

Getting rid of Ed would be stupidity on the Labour Party's behalf.  Alan Johnson doesn't have half the potential that Ed Miliband has.  Just a washed up lazy Blairite who was utterly clueless as shadow chancellor.  It seems that Labour sometimes can't resist dancing to the agenda of the Tory press.  If they go down that route, they'll be handing the election to Bullingdon Boy on a plate.