Bollitics The new leader of the Labour Party

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Russell Brand for Labour leader.

[tonyh29]

 

It's odd that the big defence of Miliband is that they don't need to change their leader, the current government is incredibly unpopular and they feel that Ed can take advantage.

go with them

The strange thing is that they're right, the current government is unpopular - but they appear to be trying to take advantage by being as similar to them as possible. Miliband is a party leader type, there's nothing wrong with him i suppose, but frankly, it's the party that needs to change, we don't need three sets of Tories.

Yes.

They need to have the courage of whatever convictions they still have and follow them through.

People think they know what the Tories stand for and they don't like them in sufficient number for them to win.

People think they know what the UKIPs stand for (though they don't actually stand for those things, in most cases) and they like them in sufficient numbers for them to get some MPs.

People think that Labour sort of is a bit incompetent on the economy but less bad on the NHS and don't offer an alternative worth voting for in sufficient numbers to win. And they think Milliband is a bit wierd becaus the pres tell them he is, and because he doesn't come across particularly well on the telly (not that he's on much).

 

As a result the narrative is all about the UKIPs/Tory obsessions with yurp and immigration. There's a heck of a lot of people would rather hear about sorting out the mess the country is in. The reason it's in a mess isn't yurp or immigration.

 

 

 

ah the old "because the press tell them line"    .. people don't infer that you vote Green because the lentil eating voices in your head tell you to so why does everyone against Ed have to be brainwashed by the press  ... he's done a  perfectly decent job of showing he's not up to it on his own without the need for the press  ... he's not for me in the same way that Boris isn't for many or Lucas isn't for many

 

Your last statement needs an amendment ... Labour are just as obsessed with Immigration as the other 2 parties  ..hence the apologies for the previous administration and the admissions they got it wrong    .. why ... because it's seen as a vote winner  and they are all in the vote winning game at the end of the day  ( though possibly not the Lib Dems ) 

[OutByEaster?]

It's the media that decide what 'vote winners' are, then the political parties that chase those votes. 

[Condimentalist]

I wouldn't be against seeing Yvette Cooper as leader at all, but it's actually not fair to the public to change the leader within 6 months of the election. They have no time to get to know them, and then stand to be encumbered with them for a fixed 5 year term if they win. A lot of people still thought Ed Miliband was a good idea during the first 6 months of his leadership. Imagine if he'd come come in now - he'd probably win the election and then he'd actually be the Prime Minister, and we'd be stuck with him. As it is he's had several years to show what he's about and it turns out that the answer is not a lot - but the Labour party have made their bed and in my opinion they should lie in it. 

 

The party is a mess though. I can't vote for them, partly because of the leadership, partly because I have absolutely no idea what they stand for. They need visionary leadership from somewhere, and I have to say their front bench is massively uninspiring. Cooper and Alexander are the only two that stand out for me, and the latter is unelectable in the current climate because he's Scottish. 

[bickster]

It is absolutely amazing how many open goals this party can miss.

Today Cameron lies about the result of the investigation in the child abuse files going missing at the Home Office. Last week Gideon lied about reducing the EU contribution. These points should be being hammered home, they aren't so much as mentioned the next day. Gideon's lie should still be at the forefront of issues today, but its long gone. No one will remember Cameron's lie by Thursday.

[tonyh29]

as Ian has pointed out before though , we don't vote for our leaders as such ... In a lot of instances people will be voting for their local MP ( and maybe the party)

I guess the leaders policies can turn people off a party ( see Thatcher) but as many have said already nobody really knows what those policies are at present ....

I don't know how many people would be going into a voting booth thinking I would vote labour but I don't like that Ed bloke so I think I'll vote Tory instead but I'd imagine it would be countable on 2 hands ( or 1 if you live on the Isle of Man )

Edited November 11, 2014 by tonyh29

[tonyh29]

It is absolutely amazing how many open goals this party can miss.

Today Cameron lies about the result of the investigation in the child abuse files going missing at the Home Office. Last week Gideon lied about reducing the EU contribution. These points should be being hammered home, they aren't so much as mentioned the next day. Gideon's lie should still be at the forefront of issues today, but its long gone. No one will remember Cameron's lie by Thursday.

I'm still staggered by the Shameful deceit in the commons last night ... We should be on the streets with pitchforks and yet not even a whimper

[blandy]

 

People...think Milliband is a bit wierd becaus the press tell them he is, and because he doesn't come across particularly well on the telly (not that he's on much).

 

As a result the narrative is all about the UKIPs/Tory obsessions with yurp and immigration. There's a heck of a lot of people would rather hear about sorting out the mess the country is in. The reason it's in a mess isn't yurp or immigration.

 

 

ah the old "because the press tell them line"    .. people don't infer that you vote Green because the lentil eating voices in your head tell you to so why does everyone against Ed have to be brainwashed by the press  ... he's done a  perfectly decent job of showing he's not up to it on his own without the need for the press  ... he's not for me in the same way that Boris isn't for many or Lucas isn't for many

 

Your last statement needs an amendment ... Labour are just as obsessed with Immigration as the other 2 parties  ..hence the apologies for the previous administration and the admissions they got it wrong    .. why ... because it's seen as a vote winner  and they are all in the vote winning game at the end of the day  ( though possibly not the Lib Dems )

 

You're welcome to disagree, but I think the coverage of Milliband does influence (not determine) how people think about him. I think it will re-inforce feint opinion. The press re-inforces the view of (say) Boris Johnson. People will think "he's a bit colourful (or whatever), but the media magnifies that - he plays to it, as well. With Milliband, they with their bacon sarnie photos, and beggar pics and so on definitely do pick up on and amplify his characteristics, which presents a distorted image and then people look for it - "look there he is being odd again" - rather than listening to his words.

His problem, in this media driven age.

It affects all people in the public eye - this easy pigeon holing of them. It works to Millibands disadvantage more than many others.

 

All IMO.

 

I'm not keen on Lentils, most of the time. You have no idea who I'll vote for - I know this because I don't know myself, or if I even will.

 

Agree that labour are also shifting towards UKIP, rather than making a case, and it's cowardly.

That said there are aspects of immigration which need discussing, but it needs more than "we'll all stop/reduce it" (paraphrasing).

[Demitri_C]

I'm still staggered by the Shameful deceit in the commons last night ... We should be on the streets with pitchforks and yet not even a whimper 

 

People are more interested in moaning on facebook, or whining on twitter theses days than doing that, that sadly is the world we live in today

Edited November 11, 2014 by Demitri_C

[drat01]

 

I'm still staggered by the Shameful deceit in the commons last night ... We should be on the streets with pitchforks and yet not even a whimper 

 

People are more interested in moaning on facebook, or whining on twitter theses days than doing that, that sadly is the world we live in today

 

A very valid point you raise Dem. Look at the popularity of some of the things that Britain First spew out on FB. People are hoodwinked into believing they are outraged over topics that give false information. See the BS they say about people being jailed for putting a poppy on a mosque etc. The Uber Right are playing on fears and ignorance via the social media platform which in turn becomes "fact" because someone on the internet said so.

 

Bringing it back on topic I wonder how and why the mainstream parties have not used social media more effectively? At work we are doing a lot of work with Twitter for example now that gives great insight to social patterns and behaviours. Even the most simple political animals can use social media for a positive method if they approached it correctly. All of the major parties seem to fail in being able to do it. If they did then maybe some of the idiocy surrounding the appearance fixations would no longer appear

[colhint]

I think you believe the politicians are reasonably intelligent Drat, I'm not sure most of them are.

[drat01]

I think you believe the politicians are reasonably intelligent Drat, I'm not sure most of them are.

 

They do as they are told mostly, mere puppets of groups behind them (at all levels).

[peterms]

I'd like to make the case for lentils. There are many excellent lentil dishes, and I would single out Indian, Spanish and French cuisine in this regard.

Don't let your inner Youkip blind you to great taste sensations.

On politics, I'd say the LP have a way to go to regain the trust of the public, if they ever can.

Two big things they have to do are first to eradicate the stain of Blairism, and then get away from this superstitious nonsense about deficits.

I suspect both will take a decade to achieve. By that time, things will have moved on quite a way.

[chrisp65]

Out of curiosity, how do people decide who to vote for?

 

I've mentioned it before, but my current MP is a tory with a poor attitude towards foodbanks - but worked tirelessly to help the local football club and is now helping the guides and scouts get a new roof for the clubhouse thing. Vote for him as a nice chap, and I get Cameron and May.

 

The Labour guy I'm sure is pleasant enough, at least he's local, but never actually turns up to anything we invite him to, not the football, not the community garden, not the guides or the school. He's always got some sort of Labour branch meeting thing in his diary.

 

UKIP, well I don't have mental issues so I can give them the big swerve.

 

Plaid, well again, a really really nice guy that is thoroughly honest and very hard working and I'd trust him with my own CD collection. But got about 400 votes last time, so a wasted vote.

 

So, local good guy, or national party?

[drat01]

I'd like to make the case for lentils. There are many excellent lentil dishes, and I would single out Indian, Spanish and French cuisine in this regard.

.

finger on the pulse Peter

[peterms]

Getting Cameron and May is too much. Vote for anyone else.

[Risso]

 

You're welcome to disagree, but I think the coverage of Milliband does influence (not determine) how people think about him. I think it will re-inforce feint opinion. The press re-inforces the view of (say) Boris Johnson. People will think "he's a bit colourful (or whatever), but the media magnifies that - he plays to it, as well. With Milliband, they with their bacon sarnie photos, and beggar pics and so on definitely do pick up on and amplify his characteristics, which presents a distorted image and then people look for it - "look there he is being odd again" - rather than listening to his words.

His problem, in this media driven age.

It affects all people in the public eye - this easy pigeon holing of them. It works to Millibands disadvantage more than many others.

 

 

 

The trouble is Pete, does such a thing exist as a video of Miliband when he's not looking like a socially awkward 16 year old at his first school disco?  He just clearly can't do the media thing at all, so it's either film him looking like Adrian Mole all the time, or ignore him altogether.  It obviously shouldn't be important, but it is.

[Condimentalist]

as Ian has pointed out before though , we don't vote for our leaders as such ... In a lot of instances people will be voting for their local MP ( and maybe the party)

I guess the leaders policies can turn people off a party ( see Thatcher) but as many have said already nobody really knows what those policies are at present ....

I don't know how many people would be going into a voting booth thinking I would vote labour but I don't like that Ed bloke so I think I'll vote Tory instead but I'd imagine it would be countable on 2 hands ( or 1 if you live on the Isle of Man )

 

That's true in principal Tony, but the leadership is more and more important, both in elections and in government. It won't make Labour voters vote Tory, but it might push them towards the Lib Dems, UKIP or the Greens. As a centre-left swing voter I could put my X down alongside Lib Dems, Labour or the Greens. Policy and leadership will be the deciding factors. Ed's stewardship has provided neither. He'd be a disastrous PM.

[tonyh29]

 

As a result the narrative is all about the UKIPs/Tory obsessions with yurp and immigration.

 

I see Ed didn't let me down today 

 

which parties are obsessed on immigration  again ?

[blandy]

 

As a result the narrative is all about the UKIPs/Tory obsessions with yurp and immigration.

 

I see Ed didn't let me down today 

 

which parties are obsessed on immigration  again ?

 

You did see this?

Agree that labour are also shifting towards UKIP, rather than making a case, and it's cowardly.

That said there are aspects of immigration which need discussing, but it needs more than "we'll all stop/reduce it" (paraphrasing).

 

Maybe you haven't seen this, though on Rochester

Ukip’s 12-point lead sees the Tories taking a harder line on immigration, leaving Mark Reckless the moral high ground...

...

The breadth of support for Ukip gives Reckless the space to wrong-foot the Tory candidate Kelly Tolhurst at hustings meetings as she sticks rigidly to a six-point plan that begins, predictably, with a pledge to deliver “action, not just talk, on immigration”. In a sign of the Tories’ lack of confidence in the face of the Ukip surge, Tolhurst, a local businesswoman and councillor, is taking a harsher position on immigration, which allows Reckless to adopt a more moderate tone.

In testy exchanges at the Medway Messenger hustings at the town’s Corn Exchange, Reckless condemned Britain’s “harsh and inhumane” immigration laws, which have prevented a local Sikh medical student from marrying the woman he loved from India because he was not earning at least £18,500 a year. When Tolhurst suggested that access to social housing in Medway should be denied to people who have not lived in the area for at least five years, Reckless accused her of discriminating against people from across the Medway border as much as people from the EU.

- down there at least, the mental tories have moved to a more extreme position than the bonkers make it up as you go along UKIPs

 

Before long nearly all the parties will be huddled and jammed together so far to the right, with the holocaust deniers, supremacists and other loony tunes that the area of rational sanity will be a politician free desert.