91Èȱ¬

Maybe because he's trying to be answerable to his party rather than the 24hr news media?

This is beginning to turn into a soap opera.

Obviously it's sad when two brothers seem to be in conflict, and no matter how well they cope with this situation, it's bound to lead to some tension. But it's not the end of the world. No one has died, it's not a tragedy. It's just politics. How they sort it out between them is a family matter.

As for the world at large, the real issue is the total unsuitability of Red Ed to become PM. In a way, it probably didn't matter too much who won the leadership because the problem is with the whole Labour party and their historic inability to manage the economy.

Red Ed's policy announcements so far show that he is totally out of touch with reality, and like other lefties before him (Foot and Kinnock), he is probably just going to languish on the opposition benches.

David Miliband speech showing congress what a mistake they made by not electing him Leader, his speech really was a Leaders Speech.

I think Ed Miliband will have a struggle to eclipse his brothers speech, I have yet to be convinced Miliband Minor is up to the job

Sorry Nick - why exactly is it that you are all following around behind the one who LOST?

When Ed balls is made shadow chancellor it will become the Red Eds Squared Show so maybe david will retire and plot from the sidelines when he see how far to the left labour have lurched more brown and blair type bickering which will keep labour out at least untill the Tories have had time to fix the mess left behind again

As in the 2025 election the tories should use the line

Lest we Forget
2010 and the mountain of Debt

I do hope the journalists hectoring David Miliband for an instant decision are not the very same journalists who regularly slate MPs for their snap judgements.

My observations so far:

1. The new leadership needs to get the David issue sorted as soon as possible. In or out out but clearly and loudly one or the other.

2. The new leadership is kidding itself if it thinks it has to time to define the new leader. He has got to move fast because while he delays in defining his leadership the media led by the Tory tabloids do it for him.

Does anyone really believe that this guy will pass up the opportunity of the fat, shadow cabinet salary? He'll hold out for the highest position possible which will give him the opportunity to further his own political ends.

I suppose that is part of the facination that some people have with the cod-drama of politics.

One day you are within touching distance of the top job and the next, thanks to around 120,00 union members, it is your brother instead who is potentially destined for political glory whilst you simmer on the back-benches and curse you own indecision at critical moments.

Soon D.Miliband may be like one G.Brown, a dusty political backwater who somehow blew the main chance despite apparently having most of the attributes to succeed.

Thank goodness the rest of us who don't quite make it to the top in our chosen career (by definition most of us will not), do not usually have a set of media jackals ripping at our flesh as we go down.

#4 Yeah you should be talking to Red Ed and his children(s) incomplete birth certificates for some strange reason his name is not on their?

Once again we are back to 'dualism' for the leadership of the Labour Party and the position of Prime Minister.

What has younger brother Ed promised his older and better looking brother?

"If I make it to number 10, you can take over as PM when I resign"

Echoes of the Blair-Brown pact?

We all know how that ended.

Fascinating, I'm sure, but let's remember we're talking about the man who came second in a contest to lead the party which itself came in as a runner-up in the general election. Hopefully we've got several years of the current government before we need to worry much about the Miliband saga.

David Milliband would be wise to get out now before the ceasefire ends and the missiles start to fly.

Anyone who thinks that the Labour party can remain united with the likes of Whelan and all already trying to dictate who should be where is in cloud cuckoo land.

The speeches of those leaving the cabinet were very lack lustre and the dearth of bright new sparks coming up to take their place is obvious.

I feel sorry for Ed Milliband for instead of being the keep the Balls' out candidate he seems to have ended up like the lamb to slaughter.

Interesting times ahead but not what was needed.

Irrespective of whether he runs or not, now watch them being held accountable for the financial mess we are in. The Conservatices haven't had a clear target to pin the blame on: that changed at the weekend. Ed will have lots of explaining to do.....

If Milliband D becomes Shadow Chancellor, he will have to demonstrate that Labour can be trusted on the economy. Surmounting the public skepticism over this will be a greater challenge than Kinnock faced. We simply don't regard Labour, and their "fairyland", let's spend our way out of trouble economics as credible. They offer nothing new on health or education other than spend more, and without Blair/Mandelson's spin, they are seen as the "nasty party" with an unhelpful, envious approach to wealth generation. David Milliband should think about becoming a hedge fund manager, somewhere offshore, so he can afford to educate his kids properly (as Diane Abbott has done so well).......

No. 2 said "Labour party and their historic inability to manage the economy." The Labour Party was not the problem it was Brown's inability to manage it and Blair's inability to manage Brown. In short a failure of New Labour - hopefully with Ed the Party will move on.

.....and given all those "spoiled" union ballots, surely an Al Gore style legal challenge is in order?

The future of the Labour Party doesn't revolve around a mediocre (and deceitful) ex-Foreign Affairs minister. I'd expect better from the 91Èȱ¬ than following a tabloid story.

#17

amend to "what should be a tabloid story."

"he will be asked why he won't make his future clear."

Oh for "expletive deleted"'s sake. Those who would ask him this question are stupid! Despite appearances , this is not a soap opera. DM went for a major job and didn't get it. Anyone who's ever done this, in any field of life, needs time to reflect. David M hasn't had 48 hours yet. If I'd been in the Labour Party I wouldn't have voted for him, but so what - he is human - give him a break!

I feel sorry for him too!
All that nepotism cannot be nice either for 'him' and/or the rest of the hypocrites.

No8 Brannel,
Shadow cabinet salaries? Are you another politically thick Tory blogger?

No14 Marcus,
The well informed know who was to blame.'Del Boy'
Dave thought the previous government's spending was fine. Can you remember, not to long ago, when he promised to increase it, particularly on overseas aid?

"22. At 2:28pm on 27 Sep 2010, IPGABP1 wrote:
No14 Marcus,
The well informed know who was to blame.'Del Boy'
Dave thought the previous government's spending was fine."

So you don't think that maybe it's the people who actually did the wild spending are to blame?

I mean, if you were an impartial observer, as opposed to someone desperately scrabbling around for excuses for Labour wouldn't your first thought be 'Labour got it wrong'?

Can the 91Èȱ¬ now please stop their 24/7 Liebour love-in and put something else on the front page? I am sick of the smarmy election losing, economy wrecking individuals putting me off the 91Èȱ¬ News site and Breakfast this morning.

Well IPGABP1, let me explain exactly who was to blame. Gordon Brown (assisted by Balls and both Millibands), let consumer credit rip, and ducked every key element on banking regulation. Prudence was only every part of his own self-congratulating rhetoric, and the public finances were debauched by letting the public sector balloon out of control and, incidentally, destroying people's pensions. They used "Enron" accounting to hide lots of off balance sheet spending. Labour's performance in government is worse than 13 wasted years on health and education, (although this is bad enough): they have destroyed any hope of much needed infrastructure investment. Development spending, on lots of the left's emotional overseas pet projects, will have to wait.

Whether Cameron is up to the job remains to be seen: but on a standalone basis, Nu Labour was little short of a catastrophe, and it was 99% their fault.

14. At 1:37pm on 27 Sep 2010, Marcus the Wolf wrote:
Irrespective of whether he runs or not, now watch them being held accountable for the financial mess we are in.
=====================================

Which financial mess?

Do you mean the global meltdown caused by your mates the international financial spivs?

Or do you mean the UK economy just barely coming out of recession your pals the tories inherited and are now about to sabotage?

I'm starting to wonder just why the 91Èȱ¬ is so interested in the Labour Party leadership contest - they are in opposition not government, and likely to remain there for the next four and a half years at least. They had a leadership contest, that's newsworthy. We now know who won, that's newsworthy. Surely its now time to move and and report things about the government and what it is doing. They are after all the ones who are important because they make the decisions. Labour, whoever leads it, and whoever get jobs in the shadow cabinet, is powerless (some will say thank goodness in view of the mess they made when they had some power). All the Labour party can do for the next few years is make a lot of noises off, so please can we get back to the people who really matter. We can discuss Labour again in four years time in the run up to the next election. That is of course assuming that the left and right, new and old, wings of the party haven't torn it apart by then. Who knows, it may even have another leader by then too.

24. At 2:49pm on 27 Sep 2010, DidYouReDo wrote:
"Can the 91Èȱ¬ now please stop their 24/7 Liebour love-in and put something else on the front page?"

Unfortunately for you, Labour are currently the second most popular political party in this country and form the opposition to the government. They are therefore a significant organisation for both their supporters and opposers and, as they are going through a fairly major change, I'd say the 91Èȱ¬ is justified in having this much focus on the conference (just as they focused on the Lib Dems last week).

If you don't like it, I'm sure it will have all gone away by next week when it's the Tory's turn to get on stage!

# 15 watriler

"No. 2 said "Labour party and their historic inability to manage the economy." The Labour Party was not the problem it was Brown's inability to manage it and Blair's inability to manage Brown. "

Perhaps you are being charitable, choosing not to blame the whole Labour party. Of course you are right that Brown was a large part of the problem, but the party as a whole must take the blame for inflicting him on us, unopposed and without a leadership election.

David Miliband had a chance to go for it, but he bottled out.

Blair must also take some of the blame - he knew Brown wasn't up to it, but kept him in office as Chancellor rather than fire him.

Labour also broke up the Union with one sided devolution for Scotland, eroded civil liberties, turned society into a Nanny / Surveillance State, encouraged unfettered immigration, encouraged yob-culture with 24 hour drinking, broke their promise on the EU referendum, send our troops to war without proper funding or equipment etc etc etc.

The Labour Party cannot blame it all on Blair and Brown. The Party supported them and allowed it to happen.

But in the end, the ones who really do need to learn from their mistakes are those gullible people who voted Labour in the first place.

Whether Ed Miliband tacks, lurches or veers to the left will be interesting but won't, IMHO, have any significant effect on Middle Britain.

Because there is no such entity of any political weight, it is a mirage.

However, there is definately a geo-political centre to England, Scotland and Wales, and if Ed Miliband moves the Labour Party towards more 'collectivist' policies, which would be the 'norm' for a Socialist Party, then they might expect to do rather better in Scotland and Wales and less so in more 'capitalistic' England.

Blair recognised this reality and moved the Labour Party, seemingly against its will, towards the English 'capitalistic' centre and the Unions, for one, were mightly unhappy to be 'double-crossed'.

Now Labour can be Labour again, after the aberration of New Labour.

IMF supports the coalition government's deficit reduction plan:

"The government’s strong and credible multi-year fiscal deficit reduction plan is essential to ensure debt sustainability. The plan greatly reduces the risk of a costly loss of confidence in public finances and supports a balanced recovery"

Source: IMF

Let's see how Labour reacts to this.

Surely, as a supporter of the nauseating "EU"-Dictatorship and its despicable Lisbon Treaty, he is a burden to the Labour Party?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

PickledPete @ 27

You say 'its now time to move and and report things about the government and what it is doing.'

Indeed, and they have been busy little bees.

Fro example, some of you might have been wondering how the Government was going to resolve the conundrum of the increasingly unaffordable public sector defined benefit pensions.

After all, a promise is a promise and so the Government cannot welsh on the deal and must fund it (match contributions) and pay out, even if, in reality, the taxpayer simply cannot afford to fund it.

So, cunning politicians that they are, they have come up with a brilliant wheeze -they are now going to tax the pension contributions (from both private and public sectors although there are'nt many private sectors schemes left now since Gordon Brown and Ed Balls had their fun).

In some ways you just have to stand back and say - for sheer chutzpah, that takes the biscuit.

No23 Andy,
Do you agree that only a political imbecile would expect a political opponent to defend a government's record on such an important issue? Do you think 'Del Boy' Dave was being reckless to promise additional spending to the previous governments spending plans?

I am afraid that this is a most uninteresting saga and I really don't understand the need for so much coverage.

#10 seems to be casuing the 91Èȱ¬ some problems, its statement of fact that we should be taking about Ed and not David and his suitablitity for high office and that also included the position of him being a father and filling in the correct forms too to set an example to other males/fathers

"26. At 2:59pm on 27 Sep 2010, jon112dk wrote:
14. At 1:37pm on 27 Sep 2010, Marcus the Wolf wrote:
Irrespective of whether he runs or not, now watch them being held accountable for the financial mess we are in.
=====================================

Which financial mess?

Do you mean the global meltdown caused by your mates the international financial spivs?

Or do you mean the UK economy just barely coming out of recession your pals the tories inherited and are now about to sabotage?"

No, he's talking about the financial mess that Brown created. Spending £40bn a year more than they were getting from tax receipts from 2000 onwards. You know, when the economy was booming. And this on top of changes to pensions that have cost UK private sector workers a total of £100bn since 1997. So the spending that BEFORE the banking crisis (caused at least in part by poor regulations put in place by Brown) put the country some £400bn further in debt than it had been, coupled with unsustainable spending plans.

I think that's what he is refering to.

Perhaps you press boys should give two lads a break and the space and time to come to a decision, without constant harrassment from the likes of you, Nick

"35. At 3:44pm on 27 Sep 2010, IPGABP1 wrote:
No23 Andy,
Do you agree that only a political imbecile would expect a political opponent to defend a government's record on such an important issue? Do you think 'Del Boy' Dave was being reckless to promise additional spending to the previous governments spending plans?"

As you seem to be excusing the mess Brown created (or more accurately, simply refusing to address the issue) on the spurious grounds of what others might have done, then yes I'd have to agree with you that only a political imbecile would defend such a record.

RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:

".....I'd say the 91Èȱ¬ is justified in having this much focus on the conference (just as they focused on the Lib Dems last week)."

Oh I don't know, even the Papal visit and George Michael got a look in last week. Hasn't some footballer or other done something dodgy to warrant a mention, or are they leaving that to Murdoch?

"I'm sure it will have all gone away by next week when it's the Tory's turn to get on stage!"

Assuming of course that the Beeb don't censor it as their union reps have threatened to do......

35 - "Do you think 'Del Boy' Dave was being reckless to promise additional spending to the previous governments spending plans?"

What I think is that (as shown below from a newsstory from November 2008) Cameron realised what a mess Brown had made of things at a time when Brwon was refusing to accept any responsibility for anything and carrying on spending that was unsustainable.

But if you want to carry on defending Brown's record of continuing to overspend right up to the last minute even after Cameron had decided a good 18 months earlier that it was unsustainable, you carry on.


"David Cameron has abandoned the Tory commitment to match Labour's spending plans in a dramatic U-turn that opens the way for massive cuts in public spending...

Cameron said he was ditching his previous promise to match Labour's spending plans because of the worsening economic picture" Nov 18 2008

CON-DEMS... ; GAMES, AMBITION AND .....CREDIBILITY ?
There is nothing worse in politics than to watch a young, ambitious MP with little experience resorting to rather " unconventional" tactics like
promising the electorate a number of vitally important political issues days/weeks prior to the election. only to do exactly the opposite the moment it is all over.., perhaps not surprisingly upsetting, apparantly,at least 5O% of those who voted for him as some probably were anti-Tories . Surely it was a foolish attempt to underestimate voters intelligence in this time and age. One assumes the Con-Dem deal was an unexpected opportunity for the Tories to have others helping out presenting probably a most unpopular budget to the nation next year.., particularly since the opposition to it is growing by the day already.
Not only appeared the TUC to be wide awake at their recent conference,hastily arranging urgent meetings and increasing their bi-annual conferences to annual ones again, but the Labour conference itself was also in better shape and more confident than it has been for years.
Regarding the Con-Dem conference , however, one could not help wondering if Cleggs daily presence might not have been more useful by personally concentrating on the problems in Liverpool than attending the U.N. and shaking hands with the Pope. Who said British Politics are stale and boring! And the year is just starting ! Paulus

I think it's time to move on Nick, can we have a piece on Lord Ashcroft's tax avoidance and the hypocrisy of those who have accepted his tax avoidance whilst receiving huge donations from him?

No42 Andy,
If Cameron knew, why do you think he was promising additional expenditure, on health and overseas aid right up to the 2010 election.
Only a fool would associate me with support for the last government.

The media are getting excited. It's great soap opera - but I don't think it is important. The battle starts when the spending review is made public. If Ed leads a constructive attack (and he hasn't got to attack all of it, just find a few deeply unpopular holes), whilst ignoring the more looney Union leaders, he will consolidate his position. What he says and does in the month after the announcements is the critical time. That will be the time to assert his authority - it will be a one man show with perhaps just a little support. If his brother is too much to the forefront it would dilute his authority.

No42 Andy,
I have no interest in 'defending Brown's record'.It is not very wise to make assumptions about an individuals political affiliations. Have you any view on what proportion of National Income should be used to provide public services?

44. At 4:38pm on 27 Sep 2010, Laughatthetories wrote:
I think it's time to move on Nick, can we have a piece on Lord Ashcroft's tax avoidance and the hypocrisy of those who have accepted his tax avoidance whilst receiving huge donations from him?
======================

Not just 'lord' Aschcroft of course - they have also taken on 'sir' Philip Green to advise them on how to do business.

...and at the same time the ConDems are telling us they intend to hammer people who are not paying tax!

I guess they only mean the usual targets: small businesses, self employed tradesmen etc just barely keeping head above water by 'working for cash'

At 3:20pm on 27 Sep 2010, johnharris66 wrote:
IMF supports the coalition government's deficit reduction plan:

"The government’s strong and credible multi-year fiscal deficit reduction plan is essential to ensure debt sustainability. The plan greatly reduces the risk of a costly loss of confidence in public finances and supports a balanced recovery"

Source: IMF

Let's see how Labour reacts to this.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I think they'll say thanks very much for the compliment. Especially Mr Brown and Mr Darling whose prompt and correct action in the face of the financial storm appears to be thoroughly endorsed. Seems that all the low interest rates and QE billions did the trick. Now of course we are under new management and the IMF approves of them too. True enough. But then as Mr Clegg informs us, what the coalition are doing isn't that different from Labour's plans (yes apparently they did have one). So the IMF ends:
Conclusion
19. With steadfast fiscal adjustment, forward-looking monetary policy aimed at achieving the inflation target, and gradual implementation of strong financial sector reforms, economic fundamentals should strengthen and establish the basis for sustainable recovery.
Which really isn't that different from they might have written had Labour remained in power. Even the IMF are wise enough to leave a get out clause. Adjustments may be necessary in the light of unfolding events. What, like borrowing more billions to stimulate the system. That won't do the debt mountain much good.
Not wise just to take the often lazy or partisan version of things from the media.

"47. At 5:06pm on 27 Sep 2010, IPGABP1 wrote:
No42 Andy,
I have no interest in 'defending Brown's record'.It is not very wise to make assumptions about an individuals political affiliations. Have you any view on what proportion of National Income should be used to provide public services?"

Oh well, you'll just have to excuse me jumping to conclusions after you continually attack Cameron when the topic you're talking about is Brown's spending. Just seems odd.

As an 'independent' perhaps you could stop criticising Cameron for a moment based on what he DIDN'T do and give us your opinion on what Brown DID do.

Public spending should be as low as possible. Certainly, when it is clear that the economy is in trouble and the private sector is losing 700,000 jobs due to a recession (as it was in 2009) it would be madness to increase publis spending and actually take on 47,000 more public sector workers.

That was something Brown DID do, by the way, not something Cameron even thought about.

45 IPGABP1

If Cameron knew, why do you think he was promising additional expenditure, on health and overseas aid right up to the 2010 election.

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

Because all politicians know that voters will not vote for a party that proposes either of the following:

1. Cutting spending on NHS
2. Increasing taxes on them

The Tories could not risk opening up the NHS can of worms prior to an election.

Similarly, Labour could not risk a debate on tax.

We thus ended up with an election debate in which the main issues of the day, i.e. tax and spending, were avoided.

"48. At 5:13pm on 27 Sep 2010, jon112dk wrote:
44. At 4:38pm on 27 Sep 2010, Laughatthetories wrote:
I think it's time to move on Nick, can we have a piece on Lord Ashcroft's tax avoidance and the hypocrisy of those who have accepted his tax avoidance whilst receiving huge donations from him?
======================

Not just 'lord' Aschcroft of course - they have also taken on 'sir' Philip Green to advise them on how to do business.

...and at the same time the ConDems are telling us they intend to hammer people who are not paying tax!

I guess they only mean the usual targets: small businesses, self employed tradesmen etc just barely keeping head above water by 'working for cash'"

The difference between the small businessman working for cash and Ashcroft (and of course the LAbour non-Dom peer Lord Paul) is that what Ashcroft does is legal and anyone failing to declare income is acting illegally.

Funny all the outrage at Liberal inspired plans to crack down on tax planning. Isn't that what Labour were supposed to be about? They had 13 years to do something and the only major non-dom tax initiative they came up with was one nicked from the Tories.

#49 Idont Believit wrote:
"what the coalition are doing isn't that different from Labour's plans"

If you listen to Labour (and I've been watching them on various news channels) they all seem quite convinced that the coalition are cutting too deep and too fast, and consequently seem to believe there is a huge difference between Labour and the coalition's deficit plans. Ed Balls, of course, wishes to tear up Darling's pre-election fiscal consolidation plan, and widen the gap between the two sides further.

The coalition wish to eliminate the structural budget over 5 years, Labour (originally) wanted to halve the budget within 4. I think there is a significant difference between the two plans, (though not as great as some people wish to argue).

49. Idont Believeit.
yes the tory plan for deficit reduction is........
hard as can be regardless of the misery caused and if it gets a bit too much then we ease off slightly until we can go at it full steam again.
whereas the labour view would be slow but sure. steady as she goes.