´óÏó´«Ã½

'he showed today that he had the ruthlessness to dump much of his own party's recent past'

How does telling people what they want to hear represent ruthlessness ?

'Thus, he accepted that painful spending cuts would have to be made and warned the unions not to launch waves of irresponsible strikes.'

But that doesn't challenge anything.

What painful cuts does he feel need to be made ?

And what's his definition of irresponsible strike action ?

Does that include the ´óÏó´«Ã½ strike action planned shortly ? What about the BA strikes.

It sounds as though the bloke is even more vacuous than Tony Blair and that takes some doing.

well i thought it was a pretty good speech. enough infact to make me join the labour party for the first time. this i will do at the weekend. also im going to be pro-active in canvassing and anything else i can do to help the party. ultimately the first priority must be to get rid of the coalition and therefore i would suggest to anyone who feels the same way to do the same thing.

The one thing he didn't rubbish his own party for were the social problems caused by mass imported labour on schools housing health and jobs.

This only confirmed that he was only paying lip service to his party members without being in touch with reality on the ground.

The main outlay and pressure on families and individuals isn't because of low wages but the cost of finding somewhere affordable to live after the huge boom in house prices and rented properties caused under a Labour government.

The real problems of the country weren't even given a mention.

Time someone living outside Westminster told him what they are.

Perhaps Ed Miliband's vision of Labour is neither "Old" Labour nor New Labour, but "Neu Labour"?

That sort of ruthlessnes used to be called treachery Mr Robinson. As far as the speech went he demonstrated how quickly he could change the so called principles he used to live by when the need arose. Maybe in private he told his union masters " Just kidding ".

'It was a speech which only a new unknown leader could make.'

I could have sworn he was around, settling science, writing party stuff, etc, as a Cabinet Minister, until quite recently, and hence pretty well known.

The problem, which the ´óÏó´«Ã½ seems to be trying to work hard with some to sideline, is what he was and is known for.

Sounds like Milliband Minor has managed to divide the party with his first big speech. Unless you are under forty, you are old New Labour and you are out.

Judging by the posters names waiting above this one, right now RockRobin7 is helpless .....

"However, talk of closing the gap between the rich and the poor, of taxing the rich more and increasing the wages of the poor may well persuade the papers to stick with Red Ed."

Goodness me...closing the gap between rich and poor...taxing the rich more...increasing the wages of the poor....pure madness to talk such talk in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Very calm and moderate - no fireball oratory - a speech, despite the odd passage for the core, designed to play well to the swing voters who will decide the next election, as they decide all elections. Last thing they want is a Labour leader getting in their face. Ask Kinnock if you don't believe me. He also took advantage of his (relatively) clean slate to bury some bogeys. As it were. All in all pretty much exactly what I expected and I think he did more than okay. First fence jumped. No more than that but there were only two outcomes here - fence cleared or not. He cleared it and now he's bowling along towards the second. Let's all raise our progressive arms and our progressive voices and cheer him on. There's an incompetent and reprehensible tory government to be defeated. Go Ed.

Again Nick has got it completely wrong. Finger way off the pulse. This was a classic Blair- all things to all people speech- lost labour voters, the masses, the media. The only people he didn't need to keep sweet, and dumped all over were the unions, because he's clearly done a deal with them privately. Time will tell us the nature of this...

Its no wonder Labour made a right mess of the countries finances when they cannot look after their own parties finances, with the Labour party near enough bankrupt and the unions being their biggest source of funding Ed Milliband has no choice but to be in the hands of the unions.

3#

Now why doesnt that surprise me in the slightest???

Nick,
"Soon he will have to spell out more of what he's in favour of and less of what's against."

Why? Cameron almost won the last election by not being particularly clear. Though perhaps he got a little clearer in the last few weeks before the election. On that basis Ed has got until 1 April 2015 to give us a few half truthes.

sagamix 10

' Let's all raise our progressive arms and our progressive voices and cheer him on'

Looks like his vacuous rhetoric has rubbed off on you.

As I'm-Not-Red Ed tries to rinse away Labour's past failures, the party enters a new Spin Cycle.

I agree with Sagamix (but then I generally do). A calm, measured speech. Key will be the reconnecting to the middle England swing which was lost at the last election.

This contemptable ConDem excuse for a government will soon be (even more)deeply unpopular. With their regressive taxation and cuts agenda that will hit the poorest and lower middle the most the opportunity is to demonstrate there is another way (much like the Blair 3rd way). Graduate tax, banking regulation and taxing the richer and banks will resonate with those who wil be disaffected and abandoned at the next election - the squeezed middle as he's termed them already. The opportunity is obvious; if the party unifies behind him then I see no reason he won't be our next PM.

As for RockRobin7, he'll soon learn that the next 4 years will be an awful time to be a Tory... And the wilderness beckons again in 4 & 1/2 years :-)

This speech merely confirms the Labour Parties main problem, in so much that they don't really seem to have a clear idea of what they stand for or even more fundamentally, what they are for.

Ed has only been an MP since 2005 apparently, and whilst he is so keen to move on from the previous Labour government, I don't think he can credibly do this as he was actually part of it. If he realised things were as bad as he would like us now to believe, then perhaps he would have more credibility if he had said so at the time. This governemnt he is so keen to distance himself from would still be in power if they had been re-elected as he would have like 6 months ago.

Overall, his speech was Blair-like in the everything to everybody theme, identifying the the key issues of concern for voters, and then doing nothing about them. Couple that with the personal presence of Iain Duncan Smith, and I think it sums up his day nicely.

"talk of closing the gap between the rich and the poor, of taxing the rich more and increasing the wages of the poor"

If you want to help the poor, reduce the size of the state.

Basic math displays that no matter how much you tax the wealthy, a large state means a large burden falling upon the poor.

Even if you taxed the upper quartile of earners at 100% you wouldn't even fund half of state spending, leaving the majority of the state to be funded by the lower earners or run up huge and unsustainable debts.

But lets not allow inconvenient facts interfere with the glorious dream eh?

Tom Bradby called it about right and pointed out something you didnt, Nick.

Hattie was clapping away when Ed was lamenting the Iraq decision, as she was sitting next to Bananaman, who politely leaned across and said "You voted for it.... why are you clapping?"

Suddenly Labour are for freedom and liberty. How the wind changes !

11. At 7:02pm on 28 Sep 2010, Sameeto wrote:
"This was a classic Blair- all things to all people speech- lost labour voters, the masses, the media."

But Blair was rather successful, though, wasn't he? Didn't he win three general elections? If you think he has emanated Blair, then he's done a good job of appealing to the masses. Wouldn't you say?

21. mikerphone.
yeah but not to the extent of the lib dems.... eh
19. dave manchester.
im not sure you quite get it dave.
the uk has one of the worst stats in regard monetary inequality in europe and the rich western world. that is a fact. inconvenient or not.
and this is why its bad...

of course if you dont care like many on here....thats up to you. we all make our own decisions and choose our own morals in life.

22#

Appealing to the masses, yes. DELIVERING what the masses wanted, thats a different story.

He, MiliE, stuck the knife into the Blair regime today though. Disowned it.

Unless the objective is merely getting power for its own sake and keeping the other side out at any costs, lest there be too many snouts in the trough - not being public servants and actually, heaven forbid, doing what is right for the people and the nation?

11. At 7:02pm on 28 Sep 2010, Sameeto wrote:
The only people he didn't need to keep sweet, and dumped all over were the unions, because he's clearly done a deal with them privately. Time will tell us the nature of this...
---------------------
i thought maybe as you were talking about deals you were then going on to talk about the ashcroft saga.
or is the basis of your political slant obtained soley on the propaganda from the daily mail and fox news?

20. At 8:22pm on 28 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
"Hattie was clapping away when Ed was lamenting the Iraq decision, as she was sitting next to Bananaman"

Who's Bananaman?

26#

You cant seriously be asking me that. You really dont know?

25#

Glad to see you dont object to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ spending your licence fee on chasing back and forth over the atlantic to Belize and back, not to mention on legal fees just to try and stick one on someone who didnt break the law anyway.

The only place the Ashcroft "scandal" exists is in youe head.

If you've got a licence that is, and the state doesnt pay it for you.

I found the EM speech disappointingly lacking in both new ideas and, suprisingly, passion. (I had the impression he was more than a little surprised to find himself in the position he was).

A rare opportunity for a "newish" politician to catch the attention of an entire nation totally and utterly wasted. Bland, anodyne and cliche- ridden waffle with a sprinkling of flesh creeping brotherly love.

He looked rather like a rabbit caught in the headlights and certainly failed to give the impression that he sincerely believed what he was expousing - but then he wasn't expousing much, so ..........

It seems our choice is now between three cloned career politicians, none of whom have done a proper days work in their privileged lives.

Giants required in the nations hour of need - pygmies available - right across the political spectrum.

Where to turn for some real leadership? Ho hum!

@23

Oh I get it, unlike many on the left I'm the product of a broken family, comprehensive education and council estate life. So having escaped that into the middle classes, I know what it actually takes to get out of that situation- education and employment.

The two things Labour have obliterated over a very long time. First their pogrom against Grammar Schools condemned many of the brightest poor to a poor education in the name of ideology, the minimum wage for under 21's created a block to them being employed and the frightening lack of literacy and numeracy from kids with quite a lot of A*'s ensured people preferred to employ economic migrants.

You are never going to fix the rich/poor divide by redistribution, you fix it by making people more skilled, more employable and more aspirational - increasing their value as employees and to society.

But that sounds like hard work, so we'll just punish success which has never worked before, but we'll give it another try no matter that it's a nailed on description of insanity and won't do a damn bit of good.

23#

Left... morals.. Hah. Mutually exclusive.

re #16 Forget Chuckle of the Day Award. Real Big Guffaw Prize for that.

Four days of schadenfreude. Not sure I can take much more ...

28. sigh
within the law but still imoral and an indication of who and whos mates are running the country and what sort of people they are..
but i wouldnt expect you to get it.....
seeing as you are the bloke who works on european union contracts...lives in belgium and.............wait for it........
and who votes UKIP
LMAO.........
i just laugh at you fubar......

27. At 9:43pm on 28 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

"26#

You cant seriously be asking me that. You really dont know?"

Well, he's a cartoon character isn't he? Not sure what that's got to do with this? Or am I missing something blindingly obvious?!

30. dave
You are never going to fix the rich/poor divide by redistribution, you fix it by making people more skilled, more employable and more aspirational - increasing their value as employees and to society.
But that sounds like hard work, so we'll just punish success which has never worked before, but we'll give it another try no matter that it's a nailed on description of insanity and won't do a damn bit of good.
----------------------------
blimey dave. sounds like you have been on the ybf course and had your head tucked into the tory manual well and truly.
anyway please tell me.
1. did you look at the site i posted. and did you read through it?
2. how is paying a livable wage punishing success?
3. how is it that most other european countries have much better monetary equality stats. i presume they have bin men too. or do they have degrees in order to get paid more for collecting the rubbish. or perhaps everyone could be a succesfull lawyer or doctor and you could empty your own bins...collect your own mail, unblock your own drains...clean your own windows etc etc etc.

dave, ive heard it all before. if you want to sugar coat greed and exploitation and re-word it as something else then thats up to you.

It strikes me that if Ed had taken a more concilliatory approach to Labour's recent record, and offered more of an apologists stance, then one could comfortably predict a Tory victory at the next election.

As it is, drawing a line in the sand, and admitting earlier mistakes, takes the sting out of any Tory attack that tries to lump the new leadership in with the old. What past "misdemeanours" of the last governemnt can they lay fairly and squarely at Ed's door. It will force Tory HQ on the defensive as the results of their austerity measures hit home - they will not be able to point at the opposition benches and say "it's all your fault" - which was pretty much Mrs Thatcher's retort, during her first period in office, to any criticim of her government's policies.

Ed now has 4 years to plug away at the government's policies, and focus on how they affect, and in all likelihood damage, ordinary people's lives. More importantly, he is free to construct a coherent alternative set of policies to the Tories, and thus create clear water between the parties in the minds of the electorate; free from the taint of those who would bemoan - loudly and destructively - the loss of what has gone before.

It will be up to Ed and his new team to sell their vision, on the strength of their own abilities, and see if they can rebuild the trust and support Labour will need if they are to govern again.

Labour, Mew labour, vacuous Labour.

Welcome to Ed's world.

34#

OK....






2008 conference time, when he was spotted gurning like Mr Bean, holding said fruit. Around the time of the bottled MiliD/Purnell coup against Brown.

35#

Yawn-a-rama. You still hammering that one stringed banjo for all its worth?

3. lefty10

'well i thought it was a pretty good speech. enough infact to make me join the labour party for the first time.'

I believe you lefty but thousands wouldn't.
Have the Socialist Worker ("the best way forward for socialists lies in organising outside the Labour Party") and the New Left Review ("Judged by the candidates for the post-Brown leadership, New Labour’s intellectual degeneration outstrips all peers") got it wrong then?

dave @ 30

"First their pogrom against Grammar Schools condemned many of the brightest poor to a poor education in the name of ideology"

Two things here:

(1) The GS vs SM model condemned the majority of kids to a sub standard, under resourced, low aspirational education. Grammar schools were "good" for a few at the expense of many.

which is why ...

(2) There was no Labour "pogram" against GSs; what there was was a cross party consensus, backed by the public, to replace a discredited and out of date schools system. One of the very best reforms of the post war years.

Its all about David Milliband and the unions. These are the two great media subjects.

David Milliband could well be hounded out of front line politics by the media. If he stays in the shadow cabinet the journalists will say that brothers are disagreeing or there are splits. It will Blair/Brown all over again. Personality politics. While thousands of public sector workers are dumped on the dole the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will be reporting the trivia of a soap opera Milliband circus.

Meanwhile it will be the the unions destroying Britain. The enemy within. This is all vacuous Daily Mail stuff.

When trade unions overthrew the communist government of Poland the media saluted the brave trade unionists back in the 1980s. In typical double standards if a trade union has a legal ballot for industrial action in Britain then it is "holding the country to ransom". Dont journalists get tired of the old stereotypes? When will they report politics as adults?

I think Milliband said the obvious. If people are losing their jobs, not able to pay their mortgages, can't support their families, having their redundancy money reduced to nothing, they might just vote for strike action in a legal ballot. A Labour leader should turn to the Government and say that those engaged in industrial action had their backs to the wall and no place to go. He should make the humanitarian case to minimise the pain for hard working people. In short he should represent them as the leader of a party which should represent their views.

However if some trade union leader thinks that he should bring down the government by use of strikes as a political weapon then that is wrong in a democratic society.

Milliband seems to me to be supporting "union members" who in desperate circumstances may go on strike.

The media, being essentially anti-union, will wheel out some tired flickering movies from 1978 and headlines of "name your season" of discontent. Journalists love this stuff because they can use the word "union" as a code for "far left maverick on the loopy side of reality". When the media talk about "the city" or "cbi" they mean "sensible people in suits who are nice apolitical moderates with no agenda".

Unfortunately the public buy all this because 90% of union reporting uses the word "strike" as the central purpose for the existance of a union. This month we see the launch of a film about women car workers in Dagenham who went on strike in 1968 which led to equal pay for women. I can't be sure but my guess is that the Daily Mail did not salute their action as hard working women who should be treated equally. The movie and the story of the women has ended up in the entertainment news sections of the media with stories about whether the actresses who play the part will get Baftas or Oscars. I haven't yet seen the ´óÏó´«Ã½ political reporters do a report showing how they were right to strike over equal pay and how they, and the unions, started something which has led to significant narrowing of the pay gap for women.

Of course that is the adult non-sterotyped responsible strike action that has no place in a trivia and personalised media agenda of a modern political journalist. Or is it just when we look at what unions have done from the point of social history we actually discover they have had a positive influence on society.

RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote @22:
"....If you think he has emanated Blair, then he's done a good job of appealing to the masses. Wouldn't you say?"
.
From which of Blair's orifices do you suggest that Miliband emanated?

40. blame.
no they havent necessarily got it wrong. been down that road. but the priority is to remove the tory coalition. and the best way to do that is with the party who has the biggest chance of doing it.
blame ...my business is really busy at the mo but the future is unpredictable. i had my first quiet spell in ten years last christmas and im genuinely fightened at what osborne has in store and the future. let me stress that again blame. i am really worried. i have a young family and i cant see why...as things are slowly getting better..... why they would not go gently gently. i really dont think people realise the extent and gravity of the cuts to come and how it will effect us all.

that is of course bearing in mind that its not us all. some are financially secure enough not to care. the im alright jacks. some on here blame...you know the ones!!! chest puffing and tory manual reading. socially unintelegent and pioneers of walk by on the other side of the road.

10. At 6:59pm on 28 Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:
Very calm and moderate - no fireball oratory - a speech, despite the odd passage for the core, designed to play well to the swing voters who will decide the next election, as they decide all elections.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As requested I have included some of your thoughts.

But surly you must be just trying to spark a reaction from the great and the good.

That speach was the worst ever performance I have ever seen. The content was at best questionable, its delivery was slow and laboured and he even managed to sideline his main supporters.

His brother and most Labour party activists must have thought what have we done and more importantly how did David loose to him?

Fubar_Saunders: so he was seen holding a banana? And you've decided to call him bananaman? That's a little bit immature isn't it?

There's an image of Cameron playing cricket, I suppose you'll be calling him Batman then?

44. leftyfield

The best way to get out of the hole is a combination of the 3 most effective factors for recovery. Easy to say, but a b*gg*r to get the balance right.

1) job creation - requires investment from government and lending from banks, not cuts.
2) fairer taxation - the top bracket needs to bite harder on the bullet, closing of loopholes, evasions, etc.
3) cuts. No ring fencing, everything under the microscope. NHS and Benefits included. Obvious ones first, Trident (must be a cheaper alternative?) and Afghanistan - sooner than later. The elderly and education must be protected.

And for the mid- to long-term future, energy must be a top of the agenda.
No good sorting out the deficit if it becomes too expensive to keep the lights on.

Getting back to the political angle, nothing wrong with pressure from outside the Establishment. Can't see myself ever voluntarily joining or supporting a mainstream party again. Same s***, different wrapping. The people with the real power aren't up for election.

#42 - excellent post.

There are millins of people who should be members of trade unions for the protection from exploitation and bullying that unions afford them, yet they aren't because of the incessant talk of strikes and 'wreckers' in the media.

If your company is taking the piss and you're going to be losing your job - what alternative is there to withdrawing your labour?

46. RedandYellowandGreennotBlue

Did you watch 'Harry and Paul' last night? (Should be on iPlayer)

Sketch about Cameron. Think he'd prefer Batman.

46#

There was a bit more to it than that and it wasnt just me, the entire global press corps let rip at him.


Believe you me, considering his track record as foreign secretary, let alone his inability to be decisive in the attempted coups on Brown, there are a lot more unkind things I could call him than Bananaman.

Cameron will earn his fair share of nicknames, if he hasnt done already, dont you worry. I'm sure amongst the more rabid lefty tribalists there are plenty of monosyllabic epithets that he has earned already.

"If people are losing their jobs, not able to pay their mortgages, can't support their families, having their redundancy money reduced to nothing, they might just vote for strike action in a legal ballot. A Labour leader should turn to the Government and say that those engaged in industrial action had their backs to the wall and no place to go. He should make the humanitarian case to minimise the pain for hard working people. In short he should represent them as the leader of a party which should represent their views."

Yep, all good points.

So, where do you stand on the firemans strike the other day then?

You know what that was about?

Changing shift patterns. Instead of 2 Days 0730-1645, followed by 2 nightshifts 1645-0730, it has been proposed that they go to 2 days, 2 nights, 12 hour shifts, 0730-1930 and 1930-0730.

Given what has been happening and how people in both public and private sectors are affected by the cuts and the downturn, doesnt calling a mass strike when there is no military and no green goddesses any more to cover for them, does this not seem like a strike being used as a political weapon? Keeping the old shifts is a Fire Brigades spanish tactic from the 1970's which allows them to moonlight on the side. Many many firefighters (who'se professionalism and dedication I'm not decrying, incidentally) have other jobs on the side.

Moving to 12 hour shifts would see an end to this.

This, along with the likes of the ongoing BA/BASSA saga is the kind of action we're likely to be seeing. Woodley, Serawotka, et al, are purely fomenting action for political means and no other. Its got s*d all to do with anything else.

"48. At 09:28am on 29 Sep 2010, MarkofSOSH wrote:

If your company is taking the piss and you're going to be losing your job - what alternative is there to withdrawing your labour?"

What's "taking the piss" in your view? An inability to conjour money out of thin air?

Accepting reality ought to at least be considered. If a company is losing money it might have the choice to reduce everyone's wages, reduce the number of people it employs or going out of business.

How would a strike help in that situation?

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

So what to call Ed Miliband's Labour Party? Several choices confront us:

1. Old Labour? - no
2. New Labour? - no
3. New New Labour or New2 Labour? - possibly, but not catchy
4. NG Labour or New Generation Labour? - this was certainly his message, but also not particularly catchy
5. Nouveau Labour - this may be the better choice