FoxesAreBlue Posted 26 March 2013 Posted 26 March 2013 To step down from politics to work for a charity called International Rescue Committee. http://news.sky.com/story/1070168/david-miliband-to-stand-down-as-labour-mp So having lost the leadership of the Labour Party he now wants to live on a secret island, listen in on all our conversations and send rockets flying around the world or have I got my wires crossed?
Webbo Posted 26 March 2013 Posted 26 March 2013 Very apt working for International rescue. A puppet with all the personality of a piece of wood.
FoxesAreBlue Posted 26 March 2013 Author Posted 26 March 2013 Probably claim Thunderbird 1 on expenses too.
Harry - LCFC Posted 26 March 2013 Posted 26 March 2013 Very apt working for International rescue. A puppet with all the personality of a piece of wood. Are you serious? He's far more charismatic than his brother and the majority of politicians you will hear speak today. I don't know much about his ideas and thinking but whenever I heard him speak a few years ago I always thought of him as a really enthusiastic man who wanted to help people - something that people feel that our political representatives today really lack.
Webbo Posted 26 March 2013 Posted 26 March 2013 Are you serious? He's far more charismatic than his brother and the majority of politicians you will hear speak today. I don't know much about his ideas and thinking but whenever I heard him speak a few years ago I always thought of him as a really enthusiastic man who wanted to help people - something that people feel that our political representatives today really lack. He's a nerdy willy puller.
scottthefox Posted 26 March 2013 Posted 26 March 2013 He's a nerdy willy puller. Name a British politician these days that isn't.
z-layrex Posted 26 March 2013 Posted 26 March 2013 Are you serious? He's far more charismatic than his brother and the majority of politicians you will hear speak today. I don't know much about his ideas and thinking but whenever I heard him speak a few years ago I always thought of him as a really enthusiastic man who wanted to help people - something that people feel that our political representatives today really lack. He's a droopy, wet pathetic excuse for a man.
Harry - LCFC Posted 26 March 2013 Posted 26 March 2013 He's a nerdy willy puller. I think that's a bit of an immature response to be honest. I always felt he had a desire to help people and I'm a little disappointed we've lost him. If you didn't see that then there's I think you're a pretty poor judge of character. He seemed a lot better than most of the characters in Parliament. He's a droopy, wet pathetic excuse for a man. Again, what exactly does that mean? Droopy? Wet? It's just meaningless. If you don't support someone as enthusiastic as him then who do you support? And please don't churn out the usual shite about politicians all being lying, power-craved idiots. That isn't true - there are those out there who do want to do their job properly and I got the impression that he was one of them.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Should be Labour leader. End of Twice he had the opportunity to seize the leadership and twice he cocked it up. He looked on the verge of challenging Brown at the height of his unpopularity as PM, but then bottled it. Then, he failed to organise his leadership campaign properly and was outmanoeuvred by his lower-profile brother. So. twice he showed a lack of ruthlessness (a major failing in politics, as in football - as we at LCFC know only too well). David M is the equivalent of a relegated football team that was "too good to go down". Plus, he was far too closely associated with the Blair-Brown years and would have spent the last 3 years fending off Tory comments to that effect if he had won....and his personal style is too close to Blair & Cameron - smoothly vacuous. He's far more charismatic than his brother and the majority of politicians you will hear speak today. I don't know much about his ideas and thinking but whenever I heard him speak a few years ago I always thought of him as a really enthusiastic man who wanted to help people - something that people feel that our political representatives today really lack. Yes, a smooth, articulate bloke, with a vaguely positive aura who would have been a good host on a highbrow TV chat show or something. It is telling that you "don't know much about his ideas" - not much of a recommendation when he was a front-line politician for years! I'm not sure whether his brother Ed will prove successful in the long run, but he looks a better bet to me: seems quite shrewd in his judgment, prepared to make bold moves when appropriate but to say nothing and bide his time when that's the better option - and clearly has more of a killer instinct than his big brother. Events (economy, Europe, UKIP), a hostile media or a public dislike of his nerdy nasal manner may render him a failure, too, but surprisingly the Labour Party actually made the best choice available when it elected him....once Alan Johnson ruled himself out (itself possibly a misjudgment - though maybe Johnson himself felt that he wasn't intellectually tough enough or didn't want it enough).
Babylon Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Was always impressed with him when I heard him speak and thought he could potentially be leader one day, certainly more so than his brother. But as Sir Alf says, for his brother (who has the charisma of a decomposing badger) to beat him says a lot.
Harry - LCFC Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Yes, a smooth, articulate bloke, with a vaguely positive aura who would have been a good host on a highbrow TV chat show or something. It is telling that you "don't know much about his ideas" - not much of a recommendation when he was a front-line politician for years! I'm not sure whether his brother Ed will prove successful in the long run, but he looks a better bet to me: seems quite shrewd in his judgment, prepared to make bold moves when appropriate but to say nothing and bide his time when that's the better option - and clearly has more of a killer instinct than his big brother. Events (economy, Europe, UKIP), a hostile media or a public dislike of his nerdy nasal manner may render him a failure, too, but surprisingly the Labour Party actually made the best choice available when it elected him....once Alan Johnson ruled himself out (itself possibly a misjudgment - though maybe Johnson himself felt that he wasn't intellectually tough enough or didn't want it enough). That's because I was 14 at the time he was in the public view and not particularly interested in politics. It absolutely is not telling that I don't know much about his ideas. I'm not saying he should have become Labour leader because I really don't know. I'm just against these people who dislike him so much due to his apparent lack of personality.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 That's because I was 14 at the time he was in the public view and not particularly interested in politics. It absolutely is not telling that I don't know much about his ideas. I'm not saying he should have become Labour leader because I really don't know. I'm just against these people who dislike him so much due to his apparent lack of personality. Fair comment. He was Foreign Secretary only 3 years ago, but I was forgetting that when you're young 3 years is a long time, during which a lot can change in your life....whereas time flies by and very little changes when you're an old git like me! When I said that it was telling that you didn't know much about his ideas, I didn't mean that it told us anything about you. I meant that it told us something about DM - namely that he comes across as an intelligent, articulate and personable bloke, but doesn't really put any strong political ideas forward, just talks pleasantly around the subject. In government, he was very much a Blair loyalist - supporting a deregulated economy with a minimum safety net, the Iraq war etc. To be fair, he seemed well-informed about foreign affairs and would probably have made environmental policy more of a priority, but I never remember him having any interesting ideas about economic/social policy - the core of politics. These are political times for leaders prepared to take tough and bold decisions, which doesn't seem to be his strength. By all accounts, Clement Attlee had no charisma whatsoever, but many rate his post-war government as one of the best of the last century. Churchill called him "a modest little man, with a lot to be modest about" or something like that, but he got a lot done by leading/organising a ministerial team and taking tough, bold decisions in difficult times. I don't think DM had such leadership qualities. He'd have been a good middle-ranking minister in easy times, not a good leader in hard times.
Harry - LCFC Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Fair comment. He was Foreign Secretary only 3 years ago, but I was forgetting that when you're young 3 years is a long time, during which a lot can change in your life....whereas time flies by and very little changes when you're an old git like me! When I said that it was telling that you didn't know much about his ideas, I didn't mean that it told us anything about you. I meant that it told us something about DM - namely that he comes across as an intelligent, articulate and personable bloke, but doesn't really put any strong political ideas forward, just talks pleasantly around the subject. In government, he was very much a Blair loyalist - supporting a deregulated economy with a minimum safety net, the Iraq war etc. To be fair, he seemed well-informed about foreign affairs and would probably have made environmental policy more of a priority, but I never remember him having any interesting ideas about economic/social policy - the core of politics. These are political times for leaders prepared to take tough and bold decisions, which doesn't seem to be his strength. By all accounts, Clement Attlee had no charisma whatsoever, but many rate his post-war government as one of the best of the last century. Churchill called him "a modest little man, with a lot to be modest about" or something like that, but he got a lot done by leading/organising a ministerial team and taking tough, bold decisions in difficult times. I don't think DM had such leadership qualities. He'd have been a good middle-ranking minister in easy times, not a good leader in hard times. Right, thanks for explaining that to me. I feel like I've learnt a lot from this conversation. From what you've said it does seem as if Ed was the right choice. I still think David had a strong desire to make a difference to life in the UK but as you rightly say, that isn't much good if he doesn't have good ideas on government policy.
Jon the Hat Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Surely Ed won the leadership becuase the unions thought he would do what he was told.
Finnegan Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Think Webster and zlayer are describing the wrong Miliband. He's certainly a lot more charismatic than Cameron or Clegg.
Webbo Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Think Webster and zlayer are describing the wrong Miliband. He's certainly a lot more charismatic than Cameron or Clegg. I'm not a fan of his brother either but it's all subjective.
Finnegan Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Nobody's asking you to be a fan. I find Tony Blair deplorable but he's still the best orator in British politics in my adult lifetime.
davieG Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 The current band of MPs whatever their political persuasion must be the most bland, forgettable and uninspiring bunch I've seen in my life time.
purpleronnie Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 The current band of MPs whatever their political persuasion must be the most bland, forgettable and uninspiring bunch I've seen in my life time. Yep bring back the 80's politicians at least you knew where you stood with them. These are bland days indeed.
Deucalion Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Surely Ed won the leadership becuase the unions thought he would do what he was told. Just so long as Cameron keeps doing what the City of London tells him. It helps us for the super rich to keep getting richer. Some of the dregs of their wealth might trickle down to those below. The banks are our fwiends.
lavrentis Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Name a British politician these days that isn't. Nigel Farage?
Alf Bentley Posted 27 March 2013 Posted 27 March 2013 Right, thanks for explaining that to me. I feel like I've learnt a lot from this conversation. From what you've said it does seem as if Ed was the right choice. I still think David had a strong desire to make a difference to life in the UK but as you rightly say, that isn't much good if he doesn't have good ideas on government policy. Steady on, old chap! We'll bring FoxesTalk into disrepute indulging in such politeness. Shouldn't we be calling one another "****ing ****" or something? I agree that DM seemed to be in the "genuine" minority of politicians; still wouldn't want him as PM... Surely Ed won the leadership becuase the unions thought he would do what he was told. The unions know that a Labour leader needs to appeal to a very broad electorate to win power. A Labour leader who does what he is told by the unions will never win an election, so will never be able to implement any pro-union policies! No doubt they favoured him over his brother as they thought he'd be slightly more sympathetic re. employment rights....maybe also because they thought he might be a winner and was less tainted by association with Blairism. In general, unions are a good thing, except where mismanaged or unrepresentative (like any organisation). I wish there was one I could usefully join! Anyway, while union support was pivotal in Ed M's election, he also won nearly as many votes as his brother among Labour MPs/MEPs and party members, despite having a much lower profile. Think Webster and zlayer are describing the wrong Miliband. He's certainly a lot more charismatic than Cameron or Clegg. Despite the policy differences, Cameron and Clegg are both firmly in the tradition of Blair: smooth presentation, a veneer of reason, surface gloss, insincerity... David M is rather similar, though probably a bit more genuine and a bit more intelligent. After such a run of snakeoil salesmen, maybe the electorate will be ready for someone a bit less charismatic by 2015? I hope so. After all, neither Attlee nor Thatcher were noted for their charisma, at least before taking power, but were probably the 2 most influential PMs of modern times...and Hitler was noted for his charisma. Charisma is over-rated! Nobody's asking you to be a fan. I find Tony Blair deplorable but he's still the best orator in British politics in my adult lifetime. Depends what you mean by "orator". I'm not sure "oratory" (giving eloquent speeches that move, motivate or convince people) is of any value in politics now, except in motivating party activists. The best orators of my lifetime (ignoring their politics) would include Michael Foot, Michael Heseltine, Tony Benn, Enoch Powell and Neil Kinnock, none of whom became PM. The speed of modern life and the nature of modern communications have changed everything. It's now all about TV soundbites, making a good superficial impression and beating key points into the skulls of swing voters with too little time or concentration to listen. Blair was the ham actor supreme! He was such a charlatan with his glossy "passionate sincerity", he should've been in Hollyoaks! "She was the people's princess"... "I'm a pretty straight sort of a guy"... "(the capability to acquire) weapons of mass destruction", "I believe passionately in..." (he could have said he believed passionately in cornflakes and everyone would've been taken in, including me for several years). A "humbug" as he'd have been called in Dickensian times. He's a nerdy willy puller. Name a British politician these days that isn't. Ignoring their politics and considering only whether they are genuine and try to discuss their views honestly.... Alan Johnson, Kenneth Clarke, Caroline Lucas, Nigel Farage, Andy Burnham, Michael Heseltine, Diane Abbott, Vince Cable, Jon Cruddas.... Of course, none of them speak 100% honestly all the time as politics operates as a party system - and there are certainly far too many unprincipled careerists, dreary party-line automatons and smarmy snakeoil salesmen. However, it's healthy to be sceptical, but unhealthy to be cynical.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.