Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ed Miliband’s ‘immorality’ might explain why he lost the 2015

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited March 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ed Miliband’s ‘immorality’ might explain why he lost the 2015 general election and why voters never really took to him

Anthropologists at Oxford University have identified what they believe to be seven universal moral rules. We asked Brits which they thought was the single most important:Help your family – 38%Divide resources fairly – 18%Respect others' property – 16%https://t.co/WoS2oPccRe pic.twitter.com/gwMcQtgh8r

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,063
    edited March 10
    First! And I thought Jeffery Archer went to Oxford Brookes...
  • Marco1Marco1 Posts: 32
    What is the point of Elections if the Elite does not believe or follow democracy ? The UK is no longer a beacon for democracy in the world
  • FishingFishing Posts: 447
    "the University of Oxford, a place with such low standards they let in Jeffrey Archer."

    Cambridge Five anyone?
  • Marco1Marco1 Posts: 32
    ...its called facism or Socialist Nationalism...please consider this , whatever your views are
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,170
    To be honest I thought it was sad that 2 brothers fell out so spectacularly.

    There were plenty of other reasons not to vote for him but I don't think that factored into my thinking.

    He is after all a politician........
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,554
    PClipp said:

    First! And I thought Jeffery Archer went to Oxford Brookes...

    Oxford Poly, surely at that time.

    As a second son, I am with Ed Miliband. There is no role for primogeniture in democratic politics.

    It was not a stab in the back*, it was a fair contest.

    *be careful of the anti-semitic overtones of this phrase btw.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 15,741
    edited March 10
    The explanation for 2015 is much more straightforward - People decided they wanted stability with Cameron and the Tories NOT chaos with Miliband and Labour...









    :D
  • PClipp said:

    First! And I thought Jeffery Archer went to Oxford Brookes...

    Nope, Brasenose.

    Archer's assault on Oxford University was equally impressive. Backed by Dover College, his application as a mature student for a one-year Diploma of Education at Brasenose was accepted.

    By now, according to his letter of recommendation, his academic achievements encompassed six O-levels, three A-levels, a two-year anatomy course at the University of California, as well as being an "FIFPC".

    It was 30 years later, when Crick was researching his biography of Archer, that he discovered that the FIFPC was a body-building club, advertised through newspapers and which you paid to join to help develop muscles through home exercise.

    Getting to Oxford, albeit by a back-door route, would transform Archer's life. He prolonged his one-year course to three with "extra research".


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334660/He-lied-his-way-to-the-top.html

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,554
    GIN1138 said:

    The explanation for 2015 is much more straightforward - People decided the wanted stability with Cameron and the Tories NOT chaos with Miliband and Labour...









    :D

    Would we have been a better country? Hell Yes!

    The #edstone alone would have made it worthwhile.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 15,853
    edited March 10
    Presumably this is why UK people have tolerated the nepotism fest that is the Windsors for so long.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,458
    edited March 10
    I misread the title as immortality before I clicked on it and read it, was mildly confused...

    David couldn't beat his brother because Ed was more appealing to the Labour selectorate than him, I suspect some of the kickback was driven by those angry that people had chosen the wrong brother (in their mind)

    The Labour selectorate then went and made those people even more furious by choosing the wrong one again, I don't think Dan Hodges has calmed down yet...
  • Fishing said:

    "the University of Oxford, a place with such low standards they let in Jeffrey Archer."

    Cambridge Five anyone?

    The Cambridge Five are generally regarded as the world's best spies.

    Also Oxford had a nest of traitors.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5434139/Oxford-traitor-spied-Russia-revealed.html
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 31,443
    "EICIPM!"

    :lol:
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,647
    What is meant by "divide resources fairly" though?

    I might consider it fair that I keep what I earn. A communist might consider it fair that all resources are divided equally.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 15,741
    edited March 10

    "EICIPM!"

    :lol:

    Such innocent times... Who'd like to go back to arguing about pasty's, jerry-cans and EICIPM? :

    :D
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,312

    I misread the title as immortality before I clicked on it and read it, was mildly confused...

    David couldn't beat his brother because Ed was more appealing to the Labour selectorate than him, I suspect some of the kickback was driven by those angry that people had chosen the wrong brother (in their mind)

    The Labour selectorate then went and made those people even more furious by choosing the wrong one again, I don't think Dan Hodges has calmed down yet...

    The Labour selectorate changed; they elected a Jew in 2010, and an anti-Semite in 2015.

    I just shows how he selectorate changed, and how progress can be backwards as well as forwards.
  • trawltrawl Posts: 137
    Off topic - Brexit I’m afraid.

    A quick look at Sunday Times. Anonymous piece from a Civil Servant detailing the contempt said service has for the decision ro leave and for the voters who took that decision. Author afraid to show out that he is a leaver himself. Elsewhere an anecdote of Blair lobbing Macron to refuse British requests if Parliament votes for delay - telling him to hold firm and the UK will remain. Sigh.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    FPT:
    Floater said:

    notme2 said:

    nico67 said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    I

    brendan16 said:

    nico67 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
    Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are

    My mother

    She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.

    So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
    I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .

    It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/da4760e4-42b1-11e9-b2a3-e9b8ad72e51b
    The original study was carried out last June . You can find the results if you google privacy foundation Brexit .

    Fascinating results there especially on the Dunning Kruger effect especially related to men .
    Not sure, some of the smarter people I have met are as much susceptible to confirmation bias and their own righteousness as dimid.
    LOL - I was accused of spreading fake news by quoting verbatim from a report which allegedly supported the case the other person was trying to make.

    We really are in a weird place right now
    Yup. I think ironically social media and the internet doesn’t seem to encourage us to read the actual primary evidence, but what someone else thinks of it. In the case of this report it had been jumped on as saying XYZ, when it had actual said 123. And that became inextricably linked with the report. And then through a series of Chinese whispers that XYZ which it didn’t say, but could if you squinted your eyes and read the report through a mirror while holding it upside down became ABC. So now report says ABC. No questioning of this fact.. it becomes respected enough that to question that the report says ABC is to be a denier of the report.

    Those people who are convinced the report says ABC will show a google list of people indeed saying that the report says ABC. Not because it did, but because they too read a press release or another journalist/infuencer saying that it indeed say ABC.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 15,741
    trawl said:

    Off topic - Brexit I’m afraid.

    A quick look at Sunday Times. Anonymous piece from a Civil Servant detailing the contempt said service has for the decision ro leave and for the voters who took that decision. Author afraid to show out that he is a leaver himself. Elsewhere an anecdote of Blair lobbing Macron to refuse British requests if Parliament votes for delay - telling him to hold firm and the UK will remain. Sigh.

    I bet Blair would love to bomb the crap out of LEAVE voting constituency's. :D
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 324
    What did EICIPM mean anyway? He was a poor choice but I don't see how he stabbed his brother in the back. David had no right to be leader and they both stood openly for the leadership.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    kyf_100 said:

    What is meant by "divide resources fairly" though?

    I might consider it fair that I keep what I earn. A communist might consider it fair that all resources are divided equally.


    Communists with resources have historically been quite keen to make sure their families are properly looked after. Usually with a Swiss bank account.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,312
    Foxy said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The explanation for 2015 is much more straightforward - People decided the wanted stability with Cameron and the Tories NOT chaos with Miliband and Labour...









    :D

    Would we have been a better country? Hell Yes!

    The #edstone alone would have made it worthwhile.
    This sort of talk assumes that a Labour government under Ed would have meant that the EU would have suddenly become a non-issue. That's a very odd way of looking at it.

    A referendum was needed because a large section of the public did not agree with being in the EU (at various levels): and that's why leave won. Whilst the EU is much more of an issue for the Conservatives than Labour, there are *many* Labour leavers.

    It's easy to see scenarios where an EU referendum would have occurred before or after 2020, even if Ed had won.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,934
    GIN1138 said:

    trawl said:

    Off topic - Brexit I’m afraid.

    A quick look at Sunday Times. Anonymous piece from a Civil Servant detailing the contempt said service has for the decision ro leave and for the voters who took that decision. Author afraid to show out that he is a leaver himself. Elsewhere an anecdote of Blair lobbing Macron to refuse British requests if Parliament votes for delay - telling him to hold firm and the UK will remain. Sigh.

    I bet Blair would love to bomb the crap out of LEAVE voting constituency's. :D
    Look on the bright side. He'd devote insufficient resources to the task, rely on wildly inaccurate information, do what the Americans tell him regardless, then bomb the wrong neighborhoods.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,948
    Foxy said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The explanation for 2015 is much more straightforward - People decided the wanted stability with Cameron and the Tories NOT chaos with Miliband and Labour...









    :D

    Would we have been a better country? Hell Yes!

    The #edstone alone would have made it worthwhile.
    Cameron didn't 'beat' Miliband. He turned his fire on his coalition partners and won a majority that way.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 15,741
    houndtang said:

    What did EICIPM mean anyway? He was a poor choice but I don't see how he stabbed his brother in the back. David had no right to be leader and they both stood openly for the leadership.

    EICIPM = Ed [Miliband] Is Crap Is Prime Minister

    It became received wisdom on PB that Miliband was a bit rubbish but around 2012/2013 he had a modest opinion poll lead which if carried into the general election would have seen him become Prime Minister
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    houndtang said:

    What did EICIPM mean anyway? He was a poor choice but I don't see how he stabbed his brother in the back. David had no right to be leader and they both stood openly for the leadership.

    Ed is crap, Ed is PM. Usually following a lord Ashcroft mega poll showing how all the marginals were lost to the conservatives.
  • houndtang said:

    What did EICIPM mean anyway? He was a poor choice but I don't see how he stabbed his brother in the back. David had no right to be leader and they both stood openly for the leadership.

    The story I've heard is that David Miliband was going to resign in June 2009 alongside James Purnell, Ed Miliband persuaded him not to with the assurance he'd back him when Brown resigns.

    Ed then reneged on that.

    (The best theory I've heard is that Ed Miliband only stood in the 2010 leadership contest to make sure he was seen as contender worthy of being appointed to a senior shadow cabinet by David Miliband rather than it being seen as nepotism.)
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited March 10
    kyf_100 said:

    What is meant by "divide resources fairly" though?

    I might consider it fair that I keep what I earn. A communist might consider it fair that all resources are divided equally.

    What helps your family more - becoming Labour party leader or earning a £650,000 a year wage doing 'charity work' to help poor people in the developing work and refugees? A charity partly funded by the UK taxpayer.

    Lets stop sending £650,000 a year to New York to fund David's salary - and spend it on the NHS instead (or on helping refugees)!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,312
    GIN1138 said:

    houndtang said:

    What did EICIPM mean anyway? He was a poor choice but I don't see how he stabbed his brother in the back. David had no right to be leader and they both stood openly for the leadership.

    EICIPM = Ed [Miliband] Is Crap Is Prime Minister

    It became received wisdom on PB that Miliband was a bit rubbish but around 2012/2013 he had a modest opinion poll lead which if carried into the general election would have seen him become Prime Minister
    As I believe I said at the time, Ed wasn't the problem. True, he was lacklustre, and appeared a little lightweight, but his real problem were the people around him.

    And Scotland. You should never forget Scotland ...
  • FishingFishing Posts: 447

    Fishing said:

    "the University of Oxford, a place with such low standards they let in Jeffrey Archer."

    Cambridge Five anyone?

    The Cambridge Five are generally regarded as the world's best spies.

    Also Oxford had a nest of traitors.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5434139/Oxford-traitor-spied-Russia-revealed.html
    Surely the best spies are ones one has never heard of? In which case the Cambridge Five were spectacular failures even for Cambridge.

    Not that I'm particularly holding a candle for Oxford - a plague on both of them.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    trawl said:

    Off topic - Brexit I’m afraid.

    A quick look at Sunday Times. Anonymous piece from a Civil Servant detailing the contempt said service has for the decision ro leave and for the voters who took that decision. Author afraid to show out that he is a leaver himself. Elsewhere an anecdote of Blair lobbing Macron to refuse British requests if Parliament votes for delay - telling him to hold firm and the UK will remain. Sigh.

    I bet Blair would love to bomb the crap out of LEAVE voting constituency's. :D
    Look on the bright side. He'd devote insufficient resources to the task, rely on wildly inaccurate information, do what the Americans tell him regardless, then bomb the wrong neighborhoods.
    Sorry Richmond, sorry Twickenham.....
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,371
    What a weird list of 'universal moral rules'. You'd have thought that at least the sixth, seventh and ninth commandments might also be worth a nod.

    As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    "the University of Oxford, a place with such low standards they let in Jeffrey Archer."

    Cambridge Five anyone?

    The Cambridge Five are generally regarded as the world's best spies.

    Also Oxford had a nest of traitors.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5434139/Oxford-traitor-spied-Russia-revealed.html
    Surely the best spies are ones one has never heard of? In which case the Cambridge Five were spectacular failures even for Cambridge.

    Not that I'm particularly holding a candle for Oxford - a plague on both of them.
    Putin still raises a glass to the great work done by the KGB's undiscovered nest of spies in Huddersfield Polytechnic.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    Ireland tonking the French. Lucky the Italians still take part, or France would have a wooden spoon to stir their famous cuisine......
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,948

    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    "the University of Oxford, a place with such low standards they let in Jeffrey Archer."

    Cambridge Five anyone?

    The Cambridge Five are generally regarded as the world's best spies.

    Also Oxford had a nest of traitors.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5434139/Oxford-traitor-spied-Russia-revealed.html
    Surely the best spies are ones one has never heard of? In which case the Cambridge Five were spectacular failures even for Cambridge.

    Not that I'm particularly holding a candle for Oxford - a plague on both of them.
    Putin still raises a glass to the great work done by the KGB's undiscovered nest of spies in Huddersfield Polytechnic.....
    Don't let everyone know!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,934

    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    trawl said:

    Off topic - Brexit I’m afraid.

    A quick look at Sunday Times. Anonymous piece from a Civil Servant detailing the contempt said service has for the decision ro leave and for the voters who took that decision. Author afraid to show out that he is a leaver himself. Elsewhere an anecdote of Blair lobbing Macron to refuse British requests if Parliament votes for delay - telling him to hold firm and the UK will remain. Sigh.

    I bet Blair would love to bomb the crap out of LEAVE voting constituency's. :D
    Look on the bright side. He'd devote insufficient resources to the task, rely on wildly inaccurate information, do what the Americans tell him regardless, then bomb the wrong neighborhoods.
    Sorry Richmond, sorry Twickenham.....
    :)
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited March 10
    Ireland are 14-0 up at present but have just had a try disallowed. Maybe Barnier might be wishing he had spent his Sunday discussing Cox's codpiece instead?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,803
    Fishing said:

    "the University of Oxford, a place with such low standards they let in Jeffrey Archer."

    Cambridge Five anyone?

    We referred to one (Blunt) in passing in the last thread's Picasso debate, and it was in the Spanish civil war that both Picasso and Philby came of age.

    The Oxford spies were quickly rounded up. Or were they? During the 1970s, rogue elements of MI5 convinced themselves that the head of MI5 and even the Prime Minister, both Oxford men, worked for the other side.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,660

    Ireland tonking the French. Lucky the Italians still take part, or France would have a wooden spoon to stir their famous cuisine......

    In the southern hemisphere, the original tri-nations (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) was expanded to include Argentina and arguably rightly so but the travelling far exceeds anything in our six nations. However, this is mitigated to some extent by a complex schedule which means each side plays the others three times.

    There have been suggestions of further expansion to include one of the Pacific Islands such as Fiji or Tonga but that hasn't happened yet.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,293

    What a weird list of 'universal moral rules'. You'd have thought that at least the sixth, seventh and ninth commandments might also be worth a nod.

    As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.

    Indeed. And many traditional societies had no concept of personal property eg Polynesia and some Native Americans. How can respect for it be Universal then?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,934
    The seven universal moral rules are:

    * Help your family
    * Help your group
    * Return favours
    * Be brave
    * Defer to superiors
    * Divide resources fairly
    * Respect others’ property

    I looked but I couldn't find:

    * Serve the public trust
    * Protect the innocent
    * Uphold the law
    * An OCP product shall not act against any senior OCP official

    So obviously some omissions there... :(
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    dixiedean said:

    What a weird list of 'universal moral rules'. You'd have thought that at least the sixth, seventh and ninth commandments might also be worth a nod.

    As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.

    Indeed. And many traditional societies had no concept of personal property eg Polynesia and some Native Americans. How can respect for it be Universal then?
    They seem to complain a lot when its taken from them...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677
    PClipp said:

    First! And I thought Jeffery Archer went to Oxford Brookes...

    I’m not sure it was even that?

    Didn’t he go to a summer school so he “studied *in* Oxford”
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,764
    houndtang said:

    What did EICIPM mean anyway? He was a poor choice but I don't see how he stabbed his brother in the back. David had no right to be leader and they both stood openly for the leadership.

    Indeed. That said, plenty of people seem to believe that he stabbed his brother in the back, whatever the truth (the truth being that David stabbed himself in the back with his own leadership election performance).
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,660

    What a weird list of 'universal moral rules'. You'd have thought that at least the sixth, seventh and ninth commandments might also be worth a nod.

    As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.

    I think there were a number of factors working against Labour in 2015. It's very hard for parties to win back power from Opposition after a long period of power. The Conservatives managed it in 1970 but, that period excepting, we have become used to one party enjoying an extended period in power before having to endure an extended period in opposition.

    As others have said, through a combination of their own stupidity and naivety and some superb campaigning by the Conservatives, the LDs were destroyed and Labour took some of the pickings too but the SNP emerged as the completely dominant force and indeed a third Parliamentary force close to where the LDs had been in 2010.

    The collapse of the LDs across Britain and of Labour in Scotland disproportionately favoured the Conservatives who feasted on the LD carcass in England and Wales but had nothing to lose to the SNP in Scotland. Those English gains pushed Cameron over the majority line.

    Oddly enough, I think Ed M was inconsequential in what actually happened - the SNP provided a useful foil but I have always thought (and still do) they would have done a deal with the Conservatives had they been in the same position as Clegg's LDs were in 2010.
  • kyf_100 said:

    What is meant by "divide resources fairly" though?

    I might consider it fair that I keep what I earn. A communist might consider it fair that all resources are divided equally.

    An excellent point and usually missed.

    As a member of one planning committee and the former chairman of another how many times have I heard it said that applicants should be treated "equally". To many members, mainly it is true members with an axe to grind against people who had clearly done better than them in life that was all.

    The truth is, to treat applicants equally IS NOT ENOUGH. You should always treat applicants FAIRLY. Usually, but not absolutely always treating applicants fairly includes treating them equally.

    Seriously for those out there who are potential chairs of planning or licensing committees you will surely be better respected by your colleagues, the public and the press if you always bear this in mind. Of course your officers will hate you and will do anything to be rid of you.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 1,285

    I misread the title as immortality before I clicked on it and read it, was mildly confused...

    David couldn't beat his brother because Ed was more appealing to the Labour selectorate than him, I suspect some of the kickback was driven by those angry that people had chosen the wrong brother (in their mind)

    The Labour selectorate then went and made those people even more furious by choosing the wrong one again, I don't think Dan Hodges has calmed down yet...

    The only real criticism of the Ed M campaign I have seen is that they didn't "fight fair" over Iraq. David M was elected as an MP in 2001 and therefore voted for war or Iraq, where Ed M wasn't elected until 2005 and therefore didn't.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    "the University of Oxford, a place with such low standards they let in Jeffrey Archer."

    Cambridge Five anyone?

    The Cambridge Five are generally regarded as the world's best spies.

    Also Oxford had a nest of traitors.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5434139/Oxford-traitor-spied-Russia-revealed.html
    Surely the best spies are ones one has never heard of? In which case the Cambridge Five were spectacular failures even for Cambridge.

    Not that I'm particularly holding a candle for Oxford - a plague on both of them.
    You should all be watching Traitors on Channel 4 - episode 4 is on tonight - with Keeley Hawes. Seems like the Cabinet office was quite the hotbed of reds under the bed just after the war.

    I have watched all six episodes and while I won't give the plot away it demonstrates the dangers of not adequately funding care for those with dementia.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,394

    Foxy said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The explanation for 2015 is much more straightforward - People decided the wanted stability with Cameron and the Tories NOT chaos with Miliband and Labour...









    :D

    Would we have been a better country? Hell Yes!

    The #edstone alone would have made it worthwhile.
    This sort of talk assumes that a Labour government under Ed would have meant that the EU would have suddenly become a non-issue. That's a very odd way of looking at it.

    A referendum was needed because a large section of the public did not agree with being in the EU (at various levels): and that's why leave won. Whilst the EU is much more of an issue for the Conservatives than Labour, there are *many* Labour leavers.

    It's easy to see scenarios where an EU referendum would have occurred before or after 2020, even if Ed had won.
    We can all do the counterfactuals. But one thing is certain. Chaos with Ed Miliband would have been far better than what we have now.

    I believe this government's just about only policy implementation - capping utility bills - was pinched from Ed and roundly condemned by Tories at the time.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,435
    That rugby game is great cover for the pressure the EU must be applying to Varadkar right now....
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,170
    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The explanation for 2015 is much more straightforward - People decided the wanted stability with Cameron and the Tories NOT chaos with Miliband and Labour...









    :D

    Would we have been a better country? Hell Yes!

    The #edstone alone would have made it worthwhile.
    This sort of talk assumes that a Labour government under Ed would have meant that the EU would have suddenly become a non-issue. That's a very odd way of looking at it.

    A referendum was needed because a large section of the public did not agree with being in the EU (at various levels): and that's why leave won. Whilst the EU is much more of an issue for the Conservatives than Labour, there are *many* Labour leavers.

    It's easy to see scenarios where an EU referendum would have occurred before or after 2020, even if Ed had won.
    We can all do the counterfactuals. But one thing is certain. Chaos with Ed Miliband would have been far better than what we have now.

    I believe this government's just about only policy implementation - capping utility bills - was pinched from Ed and roundly condemned by Tories at the time.
    How can that be certain?

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,101
    Marco1 said:

    What is the point of Elections if the Elite does not believe or follow democracy ? The UK is no longer a beacon for democracy in the world

    because we refuse to annul the result of a corrupt referendum...
  • notme2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    What a weird list of 'universal moral rules'. You'd have thought that at least the sixth, seventh and ninth commandments might also be worth a nod.

    As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.

    Indeed. And many traditional societies had no concept of personal property eg Polynesia and some Native Americans. How can respect for it be Universal then?
    They seem to complain a lot when its taken from them...
    They probably don't have much grasp of integal calculus either. As stated here "personal property" is a philosophical construct but that does not mean that the concept itself is not undestood in an innate way. Thus if you spent days making something essential for existence, perhaps a canoe and a fellow tribesman came along and took it then that would be "wrong" with or without the philosophical construct in the background.
  • I misread the title as immortality before I clicked on it and read it, was mildly confused...

    David couldn't beat his brother because Ed was more appealing to the Labour selectorate than him, I suspect some of the kickback was driven by those angry that people had chosen the wrong brother (in their mind)

    The Labour selectorate then went and made those people even more furious by choosing the wrong one again, I don't think Dan Hodges has calmed down yet...

    The Labour selectorate changed; they elected a Jew in 2010, and an anti-Semite in 2015.

    I just shows how he selectorate changed, and how progress can be backwards as well as forwards.
    Basically due to a change in momentum.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,312

    I misread the title as immortality before I clicked on it and read it, was mildly confused...

    David couldn't beat his brother because Ed was more appealing to the Labour selectorate than him, I suspect some of the kickback was driven by those angry that people had chosen the wrong brother (in their mind)

    The Labour selectorate then went and made those people even more furious by choosing the wrong one again, I don't think Dan Hodges has calmed down yet...

    The Labour selectorate changed; they elected a Jew in 2010, and an anti-Semite in 2015.

    I just shows how he selectorate changed, and how progress can be backwards as well as forwards.
    Basically due to a change in momentum.
    LOL.

    Badum-tish!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,793
    Scott_P said:

    Marco1 said:

    What is the point of Elections if the Elite does not believe or follow democracy ? The UK is no longer a beacon for democracy in the world

    because we refuse to annul the result of a corrupt referendum...
    Corrupt? I assume you are referring to how much extra Remain spent vs. Leave?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,101
    RobD said:

    Corrupt?

    The law was broken.

    What other definition are you using?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 828
    The thought that 0% of Brits think that deferring to superiors is the most important rule is a cheerful chink of light and hope in a dark world. I wonder what % of Brits think in fact it is a truly terrible idea? Most, I hope.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,137
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    Corrupt?

    The law was broken.

    What other definition are you using?
    Both sides broke the law, and both sides have been fined for it. It's a very dangerous argument to use to suggest the result isn't acceptable. Just as it's hard to argue that Leave's lies call the result into question when Remain were just as dishonest.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,793
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    Corrupt?

    The law was broken.

    What other definition are you using?
    Yeah, not only did they spend millions more then Leave, they also broke the rules, too.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/2f91721d-9512-3c2a-9e0f-4453897183c8
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,101
    ydoethur said:

    It's a very dangerous argument to use to suggest the result isn't acceptable.

    An election result would have been annulled.

    The only "argument" is precedent, and the rule of law.

    I know Brexiteers don't like that...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,793
    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's a very dangerous argument to use to suggest the result isn't acceptable.

    An election result would have been annulled.

    The only "argument" is precedent, and the rule of law.

    I know Brexiteers don't like that...
    Would it have? The alleged overspend is minuscule in comparison to the overall spend.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,137
    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's a very dangerous argument to use to suggest the result isn't acceptable.

    An election result would have been annulled.

    The only "argument" is precedent, and the rule of law.

    I know Brexiteers don't like that...
    I'm not a Brexiteer. And no, an election result would not have been annulled on that basis. Otherwise we would have had to rerun 2017. You're confusing breaching constituency limits (which can lead to a by-election) with national campaigns.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 14,842
    Foxy said:

    PClipp said:

    First! And I thought Jeffery Archer went to Oxford Brookes...

    Oxford Poly, surely at that time.

    As a second son, I am with Ed Miliband. There is no role for primogeniture in democratic politics.

    It was not a stab in the back*, it was a fair contest.

    *be careful of the anti-semitic overtones of this phrase btw.
    I'm sure that the anti-semitic tropes used by the Conservatives against Ed Miliband were as accidental as the anti-semitic tropes used by Labour against Michael Howard.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,934

    During the 1970s, rogue elements of MI5 convinced themselves that the head of MI5 and even the Prime Minister, both Oxford men, worked for the other side.

    Harold Wilson a Soviet spy? Extraordinary! Imagine if somebody had written a story around that theme and then published it as a book which could be purchased online?

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,101
    ydoethur said:

    And no, an election result would not have been annulled on that basis.

    Yes, they would. It has happened before. Election campaigns which break the law are annulled, and rerun.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,379
    The highest morality is helping your family?

    The Kray twins will be smiling down from heaven then. Quite a thought.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,101
    RobD said:

    Would it have?

    Yes, of course.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,475
    I had nothing against Ed Miliband but knew he would struggle much more than his brother to beat the Tories.

    Not saying Labour would have won but Cameron wouldn’t have got his majority and there wouldn’t have been a referendum .

    Ed M never sought to nullify attacks re Labour spending . The message should have been Labour had to repair the damage done to the NHS and education under the Tories.

  • EICIPMEICIPM Posts: 55
    Did somebody look in the mirror and say three times, "Am I tough enuss? Hell yeah I'm tough enough!"
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 14,842
    Ed Miliband's image problem was than he was seen as a wet wimp.

    See the second photo on this article:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32328664

    A bit more imagery of a ruthless tough-guy who won the leadership as an underdog wouldn't have done him any harm
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 879
    The story that prevailed at Oxford was that Archer, while at the unaffiliated local education college, simply marched into the Brasenose porters’ lodge and angrily complained they had given him no pigeon hole. Bullishit baffling brains, the porters apologised gave him one. With a pigeon hole you are essentially part of the college, ergo the university, and the rest is history.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,793
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    Would it have?

    Yes, of course.
    Evidently not, otherwise it would have. More of a story if leave’s alleged overspend ever fills that £5mn gap in spending.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,137
    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    And no, an election result would not have been annulled on that basis.

    Yes, they would. It has happened before. Election campaigns which break the law are annulled, and rerun.
    2017 was rerun after Labour broke the rules? I missed that one. When did it happen?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,379
    I always fancied the Miliband brothers as kind of like our Kennedys. Used to picture them, vibrant and tussle haired, both of them incredibly brainy and popular, playing touch football at Holland Park comprehensive. This vision was trashed when they fell out over the leadership and now they're not even in the same continent. Sad story.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,137
    DougSeal said:

    The story that prevailed at Oxford was that Archer, while at the unaffiliated local education college, simply marched into the Brasenose porters’ lodge and angrily complained they had given him no pigeon hole. Bullishit baffling brains, the porters apologised gave him one. With a pigeon hole you are essentially part of the college, ergo the university, and the rest is history.

    Oi! Do you mind not associating him with my subject? It was in Educa...ah.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,338
    Well at least Ed Miliband didn't lose a referendum that'll probably end up splitting his party, or end up as a sex pest.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,137
    Pulpstar said:

    Well at least Ed Miliband didn't lose a referendum that'll probably end up splitting his party, or end up as a sex pest.

    :hushed:

    Which one of Corbyn and May are you thinking of for the latter one?
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,087
    There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,101
    matt said:

    There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.

    When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 14,842
    Pulpstar said:

    Well at least Ed Miliband didn't lose a referendum that'll probably end up splitting his party, or end up as a sex pest.

    Labour choosing Corbyn to succeed him as party leader isn't the best political epitaph.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,338
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Well at least Ed Miliband didn't lose a referendum that'll probably end up splitting his party, or end up as a sex pest.

    :hushed:

    Which one of Corbyn and May are you thinking of for the latter one?
    Neither
  • Scott_P said:

    matt said:

    There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.

    When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
    Lib Dems got fined £19,000 - I don't think they were extreme Brexiteers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,137
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Well at least Ed Miliband didn't lose a referendum that'll probably end up splitting his party, or end up as a sex pest.

    :hushed:

    Which one of Corbyn and May are you thinking of for the latter one?
    Neither
    Ah, I'm now sensing something fishy here perhaps? Or are we all Green on this one?

    Unpleasant though it is, it's much better than the truly horrible mental image I had before.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,137

    Scott_P said:

    matt said:

    There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.

    When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
    Lib Dems got fined £19,000 - I don't think they were extreme Brexiteers.
    Extreme centrists, apparently, according to Corbynistas. The ultimate Golden Mean.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,293
    notme2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    What a weird list of 'universal moral rules'. You'd have thought that at least the sixth, seventh and ninth commandments might also be worth a nod.

    As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.

    Indeed. And many traditional societies had no concept of personal property eg Polynesia and some Native Americans. How can respect for it be Universal then?
    They seem to complain a lot when its taken from them...
    The key word there is "them". They have group. Not personal.
  • kinabalu said:

    The highest morality is helping your family?

    The Kray twins will be smiling down from heaven then. Quite a thought.

    I think that pretty well all of those qualities have an element of selfishness in them i.e. I will benefit from these actions as well. (whether financially or genetically)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:

    matt said:

    There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.

    When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
    Lib Dems got fined £19,000 - I don't think they were extreme Brexiteers.
    Extreme centrists, apparently, according to Corbynistas. The ultimate Golden Mean.
    I quite like the LibDems being called the Golden Meanies.....
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,803
    brendan16 said:

    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    "the University of Oxford, a place with such low standards they let in Jeffrey Archer."

    Cambridge Five anyone?

    The Cambridge Five are generally regarded as the world's best spies.

    Also Oxford had a nest of traitors.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5434139/Oxford-traitor-spied-Russia-revealed.html
    Surely the best spies are ones one has never heard of? In which case the Cambridge Five were spectacular failures even for Cambridge.

    Not that I'm particularly holding a candle for Oxford - a plague on both of them.
    You should all be watching Traitors on Channel 4 - episode 4 is on tonight - with Keeley Hawes. Seems like the Cabinet office was quite the hotbed of reds under the bed just after the war.

    I have watched all six episodes and while I won't give the plot away it demonstrates the dangers of not adequately funding care for those with dementia.
    Thanks for the recommendation, though with Cheltenham this week, viewing might need to wait for the DVD in April. Thank heavens there is nothing happening in politics.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,087
    Scott_P said:

    matt said:

    There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.

    When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
    Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,137

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:

    matt said:

    There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.

    When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
    Lib Dems got fined £19,000 - I don't think they were extreme Brexiteers.
    Extreme centrists, apparently, according to Corbynistas. The ultimate Golden Mean.
    I quite like the LibDems being called the Golden Meanies.....
    Never knew you were a student, Mark! :smile:

    But the best nickname of course was William I: William the Bastard to his friends, and William the much worse to his enemies.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,379
    edited March 10
    nico67 said:

    I had nothing against Ed Miliband but knew he would struggle much more than his brother to beat the Tories.

    Not saying Labour would have won but Cameron wouldn’t have got his majority and there wouldn’t have been a referendum .

    Ed M never sought to nullify attacks re Labour spending . The message should have been Labour had to repair the damage done to the NHS and education under the Tories.

    Totally agree. He was far too defensive on that and on other things too. Ed had some great ideas but he was cramped by fear of the reactionary tabloid press.

    Corbyn is much better in this regard. He does not pander to the enemy.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,803
    OT shops are rubbish (part 94). Round up your bill for Comic Relief it says. Shame they've not told any of the till staff how to do this, and there is precious little chance of them stumbling across the function hidden behind several menus. It's one way of ending the Dooley/Lammy debate, I suppose.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    Corrupt?

    The law was broken.

    What other definition are you using?
    You're too harsh on Remain.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,170
    nico67 said:

    I had nothing against Ed Miliband but knew he would struggle much more than his brother to beat the Tories.

    Not saying Labour would have won but Cameron wouldn’t have got his majority and there wouldn’t have been a referendum .

    Ed M never sought to nullify attacks re Labour spending . The message should have been Labour had to repair the damage done to the NHS and education under the Tories.

    Strange how Labour can't give their staff a decent paybrise - because , you know it would threaten their financial stability.

    They always seem so unconcerned about doing the same to the country.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,137

    brendan16 said:

    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    "the University of Oxford, a place with such low standards they let in Jeffrey Archer."

    Cambridge Five anyone?

    The Cambridge Five are generally regarded as the world's best spies.

    Also Oxford had a nest of traitors.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5434139/Oxford-traitor-spied-Russia-revealed.html
    Surely the best spies are ones one has never heard of? In which case the Cambridge Five were spectacular failures even for Cambridge.

    Not that I'm particularly holding a candle for Oxford - a plague on both of them.
    You should all be watching Traitors on Channel 4 - episode 4 is on tonight - with Keeley Hawes. Seems like the Cabinet office was quite the hotbed of reds under the bed just after the war.

    I have watched all six episodes and while I won't give the plot away it demonstrates the dangers of not adequately funding care for those with dementia.
    Thanks for the recommendation, though with Cheltenham this week, viewing might need to wait for the DVD in April. Thank heavens there is nothing happening in politics.
    Unless the weather improves radically I don't think you'll be watching too much racing. It's been snowing here.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,803
    matt said:

    Scott_P said:

    matt said:

    There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.

    When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
    Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
    The only manifesto and associated campaign I'd call dishonest is the Conservative one in 1979 when the Conservatives denied they planned to double VAT (technically it was not quite doubled from 8 to 15 per cent in the budget immediately following the election). There are other campaigns that were robust to the point of being dirty but that is not quite the same thing.

    There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.
This discussion has been closed.