Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH, I always thought Ed's "hinterland", in sporting terms anyway, was baseball (he is a genuine fan)
He has also claimed to support Leeds United, rather him than me there
Meh, I call you a Plastic football fan for that.
Ed is a Leeds fan and a baseball fan, he also likes American Football and I see nothing wrong with any of that.
As for David Miliband - he lost because he is crap. He had a huge advantage but his refusal to move on from the dead hand of Blairism cost him the election; that and the fact he has the charisma and vision of a wet fish. If he was leader now Cameron would be 5-10 points ahead.
Possibly - one thing I am certain of though is that both UKIP and the Greens would be doing even better than they currently are.
Labour wouldn't be doing any less badly in Scotland with a more Blairite leadership either.
RobertSnozers wrote:
It never ceases to astound me that the people of North Somerset can keep returning this idiot. Obviously there's his politics, the fact that he treats politics as a mildly amusing game (his chief talent seems to be for extravagent filibustering), and the enormous privilege that has served him as well as it has served the rest of us badly. But taking all that aside, have you seen what he named his children?
Wow ! Fancy being saddled with a name like that going through school....
If I'm perfectly honest, I'm as surprised he has fathered 3 children as the names that were chosen for them.
He'd better not have a fourth.
Helena won't get any child benefit.
He already has four children – of course Mary Anne Charlotte Emma is 'only' a girl so appears at the end of that list and doesn't get such a fancy collection of names...
This time, I'm gonna be stronger I'm not giving in...
The main effect of David Miliband being elected would have been splits in the party. That's why the Tories lament his failure so much. Instead, say what you like, apart from the Blairite rump, the party is united.
mikems wrote:Cameron's 'support' for Villa is pure sham. He says that he supports them only because one of Charles' sons is known also to pretend to support them.
Wasn't one of his relatives formerly on the Aston Villa board?
Possibly, Anatoly, but that would have little effect on Cameron's sincerity, I would say. He is simply not a football supporter, as far as I can tell. Neither is Blair. They both pretend to be though.
mikems wrote:Possibly, Anatoly, but that would have little effect on Cameron's sincerity, I would say. He is simply not a football supporter, as far as I can tell. Neither is Blair. They both pretend to be though.
Well, some who claim to have known him before he was an MP say his support for NUFC is pretty genuine.
I hope you aren't going to rehash that "he once claimed to have watched Jackie Milburn play whilst in the Gallowgate End" urban myth
RobertSnozers wrote:Has anyone actually specified what Ed did to 'knife' David? Do they actually think that the older brother should automatically get dibs? ('Buggins turn', very meritocratic). Or do they think there was some deal that Ed went back on?
RobertSnozers wrote:
It never ceases to astound me that the people of North Somerset can keep returning this idiot. Obviously there's his politics, the fact that he treats politics as a mildly amusing game (his chief talent seems to be for extravagent filibustering), and the enormous privilege that has served him as well as it has served the rest of us badly. But taking all that aside, have you seen what he named his children?
Wow ! Fancy being saddled with a name like that going through school....
If I'm perfectly honest, I'm as surprised he has fathered 3 children as the names that were chosen for them.
Toby Latimer wrote:Is this even legal ? From Dacre's rag, the use of the word "says" implies this is a direct quote surely ?
'Knifing David was worse than I expected, says Ed Miliband'
Ed Miliband last night admitted his decision to knife brother David in the Labour leadership race led to a worse deterioration in their relationship than he expected.
Morning btw.
ScreenShot00300.jpg
'Knifing'? Success due to the backing of trade union leader? Not the individual members voting then?
The Wail doesn't have the first fucking clue about democracy. A paper that supported fascists in the 1930s, lest we forget - and they've not changed one bit.
ephemerid wrote:I've just ventured BTL on the Simon Hattenstone article about Ed Miliband.
There are people posting this - "No". I have to say I am appalled at the paucity of decent trolling these days.
"No" what? "No, SH writes badly" or "No, Ed's crap" or "No, he shouldn't be PM" - WHAT?????? Pathetic.
Maybe they think they're answering the question which forms the headline. Morons.
I have also felt the need to comment on (yet another) post from Tea & Chocolate, who keeps on with this mantra that Ed is no different and Labour is no different etc. etc. and is beginning to sound like a cracked record doused in vinegar.
I used to have respect for T&C and I used to enjoy reading the posts - but for some time now this vitriolic anti-Labour stuff has really pissed me off. Not because I am a huge Labour fan (er, no) but because it's unthinking criticism with nothing to back it up.
I thought T&C was better than that.
Oh, it's not just me then. It's not just T&C either, a lot of them now do it, and I really don't understand what it achieves, or how they're helping us get rid of this bloody government.
ephemerid wrote:I've just ventured BTL on the Simon Hattenstone article about Ed Miliband.
There are people posting this - "No". I have to say I am appalled at the paucity of decent trolling these days.
"No" what? "No, SH writes badly" or "No, Ed's crap" or "No, he shouldn't be PM" - WHAT?????? Pathetic.
Maybe they think they're answering the question which forms the headline. Morons.
I have also felt the need to comment on (yet another) post from Tea & Chocolate, who keeps on with this mantra that Ed is no different and Labour is no different etc. etc. and is beginning to sound like a cracked record doused in vinegar.
I used to have respect for T&C and I used to enjoy reading the posts - but for some time now this vitriolic anti-Labour stuff has really pissed me off. Not because I am a huge Labour fan (er, no) but because it's unthinking criticism with nothing to back it up.
I thought T&C was better than that.
I have to add, I love Dan's response to the opening comment (BarleyGB). Good one, Dan
The only thing in that article that hasn't been published elsewhere is the word "knifing" - an expression that I doubt Miliband would use.
The Heil faithful BTL have picked up on the word, though - the comments are full of it.
What the Mail has done is cherry-pick quotes from the G interview and play about with them. It's typical behaviour from them.
I don't think it's all that bad. I suspect there will be worse before the election is over.
Ed has been quite clever in choosing which battles to bother with - I doubt he'll waste his time on this. Most people know - even Mail readers - that he won't tolerate insults or lies about his family, but he'll take any amount of crap about himself. I think that's sensible, as it gives the impression that he really doesn't care what they say about him personally and would rather talk about his policies.
Most of the tabloids (Mirror excepted) do this sort of thing to him all the time. It's obvious why - he said he would implement Leveson in full.
The same applies to the Telegraph (which gets more like a tabloid every day).
They are scared of him, and they know that he will not prat about. Cameron kicked Leveson into the long grass ages ago; but people like Dacre know perfectly well they're on borrowed time if Ed wins in May.
I wouldn't worry too much, Toby. Be kind to your blood pressure, stay calm and expect a lot more of this!
I weakened this morning (must be the weather) and bought a Graun - first time in a while - on the basis of the Miliband article. And it's actually pretty bloody good. I read it whilst I was waiting for constituents to turn up to my monthly surgery in the library, which meant I had a lot of peace and quiet to indulge myself. It's a long but very thoughtful piece, and I recommend reading it, online if it's there, or grab a Graun (nick or borrow, preferably) abd settle down with a brew. About the only straight and considered piece I've read on Miliband for a couple of years.
ephemerid wrote:
ALL politicians - and I include Ed in this - are willing to be ruthless to get into office and to influence the politics of the day.
That's why they're politicians. It seems to me that David Miliband made assumptions and Ed Miliband didn't.
Cheeky sod - I was elected because I showed the people the luuurve.
Ok alright, I suppose I did slag off the Tories and their group leader a wee bit.
pk1 wrote:
Wow ! Fancy being saddled with a name like that going through school....
If I'm perfectly honest, I'm as surprised he has fathered 3 children as the names that were chosen for them.
He'd better not have a fourth.
Helena won't get any child benefit.
He already has four children – of course Mary Anne Charlotte Emma is 'only' a girl so appears at the end of that list and doesn't get such a fancy collection of names...
SpinningHugo wrote:
His claim seems to be that Ed's winning ended David's political career (which it did), when the converse would not have been true (which is also true). But so what?
Is it alright to point out that Andy Burnham, Diane Abbot and Ed Balls also stood, and they're not only still in politics, but two of them are actually shadow (and soon to loose that nomenclature) ministers?
Nobody insisted that Miliband D. quit. That was his call, and his alone.
ephemerid wrote:I've just ventured BTL on the Simon Hattenstone article about Ed Miliband.
There are people posting this - "No". I have to say I am appalled at the paucity of decent trolling these days.
"No" what? "No, SH writes badly" or "No, Ed's crap" or "No, he shouldn't be PM" - WHAT?????? Pathetic.
Maybe they think they're answering the question which forms the headline. Morons.
I have also felt the need to comment on (yet another) post from Tea & Chocolate, who keeps on with this mantra that Ed is no different and Labour is no different etc. etc. and is beginning to sound like a cracked record doused in vinegar.
I used to have respect for T&C and I used to enjoy reading the posts - but for some time now this vitriolic anti-Labour stuff has really pissed me off. Not because I am a huge Labour fan (er, no) but because it's unthinking criticism with nothing to back it up.
I thought T&C was better than that.
I have to add, I love Dan's response to the opening comment (BarleyGB). Good one, Dan
The only thing in that article that hasn't been published elsewhere is the word "knifing" - an expression that I doubt Miliband would use.
The Heil faithful BTL have picked up on the word, though - the comments are full of it.
What the Mail has done is cherry-pick quotes from the G interview and play about with them. It's typical behaviour from them.
I don't think it's all that bad. I suspect there will be worse before the election is over.
Ed has been quite clever in choosing which battles to bother with - I doubt he'll waste his time on this. Most people know - even Mail readers - that he won't tolerate insults or lies about his family, but he'll take any amount of crap about himself. I think that's sensible, as it gives the impression that he really doesn't care what they say about him personally and would rather talk about his policies.
Most of the tabloids (Mirror excepted) do this sort of thing to him all the time. It's obvious why - he said he would implement Leveson in full.
The same applies to the Telegraph (which gets more like a tabloid every day).
They are scared of him, and they know that he will not prat about. Cameron kicked Leveson into the long grass ages ago; but people like Dacre know perfectly well they're on borrowed time if Ed wins in May.
I wouldn't worry too much, Toby. Be kind to your blood pressure, stay calm and expect a lot more of this!
I weakened this morning (must be the weather) and bought a Graun - first time in a while - on the basis of the Miliband article. And it's actually pretty bloody good. I read it whilst I was waiting for constituents to turn up to my monthly surgery in the library, which meant I had a lot of peace and quiet to indulge myself. It's a long but very thoughtful piece, and I recommend reading it, online if it's there, or grab a Graun (nick or borrow, preferably) abd settle down with a brew. About the only straight and considered piece I've read on Miliband for a couple of years.
Hatterstone is definitely one of the few bright spots in the Graun nowadays.
Smart meters energy saving project at risk, say MPs
Plans to install energy saving smart meters in every UK home and business by 2020 are at risk of veering off track, an influential group of MPs has warned.
But the Energy and Climate Change Committee said a key piece of the £11bn programme's infrastructure was behind schedule.
The committee said the project was in danger of becoming a costly mistake, with a series of "technical, logistical and public communication issues" resulting in delays. (BBC News website)
This whole government is a costly mistake. Or a costly catastrophe, to be more accurate.
Does anyone here know if this is actually true or is it another glib "inaccuracy"? If the latter, I'd be inclined to make much of it.
“I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean they happen in
every country. They even happen in Mongolia for heaven’s sake and it’s
part of the modern age that we should be in.” – David Cameron, BBC3, 21 April 2010
Edited to add
Just to clarify - I mean is it true that TV debates happen in every country?
PorFavor wrote:Does anyone here know if this is actually true or is it another glib "inaccuracy"? If the latter, I'd be inclined to make much of it.
“I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean they happen in
every country. They even happen in Mongolia for heaven’s sake and it’s
part of the modern age that we should be in.” – David Cameron, BBC3, 21 April 2010
Edited to add
Just to clarify - I mean is it true that TV debates happen in every country?
North Korea ?
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
Just been catching up with posts and news after a three hours of hard hill walking.
Quite a few new lambs around, spring in the air.
Saw this about Jeremy Vine, he allegedly pays his income through a company that his 10 year old daughter is a shareholder of.
10 year old shareholder ? How can that even be legal ?
How Jeremy Vine's 10-year-old daughter helps him avoid tax payments
BBC presenter Jeremy Vine seems to be lowering his tax bill by funneling his income through a company, of which his 10-year-old daughter Martha is a shareholder http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebri ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Got the expected set of responses to my complaint about that appalling Amanda Platell piece in the MoS. IPSO rejected one piece out of hand (apparently nobody apart from the Dowler family can complain about feeling distressed the Mail's use of their daughter), they passed the second one onto the Mail for investigation; that was about accuracy which, as Nick Robinson had sheepishly put his hand up to fabricating the quote, should have been a shoo in .......
Nah. Not us guv, we had somebody from the Labour Party confirm it was said, honest. No we can't provide you proof of that, it is a secret. Roll on May 7th, then Labour can sort that rag out properly.
So, nearly half of Green members may have voted Lib Dem last time.*
You'd think once falling for a 'we're different' & can promise anything party would be enough for them.
* Buzz Feed say:
''All party members, 44,000 at the time, received an email inviting them to take part in the survey and a little under 4,500 members responded. This means the survey results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be seen as definitive.''
Just been catching up with posts and news after a three hours of hard hill walking.
Quite a few new lambs around, spring in the air.
Saw this about Jeremy Vine, he allegedly pays his income through a company that his 10 year old daughter is a shareholder of.
10 year old shareholder ? How can that even be legal ?
How Jeremy Vine's 10-year-old daughter helps him avoid tax payments
BBC presenter Jeremy Vine seems to be lowering his tax bill by funneling his income through a company, of which his 10-year-old daughter Martha is a shareholder http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebri ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's not illegal, though companies may prohibit it:
In many family owned companies, shares are allotted to children as a means of providing them with capital assets which may be expected to increase in value as part of longer term inheritance and capital gains tax planning. Paying dividends on such shares can also be useful ways of using childrens' personal allowances for income tax, and to make use of the lower tax rates applicable to dividends.
David Hencke @davidhencke 17h17 hours ago
Blair since he left no 10. My new book Blair Inc with @francisbeckett and @NicholasKochan On @MailOnline serialised worldwide tomorrow
Surprised that David Hencke, a supporter of the NHS and certainly not a Tory, is letting the Mail serialise his book about Blair so near to the election.
Money talks I suppose, his pockets get lined.
The right wing press & the Indie & Guardian will no doubt drool over it and use it to bash Labour with in the election run up.
yahyah wrote:David Hencke @davidhencke 17h17 hours ago
Blair since he left no 10. My new book Blair Inc with @francisbeckett and @NicholasKochan On @MailOnline serialised worldwide tomorrow
Surprised that David Hencke, a supporter of the NHS and certainly not a Tory, is letting the Mail serialise his book about Blair so near to the election.
Money talks I suppose, his pockets get lined.
The right wing press & the Indie & Guardian will no doubt drool over it and use it to bash Labour with in the election run up.
I'm not too worried. The right brother is far away in the USA.
Just when most have come to the conclusion that UKIP have shot their bolt, along comes Robert Ford to do what Robert Ford does best, big up Farage and the Kippers election prospects, still, guaranteed click-bait for the Guardian, maybe they go for the double whammy and ''Labour to be wiped out in Scotland'' polling too. Or maybe I am tired and cynical.
Quite prepared to accept that my prediction now look like being wrong.
But, it isn't wrong until debates between Ed and other party leaders, without Cameron, take place. So, not yet.
I remain of the view that doing so is the wrong call.
Are you saying that circumstances beyond Ed Miliband's control (eg if the broadcasters themselves cancel, a national power cut occurs on the day etc, etc) are being factored in to your view?
And why do you think that taking part is the wrong thing to do, in any case? (Sorry if you've already explained this and I've either not read, or not assimilated, the information).
Hugo, I wonder if you would mind sharing a little about yourself and why you support Labour.
Just to try and gain a bit more understanding about you, most of the rest of us have posted at various times about our voting histories.
Because it cannot do Miliband any good to be placed on an equal platform, with equal time, as Clegg, Farage, Sturgeon, Bennett and the Welsh One.
Not sure how you can view having a final debate to himself as putting him on an equal footing with anyone other than the only other leader invited to it, ie David Cameron.
He was going to do Ask the Leaders alongside just Bennett and Clegg until Cameron showed up at the last minute so I don't think he sees it as a political manoeuvre the way you do, more a chance for the public to be more involved in the political debate.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Just when most have come to the conclusion that UKIP have shot their bolt, along comes Robert Ford to do what Robert Ford does best, big up Farage and the Kippers election prospects, still, guaranteed click-bait for the Guardian, maybe they go for the double whammy and ''Labour to be wiped out in Scotland'' polling too. Or maybe I am tired and cynical.
I'd say that's a little harsh. Ford's saying that UKIP will improve after May and will become second party in a lot of seats. Not so much gaining from Labour, as replacing the Conservatives.
Because it cannot do Miliband any good to be placed on an equal platform, with equal time, as Clegg, Farage, Sturgeon, Bennett and the Welsh One.
Well, I disagree. In any case, the larger debate (number of participants-wise) is the one that David Cameron is, in principle, prepared to turn up to. Whether or not he does (ie if he uses the timing as his "reason" for a no-show) remains to be seen. But I'd bet any amount that he'd turn up any old time or place if Ed Miliband declined to be there. So I can't really follow your reasoning.
Because it cannot do Miliband any good to be placed on an equal platform, with equal time, as Clegg, Farage, Sturgeon, Bennett and the Welsh One.
Well, I disagree. In any case, the larger debate (number of participants-wise) is the one that David Cameron is, in principle, prepared to turn up to. Whether or not he does (ie if he uses the timing as his "reason" for a no-show) remains to be seen. But I'd bet any amount that he'd turn up any old time or place if Ed Miliband declined to be there. So I can't really follow your reasoning.
So the big question on debates is when will Cameron fold?
Whatever the Westminster Tory boot licker press claim being empty chaired would be the kiss of death to his campaign. The guy who doesn't turn up for the interview will not get the job. In a close election the sigma would cost him 5-6 points minimum.
However the longer he stays out the less influence he will have on format. So I suspect in three weeks time he will declare himself to have been in favour all along and sign on.
Certainly, that ham faced cretin has done nothing to improve our standing in Europe, or anywhere else for that matter.
Roll on May 7th, then Labour can sort that rag out properly.
