British Labour Party elects geek as leader

Denerick

Can't say I'm that surprised. Labour tend to go a decade without power before eventually reclaiming the center ground with a competant politician.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/25/labourleadership-edmiliband

alex73

Denerick wrote: »

Can't say I'm that surprised. Labour tend to go a decade without power before eventually reclaiming the center ground with a competant politician.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/25/labourleadership-edmiliband

Zero Charisma... His Brother would have been better... But thats british Politics..

Biggins

Well he can hold a sentence together, looks the part (stern and serious), and is youthful and energetic.

Watched his selection live and I have to say, he might just get Labour actually back in next time.

Denerick

Biggins wrote: »

Well he can hold a sentence together, looks the part (stern and serious), and is youthful and energetic.

Watched his selection live and I have to say, he might just get Labour actually back in next time.

He'll probably spend the next two weeks tacking right, abandoning his union allies, and eventually alienating himself as an ineffective, unappealing Mr. Bean character. Lame duck is painted all over his face.

Biggins

Denerick wrote: »

He'll probably spend the next two weeks tacking right, abandoning his union allies, and eventually alienating himself as an ineffective, unappealing Mr. Bean character. Lame duck is painted all over his face.

Jeasus, he's only in the job a few hours. A bit too early to judge?
Look at our lot... and they got to power!

Denerick

Biggins wrote: »

Jeasus, he's only in the job a few hours. A bit too early to judge?
Look at our lot... and they got to power!

I was following the campaign closely enough, and Ed Miliband was by far the most spineless and weasily of the lot. Shamelessly backtracking over Iraq, making ambivilent comments about New Labour, and generally exhibiting a horrible level of political opportunism. At least his brother held fast to his political positions which made him very unpopular with the powerful Union vote. Ed Balls staked an honourable position on the traditionally Keynesian, macroeconomic wing of the party. Ed Miliband only seemed to stand for beating his brother and winning a sibling rivalry so as to embarass his big brother at the christmas dinner table...

Biggins

Denerick wrote: »

I was following the campaign...

If he's that slippery and two faced, it will all catch up with him. That said, if he's also dodgy enough to do whatever it takes to get his desired outcome, he might just go far enough to succeed further more!

We will just have to sit back, wait and see!

Winty

The Torys must be over the moon, he did not get the MP'S or members vote. He won on the back of the unions so he wont last

LutherBlissett

I must confess, the announcement of the result was by far the most gripping pieces of television I've seen in quite some time... as one commentator on the BBC said, "I'm never playing poker with the Miliband brothers!" It must be incredibly painful for David M, he handled himself admirably.

That aside, I'm not so sure I'd start calling Ed M a lame duck just yet. I was a David supporter, but it's obvious that Ed possesses a modicum of charisma. To say that he's going to take the party to the left may or may not be true...certainly he'll be further left of centre than in the Blair era, but as a contrast to a Tory government, I'm not so sure that's a bad place to be. With cuts and all that set to kick in, "middle England" won't be leading the comfortable suburban existence it did during the last Lab government.

To say Ed M is "backed by the Unions" as a criticism...it's worth bearing in mind that there's no block voting anymore on behalf of the Unions within the Labour electoral college..thanks to OMOV, the supposed support from the Unions actually comes from the individuals within it. I certainly don't think it's quite the same as the ominous Thatcherite tone people adopt when talking about "the Union vote" in this contest.

mikemac

I thought his brother David was the bookies favourite. Though I've not been following the race closely.
David was certainly high profile

This is suprising

Biggins

feelingstressed wrote: »

I thought his brother David was the bookies favourite. Though I've not been following the race closely.
David was certainly high profile

This is surprising

Many indeed thought it would be the other brother.
Aaaa... well if they get to power again, the two brothers I'm sure will look out for each other!

rightwingdub

Cameron must be opening champagne bottles tonight laughing his head off, Cameron the pragmatic centrist will mop up all the undecided centrist voters in the next election as Labour choose a socialist.

Mr.Micro

I am not a fan of Miliband but he is no doubt smart, cunning and very ambitious and his young looks betray a ruthless streak. He has to better than the arrogant oaf Brown. Who knows what might happen in the marriage between Cameron and Clegg ( already the Lib Dems have embraced power like the slimy Greens here at the cost of all their principles ) and Miliband may prove to be more palatable for voters if the marriage ends.

Manach

From the topic header "Geek", I'd have taken that Mr. Miliband had a science/tech background (a positive thing). Though from wikipedia, Mr. Miliband's education background is a BA, an art student leading the Labour party - might be interesting.

Denerick

No, I'm using the word geek because he looks, talks and acts like a geek. He is the single most unimpressive politician to emerge in Britain in the last century. He doesn't appear to have any gravitas whatsoever. I can see a Tory landslide in 2015.

irishh_bob

alex73 wrote: »

Zero Charisma... His Brother would have been better... But thats british Politics..

david ( by far the best canditate on merit ) was ( is ) new labour , hes associated with the blair - brown years , ed isnt new labour and the grassroots wanted ( more than anything ) to close the door on NEW LABOUR

whatawaster

They chose the wrong leader.

The fact that he was the trade unions choice tells you something.

The fact is Labour were considered unelectable before Blair and New Labour, and i fear they are going to be so again.

Hopefully he'll make his brother Shadow Chancellor, but i doubt it

By the way - it doesn't seem right that the man who had the majority support of the parliamentary party and party membership should be defeated. It's an odd system

mike65

That it took the union vote to win will count against him, you can take Clause 4 out of the party but not Clausefourism.

imme

Denerick wrote: »

Can't say I'm that surprised. Labour tend to go a decade without power before eventually reclaiming the center ground with a competant politician.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/25/labourleadership-edmiliband

What makes him more of a geek than his torture-enabler brother
What do you even mean by geek

Why do you believe he's not a competant politician?

mgmt

I'm not surprised the Labour Unions voted in this big government, power hungry, "climate change" propagandist.

karma_

imme wrote: »

What makes him more of a geek than his torture-enabler brother
What do you even mean by geek

Why do you believe he's not a competant politician?

It's a typical reaction due to his left-wing leanings.

Denerick

karma_ wrote: »

It's a typical reaction due to his left-wing leanings.

He doesn't lean left wing, he pretends to be left wing in order to win votes. You have a lot to learn about politics.

karma_

Denerick wrote: »

He doesn't lean left wing, he pretends to be left wing in order to win votes. You have a lot to learn about politics.

Surely that remains to be seen, and by the way, you're wrong, he is teh most left-wing Labour leader since Kinnock.

Denerick

karma_ wrote: »

Surely that remains to be seen, and by the way, you're wrong, he is teh most left-wing Labour leader since Kinnock.

Funny how his leftism only came about when it became obvious he couldn't win without the support of the Unions.

KeithAFC

He is a tard. And he won't win Labour back into power. Tory all the way.

Denerick

KeithAFC wrote: »

He is a tard. And he won't win Labour back into power. Tory all the way.

The real problem here is that Labour needed to elect someone who was genuine about the need to tackle the deficit (Opinion polls consistently say that Britons think the New Labour years constituted gross central excess and that cuts are necessary) So long as Miliband panders to the working classes - a neglibable constituency nowadays, and unable to deliver the commons to any party - he will lose. Blair realised that Labour had to win over middle England, Ed is like something out of the early 80s.

The only problem here is that while Michael Foot may have been an intellectual, experienced and genuine, Ed is a charlatan, inexperienced and horribly conceited. Cameron will win a huge victory in 2015 unfortunately. Labour have repeated the mistakes of the 80s and have now ensured the Tories will dominate the political landscape for the next decade or so. Labour were bad enough, but I'm not sure how much of the Tories I'm willing to put up with.

KeithAFC

I think most people are looking for a PM with a bit of character. All of them seem to be boring, uninspiring and none of them can get things done. Gordon Brown summed it up. Who would trust any of them really.

One minute its a nice conversation, next minute he is insulting her on national TV.

karma_

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think most people are looking for a PM with a bit of character. All of them seem to be boring, uninspiring and none of them can get things done. Gordon Brown summed it up. Who would trust any of them really.

One minute its a nice conversation, next minute he is insulting her on national TV.

You don't trust any of them, yet you are 'Tory all the way'. Laughable.

ninty9er

I would have backed him as the narrow outsider. He has a foot in both the Blair and Brown camps putting him at an advantage to uniting the party behind him. The transfers went to him from the MEP and MP votes in greater numbers than they went to David as well as the affiliated votes.

It is also clear that the majority of MPs that wanted David, had Ed as their second choice. It wasn't a secret ballot from MPs and the results are fully available. Their second preferences went to each other and they didn't continue beyond that.

The "unions" didn't vote for Ed. Unite swung it for him, and it's pretty much a general union. It consists of a lot of academics as well as others, so they're not exactly the poorer left leaning types in all cases.

He's not an idiot and I've seen some of the interviews he did as Energy Sec an he's no ditzy media performer.

Give him time and then judge him.

KeithAFC

karma_ wrote: »

You don't trust any of them, yet you are 'Tory all the way'. Laughable.

Best of a bad bunch. Doesn't mean i trust them. Keep up.

rightwingdub

Denerick wrote: »

No, I'm using the word geek because he looks, talks and acts like a geek. He is the single most unimpressive politician to emerge in Britain in the last century. He doesn't appear to have any gravitas whatsoever. I can see a Tory landslide in 2015.

Even worse than Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Foot, William Hague surely he's not that bad:D

Denerick

rightwingdub wrote: »

Even worse than Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Foot, William Hague surely he's not that bad:D

Michael Foot was a legend and I always have liked William Hague. Ian Duncan Smith... Well...

Johnny Murphy FF

Denerick wrote: »

Can't say I'm that surprised. Labour tend to go a decade without power before eventually reclaiming the center ground with a competant politician.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/25/labourleadership-edmiliband

Interesting stuff, ive always thought of Bertie as our own homegrown geek, with all the books and stuff hes written. Labour can look and learn.

rightwingdub

Denerick wrote: »

Michael Foot was a legend and I always have liked William Hague. Ian Duncan Smith... Well...

Okay granted Foot was very intelligent but he put his foot in it when he made the Labour party unelectable in the early 80's:D

Hague was a disaster with his save the pound campaign in 2001. As for IDS remember his conference speech in 2002 or 2003, the Tories soon ditched him.

Denerick

rightwingdub wrote: »

Okay granted Foot was very intelligent but he put his foot in it when he made the Labour party unelectable in the early 80's:D

You just had to, didn't you

I admired Michael Foot, an intellectual who refused to stoop to the petty sycophancy of party politics. Granted he was like something out of the Russian Revolution, but a man of true integrity, a rare breed in politics.

rightwingdub

Denerick wrote: »

You just had to, didn't you

I admired Michael Foot, an intellectual who refused to stoop to the petty sycophancy of party politics. Granted he was like something out of the Russian Revolution, but a man of true integrity, a rare breed in politics.

I couldn't resist been a smart ass and coming out with a remark like that:D

Wasn't also recruited as a soviet spy or is that rubbish? Thatcher destroyed him in 1983.

Amhran Nua

Denerick wrote: »

No, I'm using the word geek because he looks, talks and acts like a geek. He is the single most unimpressive politician to emerge in Britain in the last century.

This isn't the US, what exactly is a geek to you? An educated person? You're badly off if you need to mock the achievements of others on the basis of their looking like an American stereotype, the existence of which is an embarrassment to American culture.

Denerick

Amhran Nua wrote: »

This isn't the US, what exactly is a geek to you? An educated person? You're badly off if you need to mock the achievements of others on the basis of their looking like an American stereotype, the existence of which is an embarrassment to American culture.

He hasn't got any achievements.

He goes on about this being the new generation and him being one of the optimists. The truth is that he has only been an MP since 2005, before that he was the epitome of the 'insider', a complete political hack. He is a geek, he has no personal charisma, has no achievements to call his own, a complete and utter tool of the New Labour system... Unimpressive.

karma_

Denerick wrote: »

He hasn't got any achievements.

He goes on about this being the new generation and him being one of the optimists. The truth is that he has only been an MP since 2005, before that he was the epitome of the 'insider', a complete political hack. He is a geek, he has no personal charisma, has no achievements to call his own, a complete and utter tool of the New Labour system... Unimpressive.

David Cameron is a tool of the old tory system, has really no achievements, is a bit of a hack, definitely no charisma and generally unimpressive, yet, he is PM.

Denerick

Yes, and that is the problem. Incidentally I think Steve Bell (Cartoonist for the Guardian) nailed Cameron when he started to portray him as a condom head - a slick and slippery surface witholding a payload of slime and ejaculate. I do marvel that some people can be so naive about British politics as to think modern politicians have an ounce of integrity or true belief. The days of Tony Benn have long since passed, politics is rarely about principle or 'doing the right thing'. Most important of all - something that Blair nailed to a tee - is for politicians to mimic the prejudices of the masses.

By the way you are wrong, Cameron is charismatic, he holds a crowd and is an appealing and affable person. But as Steve Bell points out, he's a typical Tory slimeball underneath.

steelcityblues

A very petulant move by his overrated brother today!

Denerick

steelcityblues wrote: »

A very petulant move by his overrated brother today!

Nah, he was just right. What would you do, take a cushy job in Harvard or bow to your baby brother for the rest of your political career?

steelcityblues

Denerick wrote: »

Nah, he was just right. What would you do, take a cushy job in Harvard or bow to your baby brother for the rest of your political career?

Do the best you can in your new portfolio? These guys publically trump themselves as public servants who will do their best for the country - yet here he lets the mask slip by basically being p1ssed that he didn't get the big job!

Who would want to be lectured by a smug twit like him in Harvard anyway?

Denerick

Harvard is full of smug British twits