Is Ed Miliband living on borrowed time?

First topic message reminder :

Hi stu

Heaven Help the UK if it does happen I just hope none of those that voted Ukip better not come crying to me when they find out that Ukip are more far right than the Tories, as I will have NO sympathy for them in fact my reply will be "Hell Slap it into You" plus the rest of us will have to pay for your STUPIDY.

Revolution has to begin internally, rarely a result of barracking from the sidelines.

Just to clear up any confusion, the above words were posted by oftenwrong and then quoted by ghost whistler.

We already have some alternative parties with good policies, notably the NHA Party, the TUSC and Left Unity. The NHA might well take Wyre Forest in May, as its candidate is the 80-year-old retired consultant who was the MP there from 2001 to 2010, but elsewhere those three parties are likely to get a derisory amount of votes and be fighting the Monster Loony Party for seventh or eighth place. Any votes cast for those parties will effectively be 'wasted' and increase the chances of Tories winning the seats.

And that's where some of us differ. Rachel Reeves is a lot more humane than IDS and McVey, and abolishing the bedroom tax and bringing in a mansion tax is preferable to the present arrangement. Keeping the Human Rights Act and the ban on foxhunting also does it for me. No Labour government has ever increased the rate of VAT, a tax which was introduced by a Tory PM in 1973 and increased by every Tory PM since, usually after saying they had no plans to do so. It may not be 'Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land', but a Labour government is infinitely preferable to these dangerous and extreme right-wing ideologues currently running the shop.

Well said folks as it does seem that nothing pleases this man, and he only comes on here to argue with us.

Assuming they actually abolish the bedroom tax.

But what about benefit sanctions? She has nor said anything about abolishing those

.... and the Grant Shapps achievement award for outstanding services to the Tory Party goes to ....

Very well put OW.

I doubt very much if anything that's posted on this forum is of any benefit to the Tory Party.  

So, is Ed Miliband "living on borrowed time", or is he just a few weeks away from becoming PM?

He is just 6 weeks and a few hours from becoming P.M. Ivan.

Philosophy or The Sword?
(This submission may not be in direct conformity with the topic question, Sorry, but if placed elsewhere might lack coherence .)

A sensible debate is what most people hope for in a discussion forum such as Cutting Edge but from time to time there appears a contributor apparently bent upon disruption. In the case of our waspish friend with the menacing avatar, various attempts by Ivan and Boatlady to balance the commentary have been rebuffed, and the aggressive style has not abated. A reasonable exchange of views has become increasingly unlikely.

Timing is a fundamental consideration affecting the decision process. At the end of WW2 a number of problems remained to be addressed, among which was the emigration of European Jews to Palestine, a Land being administrated at the time by The British, and already occupied by a largely Arab population. Strenuous efforts were made to prevent "illegal" immigration (ring a bell?) by intercepting ships in the Mediterranean and imposing strict limitations on travel to the Holy Land which had been discussed and agreed ever since 1928. Ultimately, however, Israeli armed resistance ("terrorism" if you prefer) overwhelmed the British Mandate and in 1948 the new Nation of Israel came into being. Diplomatic arrangements had perforce yielded to the barrel of a gun.

I cannot avoid a sensation that the Tory administration has been "at War" with a large section of the community in Britain for the past five years, and intends to continue in that manner until the less fortunate are swept back into their Victorian slum dwellings where they cannot trouble their betters.
In a War situation, the luxury of reasoned discussion necessarily gives way to pragmatic considerations, beginning with a clear definition of "the enemy". Include within that description the faint-hearted, the uncommitted, and the intentionally bolshy. Here and now, the battle is joined during the next seven weeks for nothing less than our future. Those who are not with us are against us, as we may only have the one shot at maintaining the veneer of a civilised nation.

In short, the alternatives to a Labour government are all worse. Pay no attention to those who say anything different, they must be resisted vigorously.

I think you have put the matter most succinctly, OW

I must say the same boatlady and second that statement, very well said once again OW.

oftenwrong wrote:.... and the Grant Shapps achievement award for outstanding services to the Tory Party goes to ....

so by calling on Rachel Reeves to stop  benefit sanctions I'm supporting  the Tories? How does that work?

A fan of the Tory Party I am not. Neither am I a fan of trying to silence people who have an alternative view -even if it is one I don't like. It reeks of a lack of confidence in one's own opinions.

If that were occurring on a pro-Tory thread just imagine what we would be saying. To seek to stifle uncomfortable views is exactly the sort of behaviour which should remain the practice of the evil Tory menace, or their cousins in UKIP...

I don't think there's any attempt to 'stifle' anything - people have given a range of answers to comments critical to the Labour party - but at the end of the day, although everyone is entitled to an opinion, no-one is entitled to have her or his opinion upheld by the majority.

I think critical posters have had their say quite freely, and have been responded to in a range of styles - the consensus seems to be that many of us feel Ed Miliband and his shadow cabinet have a chance to win the election - and if they don't it will be the worse for the country, as this would let in another Tory government.

I'm aware that you feel Ed has let us down by being too 'quiet' in opposition and this has created a possibility that another 5 years of Tory rule may be on the cards; I'm also aware that Ghost Whistler and Penderyn feel the Labour party is no longer a proper socialist party and feel compunction about the whole process of parliamentary democracy as it is practised currently.

The three of you, on this topic, seem to hold views which are to some extent in a minority, and consequently it is unlikely that people will be rushing to agree with what you say - this does not mean that anyone's opinion is being 'suppressed'- just that the rest of us also insist on the right to hold and express our own views.

stuart torr wrote:I must say the same boatlady and second that statement, very well said once again OW.

I will 3rd that stuart after just coming back from Carlisle and talking to people on the doorstep with our future Labour MP Lee Sherriff who IMHO Carlisle will be very lucky to gety her because she will fight tooth & nail for things to get get done for the benefit of the people of Carlisle.

Which MP recently said the following:

"We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work. Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people."

Trade Unions do not represent the unemployed either, gw. How could they?

Does that fact make you unhappy with the Trade Union movement?

oftenwrong wrote:Trade Unions do not represent the unemployed either, gw. How could they?

Does that fact make you unhappy with the Trade Union movement?

I don't understand how that answers my question.

Clue: that quote isn't from a trade union.

Amelia Gentleman asked the much-maligned Rachel Reeves this question:-

"Is it a problem if Labour is seen as the party of the welfare state?"

Rachel Reeves’ reply provoked a torrent of abuse, mainly I suspect because most people didn’t read it in full. This was what she said:-

"Yes of course, but we’re not. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work. Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people – the clue is in the name. We are the Labour Party – we are not the party of people on benefits. But the welfare state was always supposed to be there to protect people in times of need, whether that was because they lost their job, or they became disabled, or they had a child who is disabled, to help with the cost of childcare, to help you when you are no longer earning because you are retired. That's what the welfare state was created for. I want to ensure that the welfare state is there for my children and their children in the future."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/17/labour-vows-to-reduce-reliance-on-food-banks-if-it-comes-to-power

Directly quoted from Ivan's post which quotes the whole response - if you find that offensive, you are of course entitled to take your vote elsewhere, or raise the issue with Rachael Reeves - personally, to me, what she said makes perfect sense - I, too, believe that the welfare state was always supposed to be there to protect people in times of need, whether that was because they lost their job, or they became disabled, or they had a child who is disabled, to help with the cost of childcare, to help you when you are no longer earning because you are retired. .

What do you think the welfare state is there for? Perhaps if we understood that a bit better it might be easier to understand your hatred of Rachael Reeve which at present seems to get seriously in the way of any conversation you might want to have on this forum.

and yet they continue to pander to the right. why else would you open wih a statement that 'we are not the party of welfare'? The rest of her statement doesn't change anything, it's just more words. So what? If you don't want to be seen representing those out of work then you say just what she said. If you do want to be on their side then you wouldn't. She did and nothing later on changes that.

Okay - I see you don't want a discussion - you just want everyone to agree with you - have it your own way

Assuming they actually abolish the bedroom tax.

Labour has clearly stated that it will abolish the bedroom tax. Until it gets into power, it can’t do so. When it comes to keeping its promises, Labour has a much better track record than the Tories, as this link shows:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1961522.stm

I apologise for quoting myself:-

If Rachel Reeves got something wrong there it was to omit the word "only" before "those who are out of work" and "of people on benefits".

We’re just going round on circles. It clearly doesn’t make any difference what I say, or what Rachel Reeves might say, it will no doubt be dismissed as “just more words”. So count me out of this exchange, it’s all becoming pointless.

We could just ignore the Troll. Trolls go away when they see there's no more amusement to be had from baiting their target audience.

I agree OW that is the best treatmentfor trolls

Ivan wrote:Labour has clearly stated that it will abolish the bedroom tax. Until it gets into power, it can’t do so. When it comes to keeping its promises, Labour has a much better track record than the Tories, as this link shows:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1961522.stm

Yes Labour has SAID they'll abolish it.

Because politicians never say what's popular to get votes do they.

They might abolish it, and they'd be stupid not to. Suicidal even. But they are not a party of the working class. Miliband is a capitalist politician who's sympahthies lie with the capitalist class.

Having watched the 'debate' last night - have to say I found Ed Miliband impressive, David Cameron slimy and evasive and Paxo and his bint biased in the extreme - Mili, in my opinion, gave us all grounds for hope

I totally agree with you boatlady,IMHO Ed will make a fine PM he has been honest & open with the public from day one, he has also said he will not promise what he can't deliver if the UK elect him into No10. I think we will find his parents teachings have rubbed off on him when he was there to hear Tony Benn & Dennis Skinner talking about the Labour values.