So what? If it gives the electorate a bit of a choice for the first time in years that would be a good thing, surely? The electorate will then decide one way or the other.

You would but that is because you are either thick or to ready to be spoon fed want you wish to believe.



This is where you should have given up reading. The concept of political lineage is ridiculous. If there is such a thing Eric Pickles is a Communist. Pickles has described himself as "massively inclined" towards communism as a boy. Why? Perhaps its because his great grandfather founded the Independent Labour Party and his parents was all out and out Labour party supporters.

If Eric P can say he is not longer a card carrying commie how come the DM can assume Ed M is? Only because it wants to. It has no evidence he is.

In any case half the argument is R Milliband "hated" Britain which is ridiculous. Wouldn't you agree?



This is stupid. I am a republican. If I wrote I wanted the Monarchy abolished does that mean I hate Britain? You can't read between the lines like that. Unless R Milliband came out and said "I hate Britain" in so many words you can no more conclude that than you could say I hate Britain because of my views on this current government or the Monarchy.

I assume you'd be on here slagging of a Labour administration so if you ever do, I'd better report you to the authorities as someone who hated Britain hadn't I? Or at least if you dropped dead I should write an obituary that said that because lets face it, being dead you could not sue me.



David Cameron isn't dead. He can defend himself against slander and libel. R Milliband can't mount a defence to what he said when he was 17 because you can't libel the dead (as the DM knows) and in any case he isn't the one trying to run the country. It's completely legitimate to slag off our current PM for doing whatever he did at 17 if its relevant to what goes on now so it is therefore totally stupid to draw any parallel with what DC did at 17 to what RM did 70 years ago aged 17 and what EM states he wants to do now.

If you dropped dead tomorrow and I accused you of being a rapist at aged 17 your come back would be what exactly?

Now do you get the disingenuous stupidity of the last paragraph quoted above?

Who wrote this dirge you quoted anyway? I feel the urge to go and call him out for idiot he plainly is.

EDIT: I could start with quoting this link:

[urlhttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/02/thatcher-ally-daily-mail-ralph-miliband-lies[/url

Personally after that I reckon Dacre and his deputy who deafened the Mails stance on Newsnight should resign.

You didn't "say" anything, you merely quoted some un-named source.
Yes, we've read that and it's froth.

As for being Miliband influenced by his father, I am [uinfluenced[/u by Marx but am way off being a Marxist, I'm [uinfluenced[/u by Jesus but am atheist and definitely not a Christian.
That's not how it works, influence does not mean swallowing a philosophy whole.

You really are young aren't you?

So, back to the question in the thread title "When will Labour ditch Ed M?".
The conference season has more-or-less signalled the start of the election campaign and Labour won't ditch Ed M in an election run-up, especially as he has come out of the conference season looking more lively than Cameron and Osborne who have been shiftily knitting fog to show that they are really, really against borrowing (despite doing lots and lots of it) and not mentioning their total failure to do what they said they'd do (eliminate the deficit) and doing what they said they would absolutely not do (top-down reorganisation of the NHS).
Also, the shabby deliberate misinterpretation of Ralph Miliband by the [iDaily Wail[/i has unintentionally (and ironically) shone a light on Ed being a normal human being with whom people can empathise, something that neither Cameron or Osborne have managed to do.
In conclusion, unless the Tories win the next election (bearing in mind they didn't win the last one), Ed Miliband will stay as Labour leader.

[url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/90ef13a4-2ac7-11e3-ade3-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2gYLsoFK2You might enjoy this one from the [iFT[/i (registration required, but limited number of articles are free).[/url

:1maeytrm

[url=http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/h6z9l3gzva/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-011013.pdf:1maeytrmYouGuv poll for the [i:1maeytrmSun[/i:1maeytrm, conducted between 30 September and 1 October, suggests that Miliband E is benefitting from, presumably, his conference performance and this row.[/url

Seems the Mail on Sunday (there's a link to the DM there somewhere) gatecrashed a memorial service for Ed's uncle (at which he was speaking) to try and get comments on the original story about RM for publication this weekend

Why am I reminded of the Spitting Image pigs?

Just when you think the Mail group of Newspapers couldn't be any more stupid or stoop any lower they do this:

According to a Labour source, the Mail on Sunday reporter at the memorial event for Ed Miliband's uncle spoke to several of Miliband's relatives. With at least one of them, she clasped his or her hand and said "I just want to give your family my condolences" before revealing that she was from the Mail on Sunday and trying to turn the conversation to Miliband's father.

From here:

[urlhttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/03/nick-cleggs-lbc-phone-in-and-reaction-to-david-camerons-conference-speech-politics-live-blog[/url

Look at the entry at 11:48.

I wonder if Hague and Cameron etc can still avoid a direct criticism of the Mail now?

Oh, given their predilection for publishing pictures of underage girls, with sexualised copy online, while portraying itself as a defender of children against sexualisation and 'pornification', I personally have no illusions about how Dacre and his rabble will go.

Rumour has it that Rothermere is furious. Having just given Dacre a new, year-long contract.

For Clegg that's a remarkably sensible thing to say.

Seems like the Mail has got itself in a mess here. Even senior Tories (other than the pillocks on the front bench) are disgusted.

There's no link between Gove's defence of it and the fact that his wife writes for it ...

Is Geordie Greig, editor of the Mail on Sunday any better? He is rumoured to be being lined up as Dacre's successor in a years time.

I made the same point on Twitter yesterday. Gove really is an obvious, odious man.

Alastair Campbell has an online petition urging Dacre to debate the issue. Just signed it. Hope everyone else does too! Keep the pressure on them while they're feeling the heat.

Don't know. Although it's interesting that he's backed down so quickly on the memorial service business.

Still, Dacre is editor in chief of all the titles, so whether that will cause an internal row ...

There's far from any certainty that the [iMail[/i will get any better if/when Dacre goes - presumably, Rothermere approves of the paper's general performance most of the time.

I already signed it. I watched Campbell rip the assistant Editor to shreds last night on You Tube.

I suppose that depends if he is more interested in the politics and line it takes or the money it makes and if it changed tack and still continued to make money if he cared.

Typical Rlfans logic.

If someone disagrees with you label them 'thick' or 'unable to comprehend'. Not point engaging with the rest of your post. It is obvious you are someone who is utterly intolerant to everyone who has a different opinion to yourself and the abuse will soon follow.

Are you describing Paul Dacre?

You have to admire the stinking hypocrisy of Dave O.

Today he says:



and



But on April 11, when talking about the recently deceased Margaret Thatcher he said:



and....




Please remind me Dave O, when did Margaret Thatcher have the opportunity to defend herself against your comments?

Is it ok for you to slate the dead? Just not anyone else right? Is that how it works?

Marxism is a vile ideology that has been rejected by the vast majority of countries in this world. The fact that the North Koreans choose to display large posters of Karl Marx on government buildings tells you all you need to know about its messed up aims and values. These same aims and values are incompatible with British values of democracy and freedom.

Ralph Milliband was a staunch Marxist whose views didn't appear to change much between the age of 17 and when he died. Whether he 'hated Britain' or not is unclear - I suspect the only man who can answer that definitively is the man himself who is dead. What is clear however is that Marxism is incompatible with British values. Whether this equates to him hating Britain is debatable.

The people lauding Alastair Campbell are embarrassing. How this bloke gets airtime on serious television programmes is beyond me. He doesn't destroy anyone by political debate. He shouts them down and doesn't let his 'opponent' answers any questions he puts to them. If this kind of 'debate' leads you to think he has somehow won the argument / beaten his opponent you are somewhat mistaken.

You don't know what Marxism is.

Despite being reminded several times last night that Milliband Snr formed his political views in a very different world to the one in which you, and his son, currently live, you seem to be still hammering away under the impression that the son must naturally bear the father's views in exactly the same context as the father did - 70 years later.

You also seem to struggle with the concept that a man who joined the armed services to fight for his adopted country during one of the bloodiest conflicts known to mankind could surely not also and at the same time be hating that country that he was prepared to die for ?

Unless you're just playing with yourself every time you get a reply ?

I've just said "whether this equates to him hating Britain is debatable".

There is evidence to support both 'hate' and 'non hate' theories in my opinion. The only person that really knew is the man himself.

Double post, sorry.