Bolitics The New Condem Government

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

I'm not exactly sure I see what all the hoo ha about this Daily Mail article is? Are people upset with the content of the article or the fact that attacking a politician's parents or family is seen as somehow morally repugnant? Of course with us all being such bastions of moral fortitude, I have no doubt that within the pages of this thread you would not find any attacks on the parents or background a politician. Like Gideon's, or Dave's, or Dave's Wife, or... oh wait!

[tonyh29]

drat01, on 02 Oct 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

, talking about Brown, Prescott anyone and everyone that has little relevance to what is a big story,

 

I mentioned Milliband  ... and asked where was his condemnation on people like the vile labour MP who said he wished Thatcher had died in the IRA blast at Brighton  (interesting that a Labour supporter came on and posted to the same effect )

 

it's called balance  ... it shows the position being taken is slightly hypercritical and based on a form of agenda , which of course is to be expected in political discussions ... Now I guess it's fine to point out that you feel Cameron didn't go far enough ...but then you seemed to want to make the story about Cameron and then off on a rant about vile Tories etc

 

I'm Fairly sure Prescott was raised by Ajax still trying to milk the same joke   .. don't even know if Brown was mentioned at all  in relation to this story  ... but you seem to know how to work the search button ,so away you go 

 

 

The "big" story was the Mail's attack on Milliband , one that nobody has defended to my knowledge ,indeed  my opening post was that Milliband had responded well and would come out of this better than the Mail , tbh I hadn't expected to have to comment any more on the story than that  ....

 

 

 

p.s. your obsession with Sheffield is somewhat interesting, I wonder what point you are trying to make? ......

 

I believe the point I was making is that you need to brush up on your geography

[Richard]

I mentioned Prescott first of all I think as during lunch yesterday he was on saying he agreed with what Cameron said.  So basically I was showing that some prominent Labour supporters actually thought the PM had responded well.

[tonyh29]

Richard, on 02 Oct 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

I mentioned Prescott first of all I think as during lunch yesterday he was on saying he agreed with what Cameron said.  So basically I was showing that some prominent Labour supporters actually thought the PM had responded well.

 

 

I see ... no doubt the original poster will be along shortly to apologise to me then    

[peterms]

Guardian.

 

 

Downing Street is working hard to ensure that ministers keep out of the Labour row with the Mail. Ministers have been told to make a simple argument that any child would rightly want to defend a parent.

 

Hague followed this instruction on the Today programme.

 

Rather than the "tearful apology" which Tony lampoons the government's critics as wanting from ministers, it would be helpful to know their position on what the Mail wrote.  Not blandly agreeing that Miliband has the right to defend his father (thanks for that).  Just something like "I think the Mail were wrong to print that", or "I think it's fair comment".

 

Perhaps they think that the tone and conduct of political comment by the media is now a subject on which they should maintain an uncharacteristic silence?

[Richard]

Just watching the Newsnight interview from last night of Jon Steafal and Alistair Campbell.  Even Campbell says he felt the PM had said the right thing,  he was glad with what Cameron had said.

 

So that's Campbell and Prescott (not normal bedfellows) at least saying the same.

[tonyh29]

peterms, on 02 Oct 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Guardian.

 

Quote

 

Downing Street is working hard to ensure that ministers keep out of the Labour row with the Mail. Ministers have been told to make a simple argument that any child would rightly want to defend a parent.

 

Hague followed this instruction on the Today programme.

 

Rather than the "tearful apology" which Tony lampoons the government's critics as wanting from ministers, it would be helpful to know their position on what the Mail wrote.  Not blandly agreeing that Miliband has the right to defend his father (thanks for that).  Just something like "I think the Mail were wrong to print that", or "I think it's fair comment".

 

Perhaps they think that the tone and conduct of political comment by the media is now a subject on which they should maintain an uncharacteristic silence?

didn't you then quote a Tory this morning who did pretty much the same thing (Goldsmith)  ...

 

 

but at the risk of upsetting someone , when do politicians ever do that ?

 

I think as Trent pointed out in his post , it would be a huge surprise , a pleasant one maybe but it just isn't the way politics works

 

 

anywho .. at the risk of upsetting a poster even more , how does this fit alongside the outrage at the lack of tears from Cameron

 

[coda]

peterms, on 02 Oct 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Guardian.

 

Quote

 

Downing Street is working hard to ensure that ministers keep out of the Labour row with the Mail. Ministers have been told to make a simple argument that any child would rightly want to defend a parent.

 

Hague followed this instruction on the Today programme.

 

Rather than the "tearful apology" which Tony lampoons the government's critics as wanting from ministers, it would be helpful to know their position on what the Mail wrote.  Not blandly agreeing that Miliband has the right to defend his father (thanks for that).  Just something like "I think the Mail were wrong to print that", or "I think it's fair comment".

 

Perhaps they think that the tone and conduct of political comment by the media is now a subject on which they should maintain an uncharacteristic silence?

didn't you then quote a Tory this morning who did pretty much the same thing (Goldsmith)  ...

 

 

but at the risk of upsetting someone , when do politicians ever do that ?

 

I think as Trent pointed out in his post , it would be a huge surprise , a pleasant one maybe but it just isn't the way politics works

 

 

anywho .. at the risk of upsetting a poster even more , how does this fit alongside the outrage at the lack of tears from Cameron

 

I'm outraged by the missing apostrophe.

[tonyh29]

CarewsEyebrowDesigner, on 02 Oct 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

'Land of opportunity'.

 

I'm not sure tapping into the American Dream works outside the small percentage of people (on these islands) who still see the US as the ideal.

 

Although, it is further proof of what many have believed for years - that the centre-right is becoming increasingly 'American'. Fortunately we don't do religion. Not yet at least. I don't think it is too far fetched to imagine a Tory party torn between 'conservative' Tories, (CoE, middle-class white people, UKIP sympathisers), and the more 'moderate' Tories who are a little more European (yes, you heard!) in outlook (Cameron, despite trying to woo the older crowd, is one of them), who are more focused on £££ than whether or not certain people can marry.

 

Saw some poll of poll thingy the other day that suggested if the Tory party were to fight the election in some form of pact with UKIP , around 25% of Tory voters said they wouldn't vote for them  and 5% said they would switch to Labour , 4% to the libs and the rest wouldn't vote

 

now obviously that still leaves 75% that would  but it raises an interesting issue for the Tory party  ...

[peterms]

 

peterms, on 02 Oct 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Guardian.

 

Quote

 

Downing Street is working hard to ensure that ministers keep out of the Labour row with the Mail. Ministers have been told to make a simple argument that any child would rightly want to defend a parent.

 

Hague followed this instruction on the Today programme.

 

Rather than the "tearful apology" which Tony lampoons the government's critics as wanting from ministers, it would be helpful to know their position on what the Mail wrote.  Not blandly agreeing that Miliband has the right to defend his father (thanks for that).  Just something like "I think the Mail were wrong to print that", or "I think it's fair comment".

 

Perhaps they think that the tone and conduct of political comment by the media is now a subject on which they should maintain an uncharacteristic silence?

 

didn't you then quote a Tory this morning who did pretty much the same thing (Goldsmith)  ...

 

Have you not read Goldsmith's comments?  He expresses a very clear view, and is strongly critical of the Mail.

 

The comments of Cameron and Hague could have been written by Paul Dacre.  They are bending over backwards to avoid even the slightest criticism of the Mail.

 

Whether they are doing so out of cowardice, or because they are complicit in the smear, I don't know.

[colhint]

or they are just staying out of it, because its between the Mail and Ed. Given that Prescott and Campbell both said Cameron did the right thing. You appear to be looking for something that isn't there.

[tonyh29]

peterms, on 02 Oct 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 02 Oct 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

 

peterms, on 02 Oct 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

peterms, on 02 Oct 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Guardian.

 

Quote

Quote

 

Downing Street is working hard to ensure that ministers keep out of the Labour row with the Mail. Ministers have been told to make a simple argument that any child would rightly want to defend a parent.

 

Hague followed this instruction on the Today programme.

 

Rather than the "tearful apology" which Tony lampoons the government's critics as wanting from ministers, it would be helpful to know their position on what the Mail wrote.  Not blandly agreeing that Miliband has the right to defend his father (thanks for that).  Just something like "I think the Mail were wrong to print that", or "I think it's fair comment".

 

Perhaps they think that the tone and conduct of political comment by the media is now a subject on which they should maintain an uncharacteristic silence?

 

didn't you then quote a Tory this morning who did pretty much the same thing (Goldsmith)  ...

 

Have you not read Goldsmith's comments?  He expresses a very clear view, and is strongly critical of the Mail.

 

The comments of Cameron and Hague could have been written by Paul Dacre.  They are bending over backwards to avoid even the slightest criticism of the Mail.

 

Whether they are doing so out of cowardice, or because they are complicit in the smear, I don't know.

 

 

 

which one of the 9 links did you want me click on

 

I just went with reading the article you posted  , where Goldsmith echoed what everyone else already appears to have said

 

the Tory backbencher defended the Labour leader's 'right of reply' article in Tuesday’s Mail,

 

Goldsmith said Miliband had a "reason to react" to the Mail’s "appalling article" on Saturday

 

I stopped at the Nazi reference as I think we already establish that we aren't living in the DPRK and also that VT rules dictate that we are not allowed to cite examples of precedent when presenting our case 

[bickster]

Nice touch by the the Torygraph today, having a little pop at the Heil. They simply reprinted their original obit of Ralph Milliband

[Jon]

Nice touch by the the Torygraph today, having a little pop at the Heil. They simply reprinted their original obit of Ralph Milliband

 

Professor Ralph Miliband From our edition of June 7 1994

Professor Ralph Miliband with his son, Ed

 

 

12:53PM BST 01 Oct 2013

 

 

Professor Ralph Miliband, who has died aged 70, was an inspiring teacher of politics and an internationally renowned figure of the British Left.

Though committed to socialism, he never hesitated to criticise its distortion by Stalin and other dictators. He also inveighed against the timidity and limited horizons of West European social democracy. The ideal he sought was a democratic and open Marxism.

Miliband's scholarly writings, at once passionate and lucid, had great influence not only on students and dons but also beyond academic circles.

His Parliamentary Socialism (1961), in which he attacked the Labour Party for its lack of radicalism, became a classic text, as did The State in Capitalist Society, which analysed Western power structures.

Ralph Miliband was born in Belgium on Jan 7 1924, and fled to Britain in 1940 to escape the Nazis. He studied at the London School of Economics, where he was deeply influenced by Harold Laski, who became a friend and then a colleague.

Miliband's studies were interrupted by three years in the Royal Navy. He returned to the LSE to finish his degree, worked on a PhD (under Laski's supervision), and later, after a stint teaching at Roosevelt College in Chicago, became a lecturer in the LSE's department of government.

In 1972 Miliband took up the Chair of Politics at Leeds University, where Lord Boyle of Handsworth, the former Conservative minister Sir Edward Boyle, was Vice-Chancellor. Despite their different political perspectives, Miliband and Boyle developed a considerable mutual respect.

In his inaugural lecture at Leeds Miliband warned against treating Left-wing orthodoxy as a substitute for hard critical thought. Five years later he accepted a Chair at Brandeis University in America, and he subsequently taught at York University, Toronto, and the City University of New York. London, though, always remained his base.

Miliband was never a cloistered academic. From 1964 he edited the annual Socialist Register. An entertaining and witty speaker, Miliband was able to stimulate debate as well as to clarify complex ideas. He was in demand throughout the world, especially in North America.

A man of great warmth and generosity, Miliband was endowed with an infectious sense of humour.

He married, in 1961, Marion Kozak; they had two sons.

 

Ralph Miliband, born January 7 1924, died May 21 1994

 

Take that, Daily Heil. This really isn't about right Vs Left, Tory Vs Labour etc. It's about what's 'right' and what's 'wrong', as the Torygraph show here. The Heil really is the most distasteful and hateful of tabloids.

[Demitri_C]

i dont undertsand the big ho-ha about this, its between the mail and ed, not the conservatives

 

dont think camerons said anything bad/good about subject as its quite frankly none of his business, just like it wouldnt be eds if it was said about cameron's father

[colhint]

nor do most of us

[peterms]

which one of the 9 links did you want me click on

 

I just went with reading the article you posted  , where Goldsmith echoed what everyone else already appears to have said

 

I stopped at the Nazi reference

The article was reproduced, you didn't need to click on any links.  I gave the link to the story as well because we're asked to do that.

 

The further links within the article are put there by the newspaper.  You might have noticed they do things like that.

 

But thanks for confirming you didn't read the article.

 

Perhaps you were trying to illustrate the dangers of commenting on something without reading it, as a subtle way of reinforcing Cameron's original excuse for not commenting?

[peterms]

or they are just staying out of it, because its between the Mail and Ed. Given that Prescott and Campbell both said Cameron did the right thing. You appear to be looking for something that isn't there.

 

Don't take it from me, take it from one of the elder statesmen of the tory party.  He clearly understands that this is not a personal disagreement, it's about how political discussion is conducted.

 

I don't imagine for a moment that Cameron et al actually think it's just a personal issue.  Possibly their attitude misleads some other people into seeing it as such.  This is why it's helpful to have tories like Goldsmith and Heseltine speak frankly and address the issue, not hide away out of the line of fire.

 

 Daily Mail has demeaned political process, says Heseltine

 

Former deputy PM says there is no justification for headline saying Labour leader's father hated Britain

 

The Daily Mail demeaned the political process with its attack on Ralph Miliband, the former deputy prime minister Lord Heseltine has said.

 

In remarks that went further than the careful response of Tory ministers, Heseltine said there was no justification for the headline on the Miliband piece which said he hated Britain.

 

Heseltine told The Daily Politics on BBC2: "This is carrying politics to an extent that is just demeaning, frankly. The headline isn't justified. It is completely out of context. As everybody knows the guy fought for this country and we now live in a totally different world to the clash between communism and fascism."

 

The former deputy prime minister addressed the Mail's claim that Marxists such as Ralph Miliband deserved to be condemned because of the repression of the Soviet Union. He said: "Let us be frank. Stalin did some of the most appalling things but the Russians turned the second world war."

 

Heseltine also said the Mail had published "hatchet jobs" on Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.

 

William Hague had earlier said the Mail's attack has no implications for the future regulation of the press in Britain. The foreign secretary said it was understandable that the Labour leader had decided to defend his father after the Mail said that Ralph Miliband's Marxist writings showed he hated Britain.

 

Hague declined to say whether the newspaper had carried out a hatchet job as he said: "These things do happen."

 

Many ministers believe in private that the Mail made a serious error in saying that Ralph Miliband, who fought for Britain in the second world war after escaping the Holocaust, hated the country. But they are declining to criticise the Mail because they do not want to fuel the row, which has overshadowed the past 48 hours of the Conservative conference, ahead of negotiations over the future of press regulation.

 

But a member of the prime minister's No 10 policy board criticised the Mail. Margot James, MP for Stourbridge, tweeted: "Crass and cruel to condemn Ralph M'band for his Marxist views when they were formed in 40/50s, deeply misguided maybe but not unpatriotic."

 

Hague simply supported Ed Miliband's decision to defend his father, though he acknowledged that the Daily Mail's deputy editor, John Steafel, had said the paper had been wrong to run a picture of Ralph Miliband's gravestone with the words "grave socialist".

 

The foreign secretary told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4: "I think it is very understandable that a son in any walk of life, not just a politician, comes to the defence of a parent. That is what we would expect to happen and that is clearly what is happening here. We should understand and respect that. I am in no position to judge myself about it and he will have known his father far better than any of us could have possibly have done."

 

Asked whether the Mail had carried out a hatchet job on Ralph Miliband, Hague said: "I am going to leave that for the leader of the opposition and the Daily Mail to argue about. I notice that they have said it was an error of judgment to use a picture of the grave in the way that they did. But I think that is best left to them.

 

"I don't think we can jump to wider conclusions about the regulation of the press or the wider political argument. These things do happen – arguments between politicians – and I know them well. It is understandable that someone comes to the defence of their parents."

 

The London mayor, Boris Johnson, told LBC 97.3 he understood Ed Miliband's reaction. "What I actually feel, I've got ancestry that doesn't come from this country and I think people do feel very sensitive, particularly if the patriotism of those relatives is impugned," he said.

"I can imagine that being a very, very hurtful thing and I would definitely want to fire back if it was me."

 

Downing Street is working hard to ensure that ministers keep out of the Labour row with the Mail. Ministers have been told to make a simple argument that any child would rightly want to defend a parent.

 

David Cameron said in his interview on the Today programme on Tuesday, which took place at 8.10am, that he had not read the Daily Mail piece. He said the same thing three hours later in separate interviews with the main television news programmes. By early afternoon, by which time he would be facing no more interviews until after the conference, Tory sources let it be known that the prime minister had read the Mail article.

[colhint]

So who's your problem with then. It seems like its Cameron, I think. Yet the Elder statesmen of the Labour party think he has   supported Ed

[tonyh29]

peterms, on 02 Oct 2013 - 1:27 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 02 Oct 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

which one of the 9 links did you want me click on

 

I just went with reading the article you posted  , where Goldsmith echoed what everyone else already appears to have said

 

I stopped at the Nazi reference

The article was reproduced, you didn't need to click on any links.  I gave the link to the story as well because we're asked to do that.

 

The further links within the article are put there by the newspaper.  You might have noticed they do things like that.

 

But thanks for confirming you didn't read the article.

 

Perhaps you were trying to illustrate the dangers of commenting on something without reading it, as a subtle way of reinforcing Cameron's original excuse for not commenting?

 

 

 less time on the conspiracy theory stuff and you'd have time to remove those hyperlinks   

 

I even quoted the lines again for you .. he basically says Ed had the right to reply  ...twice

 

True , he goes further on his attack on the Mail but lets be honest he does has his own agenda  and from his words his attack is influenced from his own pov and background rather than any principled stand on behalf of Milliband as you tried to portray

 

 

and to highlight your Cameron point   ..he did comment .. what riles you is he didn't comment in the way you wanted him to  ..but as has probably been pointed out to you by the majority of people by now , most people didn't expect him to and more importantly don't care

 

In view of your posts  though I am somewhat surprised that you still haven't condemned Ed for the picture I posted of him standing next to the clearing in the woods in the T-shirt .. or perhaps it is something you feel you needn't necessarily comment on  .. which puts us back to where we were a few days ago ....