Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've noticed that more and more, the words which Ed Miliband says do not make sense, the actual words are contradictory or just describing the actions of the government,- not providing scrutiny.

    Now I know this is common amongst politicians, it's all part of spill. However, a few examples, which are becoming more and more common, perhaps show his incompetence.

    For example, On Vince Cable ( to the BBC)
    "David Cameron is not putting the national interest first; instead he is doing this to keep the coalition alive, not serving the national interest".

    Okay; He is talking about David Cameron's conduct and action. Now Cameron and Clegg constantly tell us that they are keeping the coalition alive for the sake of the national interest.
    We know that both parties and leaders believe that they are working in the national interest.
    The succession made by Cameron is defiantly to keep the coalition alive, for the national interest as Cameron would see it.
    So therefore, Miliband is simply just telling us what is happening. He is not scrutinising the government in this case, but just explaining what is happening?


    There's been a few more instances where he has been directly contradictory,- I'll try and find them.

    Now, i'm not a Labour party supporter, but I do believe this country should have effective and coherent opposition and support any party which does so. Therefore, i'm not making this post to attack Labour,- far from it.

    Does anyone else agree or see what I mean? If not, or if im being an idiot,- explain?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    tl;dr- but he does sound like he's got the world's most stuffed up nose, that or an undiagnosed cleft palate.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by super.teve)
    I've noticed that more and more, the words which Ed Miliband says do not make sense, the actual words are contradictory or just describing the actions of the government,- not providing scrutiny.

    Now I know this is common amongst politicians, it's all part of spill. However, a few examples, which are becoming more and more common, perhaps show his incompetence.

    For example, On Vince Cable ( to the BBC)
    "David Cameron is not putting the national interest first; instead he is not doing what he should for the sake of keeping the coalition alive".

    Okay; He is talking about David Cameron's conduct and action. Now Cameron and Clegg constantly tell us that they are keeping the coalition alive for the sake of the national interest.
    We know that both parties and leaders believe that they are working in the national interest.
    The succession made by Cameron is defiantly to keep the coalition alive, for the national interest as Cameron would see it.
    So therefore, Miliband is simply just telling us what is happening. He is not scrutinising the government in this case, but just explaining what is happening?


    There's been a few more instances where he has been directly contradictory,- I'll try and find them.

    [COLOR="Skyblue"]Now, i'm not a Labour party supporter, but I do believe this country should have effective and coherent opposition and support any party which does so. Therefore, i'm not making this post to attack Labour,- far from it[/COLOR].

    Does anyone else agree or see what I mean? If not, or if im being an idiot,- explain?
    Everyone knows that Milliband is an ineffective party leader. I'm guessing even Labour supporters acknowledge this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hippysnake)
    tl;dr- but he does sound like he's got the world's most stuffed up nose, that or an undiagnosed cleft palate.
    He does, but rather than a personal attack, i'm talking about the substance of his debate and media interviews.
    His words seem of little weight?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by super.teve)
    He does, but rather than a personal attack, i'm talking about the substance of his debate and media interviews.
    His words seem of little weight?
    Well, duh, he's a politician.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hippysnake)
    Well, duh, he's a politician.
    In the context of Political scrutiny then...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's contradictory. Ed Miliband obviously believes the national interest lies in Labour coming to power and the coalition failing, so that's why he's made that attack.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TWF)
    I don't think it's contradictory. Ed Miliband obviously believes the national interest lies in Labour coming to power and the coalition failing, so that's why he's made that attack.
    In terms of being clear and coherent, it fails though? Surely there are far more effective attacks to make, or a clearer way to make his views/Labour's/the oppositions views clear.

    It's the example which stays in my mind, there are many.

    He seems nerdy, slow and confused. :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by super.teve)
    In terms of being clear and coherent, it fails though? Surely there are far more effective attacks to make, or a clearer way to make his views/Labour's/the oppositions views clear.

    It's the example which stays in my mind, there are many.

    He seems nerdy, slow and confused. :/
    I think it's 4 coalition MPs who have come out with critisism? Nobody wants rifts in government like that, so I do agree with Ed. David Cameron is just trying to patch up the coalition by taking back the trouble makers rather than clean it up and make it a more coherent government. I think Ed Miliband has stressed something similar to that, 1 vague quote doesn't prove anything tbh.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TWF)
    I think it's 4 coalition MPs who have come out with critisism? Nobody wants rifts in government like that, so I do agree with Ed. David Cameron is just trying to patch up the coalition by taking back the trouble makers rather than clean it up and make it a more coherent government. I think Ed Miliband has stressed something similar to that, 1 vague quote doesn't prove anything tbh.
    It's one vague comment which was aired live on BBC News and Sky News as the news of Vince Cable was breaking,- it was then played three or four times throughout the day, from what I seen,- three times on the BBC and once on Sky news.

    It's the only example I could remember word for word, there are many others,- I shall try and find them on Youtube.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by super.teve)
    I've noticed that more and more, the words which Ed Miliband says do not make sense, the actual words are contradictory or just describing the actions of the government,- not providing scrutiny.

    Now I know this is common amongst politicians, it's all part of spill. However, a few examples, which are becoming more and more common, perhaps show his incompetence.

    For example, On Vince Cable ( to the BBC)
    "David Cameron is not putting the national interest first; instead he is doing this to keep the coalition alive, not serving the national interest".

    Okay; He is talking about David Cameron's conduct and action. Now Cameron and Clegg constantly tell us that they are keeping the coalition alive for the sake of the national interest.
    We know that both parties and leaders believe that they are working in the national interest.
    The succession made by Cameron is defiantly to keep the coalition alive, for the national interest as Cameron would see it.
    So therefore, Miliband is simply just telling us what is happening. He is not scrutinising the government in this case, but just explaining what is happening?


    There's been a few more instances where he has been directly contradictory,- I'll try and find them.

    Now, i'm not a Labour party supporter, but I do believe this country should have effective and coherent opposition and support any party which does so. Therefore, i'm not making this post to attack Labour,- far from it.

    Does anyone else agree or see what I mean? If not, or if im being an idiot,- explain?
    David Cameron has one opinion and David Miliband another. These two opinions are, as we'd expect contradictory. One is saying one thing and one another.

    What you're doing is taking these contradictory opinions and trying to say that ones is not making any sense by trying to fit both, differing opinions in to one truth.

    You can't do that and it also means you're missing the point of what David Miliband is saying.

    From what you say, you seem to be thinking David Cameron is saying keeping the coalition Government alive is in the national interest and so is working to keep the coalition going. I think that is a fair summation of his OPINION.

    However, David Miliband appears to be saying that keeping the coalition alive is not necesarilly in the national interest and further is saying that David Cameron is more interesting in doing work to keep the coalition going at all costs in order to cling on to power, even if that means his actions are NOT in the national interests.

    One may be able to assume from David Miliband comments that he things the national interests may lie in the coalition Government falling and either a new Government forming or a new election being held.

    We can also assume from the comment you quoted that David Miliband thinks some of the Governments actions are not what is best for the nation yet were done solely to keep the Government together and in power, whatever the negative effects would be on the country/people.

    Do you see the difference in what the two big Ds each think?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by super.teve)
    It's one vague comment which was aired live on BBC News and Sky News as the news of Vince Cable was breaking,- it was then played three or four times throughout the day, from what I seen,- three times on the BBC and once on Sky news.

    It's the only example I could remember word for word, there are many others,- I shall try and find them on Youtube.
    Did you watch the press conference? He was trying to get across that the coalition is a shambles, which it is at the moment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RK)
    David Cameron has one opinion and David Miliband another. These two opinions are, as we'd expect contradictory. One is saying one thing and one another.

    What you're doing is taking these contradictory opinions and trying to say that ones is not making any sense by trying to fit both, differing opinions in to one truth.

    You can't do that and it also means you're missing the point of what David Miliband is saying.

    From what you say, you seem to be thinking David Cameron is saying keeping the coalition Government alive is in the national interest and so is working to keep the coalition going. I think that is a fair summation of his OPINION.

    However, David Miliband appears to be saying that keeping the coalition alive is not necesarilly in the national interest and further is saying that David Cameron is more interesting in doing work to keep the coalition going at all costs in order to cling on to power, even if that means his actions are NOT in the national interests.

    One may be able to assume from David Miliband comments that he things the national interests may lie in the coalition Government falling and either a new Government forming or a new election being held.

    We can also assume from the comment you quoted that David Miliband thinks some of the Governments actions are not what is best for the nation yet were done solely to keep the Government together and in power, whatever the negative effects would be on the country/people.

    Do you see the difference in what the two big Ds each think?
    I knew that, and yes I know that.
    My problem is the lack of "good voice" from Ed. This quote is probably not the best example, but there are many many others.

    By the way, where did you get David Miliband from?! If you're going to make a point, especially as you're being patronising, atleast make it properly. (in the voice of Cameron to Ed)

    Typical Labour ehe,- just kidding.

    But, what I am saying is that:

    Elections in this country are and are becoming far more presidential, and therefore we expect, or many expect, a leader to be a good speaker. This is a demonstration of how Ed lacks improvisational skills and the ability to really speak in coherent voice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TWF)
    Did you watch the press conference? He was trying to get across that the coalition is a shambles, which it is at the moment.
    It wasn't from the press conference, but yes I saw the press conference earlier today.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    He got a mere 2.1 in his degree, what do you expect? :rolleyes:


    On the other hand, his brother and David Cameron each got a first :daydreaming:






    sarcasm, obviously
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by super.teve)
    I knew that, and yes I know that.
    My problem is the lack of "good voice" from Ed. This quote is probably not the best example, but there are many many others.

    By the way, where did you get David Miliband from?! If you're going to make a point, especially as you're being patronising, atleast make it properly. (in the voice of Cameron to Ed)

    Typical Labour ehe,- just kidding.

    But, what I am saying is that:

    Elections in this country are and are becoming far more presidential, and therefore we expect, or many expect, a leader to be a good speaker. This is a demonstration of how Ed lacks improvisational skills and the ability to really speak in coherent voice.
    No idea where David Miliband came from. I put it down to being tired and in need of a Christmas break...which thankfully starts now

    I think you're right that elections are becoming more presidential. However, do you think that is right? Does a more presidential style election lead to the best results and best parliament? Or does it mean people get election more on image rather than substance? Does it lead to great potential-MPs not being elected because their party leader is not in favour with the electorate? Does any of this really matter?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I still think it's too early to criticize him tbh.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by super.teve)
    It wasn't from the press conference, but yes I saw the press conference earlier today.
    You have to look at the whole picture and come to a judgement, not a number of quotes. I think if you combine the quote and his press conferences the message he's trying to convey becomes very clear. Ok, he's not the best of speakers, but you're just being picky taking out those quotes and forming a distorted image, and then you turn to him being a bad speaker as the focus? I think everybody's got the message Ed is trying to convey, apart from you lol.

    (Original post by W.H.T)
    He got a mere 2.1 in his degree, what do you expect? :rolleyes:


    On the other hand, his brother and David Cameron each got a first :daydreaming:






    sarcasm, obviously
    Lol. I was going to beat you down with, Ed got AABB, his brother got BBBD. Not like these scores decide how well you speak though....:rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RK)
    No idea where David Miliband came from. I put it down to being tired and in need of a Christmas break...which thankfully starts now

    I think you're right that elections are becoming more presidential. However, do you think that is right? Does a more presidential style election lead to the best results and best parliament? Or does it mean people get election more on image rather than substance? Does it lead to great potential-MPs not being elected because their party leader is not in favour with the electorate? Does any of this really matter?
    I think it matters:
    A) When assessing leadership, we have a valid context to measure against. For instance, here we can see how Ed and David match up in terms of being able to present a case to the public. It's a good criteria to measure leadership quality against,- even if you agree or disagree,- it is largely the case and hence therefore, a matter of fact. One positive is this measure of leadership competence.

    B) It's also something we need to be aware of. "Cameron", "Clegg", "Ed" represent the three main political parties, figure heads so to speak. As a result, we need to be aware that when people make reference to these names they may not mean the person,- but the party or area of political thinking.

    C) TV debates and such have inspired a whole generation of people,- perhaps some to the displeasure of many people.
    I'd sooner have the Liberal Democrats back in the dark corner and the fight to be between red and blue.
    But no, in all seriousness, it has created an entirely new type of political interaction, debate and participation.

    D) Increased Participation,- as I said above.

    E) Accountability,- media representation of a party or member of a party through these people. Government accountability on the Prime Minister more closely. A person to rise or fall in front of the public. (Maybe this is a negative?)

    F) Simple? For many Daily Mail and The Sun readers,- simple politics, easy participation. I can see this, as with the past general election helping to ease apathy and promote democratic participation.

    HOWEVER:
    1) We do have a Parliamentary democracy,- very important. This is being overshadowed, MP's have a vital role to play and are being marginalised to some extent.
    2) Accountability is perhaps lost? The PM/party leader falls as a result of a minister or MP. The wrong person being held accountable?
    3) Election crisis,- MP's need to be elected on individual merit,- not the qualities of a party leader.
    Perhaps we've created a more complex system?

    I do feel that we've got a whole generation of people who are confused, they don't understand the political system and the mixture of a presidential and parliamentary system has meant they are even more confused. The distinction needs to be made and not just left to be burried within custom and tradition,- becoming part of our constitution without the hybrid being clear or defined.

    For Labour: You've a real crisis on your hand if this matters, Cameron is easily a far more influential presidential leader than Ed. -> don't let the above be characterised by this, just throwing it in there
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In the words of the imitable Malcolm Tucker, the man is a "catastrafcuk". Utterly hopeless - he knows it, we know it and he knows that we know it. Doesn't even have the support of his own party. He's doing the Labour Party a fantastic disservice and for that, I thank him from the bottom of my heart. That's two completely inept morons that the Labour Party have promoted to 'leader' in quick succession. As disingenuous and malevolent as Blair was, at least he was bright.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.