Ed Miliband did NOT 'stab his brother in the back' Watch

This discussion is closed.
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Few things annoy me more than when the tory press, mps and supporters on here accuse Ed Miliband time and time again of 'stabbing his brother in the back' - it's utterly pathetic and untrue.

Let's get the facts straight here. He stood fairly in a leadership election offering a different direction to David. David wanted to carry on with New Labour - Ed wanted to break off from it and change direction for the good of the party. It took an immense amount of bravery and courage to stand up for it, but he put the interests of the party first.

It wasn't like he was standing on the same ticket and just wanted power- he wanted a complete break from what David was offering.

He stood fairly, he won fairly. You'll probably go 'yeah but those nasty, evil trade unions' etc. Well Ed didn't design the format did he?

He won an election fairly, did nothing untoward and used no dirty factors.

How on earth did he 'stab his brother in the back'? By that logic Cameron stabbed David Davis in the back.

Can we please stop saying he did? It shrieks of desparation and when you launch these horrible, accusatory personal attacks it proves you have no political arguments left.
Some of the better tories on here will agree, I know it. It's a childish, untrue insult.

As Margaret Thatcher (who I hated) said, 'If they attack you personally, they have not one political argument left' In this case I agree Maggie. Do you tories?

So please, someone tell me how standing in an election and winning fairly is 'stabbing someone in the back'?

It's clear why the tory media hate him. He was supposed to have caved in by now, given up. Yet he keeps fighting and he keeps winning despite the barrage of personal abuse. Left wing leaders aren't supposed to win, yet he is and they're afraid.
1
Magnus Taylor
Badges: 15
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by Bornblue)
Few things annoy me more than when the tory press, mps and supporters on here accuse Ed Miliband time and time again of 'stabbing his brother in the back' - it's utterly pathetic and untrue.

Let's get the facts straight here. He stood fairly in a leadership election offering a different direction to David. David wanted to carry on with New Labour - Ed wanted to break off from it and change direction for the good of the party. It took an immense amount of bravery and courage to stand up for it, but he put the interests of the party first.

It wasn't like he was standing on the same ticket and just wanted power- he wanted a complete break from what David was offering.

He stood fairly, he won fairly. You'll probably go 'yeah but those nasty, evil trade unions' etc. Well Ed didn't design the format did he?

He won an election fairly, did nothing untoward and used no dirty factors.

How on earth did he 'stab his brother in the back'? By that logic Cameron stabbed David Davis in the back.

Can we please stop saying he did? It shrieks of desparation and when you launch these horrible, accusatory personal attacks it proves you have no political arguments left.
Some of the better tories on here will agree, I know it. It's a childish untrue insult.

As Margaret Thatcher (who I hated) said, 'If they attack you personally, they have not one political argument left' In this case I agree Maggie. Do you tories?

So please, someone tell me how standing in an election and winning fairly is 'stabbing someone in the back'?


It's clear why the tory media hate him. He was supposed to have caved in by now, given up. Yet he keeps fighting and he keeps winning despite the barrage of personal abuse. Left wing leaders aren't supposed to win, yet he is and they're afraid.
Hear hear
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Magnus Taylor)
Hear hear
It's also hilarious that the same tory press who've ruthlessly abused his wife, his father and his love life seem to suddenly care that he upset his brother?
Double standards to say the least. It angers me so much because it's plain untrue.
In no way whatsoever did he 'stab his brother in the back'.
0
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
If David Miliband had won instead, the Daily Mail et al would be saying the same - " he stabbed his brother Ed in the back". That's the main problem I have with that accusation, opinions on the Milibands aside.
0
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
I don't hear that many people saying this any more though. If some people are then shame on them because it's a terrible, irrelevant argument.

You also have your own problem in that you are seemingly obsessed with the righteousness of Ed Miliband and his cause. I fear that you are making the mistake of putting far too much faith in a politician and that you will be let down massively in the end.
0
democracyforum
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
wouldn't vote for him anyway
0
Protégé
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Nothing wrong with going against family if you disagree with them.
0
LordMarmalade
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Exactly.

The idea that he "stabbed" his brother in the back is predicated on the odd belief that David as elder brother had some inherent right to the position; primogeniture for party politics.

If Ed has simply stood against David because he wanted power and there were no policy differences, I would look askance at it but the fact is that Ed was offering something distinctive and substantially to the left of David Miliband. It was perfectly justifiable for Ed to do so
0
garfeeled
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
The backstab statement is utterly ridiculous. It is no indication of his leadership skills or a comment in his parties ability to be in government. If anything you could argue it shows he honestly thought his direction was the one needed.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
I don't hear that many people saying this any more though. If some people are then shame on them because it's a terrible, irrelevant argument.

You also have your own problem in that you are seemingly obsessed with the righteousness of Ed Miliband and his cause. I fear that you are making the mistake of putting far too much faith in a politician and that you will be let down massively in the end.
The horrible and bitter personal attacks and smear campaign from the tory party and tory press has made me like him a hell of a lot more.
I'm fed up with this line that he stabbed his brother in the back. It's beyond ridiculous and any sort of logic. As are the claims that his dad hated Britain.
0
Airfairy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
I don't really care whether or not he stabbed him brother in the back - I still don't like him.
0
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Bornblue)
The horrible and bitter personal attacks and smear campaign from the tory party and tory press has made me like him a hell of a lot more.
I'm fed up with this line that he stabbed his brother in the back. It's beyond ridiculous and any sort of logic. As are the claims that his dad hated Britain.
I'm just saying that you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

Obviously both arguments are pretty poor as it is simply irrelevant that Ed Miliband ran against his brother and his father's opinions are his own and not Ed Milibands.

I don't really care if his dad hated Britain either. He was a Marxist though and that is reason to criticise Ralph but really should have no effect on our opinion of Ed unless it is clear that Ed is a Marxist too, which it definitely isn't.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
I'm just saying that you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

Obviously both arguments are pretty poor as it is simply irrelevant that Ed Miliband ran against his brother and his father's opinions are his own and not Ed Milibands.

I don't really care if his dad hated Britain either. He was a Marxist though and that is reason to criticise Ralph but really should have no effect on our opinion of Ed unless it is clear that Ed is a Marxist too, which it definitely isn't.
Well said (apart from the bash on Marxism).
0
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Bornblue)
Well said (apart from the bash on Marxism).
Marxism is an ideology that has resulted in dictatorial regimes which have killed millions upon millions and brought economic havoc to so many parts of the globe.

Marx himself was a very immoral and reprehensible human being who kept an unpaid servant in his "employ" and then raped her.

Sorry if I don't see that as something to celebrate.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
Marxism is an ideology that has resulted in dictatorial regimes which have killed millions upon millions and brought economic havoc to so many parts of the globe.

Marx himself was a very immoral and reprehensible human being who kept an unpaid servant in his "employ" and then raped her.

Sorry if I don't see that as something to celebrate.
See, what you're doing is associating regimes that have called themselves 'marxist' or 'comunist' with actual marxism.

The common ownership of means of production in no way advocates killing millions.
People look at places like Soviet Russia and say 'look communism and marxism doesn't work'. It's rubbish. Calling yourself marxist does not make it so. They were not communist just because they called themselves communist.

It would be like me pointing to the Democratic Republic of Korea and saying 'look democracy doesn't work'.

Marx spoke about the abuse of power at the top- he was spot on in that aspect. He talked about how the law reflected the economic - he was spot on too.

Stop with the agenda. Capitalism too has killed millions and caused economic havoc but that never gets a mention..
0
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Bornblue)
See, what you're doing is associating regimes that have called themselves 'marxist' or 'comunist' with actual marxism.
Yes, real life implementations or attempted implementations of an ideology do matter.

(Original post by Bornblue)
The common ownership of means of production in no way advocates killing millions.
People look at places like Soviet Russia and say 'look communism and marxism doesn't work'. It's rubbish. Calling yourself marxist does not make it so. They were not communist just because they called themselves communist.

It would be like me pointing to the Democratic Republic of Korea and saying 'look democracy doesn't work'.

Marx spoke about the abuse of power at the top- he was spot on in that aspect. He talked about how the law reflected the economic - he was spot on too.

Stop with the agenda. Capitalism too has killed millions and caused economic havoc but that never gets a mention..
Well Marxism does actually talk of a dictatorship of the proletariat where the old bourgeoisie are oppressed by the political power of the state.

But I do agree that "common" ownership of the means of production does not necessitate violence but that getting quite often will result in violence and oppression. However Marxism, in advocating violent revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat does.

You can't whitewash communist crimes by saying that it isn't "real" socialism or communism. It's the closest anyone has ever got on a large scale.

So you are entirely against capitalism but you are a massive Labour supporter?
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
Yes, real life implementations or attempted implementations of an ideology do matter.


Well Marxism does actually talk of a dictatorship of the proletariat where the old bourgeoisie are oppressed by the political power of the state.

But I do agree that "common" ownership of the means of production does not necessitate violence but that getting quite often will result in violence and oppression. However Marxism, in advocating violent revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat does.

You can't whitewash communist crimes by saying that it isn't "real" socialism or communism. It's the closest anyone has ever got on a large scale.

So you are entirely against capitalism but you are a massive Labour supporter?
So then can we say democracy doesn't work because North Korea calls itself a democracy? No. Likewise because dictatorships commit atrocities and call it socialism does not mean it actually is.
Someone labelling themselves as something does not make them so.
I'm not entirely against capitalism. I think we need controlled and regulated capitalism. It's not all or nothing. It's not a package deal. I want a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
0
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Bornblue)
So then can we say democracy doesn't work because North Korea calls itself a democracy? No. Likewise because dictatorships commit atrocities and call it socialism does not mean it actually is.
Well the difference is that we can see that North Korea is clearly not in anyway democratic. However with the USSR we can see that "common" ownership was implemented to quite a significant extent and therefore calling it socialist isn't that far off the mark.

(Original post by Bornblue)
Someone labelling themselves as something does not make them so.
Correct but I'm not merely looking at the words of the USSR leaders to see if the USSR is socialist. I'm looking at their policies

(Original post by Bornblue)
I'm not entirely against capitalism. I think we need controlled and regulated capitalism. It's not all or nothing. It's not a package deal. I want a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
That's what we have already. 45% of GDP is government expenditure.

All you really want that is different is a changing around of what is social or private. A half and half split already exists.
0
Friar Chris
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
'Tory Press' :rofl:

Oh, the concentration of self-righteous lefties in here is too much :lol:
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
Well the difference is that we can see that North Korea is clearly not in anyway democratic. However with the USSR we can see that "common" ownership was implemented to quite a significant extent and therefore calling it socialist isn't that far off the mark.


Correct but I'm not merely looking at the words of the USSR leaders to see if the USSR is socialist. I'm looking at their policies


That's what we have already. 45% of GDP is government expenditure.

All you really want that is different is a changing around of what is social or private. A half and half split already exists.
But the violence along side those policies have nothing to do with socialism. Socialism does not advocate a dictatorship or violence.
It's an economic ideology.

I want far greater restrictions on capitalism. Taking the good bits but reducing the huge inequalities and the downsides of capitalism.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (153)
24.68%
Pop (149)
24.03%
Jazz (26)
4.19%
Classical (36)
5.81%
Hip-Hop (109)
17.58%
Electronic (42)
6.77%
Indie (105)
16.94%

Watched Threads

View All