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

This discussion is closed.
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
(Original post by Bornblue)
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.
But Marxist socialism does advocate violence and that is precisely what you were defending!

We already have massive restrictions of capitalism, government spending as half the economy and various corporatist fusions of state power and the banks.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#22
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
But Marxist socialism does advocate violence and that is precisely what you were defending!

We already have massive restrictions of capitalism, government spending as half the economy and various corporatist fusions of state power and the banks.
Marxism has many elements, many spot on, many not. But things such as abuse of power at the top to the disadvantage of the working classes was spot on. As is how the law reflects the interests of the powerful.
I want FAR greater restrictions. Far less inequality, less tax avoidance and abuse higher minimum wages and an end to worker exploitation.
0
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by Bornblue)
Marxism has many elements, many spot on, many not. But things such as abuse of power at the top to the disadvantage of the working classes was spot on. As is how the law reflects the interests of the powerful.
I want FAR greater restrictions. Far less inequality, less tax avoidance and abuse higher minimum wages and an end to worker exploitation.
So how much government spending as a proportion of GDP is too much? 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
So how much government spending as a proportion of GDP is too much? 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%.
Nothing to do with the point I was making.
Ideally I'd like more socialist policies.
Germany's railways are nationalized and their service is far cheaper, far more reliable and far more efficient than ours..
For one example.
0
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by Bornblue)
Nothing to do with the point I was making.
Ideally I'd like more socialist policies.
Germany's railways are nationalized and their service is far cheaper, far more reliable and far more efficient than ours..
For one example.
Insurance healthcare system though.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
Insurance healthcare system though.
Yet our public health system is regarded as the best in the world...
Look at the state of our railways, has privatization worked? The service is poor and prices have gone through the roof.
0
doode
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 weeks ago
#27
Ed was driven by blind ambition, what good did he eventually do for the Labour party and the country when he became leader ? His brother had the better chance of becoming Prime Minister, even the Tories were scared of this happening. Ed should have settled for a senior cabinet position and helped his brother become Prime Minister. Unfortunately ego is such a big thing in politics, and so without blinking Ed Miliband stabbed his brother in the back, on a very public stage. The worst career move he made in his life!
Last edited by doode; 2 weeks ago
1
AngryJellyfish
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 weeks ago
#28
Quality Current Affairs thread bump. :coma:
1
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by doode)
Ed was driven by blind ambition, what good did he eventually do for the Labour party and the country when he became leader ? His brother had the better chance of becoming Prime Minister, even the Tories were scared of this happening. Ed should have settled for a senior cabinet position and helped his brother become Prime Minister. Unfortunately ego is such a big thing in politics, and so without blinking Ed Miliband stabbed his brother in the back, on a very public stage. The worst career move he made in his life!
No, I think Ed believed in his "causes" and brand of socialism.
His motivation was "the cause", not ego or personal ambition.
David would have been more electable as an ideological 'heir to Blair'.
I'm not a fan of either Miliband and have never voted Labour.
0
doode
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by londonmyst)
No, I think Ed believed in his "causes" and brand of socialism.
His motivation was "the cause", not ego or personal ambition.
David would have been more electable as an ideological 'heir to Blair'.
I'm not a fan of either Miliband and have never voted Labour.
Even if he did believe in "his causes" , he wasn't being realistic. To achieve his aims he would have understood that he would have to work from within. Ask yourself why he wasn't being realistic about his chances of being Prime Minister. Incidentally, I have never voted Labour either.
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

Are you attending a Global Climate Strike?

Yes, I'm striking (39)
7.59%
No, but I wanted to/I support the cause (299)
58.17%
No (176)
34.24%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed