This man thinks he can be a Prime Minister

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

The difference between Messers Blair and Milliband is that Mr Blair used to make it clear that policies were to be forthcoming but were still to be formulated. As a result he was forced to talk solely about how dreadful the Tories were and TBH that wasn't an unreasonable position to take.

I think in fairness, the press gave Tony Blair a fairly easy time of it as Leader of the Opposition (which he only had to be for less than 3 years).

Miliband at the moment is going down the route of "elections are lost not won" and has a strategy to get 37% + and crawl over the line.

It won't work - he has the "Kinnock factor" about him - people just won't be able to see him as PM.

What possible reason would there be most people to vote Labour if in say the 6 quarters before the election, economic growth is an unspectacular 0.4-0.5% per quarter ?

Errata

I doubt a bloke who doesn't understand the difference between a soapbox and a pallet is quite ready for high office.

Conrad

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

No matter how disasterous his 1983 manifesto was, I'd imagine he would have been great company and someone you could have a pint or cup of tea with and a great, interesting debate with.

Michael Foot = everything that Ed Miliband isn't (perhaps apart from the un-electability).

Even Kevin Maguire of the Mirror echos what you say. He recalled seeing EM in the commons bar looking very uncomfotable and wanting to be anywhere else but there attempting to be one of the chaps.

ILW

grizzly1911 wrote: »

So the bankers have no responsibility whatsoever for the taking us over the cliff? Keep taking the medicine.

Banks do what they do, it is a governments job to keep them under control, so they cannot take a whole economy with them if they get it wrong.
You don't blame a Ferrari for doing 150mph down your local high street, you blame the person who is driving.
Something the last government completely failed to do.

mcfisco

Michael Foot had pretty resolute beliefs and was a great public speaker.

Current MPs can only dream of having some of his skills

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8195000/8195545.stm

grizzly1911

ILW wrote: »

Banks do what they do, it is a governments job to keep them under control, so they cannot take a whole economy with them if they get it wrong.
You don't blame a Ferrari for doing 150mph down your local high street, you blame the person who is driving.
Something the last government completely failed to do.

I thought free markets sorted themselves out and were good. We can trust private institutions to do what is right for their customers can't we?

And the person driving the banks were their CEOs and board of directors were they not goaded on by their institutional shareholders.

Many Ferrari drivers would drive responsibly and not wish damaging their pride and joy taking unnecessary risks.

Generali

mcfisco wrote: »

Current MPs can only dream of having some of his skills

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8195000/8195545.stm

Whilst the rest of us can be thankful that current MPs don't have his policies.

chewmylegoff

Moby wrote: »

I listened to that interview and he came across well in my opinion. It was hardly a 'car crash' I think you are desperate to exaggerate to express your own agenda. Guido Fox will always do that for you, especially during the week of local elections which will probably be a disaster for you. In any event the bunch of incompetents you support have not exactly covered themselves in glory with their level of borrowing or their economic policy....have they!:rotfl:

It was awful - mostly because labour's stated core economic policy is to borrow more in the short term in order to promote growth in the long term. For some reason Milliband decided that he could not admit to the first part and therefore would only talk about the fact that medium term borrowing would be lower. The VAT stuff was laughable - why couldn't he just say that, yes, labour would borrow more in the short term to fund a VAT cut because it was their belief that the consequential contribution to growth would be worth it? It just makes him look exceedingly dishonest as anyone who can do maths can work out that anyone cutting VAT would have to plug the gap with extra borrowing in the short term.

Anyone claiming that Milliband came across well in that interview is about as credible as a Tory supporter arguing that George Osborne's last couple of budgets have been an amazing success. He was evasive and pathetic and despite going on about wanting to do politics in a new way but he was just demonstrating that he will lie to the electorate if he thinks it will get him a few votes, just like the rest of them.

The_White_Horse

TruckerT wrote: »

The 'issue' is that we have been brought down by the banks, and the politicians lack the balls to deal with it.

The banks continue to call the shots, and feel no responsibility at all towards the people whose lives they control.

TruckerT

we've been brought down by the massive over paid public sector and their huge unfunded pensions.

wotsthat

The two politicians who I thought would be struggling to retain their current positions until the general election are Osborne and Milliband.

The labour knives are sharpening - we must be at the point where it's getting too close to change a leader. I listened to the interview; !!!!!! if your plan is to increase borrowing then just say so and outline the reasons for doing so otherwise you just look like a fool.

A chancellor can probably be replaced a little closer to an election but it looks as though he might just be rescued by an improving economy.

If I had to vote tomorrow I think I'd be spoiling my ballot.