brianthedog Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Article by Ed in The Independent today - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/david-cameron-demeans-his-office-8959546.html. It's an interesting stance for him to take. His party is morally and financially bankrupt yet he seems surprised that the Tories may use this against them. Certainly a strange fella. And definitely the wrong Miliband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Financially bankrupt? Labour's income last year was over £33 million. I'd settle for that kind of bankruptcy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24016634 As for David Miliband, he was stupid and morally bankrupt enough to vote for the Iraq war and showed his worth by quitting parliament for New York when he couldn't get what he wanted. He's a spineless toerag and as morally bankrupt as they come. As for the party's moral bankruptcy, Ed Miliband has to distance them from the Blair-Brown years as quickly as he can. One parliament may not be enough but they could still be largest party in 2015 due to the electoral system. It's not impossible they could form a government with 35% of the vote as Blair did in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 What I find odd is the stance of the Prime Minister. I'd have thought that someone so closely involved with Coulson and Brookes, might just be a little careful before he climbed upon the moral high horse.. After all, it won't be sub judice for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Financially bankrupt? Labour's income last year was over £33 million. I'd settle for that kind of bankruptcy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24016634 As for David Miliband, he was stupid and morally bankrupt enough to vote for the Iraq war and showed his worth by quitting parliament for New York when he couldn't get what he wanted. He's a spineless toerag and as morally bankrupt as they come. As for the party's moral bankruptcy, Ed Miliband has to distance them from the Blair-Brown years as quickly as he can. One parliament may not be enough but they could still be largest party in 2015 due to the electoral system. It's not impossible they could form a government with 35% of the vote as Blair did in 2005. But as you regard politicians as corrupt and fraudsters, isn't David Miliband a bit of a hero for getting out of politics and taking up a worthwhile career? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 But as you regard politicians as corrupt and fraudsters, isn't David Miliband a bit of a hero for getting out of politics and taking up a worthwhile career? Eh? I don't regard ALL politicians as corrupt and fraudsters. Someone has to govern. Miliband D is nothing more than a useless careerist who is in it for nothing more than what he can get out of it and not for what he can put into it. Miliband E may not strike me as being a great intellectual but he's several notches above his brother. After the 2015 general election Cameron or Miliband will be PM. I'd rather it be Ed than David if it's going to be a Labour PM. I'd rather it be neither Miliband E nor Cameron but they're the only choices. Article here by Will Hutton http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/24/david-cameron-tory-party-politics looking at how the numbers of MPs may stack up in 2015 and how Cameron's not doing himself any favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Ed Miliband on the offensive is like being attacked by a gerbil with a bad case of asma. One swift stamp and the threat is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthedog Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 Financially bankrupt? Labour's income last year was over £33 million. I'd settle for that kind of bankruptcy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24016634 As for David Miliband, he was stupid and morally bankrupt enough to vote for the Iraq war and showed his worth by quitting parliament for New York when he couldn't get what he wanted. He's a spineless toerag and as morally bankrupt as they come. As for the party's moral bankruptcy, Ed Miliband has to distance them from the Blair-Brown years as quickly as he can. One parliament may not be enough but they could still be largest party in 2015 due to the electoral system. It's not impossible they could form a government with 35% of the vote as Blair did in 2005. What's income got to do with bankruptcy? Labour's own financial affairs are in tatters - highlighted by the risk they're having to raise now Co-op (and potentially it's favourable lending rates) is disappearing. Of all political terms in which Labour had to show financial prudence it was this one. It would have given them some chance of shifting the blame for the deficit away from them. Yet they've categorically failed to do this - borrowed to the hilt and at risk of default. It's like 2010 all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Financially bankrupt? Labour's income last year was over £33 million. I'd settle for that kind of bankruptcy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24016634 . What are their outgoings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 It would have given them some chance of shifting the blame for the deficit away from them. Yet they've categorically failed to do this - borrowed to the hilt and at risk of default. It's like 2010 all over again. So why did the Tories borrow more money is 2.5 years of government than in three whole terms under Labour? And then there is this http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 So why did the Tories borrow more money is 2.5 years of government than in three whole terms under Labour? And then there is this http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html Wrong, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant will you, then again its data from the ONS so you wont believe a word they say anyway Labour borrowed a total of £406.1bn for their term in office while the torys have borrowed a total of £368.7bn. Alister Darling borrowed a staggering £156.3bn in 2009. But everyone should have a look at this chart, courtesy of The Guardian. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg Borrowing went through the roof under Labour but is reducing under the current coalition government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.