BBC BLOGS - Nick Robinson's Newslog
« Previous | Main | Next »

David Miliband interview

Nick Robinson | 17:00 UK time, Wednesday, 29 September 2010

I've just interviewed David Miliband. Here it is.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.


Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Red Ed? let's hope he can live up to it!

  • Comment number 2.

    Back Bench Bro?

  • Comment number 3.

    Lets face it, whomever is in charge has a horrible mess to clean up and at least David is out of range (or at least can duck) as the stuff flies towards the fan.

  • Comment number 4.

    There are no worries for David Miliband, Ed may have walked away with the prize this time, but David wins all the plaudits. David Miliband has made the right decision. Walking away from this shambles that will be Labour under the leadership of Ed Miliband was the most sensible thing to do. Association with it would have tainted Davids career as well should he have taken a position in Eds Government.

  • Comment number 5.

    As far as I am concerned it was hobsons choice as to wether milliband 1 or milliband 2 got the job. labour are still going to act more like Tories , not because they believe it is the best thing for the public, but so they have more chance to get back into power.

    All David Millibad has done by giving up is to prove he was in it for himself and how little he thought of the people who voted for him to represent him.

    Goodbye loser dont let the door hit you on the way out.

    Wonder what job he will do next in order to position himself for more power and his friends in high places ?

  • Comment number 6.

    Do you think David is now regretting that he passed over the job of EC foreign policy supremo?
    Is this likely to be a future option for him where his talents could be of immense value?

  • Comment number 7.

    I think that David was sincere in what he said, for the time being anyway. If he rocks the boat he will always be blamed for dividing the party. He has learnt that every gesture will be subject to media speculation. His time may come when Labour turns to him, but he has to wait until Ed succeeds or fails.

    Recent history shows that the new leader of a defeated party rarely survives until the next election. If David M plays it right he could follow on as leader from his brother and the party will have got it right. They will have the correct leader in place to fight the 2015 election.

  • Comment number 8.

    The only decision,and the right one.
    Perhaps we can all,especially you Nick, move on...

  • Comment number 9.

    This is a spectacular own goal by the Labour party.

    Like it or lump it there are two facts which cannot be denied;

    1. Ed was elected by the broadly unpopular unions (who's leaders are on salaries equal to or exceeding the prime minister's incidentally, notwithstanding their efforts purportedly to support their members), and

    2. David had broader (and more) support throughout the party, and the country.

    Will the real labour leader please stand up? Its a question which is going to haunt Ed, and I'm not sure he'll be able to face down no matter where in the house his brother is sat. The inevitable famial tension merely adds to the agony and I regret that for them both.

    Labour have just created a problem which will take a huge amount of time and effort to resolve in the court of public opinion, at a time when the CSR process should be grabbing the headlines in not least for Liam Fox's letter...what letter>?! and who cares...this is far more interesting.

    Even worse Labour have lost a great asset in David Miliband's public retrenchment to backbench obscurity...the coalition will be having a drink or two tonight.

  • Comment number 10.

    In the interview David Miliband says he is going to "get stuck back into the Big Issues". Does he intent to sell it?

  • Comment number 11.

    So Labour have got the politically ruthless brother and the intellectual brother goes to the back bench to renew and detoxify.

    If Ed fails in his forthcoming battles with Dave and Nick his brother can come back as leader. If Ed does well his brother can come back in any shadow cabinet position he wants.

    Nick's blogs over the last few days demonstrate precisely why David is wise to do what he has done. Of course the media will shamelessly say Ed has killed his brother's political career without at any stage acknowledging their own part in the (melo) drama. I actually think Nick would be better off and have more job satisfaction as an entertainment reporter - like Barbara Walters. He clearly loves celebrity and gosssip more than intellectual analysis of political issues.

    Can we now have something on poor old Mr Fox who may well be the second senior Coalition Minister to go in just over six months?

  • Comment number 12.

    Despite the spin that is being put on this by Labour, there can be only one conclusion - David Miliband was not prepared to serve in a Shadow Cabinet, with Collective responsibility, that was led by Ed Miliband.

    Ed Joined the race because he did not agree with David. David cannot serve in the shadow cabinet where the clear intended path ahead of it leads in a direction that he does not agree with.

    On the backbenches, David Miliband is free to argue against the Shadow Cabinet. he might not do so, but he will act as an anchor on any intended swing to the left - far more than he could have done whilst under the restraints of collective responsibility.

    I am amazed that so far the media has missed this.

  • Comment number 13.

    You got a prediction right! Well done!

  • Comment number 14.

    Sue # 3

    Slightly confused Dear. Just because David Miliband didn't win the leadership contest, all of a sudden, you're singing his praises! No doubt if he had won you would have been referring to him as some sort of political pariah. Very inconsistent, illogical, ill thought out nonsense I'm afraid. Perhaps it's an age thing....

  • Comment number 15.

    So does this mean Ed Balls will be chancellor ? That just sounds too good to be true.

  • Comment number 16.

    How can anyone endorsed and supported by Niell Kinnock and the mad dinosaurs of the unions possibly survive for long as the anointed leader of the comrades ? Like the maiden voyage of the Titanic, the future doesn't look too bright , and David Milliband knows that the safest place to be is on the iceberg. When the ship goes down, he'll be there to hand out the lifebelts ,and hold a few heads under water.

  • Comment number 17.

    This is a spectacular goal for the Labour Party.

    Like it or lump it there are two facts which cannot be denied:

    1. Ed gained the greater share of the electoral college, under the rules in force at the time of the election. (More and more, David M sounds like a petulant Al Gore soundalike, who will forever say, "I won, really.")

    2. Rather than stay and fight for what he believes in (probably opposing his brother in private rather than in public), David has stormed off in a huff - "I'm older so If I can't be captain, I'm not playing" might well resonate from the brothers' childhood games.

    All in all, Ed's start has been a breath of fresh air - That Was Then, This Is Now - and in marked contrast to Nick 'How much will you give me for my granny?' Clegg, who had no principles, no scruples and no integrity in bouncing his party into a coalition to boost his own career whatever the cost....

    A politician who doesn't change his mind is doomed to eternal failure.

    Try reading the speeches of the young Abraham Lincoln and you will find it hard to believe that this would be the man who would help to abolish slavery. He did what he could, when he could, but he recognised that until you have power you can achieve nothing - Ed Miliband is far more credible (and, hence, electable) than his brother because he believe in SOMEthing.

    As for David Miliband, the Party - Purnell and others - called several times, and he turned a deaf ear; it serves him right that when he condescended to push for the leadership, the Party said Thanks but no thanks.

  • Comment number 18.

    So, David bows out to give his brother 'space'.

    Let's hope Ed's militant trade union brothers do the same!

  • Comment number 19.

    There are no worries for David Miliband, Ed has walked away with the prize and david will provide strong support to his brother from the backbenches. David Miliband has made the right decision. Im sure he will return at some point to the front benches, perhaps when labour are back in power after the next election.. I look forward now to the media concentrating on more important isssues...like the destruction on communities planned by this appalling coaltion.

  • Comment number 20.

    "10. At 5:55pm on 29 Sep 2010, estaing wrote:
    In the interview David Miliband says he is going to "get stuck back into the Big Issues". Does he intent to sell it?"

    Sparks would fly if he tried to take over Sagamix's pitch.

  • Comment number 21.

    David Milliband has made the right decision for him. He can play awaiting game and asses what options he wants to take up inside or outside the Labour party . He will have made lots of good contacts in the time he was in goverment. I would not be surprised to see him leave parliment in a year or so . I am not a Labour supporter however I will wait and make my judgement on Ed when I see who is in his shadow cabinet and what they do or say in relation to sorting out the mess we are in .I hope he gags Ed Balls

  • Comment number 22.

    #6

    "Do you think David is now regretting that he passed over the job of EC foreign policy supremo? Is this likely to be a future option for him where his talents could be of immense value?"

    I trust the last bit was meant ironically?

  • Comment number 23.

    15 Jobs

    I do hope so. No doubt you will have an opinion when the EB announcement's made and I for one would like to read it.

    Hope your preparing an articulated posting in preperation. I'm sure that if nothing else, as with all your postings, we can rely on it being a balanced viewpoint.

    Lets see what happens first, it might yet be Yvette Cooper.

    The question is, if it is Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper, will GO be able to meet the challange?

  • Comment number 24.

    Still reporting the guy who lost - boooooring!

    Sorry Nick, I think this is poor reporting. It's sort of eastenders type level of 'two brothers fall out'

    There are a lot of serious issues for both labour and the country as a whole.

    How about dropping this nonsense and reporting the issues?

  • Comment number 25.

    22. At 7:29pm on 29 Sep 2010, badgercourage

    I hope you won't lose too much sleep worrying yourself about Dave's future prospects.

    A guy with direct access to the prime minister. The PM also happens to be his brother and owes him one for slinking off quietly.

    How much is that worth to the right political and/or business organisation?

  • Comment number 26.

    The week gets better for Labour's opponents! First Ed, now no David on the front bench.


  • Comment number 27.

    @21 jim3227

    You must avoid trying to be judge and jury as well as prosecuting council.
    It is a convenient but undesirable trinity.

  • Comment number 28.

    Of course David has to go if he ever wants to have the chance of being Leader. There would be no point of him being associated with a Labour Party that is doomed to failure under Ed. On the other hand if Ed's leadership was successful there is nothing in it for David.
    Why will Ed fail? Here is a guy who has little experience of the real world - wrote the last Manifesto - then tells us de did not believe in it - possibly decieved his brother about running as leader and toppling the disasterous Gordon - runs a leadership campaign to secure the loopy Union vote - then takes a completely different position in his leadership speech.
    Lets hope Labour will all be very happy in opposition because, becasue they are not going to see power in the first two decades of this century!

  • Comment number 29.

    I am out here in Brussels as we speak, playing politics for serious money for science with the deputy commissioner (Nellie Croess). The sooner we have someone serious playing for Britain, the better. We have great politicains, we have a potentially serious role in europe to play, there's serious cash at stake, and we always screw it up. The Gladstone (getting sidetracked by Disraeli, as foreign plenipotentiary) example was 160 years ago, guys; get a grip!

    I could do with all the political support I can find. David Miliband would have been good.

  • Comment number 30.

    "So does this mean Ed Balls will be chancellor?" - jobs @ 15

    No way, not until March 2012.

  • Comment number 31.

    Anyway,on a happier note, has Liam Fox "resigned" yet ?

  • Comment number 32.

    N014 Chevy,
    Sadly Suzie does get confused. In her contribution she talks about the forthcoming shambles of the new Labour leadership's period in opposition leading to Eds government, very strange.

  • Comment number 33.

    Good interview Mr Robinson and 10/10 plus gold star for calling this one right. Just feel that you overdid the brotherly feud thing a bit.

    Also would have liked you to have pressed Milli Major on the strategy aspect of his move.

    I still think Labour (Oldnew/Next/Nunu) is weaker without him. They could definitely afford to lose Balls and Burnham, but not David Milliband. Has Milli Minor drawn the Foot/Kinnock/Hague/Howard short straw? Ten years in opposition for Labour?

  • Comment number 34.

    How many blogs have we had on this - I've lost count. What a farce.

  • Comment number 35.

    18 Distant Traveller

    Now DT do you really think that an organisation that has been around for such a long time will "bow out" just because David Miliband has himself decided not to sit on the shadow cabinet?

  • Comment number 36.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 37.

    I'm sorry, but this story is headline news?

    Why?

    This is an opposition party at the beginning of a five year term. They have yet to make their mark, build their new policies and any of the rest of it.

    Who cares at this stage who is in and who is out?

    Oh, yeah, the Press do.

    The rest of the country, however, have more important things on their mind.

    Stop playing Soap Politics and get back to reporting proper news, BBC - that is what we pay you for.

  • Comment number 38.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 39.

    17. It wisnae me

    'A politician who doesn't change his mind is doomed to eternal failure.

    Try reading the speeches of the young Abraham Lincoln and you will find it hard to believe that this would be the man who would help to abolish slavery. He did what he could, when he could, but he recognised that until you have power you can achieve nothing'

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm fairly certain that elsewhere in your comment you criticised Nick Clegg for recognising that until one has power, nothing can be achieved. Some consistency, perhaps?

    Incidentally, I totally agree with your first point about politicians being allowed to change their minds. That being the case, I wonder why so many Labour supporters villify the Lib Dems for changing their position (i.e. seeing sense) on deficit reduction?

  • Comment number 40.

    Well it looks as if there could be trouble at mill.

    Ed is in real bother, Neil Kinnock is giving him advice.
    David has flown the coup.
    And he now has to pick a shadow cabinet.
    And what a motley crew he has to choose from.

    We surely will not have the Ed and Ed show, that would be just too funny for words. Even the Unions don't want to make a Balls of things.
    Although Ed could be blamed from ruining another family if Yvette gets the nod.

  • Comment number 41.

    Somebody on here mentioned 'poor old Fox', as in Liam Fox.

    Well, Fox is in some difficulty because the department that David Miliband was in charge of, which now has the listless William 'I'd rather be on my ranch in Nevada' Hague in place, namely the Foreign Office, apparently finds it impossible to write out a foreign policy paper which states its objectives for the next couple of decades.

    Without that paper, it is impossible for there to be any sensible strategic planning at the MoD.

    Maybe it is just as well that we, the general public, have no real idea what on earth these people are doing because from the fragments we get to hear about, it is not very impressive.

  • Comment number 42.

    Enough already. Yes this is news, but it's not headline news everyday for goodness sake! There is a world outside of the Labour conference. PLEASE MOVE ON.

  • Comment number 43.

    .
    In the last blog, Nick, I asked you to consider giving us erudition and political analysis .....
    .
    What happened ... Your next blog had no erudition, no analysis, NO COMMENT ! .... Not a single word!
    .
    Have you truly lost the skill of political discourse? I prefer to think you are just being lazy.
    .

  • Comment number 44.

    .
    Nick, this is the first time I have seen you unite the Left and the Right in your blog....

    Both wings agree that your blog is becoming 'lazy'.

    Please try to up your game.

  • Comment number 45.

    40. At 11:14pm on 29 Sep 2010, Chris London wrote:
    Well it looks as if there could be trouble at mill.

    Ed is in real bother, Neil Kinnock is giving him advice.
    David has flown the coup.
    And he now has to pick a shadow cabinet.
    And what a motley crew he has to choose from.

    We surely will not have the Ed and Ed show, that would be just too funny for words. Even the Unions don't want to make a Balls of things.
    Although Ed could be blamed from ruining another family if Yvette gets the nod.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    No, it will be called - The Two Ed's are better than One Show, or even The Eddy Edwards Show, now appearing at The Westminster Place, and just in time for the Christmas Panto Season as well.

    Now thats what I call good timing Ed. ED!, Come back.

  • Comment number 46.

    Chevy_Base 14

    No it is not your age that is causing your confusion, you should not be so hard on yourself, it is your inability to read.

    I am totally neutral on the issue of who the new Labour leader is, in other words, I do not really care. However it is plainly obvious to even ardent Labour supporters, I would have thought, that they have passed up a potentially good leader for a poor one. It is also pretty obvious that Ed Miliband did not win by playing fairly. Ed only won by pretending, though we do not know what he really stands for he has changed his mind so often, that he was the Unions best friend. David Miliband did run a reasonable campaign standing by decisions he made while he was in Government and setting out his vision for the Labour party. Therefore Ed did win, but David is the one who walks away not only with his integrity but also gaining respect for taking responsibility for his actions while he was in Government. That is a true winner to me, thus the post that I have written, the content of which you seem unable to grasp the meaning of.

  • Comment number 47.

    lefty10 19

    I am glad you thought my words were so good you had to repeat them, what more could I ask.

  • Comment number 48.

    #47 Susan-Croft

    Yes, I think your words should be quoted. Look at the way you ended #4 'Ed's government'. So he will win in 2015, will he? Or are you saying that David should play a really long game, by not being part of Ed's 2015 government, waiting for it to fail and then hoping that after 7 or 8 years in the background he will become his party's leader. Possible, I suppose. Is that what you meant? You should reread your posts and learn punctuation.



  • Comment number 49.

    30#

    ... and what a complete and utter disaster that freak would be as Chancellor. As bad, if not worse than Brown.

  • Comment number 50.

    Forget the Milibands (and Balls and Coop), we've got H winding up the show today. Just finished a universally acknowledged excellent stint as leader - clear to everyone she could have done the job permanently but took a far sighted view that the torch should be passed. Her equality agenda, once so controversial, is now bedded in as orthodox. Quite a legacy. And today the chance to make this speech. It's come together for Harriet. Not to get too excited but I'm expecting something off the scale - the political equivalent of the Elvis 68 Comeback Special. Except no black leather (I wouldn't imagine) and it's more a valediction than a comeback. Suggest we all tune in.

  • Comment number 51.

    Interesting....

    http://dizzythinks.net/2010/09/back-is-way-up.html

    This part of it might give our equality hounds something to chew on though...

    http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=7055

  • Comment number 52.

    50#

    Excuse me while I blow chunks....

  • Comment number 53.

    Boilerbill 48

    Bill sorry my posts do not reach your obvious high standards. I am sure a great deal of us on here will take note that you require perfection. Many of us do not have the time to reach the level you obviously expect. However, when someone sends a very rude post such as 14 was meant as, I think my post was fairly civilized in return. Post 47 by lefty10. again which you mention, was another sarcastic post, therefore I answered in pretty much the same way. I think it slightly churlish of you to criticize me, when there are so many other posts much worse.

    I have already contributed a few posts on the subject of Ed miliband, perhaps you should read them first and then write, I usually find this helps to understand what someone is saying.

    In any case, I have no idea how sucessful Ed Miliband will be in the eyes of the public. I can only say as others have, what I believe to be the truth. It is quite possible the public will be duped again, if they are, the they deserve all they get. If all that is required of a leader of any party, is to say what will make them popular and keep changed belief to achieve this, then Ed will be very successful.

    The distinct difference in tone in your usually moderate posts has given me food for thought I must say.

  • Comment number 54.

    I don't think DM had much of a choice really. Although the other leadership candidates may sit in it, he was much more of a challenge to EM becoming leader, and the familial connection just meant every time he had a sombre thought while in the same city as his brother it would be analysed intensively for signs of dissent (I presume this is why we also get those lovely clips of politicians beaming away with hilariously fake smiles which drop the instant a main camera shuts off - I'll bet it hurts after awhile). He seems to be really committed to the party, and while refusing to serve in his brother's cabinet could come off as having sour grapes over the whole affair, at the present time the alternative would have been worse for them, too distracting.

    Unlike others though I find it hard to see how he could be the very next Labour leader should EM run into trouble, notwithstanding the closeness of this contest. What's he going to say? 'My brother, whom I love and respect and thought would be a fine leader, has cocked things up royally and I am here to sought out the mess'. That wouldn't go over well.
    -------------
    Incidentally, I totally agree with your first point about politicians being allowed to change their minds. That being the case, I wonder why so many Labour supporters villify the Lib Dems for changing their position (i.e. seeing sense) on deficit reduction?
    ------------
    My word, yes. I know Labour are trying to entice disenchanted Lib Dems to them (with at least some success) and that at conference it behoves them to play to the crowd even more usual (there's less need to appeal to all of society), but I find it frankly quite comical how several of the shadow ministerial team seem to be more aggrieved at the so called betrayal of their supporters by the Lib Dems than even upset Lib Dems (because compromise to get some things you want rather than none is betrayal, right? Except if they had compromised say, on ID cards with Labour, of course), though in fairness the deficit changearound did come out of left field a bit and come as a shock.

    'The Lib Dems, those betrayers, have not done what their supporters wanted. Their supporters should instead vote Labour, who, er, also would not do what those supporters voted for(some, but not all), but let's forget that, and also forget that they would not have got all they voted for had we been in Coalition with the Lib Dems either. Everyone knows Lib Dems are just Labour with some silly bits stuck on anyway, so join us'
    ------
    Anyway,on a happier note, has Liam Fox "resigned" yet ?
    -----------
    Given how well Labour have proven it is possible to have violent disagreement at the highest level for 10 years without leading to resignation, I doubt it, though I suspect Liam Fox does have less of a personal base within his party to provide security, so worth wathcing out for. With the media circus having been lapping up the 'family feud' of sorts between the Milibands, I don't think he or Cameron would want that right now though. He'd probably save it for when cuts are actually announced were he to go, rather than distract from what is an intersting but mostly unimportant Labour focused soap opera (especially unimportant if DM makes a comeback at some point)

  • Comment number 55.

    No40 Chris,
    Can you remember the advice Kinnock gave to Tony. Some people think it played a part in him trouncing at least four Tory leaders.He just toyed with 'Del Boy' Dave during their encounters.

  • Comment number 56.

    50. At 08:42am on 30 Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:
    Forget the Milibands (and Balls and Coop), we've got H winding up the show today. Just finished a universally acknowledged excellent stint as leader - clear to everyone she could have done the job permanently but took a far sighted view that the torch should be passed. Her equality agenda, once so controversial, is now bedded in as orthodox. Quite a legacy. And today the chance to make this speech. It's come together for Harriet. Not to get too excited but I'm expecting something off the scale - the political equivalent of the Elvis 68 Comeback Special. Except no black leather (I wouldn't imagine) and it's more a valediction than a comeback. Suggest we all tune in.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So let me get this correct, what you are saying is;

    Forget we have just elected a new leader. Some one the party and politicans did not vote for but the unions did.

    We need to focus on an at best mediocre stand up, oh sorry stand in. And by what standards are you comparing her to. If you are benchmarking her against poor old Gordon I fear that you have set your sites too low. She has over the last few months only been saved by the fact that most attention has been focused on the coalition. I cant think of one time when she has shone. However I can think of many when she has made a hash of things.

    God help you if she is the best you have to offer. Oh I forgot Kinnock is back and this time he means business. After all he has got the party back.

    I am more than happy to donate fifty of your pounds to the Labour Party if they can go six months without infighting starting. What, you say there are already briefings going on, well my fifty appears safe.

    And to conclude this rant, did anyone bother to stay up to watch the late night coverage of the conference. I see that brother, sister and comrade are back in favour now that Nu Labour is dead. Mandy must have been turning in his crypt.


  • Comment number 57.

    51 Fubar

    I'm sure that DC's door is always open for the likes of JR to pop in for a quick chat.

    But the article itself has some importance. The Tories and Lib/Dems have different views on immigration, highlighted by VC. It will be interesting what the Tories have to say about immigration at their forthcoming conference. Whatever, they are now the Parties in power and if they do not get a hold of the immigration issue, it's bound to be back as a main topic of debate, come the next election. The clock's ticking, lets see what they come up with.

    Are you feeling confident?

  • Comment number 58.

    "Excuse me while I blow chunks" - FS @ 52

    Mmm, well that is rather your default setting, I suppose. Certainly "blowing" and certainly chunks. Chunks of narrow, class based politics.

    Which is the thing I'd like you to reflect on over the next few days and weeks.

    By constantly pushing the ridiculous line that, whilst anyone can be loud and proud as a tory, to be a "genuine" socialist one has to be working class; have been born (as Susan likes to put it) on the wrong side of the tracks ... by pushing this, you perpetuate a kind of rigid "NCB" view politics which is outdated and very sterile.

    Now okay, I'll give you the quick and cheap retort, "but what about all your "vacuous poshboys" nonsense" ... fine, I accept a glancing blow on the side of my scooter re that (even though not remotely the same, since my problem there is with symbolism and privilege and the mediocrity of the establishment) ... but okay. Over and above this, however, you have self recriminatory thoughts to think, and difficult questions to answer.

  • Comment number 59.

    My my, whats this?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316353/BBC-news-stars-snub-political-strike-plan-black-Tory-conference.html

    Nick Robinson in "wrestling with conscience" shocker?

    Porquoi Nicholas? What is there to wrestle about?

  • Comment number 60.

    #50 Saga

    I think that post was meant for a different blog?

    Please tell me it was?

    You should wrap up a bit warmer on that scooter of yours - I think you're running a bit of a fever !!

  • Comment number 61.

    57#

    In a word.... not really. I know thats two words, but....

  • Comment number 62.

    50 Saga

    Perhaps you are right, Harriet will make her comeback telling us all why she supported and voted for the Iraq war and now agrees with Ed Miliband that it was a mistake.

    Perhaps she will talk about all the mistakes she now admits Labour made during their years in Government, which she supported at the time. She is in Eds camp now and he says they made errors of judgement.

    Or even, she may talk about womens rights which only apply to some of the British population, minorities are excluded from this.

    She may even talk about working class people which she knows nothing about, and come to the same conclusion as you did, that they were just born on the wrong side of the tracks.

    One thing is for certain though, it is not going to be as exciting as the Elvis comeback in 68. It might be about as interesting as an Elvis comeback now.



  • Comment number 63.

    59 and 61 (uncleared)

    More chunks coming! Duck!

  • Comment number 64.

    Sagamix 58

    Don't try that one, you told me, that because I was born working class I was born on the wrong side of the tracks.

    Anyone can look it up in your posts if they wish to.

  • Comment number 65.

    OLM @ 39

    There is a difference between admitting with hindsight that you made a mistake and changing your mind. Both are OK by me (for what it's worth) although some changes of mind are too sudden and convenient to be convincing. It is fine for Theresa May to decide that she no longer objects to gay marriage: she has moved with the times and I welcome her more enlightened position. It's harder for Coalition MPs to distance themselves from comments they made only weeks ago during the election campaign. They can brazen it out, but it's uncomfortable for them.

  • Comment number 66.

    61 Fubar

    Me neither, but it will be fun listening to the rhetoric of ALL the parties on this issue and who's trying to convince us that they have the problem under control.

    Turkey next up!

  • Comment number 67.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 68.

    "I am more than happy to donate fifty of your pounds to the Labour Party if they can go six months without infighting starting."

    I'm more than happy to donate fifty of Saga's finest pounds to the party as long as they DO keep the infighting going for more than six months!

  • Comment number 69.

    No59 Fubar,
    Do you think workers should take industrial action to defend their pensions? No doubt the scabs will be hailed as heroes by sections of the press.

  • Comment number 70.

    63#

    I see my reputation precedes me. I'm in good company then. :o)

  • Comment number 71.

    Fubar

    Now you got your hands on it. Keep it safe and polished.

    http://order-order.com/2010/09/30/guido-outbid-for-gordon-brown-memorial-plaque/

  • Comment number 72.

    May as well get Gordon Brown back, there's nothing to lose. Shadow chancellor?!

    Of course, the new team may surprise and provide a decent opposition, goodness only knows we need one now more than ever.

    That'll take time though, and until then it's time the media moved on and started focusing on the govt again (a few important issues have passed by relatively unnotived...Ashcroft (again!), Lord Taylor pleading not guilty of fraud, Warsi on the warpath, Dr Liam Fox's leaks etc...)

  • Comment number 73.

    I suspect that David had little choice but to retire to the back benches, and if a high profile job opportunity arises outside of Westminster...
    The press have presumably now finished with this brotherly split and now will be looking for the next possible split, real or imagined. Perhaps it will be the coalition during the Tory conference, or perhaps one between Mr and Mrs Balls as the latter gets the job of shadow chancellor. If this happens perhaps the pugnacious Mr B will get defence, then Diane Abbot can take on education, Caroline Flint for womens' issues, Alan Johnson for constitutional affairs. But what roles for Peter Hain and Sadiq Khan who both need to be rewarded for services to the leader? Will one of them get to shadow the Home Secretary?

  • Comment number 74.

    46. At 06:46am on 30 Sep 2010, Susan-Croft wrote:
    "However it is plainly obvious to even ardent Labour supporters, I would have thought, that they have passed up a potentially good leader for a poor one."

    Yes, they neglected to carpe DM in more ways than one.

  • Comment number 75.

    67#

    There is absolutely NOTHING in that post that is not correct, moderators. NOTHING that is not already in the public domain.
    NOTHING that is or could be construed as slanderous, defamatory or libelous.

    Either send me an email of it so I can edit it removing the names or put it back up please. Otherwise we'll both be having another very long chat with the Central Committee chaps again.

    Thanks.

  • Comment number 76.

    62. At 10:06am on 30 Sep 2010, Susan-Croft wrote:
    One thing is for certain though, it is not going to be as exciting as the Elvis comeback in 68. It might be about as interesting as an Elvis comeback now.


    Have you seen him, Susan? Where?



  • Comment number 77.

    65. At 10:18am on 30 Sep 2010, pdavies65 wrote:
    =========================================================================
    That's OK then, So Red Ed's turn around on marriage is OK, he is just going with the flow, or is it opportunism. His apparent change of heart re the unions, or was that just opportunism. If he finds that his atheist beliefs are costing him support will have a road to Dagenham experience.

    Yes people can change their minds and views but so many in such a short time scale.

    Man of ethics, principles, beliefs, yes, but who's and when will depend on his audience. He is morphing into Blair, just without the charisma and the ability to capture his audience.

    Thank God for Neil Kinnock is all I can say.

  • Comment number 78.

    69#

    Truth be told Sout, I'm not sure they should. After all, after Brown & Robinson's billions-grabbing pension surgery in 1997, the rest of us who have worked in the private sector never got any such choice when it came to our pensions, did we?

    We just had to lump it.

    The media can think what it likes. There are other news channels available. I'll probably just tune into Channel 4 or Sky instead. Or maybe even ITV. That Bradby geezer seems like he can call it pretty straight.

    It (the choice of strike action) would probably have had more resonance with the public if it had happened during the Libs conference as well. Otherwise it just seems blatantly partisan.

    Mind you, thats now got me thinking. If Labour, had they been re-elected, had been forced to make cuts that also brought this particular union grievance to the fore, would they have dared to have declared strike action during the Labour conference?

    Maybe they would have... but I somehow have my doubts...

  • Comment number 79.

    And so Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition wind up a characteristicaly tribal conference.

    Everyone is beaming. Trade union leaders have managed to get themselves caught shouting 'rubbish' at their new hero. David has managed to get himself caught annoyed with Harriet. The new Dear Leader has made the usual series of long dated empty promises and pledges not to be anything like those nasty baby eaters in blue.

    But what happens next? The rifts are obvious, the lack of policy is glaring, the renewed personality cult is cringe worthy.

    Someone will have to deal with new allegations of electoral impropriety as Baroness Warsi is the last person to make such a claim and not be prepared to substantiate it.

    And the vexed question of brother Ed's election will never go away.

    It's a great time to be a Tory....
    And the English will vote for this assassin.

  • Comment number 80.

    #69 Whilst I agree somewhat with your sentiments (workers striking to protect their rights) I think it should be put into context

    There is a massive hole in the BBC's pension fund - if it can't be filled then they HAVE to make changes. The only way they can fill it is to increase the license fee, this is absolutely wrong. My private pension has taken a massive loss over the last few years - are you going to top it up to a level that I think is OK? Would anyone else pay into my pension just because I think I want a better one?

    No

    I agree that strike action can and should be used for certain points, but for changes in the pension scheme this isn't valid, sorry but it just isn't. If they were scrapping the entire scheme this would be different - but they aren't, they just want to bring it in line with what is affordable and sensible

    The timing is obviously politically motivated - why not in 6 weeks time? Why not last week?

  • Comment number 81.

    No56 Chris,
    The 'Unions'did not have a vote.However, tens of thousands of individuals did, they took part in a secret ballot in the comfort of their own homes.Do you understand?

  • Comment number 82.

    "Her equality agenda"

    In case people are wondering what agenda this is that Saga's beloved HH stands for, my understanding is that it is "Equal rights for husbands of strident screeching second rate Labour politicians".

    Saga,

    We are STILL waiting* for your comments of the hypocrisy of the 'Dromey shoe-in' episode and the more recent 'I strongly support anything the current leader says' incident.

    Now, I accept that the latter was good policy under the old Soviet Union but shouldn't we expect better?

    Please feel free to totally ignore the serious points and respond only to the frivolous 'screeching' point.

    *obviously we're doing something else while we wait.

  • Comment number 83.

    Just finished another exciting seminar given to clients about tax. I like to give practical examples to clients to show them that any concept that the tax system is 'fair and just' and so any legal planning you can do to mitigate the amount you pay is somehow an abhorrent crime akin to genocide is a fallacy we should leave only to deranged lefties.

    I liked this one....

    Suppose you're an employer, trying to save a bit of money and you need to buy a company car for a salesman. You buy a six year old Mondeo that cost £20,000 new (which you couldn't possibly afford) but is now worth just £4,000. You hand over the car to your salesman with a full tank of petrol (cost £70) and strict instructions that from now on, you'll only reimburse fuel costs at HMRC approved rates for business miles only. The salesman drives 18,000 miles a year, 16,000 on business trips.

    The employer tries to use his accountant as little as possible. He's been told by some left-wing pub bore that all they get up to are all sorts of dodgey tax wheezes.

    Anyone like to guess how much tax and NIC the Government would collect from you and the employee over the next 3 years for the predominantly business use of a battered old car worth £4,000? Not the taxable benefit, the actual tax/NIC.

    a) £555
    b) £1,300
    c) £2,455
    d) £5,650
    e) £12,355

  • Comment number 84.

    76. Its_an_Outrage

    62. At 10:06am on 30 Sep 2010, Susan-Croft wrote:
    One thing is for certain though, it is not going to be as exciting as the Elvis comeback in 68. It might be about as interesting as an Elvis comeback now.

    Have you seen him, Susan? Where?
    ===========================================

    I remember pdavies65 reported seeing him in a launderette last year, tumble drying his stage outfits. Apparently they shake, rattle and roll in the tumble driers.


  • Comment number 85.

    It now appears that 10% of the votes were not counted. A remarkable 36,562 votes were rejected and deemed "spoilt" because members failed to notice and/or ignored the new and small ofa box at the bottom of the ballot paper, which they were required to tick.

    At the close of the Labour Conference I'm left feeling that the Miliband bros are more happy with eachother and with the outcome of the Labour leadership results than we have been led to believe.

    The apparent division or feud between them re the Iraq war may well be just the charade needed and created by them to keep themselves as much as possible in the limelight and the public domain. More importantly, it also creates the required illusion of distance and division for Ed from his bro's foreign policy agendas.

    The feud gives more credence to Ed's insistence that he will lead the Labour Party toward renewal and change, whilst he draws a line under the Iraq war controversy. Ed constantly repeated the mantra of a New Labour Generation that will herald a change for good.

    We'll have to wait, scrutinise and see how much actual "newness" is embodied and carried forward in his policies, particularly the direction he takes the party in foreign affairs. How radically different will he be from his bro in this area?

    We know very little about both Milibands. So it was interesting and heart-warming to hear Ed speak of his roots in his Maiden speech and his emphasis on his loyalty and gratitude toward Britain.

    What he didn't tell us is that his Gramps - Samuel Miliband was born in Warsaw's Jewish quarter in 1895. He was a marxist academic who, allegedly worked for the Communists as a spy. His son Adolphe Ralph Miliband was listed as a conscientious objector. As Begium refugee, he came to London and apparently joined a Marxist network, headed by Litzi Freedman and her hubby at the time - Kim Philby - the double agent.

    As Foreign secretary, Dave M might well have been tempted to peep at MI5 records to glean if they had any info on his dad or gramps.

    Hilarly Clinton gave a gushing description of Dave after his meeting with her. She endorsed his foreign policy and is believed to be financed and kept in position by powerful Zionist backing.

    Interesting that Bill Clinton is currently over from the States offering "financial aid" to Ireland.

    As Foreign Secretary, Dave had jurisdiction over financing all intelligence ops abroad. He would have known about the 15 forged passports used by the Mossad killers.

    Dave defended the Iraq war, denied the indefensible torture by Brit and USA soldiers and the asset stripping of the country. One might wonder if there was any true intention to restructure the country and rebuild its infra-structure following its devastation. One might also ask if Dave put some pressure on the BBC to spin the Israeli attack on the Palestine aid convoy.

    Dave and Ed might not be Red Commie Marxists but what if any are their "Hasbara" links and loyalties? And how might that influence their foreign and fiscal policies?

    Will Ed be influenced by his bro Dave and perhaps sanction war on Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine?

    Will he recommend that Israel enter the EEC next year as part of the Zionist's "Roadmap"?

    Is Ed truly his own man? We'll have to wait and see.

  • Comment number 86.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 87.

    Robin @ 79

    Interesting to get the Tory perspective on the Labour conference. From Labour's perspective, the conference went pretty well. David M's mutterings to Harriet were understandable. As Tory journalist Danny Finkelstein said, let's not start labelling every human reaction as a gaffe - otherwise how can we complain if our MPs behave like automata?

    A bit of heckling from the unions won't do Ed's credibility any harm; quite the reverse.

    Party conferences are never very edifying when it comes to policy, and there are always a few tensions around the fringes. As we may well see at the Tory conference.

    You seem confident the English will vote for Miliband. Let's hope so, eh?

  • Comment number 88.

    69 IPGABP1

    Do you think workers should take industrial action to defend their pensions? No doubt the scabs will be hailed as heroes by sections of the press.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sounds like the Tooting Popular Front is alive and well.

    Those who choose to exercise their own judgement on whether to work are to be applauded.

    Free thinking, we like that don't we?

  • Comment number 89.

    81. At 11:43am on 30 Sep 2010, IPGABP1 wrote:
    =========================================================================
    Funny how they had such a low turn out then. The unions are now more of a closed shop than ever. And yes, I have experience and have worked with them recently. All fine until they weren't going to get their own way. Then it was not a very nice place to be.....

  • Comment number 90.

    The BBC reports - Commons official Gibson jailed over false MP claims.
    =========================================================================
    How does he get punished but all the politicans get let off Scot free. This is a travesty, not that he got punished but rather the politicans weren't.

  • Comment number 91.

    So the Miliband soapie draws to an end. I suspect there's a follow-up series in the making for the not too distant future. And perhaps a spin-off series with the Balls-Coopers.

    Meanwhile Nick will have some time on his hands. Until the government spending and defence reviews throw up a few more dramas.

  • Comment number 92.

    How about a new version of the Red Flag, for Not-Red-Ed?

    "The people’s flag is palest pink
    It’s not as red as most folks think
    We don’t want people all to know
    What Socialists thought of long ago
    Don’t let the scarlet banner float
    We need the middle classes’ vote
    Though Liberals scoff and Tories sneer
    We sing The Red Flag once a year"

  • Comment number 93.

    '80. At 11:33am on 30 Sep 2010, mightychewster wrote:
    #69 Whilst I agree somewhat with your sentiments (workers striking to protect their rights) I think it should be put into context

    The timing is obviously politically motivated - why not in 6 weeks time? Why not last week?'


    Might I direct you here for possible answers, if not from the quarters they should be:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/09/impartiality_is_in_our_genes.html

  • Comment number 94.

  • Comment number 95.

    #84 SP

    Must try harder Strictly - that should have come with a bad joke warning!

    And anyway, wasn't that one Bill Haley??

  • Comment number 96.

    Pdavies

    Your usual one sided view of events.

    People have been picking up on misquotes for a lot longer than this conference.

    There's no such thing as society - endlessly misquoted.

    Suddenly we are not supposed to do it with little Ed.

    Are you beginning to feel sorry for him - you should; he'll never win an election.

  • Comment number 97.

    andy @ 82

    "Saga, We are STILL waiting* for your comments on the 'I strongly support anything the current leader says' incident."

    Just manners, wasn't it? Cheering on the new leader. Bit like if you invite me over to your place one day (soon?) and give me the guided tour. "What a lovely patio that is, Andrew!" I'll exclaim (with a secret little wink at my trendy new, progressive girlfriend ... who'll wink back).

    And then we'll probably have a drink.

    Speaking of manners/etiquette, somebody famous has passed away today and we should say something nice about them. Tony Curtis, co-star, with Roger Moore, of one of Susan's favourities ("The Wealth Creators") - still repeated on UK Gold - who, despite starring in that load of reprehensible and reactionary tosh, was a noted, life long supporter of gun control and opponent of a flat rate tax. An anti Charlton Heston as regards politics. So, all good, and we should remember him for this - also, less famously but worth a mention, as being in the "screwball" comedy Some Like It Hot, with Jack Lemmon and the Barbara Windsor of her age ... Marilyn Monroe.

  • Comment number 98.

    #50 HH eqaulity agenda is part of the reason you were voted out.

    Fancy taking you scooter up against some BSA's then ?

    Oh yeah BSA's Made in England.

    Where was your scooter made then ? Italy ?

  • Comment number 99.

    Insidermole @ 85 wrote:

    Will Ed be influenced by his bro Dave and perhaps sanction war on Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine?


    >>

    The answer to this question is clearly no, so I'm not sure why you ask it.

    A more pertinent question might be, why are you peddling tired old conspiracy theories about Zionist networks?

    I'd be interested to know the exact mechanism by which the powerful Zionists you refer to manage to keep Hilary Clinton in her position. Did they keep Bill in his position too? Are these swivel-eyed puppet masters with hooked noses pulling the strings of all the major world leaders? If so, why doesn't somebody do something before it's too late?!

  • Comment number 100.

    Andy 83

    And how much does an an accountant charge a struggling business to provide this information.

    I am due to visit mine next week. Started covering myself in Neet spray already.

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.