Options
How Did Ed Stab His Brother In The Back?
koantemplation
Posts: 101,293 Forum Member
✭✭✭✭
According to the Tories (in a low blow) Ed Miliband stabbed his brother in the back to get elected as Leader of the the Labour Party, but as far as I can tell he was elected under the rules of the Labour party, which allows for Union block voting.
This just seems like a cheap and nasty slur from the Tories.
This just seems like a cheap and nasty slur from the Tories.
0
Comments
Oh FGS. It's hardly the first time it's been said. What is with some on the left and their utter inability to accept any form of criticism unless they personally deem it acceptable?
It was even said by a young girl in a Q&A session with Miliband recently.
I'm just listening to Michael Fallon trying to justify the most recent attack on Milliband on R4. Naughtie asked what was backstabby about standing for the leadership and Fallon interjected with faux outrage "against his brother!"
It's rather pathetic and desperate
I'm with Fallon, he is correct, the situation now with ISIS and Russia could not have been predicted and we should have a deterrent. And Miliband would do a deal with Sturgeon if it meant his getting into power. We all know that. The Russians are already patrolling our waters daily.
Boy don't you just love grown up politics that concentrates on the issues.
He would never have stood if he hadn't already secretly got the backing of the Unions and Labour leadership elections are a farce with some people getting nine votes each.
Either way its the sort of thing that has massive blowback potential.
Despite labour insisting there will be a nuclear deterrent and that there won't be a deal with the SNP.
Apart from that you are correct - well except the Russians aren't patrolling our waters daily and I can't see how having nukes has prevented ISIS or Russia being Very Nasty People.
If Ed hadn't stood then he'd have been accused of some form of nepotism and David would have been dome anointed king
Criticism is fine as long as it's based on fact.
See my first comment above.
Even Blair and Brown agreed not to fight for the leadership. So why couldn't two brothers.
David also won the party members and MPs section - Ed only won with the votes of big unions some of whom sent out vote Ed leaflets with the ballot papers (i.e. Not an impartial process).
Maybe you could do that to your sibling - but I doubt most people would. That is the issue!
Rolleyes.
So siblings can't compete with each other?
He won the election fair and square. There was no back stabbing.
What, like "the NHS isn't safe with the Tories?" Give me a break...
It's a metaphor. And also a cliché. Just like your comment here. That said, what isn't factual? That Miliband didn't shaft his brother? That getting rid of a nuclear deterrent wouldn't put the UK's security at risk?
See my answer...
So not really worthy of repetition then?
These are opinions, not facts.
...and obviously you yourself wouldn't have done anything hypocritical by, for example, personally attacking David Cameron in this forum?
Alas, the world is full of metaphors and clichés. And I'm as guilty of them as anyone (and your opening line is a corker). What I'm not guilty of, thank God, is dictating terms under which people are allowed to express themselves.
As are 99% of all posts here. Shall we disregard them too? Opinions based on facts are, oddly enough, valid. It's opinions that have no basis in fact that you need to be wary of.
So what? The unions were part of the rules and he won it fair by square. Ed won the votes of union members, normal working people. That shows they thought more of Ed than of David.
So what if David put his name in first? It wasn't his god forsaken right to lead the Labour Party and he should've took it like a man instead. He could've helped Ed out by saying long ago Ed didn't stab him in the back but instead he remains silent and bitter instead of lending his support. Probably wants a Tory win!
Do weak people stab others in the chest then?
Ask their mother - it split the family and she was very upset.
I would not do that to a brother or sister - maybe your family is more dysfunctional? You would sit down and agree who was running - as Blair and Brown even did - and let them run.
PS Ed basically copied his brother in everything he did - same school, same degree course, same college at same university - Oxford fine but there are 30 plus colleges you could have picked, became a SPAD, then an MP, then a minister and Cabinet minister and then ran for leader. Just all odd. Ever seen the film single white female?:D
What I don't understand is why it is necessary to distract from the fundamental issue by raising the matter in conjunction with an election in another political party five years ago.
We might as well be going back to the question of whether the Tories stabbed Rab Butler in the back when Macmillan & Home were chosen (note not elected) over him on two occasions...not just as leader of the Party but as PM too since they were in power.
And...in the interests of raising a bit of scandal/familial nonsense...suggesting in Macmillan's case it was reward for keeping schtum for years about the fact his wife was being rogered all ways till Sunday for years by a bisexual fellow Tory MP who in his later years switch his affections to members of the Kray gang.
;-)
David is almost certainly the biggest arsehole in that family:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2870886/Hypocrisy-lies-guilt-Red-Ed-s-brother-David-Miliband-exposed-cover-Britain-s-secret-involvement-torture-terror-suspects.html Given his links to torture, I'm not surprise Ed wanted to stand against him and move the party away from the toxic New Labour era.
I've seen lots of people who like David more than Ed though: They're all Tories.
I thought stabbing someone in the back was ruthless whilst stabbing someone in the chest was attempted murder?
I remember before the general election when Ed Miliband was being mentioned as a possible candidate I thought he would be a better choice than his brother, although at that time I had hoped that Yvette Cooper would stand. She'd had won if she had but rather bizarrely let that untrustworthy husband put himself forward (and who unsurprisingly lost early on).
But my mate was able to vote for him twice. And I believe Harperson had 3 votes.
I assume this is Labour's version of "fair and square" democracy?
About as warped as their version of everything else.