Wes Tender

I was quoting Letts, with as I say caveats of ifs and buts. So technically it is he who would be wrong, if indeed he is. Did you read the entire biography to ascertain what his views were on the Falklands? I would have thought that a political sketch writer like Letts would have done so before writing that, but maybe he didn't, or perhaps it was a matter of interpretation. A lot of political opinion is, you know. But if you and Verbal did indeed read the entire biography in order to spout forth authoratively on every facet of Miliband senior's life and political philosophy, then you are truly zealots.

I am indebted to Verbal and View from the Top for their assurances that Letts has got this wrong, that Miliband senior was not furious that we beat the Argie right wing dictator in defence of our fellow countrymen in the Falklands. I based my opinion, (with caveats of ifs and buts) on what Letts was reported as saying, but like those two, I ought to have read Miliband's biography verbatim so that I would be able to base my thoughts more precisely on what he actually said and furthermore what he actually believed, having undergone a total volte face in his mature years, to his youthful stance on his desire that losing a war would do us good. Aintforever: What kept me was having a life outside of this forum. It being the weekend, I like to spend time with family and friends, enjoying some leisure time. Is that a problem with you? Whilst we're at it, was it you who made the scurillous accusation that Thatcher only went to war with the Argies to enhance her reputation? I'll await your evidence to support that opinion.

Me? Did I make those accusations? I don't have to ask Campbell why he didn't sue the Telegraph. I'll just conclude that he feared that a court case would vindicate the Telegraph and blacken his name. Do you have an alternative opinion?

Surely if there was a case of libel to answer, then the cockroach Campbell would have sued the Telegraph for publishing that article.

Presumably you are referring to this:- "We have the bloke (Alistair Campbell) with Dr Kelly's blood on his hands touring the media outlets moralising , the bloke who smeared countless people, who bullied and lied for 10 years, deciding where the decency line is." In light of the accusations made against that cockroach Campbell in this article, I'd say that it was fair comment:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10192271/The-betrayal-of-Dr-David-Kelly-10-years-on.html

Oh, that's alright then. His stance is entirely justified because of his loathing of Margaret Thatcher. One can now clearly see how he might have been motivated to join the Navy during the War more because of his hatred of Hitler than his love for this country. How he must have been elated by every reversal our troops suffered during the Falklands campaign, the sinking of our warships, the killing of our soldiers, the indications that things were going badly and we might not be victorious. Mind you, he really must have been torn between his loathing of the Conservative Prime Minister and the tacit support that his wishes embodied for the Extreme right wing Argentinian dictator who began the war. And I'm grateful for your guidance, that Thatcher only took us into that war to enhance her reputation. And I thought that she had achieved a Parliamentary majority in favour, with the support of the opposition based on a matter of principle, that the population was almost entirely comprised of British citizens who deserved to be defended by their mother country.

I think I made this point earlier. It is entirely possible given his earlier views that he had motives other than just the patriotism that drove his fellow British shipmates. And yet the left line is that nobody who fought for their country could possibly hate it. Quite possibly he hated Hitler more than he loved Britain. And it is interesting to hear that R Miliband had been bitterly disappointed that we won the Falklands war. Apparently this isn't some idle conjecture, but was picked up from his Biography. If that is true, then it gives extra weight to any opinion that he hated Britain.

I fear for the cat. Are you going to kick it?

Refresh my memory on what the lie about Miliband's background was please. The only bit I recall being worthy of question was whether his father hated Britain and is that a lie about his background, or merely a debateably mistaken conclusion based purely on his attitudes towards the country that offered him an escape from Nazi tyranny?

Do you post that from the position of knowing what it is like to spend time in a mental hospital?

If I attacked Ralph Milliband's politics, it was from the perspective that politically I prefer the capitalist system to Marxist ideology and view his position from the opposite end of the political spectrum. He was entitled to his opinion, which you on the other hand have actually felt sufficiently qualified to label as wrong. Do I have to know his views on every facet of his politics, or is it sufficient to know what his beliefs are because he was a Marxist? I didn't myself attack his patriotism, you must be thinking of somebody else. I merely commented that I didn't appreciate him coming over here as a refugee and then plotting ways to overthrow the establishment that had offered him shelter from the Nazi tyranny. It smacks of ingratitude to me. But because we are quite a liberal country, we seem happy to allow all sorts of nasty people also to follow their own political agendas excusing it as the right to free speech, even though many would be shot or imprisoned for those views in their own countries. If you want to learn about the different types of anarchy and anarchism, then do your own research, I can't be bothered. I assure you that these different forms and definitions exist. PS I'm still waiting for your definition of politics.

Thanks for patronising me. I know perfectly well what Anarchy and Maxism are. There are many ways to define anarchy, as there are also many forms of it. Your example is not like mine one little bit, but see what you want to. I stick by my point. You haven't yet defined politics in a way that excludes Viking Warrior or me from being able to express an opinion because apparently we both don't know what we're talking about. You seem perfectly smug that you are qualified even to express an opinion that Milliband senior didn't know what he was talking about What qualifications are these by the way? Politics as an academic subject is not an exact science any more than economics is, therefore proving one's position as right or wrong is impossible and depends on one's viewpoint, rather than an arrogant you don't know what you're talking about response such as you employed. Politics as a cover-all label encompassing everyday experiences of such diverse things as education, health, immigration, taxation, foreign policy, etc, cannot preclude the man in the street from having an opinion just because they have no academic political studies behind them and in any event those teachings would be slanted by the political leanings of the tutor. So when you say that somebody is not qualified to speak about political matters, then by your narrow definition you disenfranchise the majority of the electorate.

So you don't see any connection between the teachings of Marxism and the possibility that Anarchism could ensue from the growing frustration that it could not be achieved by normal means and that an attempted revolution might result? How are you defining politics? If one of the Oxford definitions is "a particular set of political beliefs or principles" am I not entitled to hold my own beliefs and to discuss them without other qualification than having lived through the political landscape of the past 55 years that I was old enough to have some cognisance of what was going on around me?

Why? It is a reasonable point. If somebody as intellectually capable as Red Ralph supposedly was, had mild socialist leanings at 15 turned into full-blooded Marxism by Harold Laski at the LSE, then why wouldn't it be possible for others to be indoctrinated by their lefty lecturers, or for him to in turn indoctrinate his pupils when he was a lecturer himself?

Whoa! And all that hypocritical hot air about how underhand it was of the Mail to publish a photo of the late dead Red Ralph's grave.

You have just supported my assertion that this little episode will not be forgotten into the future, as you yourself have given anecdotal evidence of arguably a far more trivial event from a few years back. Whilst we're reminiscing about that last election, you've reminded me of the derogatory remarks that Brown made about a Labour party worker he met, when he was oblivious to the fact that every word could be heard and was recorded. Were the press within their rights to report that? Or would you label it as a blatant attempt by the gutter press to discredit him?

Really? It must be just me and Rod Liddle then. Unless you think that when he said "Ralph Miliband may have been a lovely dad, but he was a damaging and unjustly revered influence" he must have been talking of his love of Spurs or Polish foodstuffs or Jewish religious beliefs or something else not to do with politics. So you'll remember the article by the Mail, but overlook the essence of what it was about? You give more credit to the electorate than I do I'm afraid, when there are so many readers of the journalistic equivalents of comics that the Red Tops are. If there was not going to be any political fallout longer term from this debacle, then what would have been the point of it? I suspect that the decision was taken against a background of the ends justifying the means. Is the Daily Mail the Tory standard bearer? Then the Mirror must be the standard bearer for Labour then, associating Labour in the minds of the electorate as the party of envy and hypocrisy and of course dishonesty also, which is not the exclusive preserve of the Tories. But did Milliband distance himself from the disgraceful article in the Mirror when Thatcher died? I don't recall it. Amusing that just because Red Ken Livingstone's parents were Conservatives, this is proof positive that the Milliband boys must have been totally oblivious towards the opinions of their late father. I'd say that the exception proves the rule and that the majority of those in politics have followed the political leanings of their parents. Just to counter with an example, Hilary Benn followed his dad Wedgie, who in turn followed his father, all Labour MPs Just to illustrate how events like this are recalled years, even decades later, although I will no doubt be labelled as untypical of the electorate, I can remember lots of stuff about Labour. Harold Wilson telling us that the pound in our pocket was not devalued. The Welsh windbag Kinnock telling the Labour pre-election rally to go home and prepare for government. Sunny Jim Callaghan asking "what crisis" when he returned from his Caribbean holiday during the Winter of Discontent. The Trade Union bosses' beer and sandwiches at Number 10. Maybe this little episode won't have the legs of those, but even if it is called to mind as a lingering doubt about Milliband's Labour when people next enter the ballot box, it will have served its intended purpose.

I wouldn't personally accept the Guardian's explanations trying to put a positive gloss on a story that longer term will have damaged their darling boy. Maybe it robbed the Conservative party of headlines that will be forgotten in a month, even if half the electorate ever heard them. Ditto the other policy announcements, which of course will be reiterated before the next election anyway. Milliband's reputation will have been enhanced in the minds of Labour voters and some floating voters. But senior politicians from other parties also emerge with a boost to their integrity through their stances. Yes, people's memories will have been refreshed regarding the Mail's pro-Nazi stance before the war, but also about the Mirrors disgusting stance when Margaret Thatcher died, which being the more recent event is fresher in their minds. Events that happened during the war have been dulled in the minds of most, apart from those who lived through them. The majority of the electorate will not even know who Mosley was. But when all the furore over the Mail's crass handling of this affair has died down, it would be naive to believe that the essence of the story will be forgotten, that the Milliband boys' father was an extreme leftie and regardless of how far they try to distance themselves from his political ideology, the suspicion will persist that some of it will have been indoctrinated into them, just in the same way that Ralph Milliband was indoctrinated towards Marxism by his tutor at the LSE and he in turn will have indoctrinated many of his students when he was a lecturer in Politics too. So I stand by my assertion that the mud that sticks from this episode will be proven to be a blunt but effective weapon.

I don't feel remotely embarrassed, but if you want, you can feel embarrassment on my behalf if it makes you feel better. The inane smiley (I didn't know that there were different varieties) was for amusement at your description of him as some sort of new-age hippy of the political world.

So Ralph Milliband was widely misunderstood and should have been regarded as some sort of pioneer of New Labour? Or is that the old left, before Blair changed the window dressing and added the ad-man's dream tag "New" before it for a cleaner whitewash of what people like Milliband senior stood for?

Yes thank God for Churchill, who despite Ralph Milliband's positive acknowledgement of the part he played in our defeat of Nazi German, was exactly the privileged establishment figure that he despised. And presumably the sort of Tory politician and Prime Minister that you reckon would run a mile instead of fighting for his country. Yes, there were many Nazi sympathisers and many Marxist/Communist sympathisers too. Milliband senior was one of the latter, arguably not much better than the former, when you consider the attrocities committed by Stalin, whereas the majority populace who thankfully supported neither doctrine were the ones who gain most credit.

What has the date of publication of the biography to do with anything? Although it is fashionable to write biographies on minor celebrities before the ink has hardly dried on their birth certificates, this one was written at a time of Ralph Milliband's life when there was sufficient background on his life to provide significant material on his beliefs and his life up until then. Yes, it helps to balance the discussion, but only because the source of the article is from the polar opposite media mouthpiece. The reasonable view is probably somewhere in the middle. Having read both pieces for the sake of balance, I still give some credit to the Mail for giving me some background into what a rabid leftie Milliband's father was. I was not aware of it before and whereas I accept that it isn't the case that children necessarily follow the political beliefs of their parents, nevertheless there is influence from one's upbringing, whether the child follows their parents beliefs or takes an opposite stance because of them. Incidentally, like your Dad, I also disapprove of Gay marriage. That doesn't necessarily make me homophobic though, does it?

And when the article is in the Guardian and written by Ralph Milliband's biographer, then whereas it will undoubtedly put across the opposing viewpoint, it also needs to be taken with a giant pinch of salt.

The inference that something was a visionary decision is that it was bold, unexpected and produced a successful outcome, perhaps even against all odds. At least that is my understanding of the phrase. I'm with The9 and you on this; it is too early to conclude that the decision was visionary instead of being what another poster called "a punt", more a throw of the dice. For all that the progress made since NC's arrival has been spectacular, it is the contrasting comparison on how we have performed under Pochettino since he arrived against how his last team performed just before he left that makes the decision to appoint him such a bold one. It might turn out to be an inspired and visionary appointment, but that judgement cannot be made just yet