The return to the fold last weekend of Simon “Enoch was right” Heffer was typical of the genre: “Labour will let Red Ed lose, then simply dump him” he harrumphed. Mil The Younger was “dismal”, those “grandees” were considering his fitness to lead the Labour Party, and “In the latest opinion poll, Labour has 37 per cent and the Tories 34”. It sounded convincing to some. But it was weapons grade bullshit.
Then I 'it that Cameron wiv a cosh this big, lads!
The preposterously puffed-up Hefferlump was not alone: Dan Hodges, the Colonel Nicholson of the Labour Party, told how Miliband was less popular even than Corporal Clegg, so that was, well, a bit like Robert Mugabe! Ha ha ha! He’s useless! He got egg on his face! Rubbish! Red Ed! Odd Ed!
I'm sorry, he hasn't a clue ...
And the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines sneered “If Labour abstains on tomorrow’s vote, can Ed Miliband seriously be their candidate for Prime Minister in 2015?”, reflecting those mythical “sources” available only to The Great Guido, while his odious tame gofer, the flannelled fool Henry Cole, snarked “Anyone done the obvious Miliband Syria soundbite yet?”
... and neither has he
What fun they were all having, laying into Miliband for having the qualities that they had projected onto him. And the problem with projecting attributes onto people without bothering to find out what they are really made of is that those doing the projection are likely to look very foolish when reality intrudes, as it did when Young Dave took a call from the Labour leader yesterday afternoon.
And then reality has to intrude
Miliband spelt it out plainly and firmly to Cameron: before Her Majesty’s Opposition would consider supporting the Government on the Syria business, the UN weapons inspectors had to complete their work and report back, and then there had to be another Commons vote. Cameron rejected this. Less than two hours later, he had caved in, and had been forced to accept Miliband’s position.
Worse, it is now being reported in the Times – a Murdoch paper – that someone in Government (for which read the occupants of either 10 or 11 Downing Street) had railed at Miliband, calling him a “f***ing c***” and a “copper bottomed shit”, thus confirming that those educated at Eton College and St Paul’s School have moved on from calling their opponents “cads” and “bounders”.
All of which begs the question: just who is “Weak, weak, weak” here? Who’s the leader not in control of his own party (there are, apparently, as many as 80 Tory MPs unhappy with the idea of rushing to launch missiles at Syria)? Who has ended up looking Prime Ministerial, and who is looking childish and petulant? And why have all these supposedly clued-up pundits got Miliband so spectacularly wrong?
Yesterday afternoon was the moment that Ed Miliband took a big step towards 10 Downing Street. And it was the clueless pundits who got egg on their faces.
Hard to disagree with that.
The rightwing punditry in particular has not got much right at all since 2010.
To be fair to the pundits in question - did I really say that? - one good call is a start, but "weak" is a fair summary of most of Mil-minor's tenure
For these pundit,s a strong leader is someone like Blair who demands that Iraq let in weapons' inspectors and then demands that we invade Iraq before the results of the inspections are in. For these pundits, a strong leader is someone like Blair who claims that it was right to invade Iraq even when the original justification was hopelessly wrong. Like Michael Gove, they are in love with Blair because of the way that he seemed to get away with misleading the public.
Post a Comment