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.
3 comments:
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.
Guano
Post a Comment