Did Labour elect idiot Ed because he offered marginally more to the unions than his brother?
Strange, Labour were against AV but now they’ve changed their tune, a lot of their opposition seems to be for oppositions sake like a bunch of silly schoolboys, a lot of things they’ve opposed were similar policies to their own or extensions of things they started, it would be far more statesmanlike if they backed things that were good for the country or were close to their own ideas, at the moment I have no respect for them at all!
Considering Labour are owned/funded (80%) by the unions your posting would be right – the unions decided Ed was ‘more manageable’ by ‘them’ than his brother – who ‘might’ have caused trouble for them and their demands – he trying too distance himself from the union demands to appeal more too the voters – it proves the point when Ed fronted the recent union protest. Miliband supports the AV because he see’s trouble in getting ‘re-elected’ on his own – so a coalition with ‘anyone’ has to be the way forward for him and his party. Miliband looks a ‘very-weak’ leader – its not his fault – its his demeanor – he just doesn’t look right for the job – he looks ‘confused and unsure’ of himself all the time – he will lose votes for the Labour party in the future – and his ‘brother’ didn’t look anymore appealing. I suppose Labour had little choice in the leadership election – either ED (wallace&gromit) Milliband or Balls (the discredited bully boy and loose cannon).!!
