Labour leader gives 2p to a beggar.

This as it was all over the forums yesterday and sonofasailor seems to have missed it. The tweets are worth a read.

On his way to deliver a speech, the Labour leader first passed the woman in a green headscarf.

Realising photographers were present, he doubled back. But in a toe-curling encounter, he failed even to make eye contact as he leant towards her... and appeared to drop just 2p into a cup.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2816394/Beggars-t-choosers-eh-Mr-Miliband-Toe-curling-encounter-sees-Labour-leader-drop-just-2p-homeless-woman-s-cup.html

We on the left are waiting on a great leader.....I'm not sure Ed Milliband is that person.

But I like Ed. He is in a tough spot. He can't just hang out in the pub with a fag dangling from his lip spouting populist catchphrases like your guy. 

Could be that he only had 2p on him. Could be that he didn't notice her right away. How much do you routinely give beggars, then?

He can't just hang out in the pub with a fag dangling from his lip spouting populist catchphrases like your guy.

Hahaha

Could be that he didn't notice her right away. How much do you routinely give beggars, then?

More likely he decided to use it as a photo opportunity and forgot how sharp the cameres were. We still don't know if he actually put his 2p in the cup. Just loved the way he wouldn't look at her in case he caught her poor.

That Labour run council asks people not to give money to beggars.

We on the left are waiting on a great leader.....I'm not sure Ed Milliband is that person.  

Too late for that, Labour is not the patch on the party it use to be. They use to have decent MPs such as the likes Frank Fields MP. As one jouno put it, instead of Labour getting MPs who want to serve the public, they are now Oxford graduates who see being an MP as a career move.

Ed did make a massive error after the Scottish vote, when he agreed to England having it's own parliament just as Scotland has done for years. What an error by him.

But, just hours later, he issued a statment to say he didn't agree to England having it's own parliament after all. He forgot that people living in England should be kept poor or in debt by using the Scottish MP votes on English only matters; just as they did when Labour used their Scots MP to vote in University fees for the English children but not for the Scottish children. Without their Scots MPs staying behind and voting that Friday afternoon (usually they were on their way home at that time on a Friday) they wouldnt have had enough votes to pass that law.

The amount of amateur-hour stupidity among UK politicians is staggering.  Whether it's Miliband trying to choke down a bacon sandwich, Cameron not knowing how much bread costs, Clegg doing just about anything, or Farage and his buddies doing their "funny" Jamaican accents, it's as though none of them has any idea how they're perceived by the public.  (Farage probably does, but he seems to enjoy people thinking he's moron.)

What's worse is you can't tell what any of them stand for.  One of them releases a policy idea, and the others wait to see how people react.  If it's a popular idea, the others say "We'll do that, too!"  If it turns out people don't like the idea, the others jump on whichever party proposed it to say they're out of touch.  Aside from "holding/getting power," I don't know what any of their goals are.

(Ok, UKIP's other goal is "hating non-white, non-English people," but aside from that, I don't know how they'd plan to run the country.  Not that I care, because I'm not voting for that bunch of idiots, but it'd be nice if they thought "hating immigrants" wasn't enough of a political platform, and came up with some other ideas.)

What I wouldn't give for one of them to say what their party stood for, whether it was popular or not; to take a principled stand for once, and then back it up and try to convince people why they should agree.

The amount of amateur-hour stupidity among UK politicians is staggering.  

I would hate to have the media blackouts that the US has, start in the UK.

(Ok, UKIP's other goal is "hating non-white, non-English people," but aside from that, I don't know how they'd plan to run the country.  Not that I care, because I'm not voting for that bunch of idiots, but it'd be nice if they thought "hating immigrants" wasn't enough of a political platform, and came up with some other ideas.)

UKIP has many "non-white, non-English people" candidates and supporters. How can you miss that? Here is one of them
http://order-order.com/2014/05/21/ukip-candidate-stabbed-by-labour-supporters/

Miliband said his party got immigration wrong as they never thought about the impact it would have. Labour's mantra is British jobs for British workers; the last Labour leader even used that. Labour strongholds got the first BNP MEPs. Missed all that too?

That Labour run council asks people not to give money to beggars.

Sorry, was that meant to be a response to my question to you of how much you routinely give to beggars?

I would hate to have the media blackouts that the US has, start in the UK.

Not sure what you mean about media blackouts, and anyway I wasn't talking about how the politicians are covered by the media, I'm talking about their ham-handed attempts to "connect with the people."

UKIP has many "non-white, non-English people" candidates and supporters. How can you miss that? Here is one of them
http://order-order.com/2014/05/21/ukip-candidate-stabbed-by-labour-supporters/

Heh.  {sarcasm} Yeah, UKIP is a regular melting pot. {/sarcasm} Mate, I have no interest in having a discussion about the merits of any party over any of the others.  The point is they're all incompetent at getting their message across.

Miliband said his party got immigration wrong as they never thought about the impact it would have. Labour's mantra is British jobs for British workers; the last Labour leader even used that. Labour strongholds got the first BNP MEPs. Missed all that too?

I get it, you like UKIP and you don't like Labour.  I don't care about that.  What I'm saying is it would be nice to have a political system in which the goal of the parties involved wasn't winning the 24 hour news cycle.  I'd rather have them look a little farther ahead.

Democracy is a very strange thing. Was it Churchill himself that said it was the worst possible system, except for all the rest?

What we are seeing here, and in the US - and this seems clear to me - is that people are very divided.

What has upset me so about the Conservatives is that they have acted as though they have a clear mandate....and they don't. Given the nature of the British Constitution, I understand that they can move ahead by means of a coalition....but on such flimsy public support, shouldn't they have shown constraint?

I thought this was one of the better statements on the whole thing:

Well let's ask the girl:

'...he was the only one to have pity. I think in that moment he’s a nice person because he’s the only one who stopped.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2818133/I-live-5-day-says-beggar-aged-14-Miliband-gave-money-Girl-says-Labour-leader-dropped-60-70p-cup-impressed-man-suit-stop.html#ixzz3I0DZgI7N

Democracy is a very strange thing. Was it Churchill himself that said it was the worst possible system, except for all the rest?

What we are seeing here, and in the US - and this seems clear to me - is that people are very divided.

What has upset me so about the Conservatives is that they have acted as though they have a clear mandate....and they don't. Given the nature of the British Constitution, I understand that they can move ahead by means of a coalition....but on such flimsy public support, shouldn't they have shown constraint?

In fairness Tony Blair also talked of his mandate to govern despite barely 1/4 of those eligible to vote actually voting for him.

Truth be told when turnout in elections is so low it's not as if even a landslide victory is much of a mandate. When significant percentages of the electorate are sufficiently disengaged they aren't inspired to vote for any of the candidates it doesn't say much for the system.

In fairness Tony Blair also talked of his mandate to govern despite barely 1/4 of those eligible to vote actually voting for him.

That is a fair point.

I guess that is where Brand is coming from. The social anarchists and Nihilists espoused much the same thing back in the 1800's and the hippy 'turn on, tune in, drop out'....

I'm stumped. You end up either in hopelessness, a cynical bacchanalia or adopting some sort of 'tend your garden' type of thing....which is sending us down the road to extinction.

The amount of amateur-hour stupidity among UK politicians is staggering.  Whether it's Miliband trying to choke down a bacon sandwich, Cameron not knowing how much bread costs

So he was eating a bacon sandwich and didn't look that graceful in doing it, well blow me, that's it, how can I vote for his party?! I mean, it's ridiculous, who cares? Can we stop with the media fixation for always needing a "gotcha moment", if he's being followed by folks with cameras it's going to happen. I'm sure I don't always manage to eat a sandwich without trying to stop part of it falling out!
And for Cameron, I'd possibly be hard pushed to know how much bread costs if I wasn't doing the weekly shop - theres a few items that generally just go in the trolley (although I can say Morrisons in-store baked 400g granary is currently 2 for £1!)
The media are too fixated about soundbites and getting "that" photo.
With the luxury of having 24 news channels it's just generally used to rehash stuff every 20 mins rather than using the opportunity to do in depth reporting.

As for Farage, oh look he likes a beer, he's the sort of guy you could have a pint with - well, don't worry - there are enough small minded bigots in my local without me needing to seek him out, and I wouldn't vote for any of them either!

Rant over!