Labour leader gives 2p to a beggar.

So he was eating a bacon sandwich ...

Ignore the bacon sandwiches, and the cost of bread, and what someone looks like with a pint and a fag if you want, but these are the things that some people make their voting decisions on.  I'm not saying it's right that they do, and I'm not saying I base my decisions on that stuff, but it definitely happens, and politicians who fail at this kind of stuff don't get elected.

You shouldn't blame "the media" though, because they only react to what sells newspapers and television ad time.  If you want to blame someone, blame consumers.  We get the coverage we deserve.

We get the coverage we deserve.

I don't want to believe that. The media has a responsibility.

I don't want to believe that. The media has a responsibility.

"The media" is trying to win readership/viewership.  They write/report whatever achieves that goal.  While I'm sure there are individual people at every paper/network who want to tell interesting, in depth stories, the people paying the bills are less interested in that sort of thing.

But getting (kinda) back on track, if UK politicians don't want to get caught out by "the media" they ought to think in advance about what they'll do if they see someone begging on the street.  Otherwise, they risk dumb stuff like the story that started this thread.  I think it's a stupid story, and I think it's safe to say Tykeman does, too.  I wonder, though, if Sirius is drawing conclusions about the Labour Party based on stories in the Daily Mail.

  I think it's a stupid story, and I think it's safe to say Tykeman does, too.  I wonder, though, if Sirius is drawing conclusions about the Labour Party based on stories in the Daily Mail.

It was a "Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't" moment. I generally don't give money to people begging on the streets, however with all the cameras there Milliband obviously then thought "oh, I'd better put something in otherwise I'll look heartless"and just went in his pocket to grab some change - at that point what is the right amount? Maybe he put in all the loose change he had, I know I've done that at the supermarket when someone is bag packing for charity and then I find I only had 10p and I feel a right skin flint! If he'd put in a fiver they'd have said how out of touch he is with ordinary working people if he can afford to put that much in.
I've seen conflicting reports on this, some claim that he threw in "a handful of loose change" and that the camera just caught him having hold of a 2p.
Either way, what concerns me more is what politicians will do, long term, to help people who are having to resort to begging, what policies they can come up with, not how much they put in one person's cup.

I'm staunch Labour, leaning socialist, but I will defend Cameron when I see photo's that are done just to make him look an idiot.

...with all the cameras there Milliband obviously then thought "oh, I'd better put something in otherwise I'll look heartless"and just went in his pocket to grab some change - at that point what is the right amount?

That's what I meant a few posts back when I said they were amateurish.  Someone on Miliband's team should've thought about what they wanted him to do in that situation.  When Cameron went to the supermarket, it would've been smart for him not to act surprised by the cost of bread.  These guys are in the public eye every day, in a job where every action is dissected and analyzed, and it has been that way long enough that none of that should be a surprise; they should be better at it than they are.

I'm staunch Labour, leaning socialist, but I will defend Cameron when I see photo's that are done just to make him look an idiot.

The camera only takes the picture.  If Cameron (or anyone else) looks like an idiot, it's his own fault.

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 must admit as a rule I regard Russell Brand as the biggest waste of airtime out there but on the whole voting issue he has a point. I remember it being said that if voting actually changed anything we wouldn't get a vote, and often it seems like it's the equivalent of letting turkeys vote whether to live in the US in the runup to Thanksgiving or in the UK in the runup to Christmas. Or, to quote the line from Ghostbusters, "choose the form of the destroyer".

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.

A total overhaul of the whole system would be nice, but for as long as people on both sides of the political divide are attacking each other rather than the system that brought us into such a mess it's never going to happen.

Personally I'd like to see a minimum turnout requirement for an election to be valid. If any election failed to secure a turnout of, say, 66% of those eligible to vote it would be declared void and another election held. If nothing else it would encourage people to either get out and vote, or get agitated for candidates they could actually feel inspired to support with their vote.

It was a "Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't" moment. I generally don't give money to people begging on the streets, however with all the cameras there Milliband obviously then thought "oh, I'd better put something in otherwise I'll look heartless"and just went in his pocket to grab some change - at that point what is the right amount? Maybe he put in all the loose change he had, I know I've done that at the supermarket when someone is bag packing for charity and then I find I only had 10p and I feel a right skin flint! If he'd put in a fiver they'd have said how out of touch he is with ordinary working people if he can afford to put that much in.
I've seen conflicting reports on this, some claim that he threw in "a handful of loose change" and that the camera just caught him having hold of a 2p.
Either way, what concerns me more is what politicians will do, long term, to help people who are having to resort to begging, what policies they can come up with, not how much they put in one person's cup.

I'm staunch Labour, leaning socialist, but I will defend Cameron when I see photo's that are done just to make him look an idiot.

I must admit it's always good to see people defending those they disagree with when they are unfairly maligned.

I'm a Conservative voter and agree it's silly that the media is focussed on whether Ed Miliband knows how to eat a bacon sandwich or precisely how much he gives to a beggar. If I had cameras following me around the chances are they'd find something they could use to make me look like a numpty/skinflint/bad guy. Whether that was getting annoyed at something because I was having a bad day, or not buying the Big Issue because I truly didn't have any cash on me, or whatever else, it all detracts from the issues.

The trouble with so much of this kind of stuff is that (using the Ed Miliband example) it makes the rabid right froth at the mouth and use it as justification that Labour politicians are useless, while making the rabid left froth at the mouth and use it as justification that the right-leaning press is about mudslinging because they can't fault the policies.