David Miliband, the Private Pike of Politics, has fled the country.
The BBC, unlike with cuddly Boris Johnson whom they find ‘a nasty piece of work’, can’t find a nasty word to say about him other than he didn’t quite have it within himself to wield the axe on Gordon Brown’s Prime Ministerial career.
Peter Oborne in the Telegraph thinks he can help the BBC out in digging some dirt:
David Miliband a colossus? He’s a greedy failure in a cosmic sulk
The political breed the Labour MP represents has done extraordinary harm to the nation’s governance
Perhaps I could offer a few reminders of what any BBC interviewer could ask Milibland about:
On the R4’s ‘Great Lives’ Miliband said terrorism could be both justifiable and effective:
Asked by presenter Matthew Parris whether there were any circumstances in which terrorism was justified, Mr Miliband said: ‘Yes, there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, and yes, there are circumstances in which it is effective.’
How about a Labour champion of the poor wangling a low tax rate for himself?:
How David Miliband Ltd pays less tax
Quietly, he has set up a company called ‘The Office of David Miliband Limited’, which will be a tax-efficient vehicle for his non-parliamentary earnings.
It will be subject to corporation tax of 20 per cent (rather than the 40 per cent rate Miliband would have to pay on his income as an individual taxpayer).
Miliband is clearly a canny operator when it comes to tax. In the past, he exploited a Revenue loophole to reduce the family’s total death duty bill by using a so-called ‘deed of variation’ in respect of his childhood home.
Already, the money has started rolling into Miliband Inc. As non-executive vice-chairman Sunderland Football Club, he gets £75,000 a year and there was a £25,000 fee for a lecture at the Emirates Centre For Strategic Studies in Abu Dhabi
Or how about buying votes for Labour with government money?:
WikiLeaks: David Miliband ‘championed aid to Sri Lanka to win votes of Tamils in UK’
David Miliband championed aid to Sri Lanka during last year’s humanitarian crisis to win the support of expatriate Tamils living in key Labour marginal seats, one of his own Foreign Office staff claimed.
David Miliband championed aid to Sri Lanka to win the votes of expatriate Tamils in key marginal seats, a Foreign Office worker claimed Photo: PA
By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter 6:45AM GMT 02 Dec 2010
Tim Waite, a Foreign Office team leader on Sri Lanka, was quoted in a leaked US Embassy cable explaining why the then foreign secretary was lavishing so much attention on the island’s plight.
“Waite said that much of (the government) and ministerial attention to Sri Lanka is due to the ‘very vocal’ Tamil diaspora in the UK, numbering over 300,000, who have been protesting in front of parliament since 6 April,” wrote Richard Mills, a political officer at the US Embassy in London.
“He said that with UK elections on the horizon and many Tamils living in Labour constituencies with slim majorities, the government is paying particular attention to Sri Lanka, with Miliband recently remarking to Waite that he was spending 60 per cent of his time at the moment on Sri Lanka.”
Or how about his judgement on Gordon Brown….was Miliband lying or deluded at a time when polls showed 1 in 5 voters thought Brown was a terrible PM?:
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, yesterday defended Brown as a man who commanded “the detail as well as the bigger picture. I don’t recognise the portrait John Prescott has set out”.
It seems that even as Foreign Secretary Miliband lacked genuine experience and judgement, as noted by Oborne above, and the Guardian as it continued:
More experienced colleagues recognised it all too well. “These memoirs are unhelpful, but there is nothing in them which people do not already know,” said another senior minister.
Or how about this as noted by ‘Mat’ in the comments here:
How David Miliband betrayed Tibet
The Foreign Office’s appeasement of Tehran has some strong precedents, says Christopher Booker
Last week, I reported on the strange eagerness of our Foreign and Commonwealth Office to appease the murderous regime in Tehran. Another example of the FCO’s willingness to kowtow to nasty regimes has been flagged up in another newspaper, where a columnist researching ahead of a recent visit to China came across a remarkable statement from the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, slipped out on the FCO website on October 29 2008, just before representatives of the Dalai Lama were due to hold talks in Beijing on the future of Tibet.
Buried in the statement was Britain’s recognition for the first time that, like “all other members of the EU… we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China”. The historic significance of this change was not lost on Beijing, since until then Britain, with its unique role in Tibet’s history, had for 100 years been very careful not to recognise Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The group known as Free Tibet noted that Miliband’s concession gravely weakened the position of the Tibetan envoys without getting anything in return – commenting how extraordinary it was that Britain should have “rewarded China in such a way in the very year that China has committed its worst human rights abuses in Tibet in decades, including killing and torture”.
All good material to flesh out an interview with such a prominent, in the BBC’s mind, political figure….some very serious questions needing to be asked of a superannuated Labour politician…buying votes and selling out Tibet…..but then digging the dirt on 13 years of Labour destruction isn’t on the BBC’s ‘to do’ list.
Never mind…perhaps when he returns. You can’t keep a good man down.
No balls.
Unlike his brother, who has Ed.
http://www.tibetcustom.com/article.php/20100110103757430
The man who sold Tibet !
apart from bBC/nuj/Liebor – who cares?
Another sanctimonious “legend in his own mind” politician on the take from the taxpayer, off to pastures new in the charity sector; good riddance [or words to that effect], is probably the most widespread general opinion.
But since when is the BBC interested in the opinion of anybody other than Labour voting middle class public sector whose answer to every question is more money (and better working conditions) for the public sector?
They are passionate believers in redistributing wealth (earned by others) into their own pockets – they think taxpayers should be grateful if they even bother to turn up for work.
Whenever BBC commentators talk about Labour Party policy or Labour leadership issues the discussion always tends to have the feel of an ‘in-house’ debate. I wonder why that could be?
What struck me was the time devoted to this on the main 6pm bBBC news bulletin. David M is a back bench labour MP who happens to be the brother of the leader of the opposition. If this was a back bench MP of any other party would it get the same prominence? I think not. I t should have been worth 2 or 3 sentences. As you say “in house” feel – “one of ours” – no he is not one of mine and whilst I wish him well that is all I feel.
Am I the only person who didn’t realise David Milliband was still an MP?
“Whenever BBC commentators talk about Labour Party policy or Labour leadership issues the discussion always tends to have the feel of an ‘in-house’ debate. I wonder why that could be?”
Yes it’s puzzling isn’t it.
and I think i should mention that YOU are a slandering son of a bitch
you’re obviously an idiot with a very short memory
beheading bbc employees??
ring any bells in that echo chamber of a head of yours?
you’ll find that I have a VERY good memory for that type of thing,and I’ll keep reminding YOU at every opportunity
i think you need a kick up the arse
‘A kick up the arse’ is not a threat of violence.
Threatening violence? Have you never heard of idioms?
(Responding with “No, but I’ve heard a few idiots on this site” won’t count, as it’s too obvious.)
However, could ltwf1964 enlighten me as to what this exchange is all about, as I don’t share his good memory?
Colditz, if you really had the moral values you claim, you ought to be spending your energy going after everyone on the BBC who jokes about violence against Conservatives and Republicans. Yet, curiously, you reserve your anger for people here. Strange priorities.
Socialist bullies like to give out insults, but don’t like the boot on the other foot.
Theoretically Cameron is a conservative and therefore being tax efficient in not a contradiction. Theoretically Milliband is a socialist and operating in a tax efficient fashion does go against his principles.
The issue is the inconsistency of the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation when dealing with conservative and Quisling Party members. Conservatives believe in say families and marriage so you can say it is fair for the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation to raise issues of adultery. With the Quisling Party they are meant to believe in equality of opportunity/outcome and therefore at the bare minimum should not be optimising their income at the expense of state revenue which could be used for redistribution. Similarly the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation should be asking say Harriet Harman or Putrid Toynbee why aren’t they selling off their second homes and handing over the money to the government.
There was a remarkably soft interview with Harman or Jowell yesterday viz. the great loss of Milliband to the UK. Apparently they are going to have to downgrade grow forecasts. But no real penetrating questions about what did he really do in government, and what has he been doing for his constituents in South Shields. For example surely as a socialist, with an MPs salary, he should have done his role at Sunderland FC for a nominal £100.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/former-bbc-birmingham-mailbox-engineer-2040131…what the hell is going on down at the bbc.
I blame the poor management structure at the BBC. It was a different time, the “victims” were mostly “scruffy” teenagers, etc. Oh, and I blame their parents and society for letting them run wild like this.
Did I get it about right?
A BBC statement said:
“We can confirm that Mr Shearer no longer works for the BBC, However, it should be noted that he is currently appealing against this decision and so it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.”
(shakes head) … what IS going on eh!
Pretty easy to understand. The BBC have sacked him and he is contesting it. Like any other employer (public or private sector) they cannot comment further on either his dismissal or the criminal court case whilst actions are proceeding.
I noticed in the article that the accusation was first published in the Guardian. The Guardian, a charity with it’s assets held in off shore tax havens.
Come on Colditz, the bBC never miss an opportunity to remind us that Cameron et al went to Eton, something they consistently fail to mention when it comes to the Shadow Cabinet.
There is no real evidence that Cameron is worth £30 Million. His father in law certainly is with 3000 acres of prime farming land, and the £30 million estimate is based on his wife’s father dying and passing the wealth down to her.
Undoubtedly he’s wealthy but the most wealthy MP Shaun Woodward Labour MP is worth £88 Million and so greedy that he actually hired accountant to help him claim the maximum amount of MPs expenses.
Funny how we haven’t heard about that from the bBC isn’t it?
extra slander opportunites
i can see why that would appeal to you
The issue is about the consistency of the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation on these matters. The Quisling Broadcasting Corporation will always bring up, or allow others to point out how rich some conservatives are. Which is not a contradiction. But seldom, if every, does the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation point out the private wealth of assorted leftists – which of course is hypocritical.
Whatever wealth Cameron has at least it’s not been made out of the taxpayer’s pocket or through direct spin-offs from his political career, unlike most of the Labour millionnaires who don’t have a clue about life in the private sector.
He also has the good grace when Miliband starts his nasal bleating about ‘tax cuts for the Tory millionnaires’ not to point his finger at the benches opposite. (Referring of course to the 50% tax rate Labour introduced after 12 years and 10 months in office.)
Interesting read:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9218119/David-Camerons-inherited-family-wealth-based-in-foreign-tax-havens.html
Might be legal but I thought DC was a both “legal and ethical” chap when it comes to tax arrangements and was opposed to people who managed their financial affairs to minimise taxation.
And exactly what has that got to do with my post?
So David Cameron’s financial wealth has nothing to do with “Whatever wealth Cameron has” and the fact that it emanates from those who avoided UK tax has nothing to do with “the taxpayer’s pocket”.
Guess you are right as always then and that your sycophants will merrily “like you”!!!
“and that your sycophants will merrily “like you”!!! ”
Aaaaaaah! I’ve clicked like on your lickle post so you don’t feel too upset at being left out. All better now?
Ah, but Shaun Woodward WAS a Tory remember?
No further need to mention anything else!
Once a Tory-forever a Tory!…now let`s hear no more of this nonsense eh?
Well listening to the very gentle interviewing of David Milliband and contrasting it with the Boris interview certainly does lead one to the thought that there is distinct bias towards the left. Notwithstanding that Milliband is exiting the party, the commons, and the country.
But following years of Labour lies about the NHS and how inequitable and unfair the medical system is in the USA one wonders why he wasn’t tackled about this glaring hypocrisy. I have no doubt that along with a huge salary Milliband will have private health insurance included. Something here makes me feel slightly bilious, a man who has spent his entire political life criticising and sniping at a system he allegedly despises, suddenly decides it’s so good he wants to live there.
Why didn’t the interviewer ask him if the US system was so good he’d be pressing his brother to adopt some of those values for the UK?
MPs of both parties have wriggled out of the need for BUPA subscriptions because they find themselves coincidentally living in the catchment of the NHS’s most luxurious hospital, The Chelsea and Westminster – amazingly not PFI funded at the time because the £300m gin palace would have been exposed as totally unaffordable. Instead the money was mysteriously “found” by the Department of Health, and every other sheme had to go through PFI.
St Thomas’s continues to survive solely because of the need for an A&E just around the corner from Parliament in case “anything were to happen” It’s a long way to Guys, and they are shutting all the others.
You are dealing with a government modelled on East Germany. The Party looks after members of the Party. In the interests of the people, of course.
BBC employees might be forgiven for thinking of the need for BUPA when settled in Salford.
Compare the treatment of David Milliband with Louise Mensch when she quit, also to go to the States. If I could face listening to the News Quiz or its ilk (sorry I cannot even to get a quote for Colditz, Dez or whoever) I am sure it will make an interesting comparison.
You mean treatment like this from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19146805
As opposed to this in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9639537/Louise-Mensch-her-hasty-husband-and-two-stories-of-why-she-threw-in-the-towel.html
Remember when Boris was standing for Mayor, and the BBC was all over his tax receipts. Until, of course, they found that Boris paid all his tax, and Dirty Ken was the tax dodger – what a nasty piece of work!
Alan, you’ve not included Miliband’s greatest betrayal. Not of the people of Tibet, but of the people of the UK. As Brown’s henchman it was Miliband who initially signed the Lisbon Treaty (for Brown to later creep in at the dead of night, out of sight of prying cameras to do his bit).
That was the treaty you will remember that Brown told us all we would get a referendum on, but then reneged saying that it wasn’t really a treaty, just a bit of tidying up. Then of course under Miliband it was ratified, making any future referendum on Lisbon worthless (good game this; Brown and Miliband lie, Cameron gets the blame). And now, today, we find that Miliband’s little bit of tidying up has meant that Britain has lost its power of veto in a number of areas, not least on the EU budget where the EU Parliament can now over-rule elected governments.
Over to you Toenails – how come in your little friendly chat with Bananaman you didn’t get to ask him about these things?
I think part of the problem with the Milibands is that they are internationalists, loyal to certain ideals rather than to any country. Remember Marx’s “Workers of the WORLD unite!” (not “Workers of Britain/France/Germany/etc”). The same applies to Nicholas Clegg, who will probably get a nice EU job if/when he loses his seat at the next election. I don’t think internationalists really have Britain’s interests at heart, with their contempt for “bourgeois nationalism”, “Little Englanders”, “Daily Mail readers”, et al.
Correct and to the point. Liberal philosophy on these matters is based on two great absurdities.
1. Western style liberalism and democracy can be exported just about anywhere. We can see the results in Iraq and Libya and Egypt.
2. Populations from countries that have never known democracy can be imported into Western democracies where they will immediately become perfectly at ease with a complex system that took us centuries to develop.
Never has a ruling elite so willingly embraced unreality as ours. Milleband is a prime example. There is such a thing as the social capital of a nation. Wasting this is what these idiots are about.
Why have a number of poisonous comments by an antisemitic troll recently been deleted without explanation, while a multitude of highly provocative anti-Muslim comments over the last ten years have been allowed to remain? I find this selective censorship troubling. And indeed reminiscent of the selective moderation policies of a certain publicly-funded broadcaster.
Alan replies:
Capital Idea, your, or your associate’s, comments were deleted because, apart from the anti-semitic screed, they are obvious gameplay….planted because you wanted to see if I would delete them…and then claim that anti-Muslim comments aren’t deleted….and bingo…up you pop.
The comments by ‘ajp’ are worthless agitprop, as is your comment here, having nothing to do with any thread or this blog, wasting everyone’s time.
And you know full well that anti-Muslim comments are deleted as are many other extreme remarks….but you choose to ignore that…..however you do seem happy to confuse ‘Islam’ with ‘Muslim’…..comments criticising Islam are perfectly acceptable here just as are criticisms of Chritianity or any political manifesto or ideology
I have no doubt you will find some comments that have been missed. If you draw them to my attention I will delete them.
You may also like to explain why you post under several different names…Dr Foster, Tim Lawson, Georges Auric, Coldhardtruth and Detectorvansdontwork.
And possibly many more.
Gives the impression that you are hiding something.
It is an odd thing that several of our ‘critics’ all choose to use a number of names….are you trying to give the impression that it is a great number of people with similar concerns about Muslims rather than the truth that it is one disappointed little fellow with an obsession…and it always is Islam isn’t it…not Labour or Europe or climate?
Nicked Emus always raved about Muslims, attacking any comments about Islam….and yet here is the real him:
‘The defining characteristic of these men [in Rochdale] is their nationality not their religion. You don’t see Arab Muslims nor Malaysians doing this. It is a sick, depraved and heinous trait of some members of the Pakistani community.‘
The most racist comment on this site came from someone who always claimed this site is racist or bigoted.
I can’t help thinking Capital Idea, that you use Muslims as the ‘useful idiots’ in your games and do not have their interests at heart in the slightest.
Your gameplaying and fake protestations about Muslims are unwelcome on this site….stop wasting everyone’s time.
Rather than delete comments I think the site should include in its T&C the authority to reveal the real e-mail address of anyone posting offensive comments. That might make the trolls think twice when their posts show direct link to Labour/BBC HQ
They usually use fake ones, created specifically to attack here.
I’m afraid that rests on the assumption that everyone here uses their real email address.
I’m in favour of deleting genuinely offensive posts against anybody, as long as the posts are genuinely offensive and not someone objecting to the truth being told.
Having said that, we have to be careful not to go too far down the road in stifling true freedom of speech like the BBC, the Courts and Leveson have done.
If it’s in the context of, or part of a discussion about, something related to BBC bias, then it should be allowed to stand, and people can judge the commenter on the whole thing, and on their track record. But there seems to be disagreement here about whether or not this is a place where people can just freely express any opinion on anything with no connection to BBC bias at all. A couple of people do that pretty much exclusively, and never even try to address the issue of BBC bias. I don’t see the point of letting that distract from the point of this blog’s existence, simply because of an abstract notion of “free speech”.
Surely there are plenty of other websites for people to post non sequitur remarks about things they hate.
Having said that, the recent raving Jew-hater was at least discussing the BBC in his rants. As silly as his claims were, I thought it was worth at least making an attempt to address because it was the perfect example of the other side of our argument. The BBC claims they’re balanced and impartial overall, in the long term, because they get complaints from both sides. But we’re never allowed to know the quality of those complaints, so it’s impossible to know if they’re right or not.
Claiming balance based simply on the volume of complaints isn’t right. If the majority of complaints about anti-Israel bias are fairly reasoned and point to specifics, with facts and figures to back it up, and the majority of complaints about pro-Israel bias consist mainly of “The Joooooos, the Jooooos control everything / Zionists rule the world / The Rothschilds ate my baby / A raving Jew-hater at the BBC says the BBC is controlled by Zionists” sort of thing, then it would destroy the BBC’s line of defense.
Also, since there are a few sites out there which criticize the BBC specifically for being a Zionist shill, it’s worth occasionally trying to address those arguments. Deleting them serves no purpose, even if they can be offensive.
I agree ajp’s bizarre rantings should have been left to stand.Firstly for reasons of free speech but mainly becuase,trusting the good sense of my fellow man as I do,such fantastical claims would discredited his theories in the mind of the average reader
I suspect the problem for the site was the very specific alergations of homosexual impropriet.
Effectively naming well known people,places and dates even naming minor celebs as witnesses to same.One can see how,post leverson,that might have caused the site some problems
I would rather have a small penis then be a large ****!
Congratulations Henry, you have obviously found a use for a magnifying glass no right wing Daily Mail reader would have thought of. Now trot off and play with your tinkle, see if you can grow it some more.
I think the reason that this particular nazi’s posts were deleted is because they were sprayed about all over various threads completely derailing them and stopping the adults having proper discussions. He was not discussing, just spoiling. His posts and the replies had to go to try and bring things back on track.
That is mostly right..apart from the ‘nazi’….the comments were ‘planted’ by our pro-BBC bias crowd knowing I would delete them….they believed they could then claim ‘bias’ by saying a similar policy is not used for anti-Muslim comments…..unfortunately for them I have long deleted as much of that as I can find.
Case in point….’Henry’ is a troll who, under many different names posts comments designed to make the site look like an offshoot of the BNP.
I recommend people don’t engage with him/her/it or those you suspect are also trolls as the comments frequently get deleted to keep a semblance of normality here.
I believe Henry was Earl’s Court: Both are about as inept on the spelling front as they are on the wind-up attempts.
The site is here to highlight the ways in which the BBC shows selective bias in its treatment of people who do not subscribe to its viewpoint.
Labour good, Tories bad.
Muslims good, Christians bad.
Same-sex marriage good, traditional marriage bad.
Pro-choice good, pro-life bad.
Climate change disciples good, climate change sceptics bad.
Palestinians good – Israel bad.
Sick jokes about Thatcher, very good – mild jokes about Mandela or Obama, very bad.
Right make a gaffe – headline news and comedy scripts for days.
Left make a gaffe – say and do nothing.
Catholic priest allegations of cover-ups from 1970- headline news.
BBC DJ crimes and allegations from 1970 – covered up.
Muslim grooming going on NOW- covered up.
I forgot – € good, £ and $ bad !
Balls’ Plan B good – Osborne Plan A bad
Nationalisation good – privatisation bad
NHS very good – 1200 dead at Stafford Hospital: I’m sorry, we can’t bring you that story, we’ve lost the line from Stafford
‘And BBC should mention the wealth of the Old Etonians ruining the country at every opportunity.’
They don’t need to, they just broadcast class warrior Ed ‘he’s so seventies isn’t he’ Miliband’s yawningly predictable performances at the despatch box – week after week after week after….
The BBC were lamenting the loss of Miliband as Labour has so few ‘big beasts’.
Big beast. Ha ha ha. Ha ha. Ha. Beam me up Scotty (no, not you).
The other parties don’t need to be banned, because they’ve morphed into parodies of the Labour Party.
Kind of defeats the argument that the BBC are then anti-Tory if they are all the same. Just saying, you understand.
The BBC haven’t realised it themselves. They still attack the Conservative Party in a knee-jerk fashion because they think they’re still the old, honest Conservative Party.
And unfortunately, millions of people still vote Labour out of working-class tribal loyalty, thinking they are the party for the workers – and not a load of filthy-rich millionaires like Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Bernie Ecclestone, Stephen Fry or J.K. Rowling.
Resists the urge to feed the troll!
There is only one party! It has different possible leaders, but they broadly share the same beliefs within a narrow scope. There’s very little distance between them.
All of the leaders went to the same university and studied the same course under the same tutors. Why would anyone imagine there’s going to be much between them?
What is wrong with that?
That is the reason why this country is doing so well.
Can anyone confirm something which I read in the press within the last year or two? It was that Stephanie Flanders was dated by both Edward Miliband and Edward Balls at University (Oxbridge, somewhere).
Confirmed here, among other places.
It’s impossible not to notice what a serious-minded person she seems, to come out of such a high-octane household. “But I like to think I’m much funnier than the average economist.” A pause. “It’s not a very high bar.” Taking advantage of this relative skittishness, I ask her whether it’s true that she went out with Ed Balls and Ed Miliband. This she doesn’t think is funny at all. “It was so much less interesting than people think, even at the time, let alone now. It’s just not relevant, any more than anything else people have done 20 years ago would be relevant to what they do now.”
What if it was something that Boris Johnson had done twenty years ago, or Nicholas Griffin? Would the BBC say it was not relevant?
This is a man who under Blair, sat around the cabinet table discussing the merits of letting 700,000 – 900,000 come to this country simply BECAUSE THEY MIGHT VOTE LABOUR.
Now he’s leaving the very unpleasant consequences of this policy behind and f’ing off to the USA.
TRAITOR.
This is a man who under Blair, sat around the cabinet table discussing the merits of letting 700,000 – 900,000 come to this country simply BECAUSE THEY MIGHT VOTE LABOUR.
Now he’s leaving the very unpleasant consequences of this policy behind and f’ing off to the USA.
TRAITOR. I despise the fact that he’s leaving before he got lynched.
This is a man who under Blair, sat around the cabinet table discussing the merits of letting 700,000 – 900,000 come to this country EVERY YEAR for 12 years, simply BECAUSE THEY MIGHT VOTE LABOUR.
Now he’s leaving the very unpleasant consequences of this policy behind and f’ing off to the USA.
TRAITOR.
A frightening policy of ex-Labour (INBBC-approved) U.K Foreign secretary, D. Miliband:-
D.Miliband planned to speed up the Islamisation of European Union by getting in not only 80 million Muslim Turks, but also all the Islamic states of North Africa, etc.
INBBC, 2007:-
EU ‘should expand beyond Europe’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7095657.stm
His new personal foreign policy now is apparently to do a bunk, and head for a lucrative job in New York.
Don’t ever forget that a certain “call me Dave” also wants that same 80 million turks inside a borderless EU.
Yeah, right, great idea Dave?
Apparently Hillary Clinton adores him.
“Hillary Clinton Talks ‘Big Crush’ On David Miliband”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16/does-hillary-clinton-have_n_359649.html
Hopefully Miliband will have a farewell tour of a grateful nation before he becomes another globe trotting , tax dodging, consultancy-coining permatanned fake like his guru…International Rescue for the Middle Easts peace envoy how`s he doing?…payment by results maybe?).
The BBC will of course be placing its cameras somewhere near his bottom, so we can experience the BBCs view of the Great Brains as THEY see him.
WE , a bunch of plebby ingrates really did not deserve his ministrations…and after all he did for this nation too!
Marx never anticipated that the hated Eton-educated worker-exploiting mill-owning ruling class would be replaced by liberal/Left elite ruling class – cultural marxists on inflated salaries, red-pigs-in-wigs, perma-tan Tony, quango queens, Dame Stocking of Oxfam, Lord Ahmed, the list is endless. The false face of “caring for the poor” hides the new ruling class. Which is why the BBC relentlesly stokes up class war against the “old ruling class” – to hide the new one. False consciousness, indeed.