Well it is the Labour conference. His speech was fantastic. His policies, apparently, were borrowed from Michael Foot, that great success of a previous leader, and he is still the bastard experiment of merging Mr Bean, Frank Spencer and Rodney the plonker. Policies, speeches or blocking action on Syria, he will still be the harassed man with a little problem who'll fix it in the morning, eh.
From my point of view (I have taught politics so feel reasonably qualified to say so), the Labour (and sadly the once decent Liberal) party conferences hold as much interest to me as which mafia gang gets what in 2013. Are they any different? You decide. Policies are based on ideology. I believe we all want the same things, albeit in different ways, as we are all human, but some don't want others to have it if they don't. Humans can be weak and immature, and the entire left wing is based on childish beliefs that if you have something I want you must have taken it from me. Base an entire powerful movement on such errant nonsense and then get equally half baked twits to vote for them and each country is totally fucked, and anally.
Ed Miliband comes across as so reasonable but look at his record and compare it with today's speech. Energy bills, which he wants to freeze for 20 months, are high because of two main reasons, HIS climate change act which has added 30% and rising faster than the CO2 which it has patently failed to affect, and Tony Blair's decision not to nationalise the public services against his own party's manifesto until he dumped it. Add the fact the regulators Ofgem don't have power on prices and you have a mafia scenario running Britain's power stations. Besides the other policies I can stop there already, as he has taken with two hands and giving back with one. His actions as a minister in the previous government put the prices up as high as they are, and now he says he's freezing (note, not 'reducing' them?). Go fuck yourself Miliband. I can see through you and millions of slowly awakening individuals are beginning to. A caller to LBC last week said (as he has a friend in parliament) although Miliband had sorted out numerous concessions with Cameron to support him invading Syria, the reason he pulled out was Jeremy Corbyn, that great philo-Semite, whispered in his ear that if he voted with the government he'd never be elected. It shows what a thick arse he was if he couldn't quite have worked that out himself, seeing as it lost Blair a vast swathe of supporters after he inexplicably invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. He wanted Syria bombed as much as Cameron and Obama, but in the end Ed looked after Ed, and Assad was saved by pure luck.
You won't see comments like this in the papers as despite many readers agreeing with it the editors would sack anyone running down political leaders based on what they've actually done. They skirt around the policies and compare how much the EU bonds affect the economy in member states compared to what happened under Sarkozy, as if anyone cares or notices, while turds like Miliband are plotting to destroy the country faster than the coalition. The Damian McBride saga continues as if anyone wanted to know, and did one thing only, made his name familiar. What he did, is doing, and wants to do has as much relevance to you and me as whether the family across the road argued over what they would have for breakfast or how long the meetings lasted over the alterations to the latest Southern Region rail timetable. Blair vs Brown? It's happened, it didn't affect anyone directly except the people involved, and the differences between the two governments in reality was simply a question of what your shit smelled like on different days.
I have lived through over fifty years of politics, and followed it gradually for over forty of them. Things were different and although we had a left and right we didn't have the similarities between parties meaning you ended up with virtually the same results whichever one you voted for, especially since the EU started running the show. Nothing was off limits, if a party genuinely believed (as was standard across the board in the 60s) immigration was a privilege and not a right then it was accepted, and when others started questioning it it was still reasonable to have both views represented. Now we have 'givens'- we must have renewable energy, unrestricted immigration, diversity, all extreme left views but mainstream. It could be argued under such circumstances it would barely make any difference if Ed did win the next election as most of the policies he wants are already in place, mostly by EU diktat. But the one difference is he stands for those policies officially, so rather than do a Cameron and say he wants cuts in spending and immigration but still does more of both, Miliband believes in spending and immigration so it is guaranteed. And there are still Tory MPs who do have traditional values and capable of having a little influence around the edges if in power, which technically they are not, as Nick Clegg boasted so nauseatingly in the Liberal conference last week when he listed all the good plans he blocked personally. When a politician gets cheers for what he hasn't done rather than has done the world has come to its political knees at the crotch of the devil. Technically although they wouldn't play together in coalition and slag each other off as if they were Tories, the new Lib Dems are further left than Labour has been since the 70s, so not quite sure what the differences are. The Tories claim to have different policies on a couple of areas but unable to operate them due to the coalition, while spending more than last year and allowing in more immigrants, both of which they could stop.
One good thing about Ed Miliband, much like Julia Gillard before him, it isn't that necessary for people to expose them as they do quite a good job of doing it themselves. You can't say that about many political leaders nowadays.