[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'David would have come with the Iraq baggage issue around his neck,going to war there and voting for it.
Ed hasn't that, he wasn't even an MP when that decision was taken.'

For me this is why I prefer Ed to David, I don't think anyone could or should have any faith or trust in a Blairite.
If Ed was against his brother on this issue for me that is in his favour for me, and Davis scuttling off after losing instead of supporting his brother speaks volumes.

I for one don't see the issues in green taxes, they made the energy companies comply with a specific set of energy efficiency standards that were accessable to those who were on very low incomes. Insulation and double glazing could be fitted in the poorest homes due to these measures, all parties were at the time behind these measures they now are furiously backpeddling.

'Mr Cameron embraced the environment within weeks of being elected leader in 2005 and, on becoming Prime Minister in 2010, declared that the coalition would be the "greenest government ever".

But since then, Mr Miliband says, the premier has made a "long retreat from the principles in which he once claimed to believe". This has included signing up to the bare minimum required on EU-wide carbon emission reductions of 40 per cent by 2030, deterring investment in renewable energy and wanting to get rid of the "green crap" altogether'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-9908487.html

Yes, that is the thing that sets Ed Miliband apart as to Iraq, I also think, Ed wouldn't have agreed with the decision either to go to war,had he even been an MP then.

David Miliband who was a Foreign Secretary in the Labour govt; would have been constantly questioned as to his role in that,had he got the Labour leadership.
Even moreso with this Iraq enquiry taking so long to be published.
he would probably, had he been leader, even been accused of arm twisting to delay it.

Good post again Kizzy as to the rest you say in your post, and really strong valid points too.