He failed to answer direct questions, wouldn't even say whether he himself thought Miliband Snr "hated Britain" and just repeated his script over and over, which was just about all he could do to defend the indefensible.

The notion that someone who detests the church or dislikes the monarchy or is against bicameral legislature etc "hates Britain" is totally risible.
By those measures, most of the British population hates Britain.

Daily Mail? Bunch of s.

Viscount Rothermere (Mail owner) loves his country so much he doesn't pay tax here

And it seems that Dacre's own father's 'service' to his country in the war in which Miliband Snr signed up for the Navy was as, err, a showbiz hack for the [iExpress[/i.

But to pick up what Dave O saidMail[/i is making big profits (the website is hugely successful – must be all that sexualising underage girls), but on this basis it's actually not doing the Tory Party any favours. One wonders if Rothermere and Dacre care or whether they're simply interested in the money.

It's the same tactic as the government employs. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it is the idea. The trouble is for this tactic to work the lie has to at least seem plausible or hit on someones prejudice and require people to make some effort to question it (which most people seem to lazy to do) in order for it to be disproved.

In this case it is such patent nonsense what the DM has written it doesn't take anyone any effort to think - what a load of rubbish!

CompareThe notion that someone who detests the church or dislikes the monarchy or is against bicameral legislature etc "hates Britain" is totally risible.
By those measures, most of the British population hates Britain.

Daily Mail? Bunch of s.'"

Saw this post which I thought was excellent....

"The stench of hypocrisy...

Campbell, Miliband, the Independent etc are all choosing to attack the headline of the Daily Mail article, rather than what was actually written in it. Interesting.

I read the article and it's key point was both that Ralph Miliband was an unrepentant Marxist AND that he was the defining influence on the politics of Ed Miliband, who is set to become the next prime minister of Britain.

His influence on Ed has been confirmed by Miliband himself in numerous speeches, and by the insider McBride, who wrote that his father's memory and sustaining his politics was the main reason Ed Miliband opted to fight his brother David for the Labour leadership. (David rejected his father's views).

Ralph Miliband's own mentor was his former lecturer Harold Laski, an influential leftwing militant who declared: "If Labour did not obtain what it needed by general consent, we shall have to use violence even if
it means revolution".

I argued yesterday that the Daily Mail has a legitimate point to explore and highlight such political lineage in a potential future British prime minister. That it also finds this lineage "deeply disturbing" is a legitimate opinion, not a 'smear'.

If David Cameron's key political influence had been a father who was a fascist, who in turn was mentored by a violent uniformed fascist who believed in the revolutionary overthrow of democracy, would we expect the Independent/Guardian/BBC, to bring this to our attention, or to ignore it?

I'm pleased to see this morning that the Guardian's independently minded media blogger Roy Greenslade backs me up in this reasoning with an article headlined: "It is legitimate to explore Ralph Miliband's political views".

The Daily Mail is on less firm ground with its headline that Ralph Miliband 'hated Britain', but again, that is little more than a legitimate opinion. Some people read Ralph Miliband and concluded he hated Britain in its present guise, others didn't.

But what is noticeable about the hysteria and Labour spin that followed this article is its utter hypocrisy. The Guardian has been at the forefront of this, but the Guardian staffers themselves are masters of the art of digging dirt, taking quotes out of context, distributing insults and generally attempting to destroy Labour's political opponents.

And as for this stuff about not damning someone based on what they said when they were 17. I'm delighted to see that the Guardian, Independent, and Labour's forum supporters have finally all woken up to this. Now will they all perhaps stop criticizing David Cameron for the school he attended when he was 12-17? Hope so."

All of which would be fine and dandy if you subscribe to the thought that political opinions are passed from generation to generation like male pattern baldness, big noses or a fondness for holidaying in Cleethorpes every year.

But they are not.

You don't inherit opinions, your early life might be guided by your parents opinions but you have the ability, everyone, to form your own opinions quite soon after climbing into your first pair of long pants.

Not according to the Daily Mail though.

But it won't be the first time they've made sweeping assumptions and generalisations and it only a problem if you swallow everything they print as gospel truth without using your brain to question why they print.

Ed Milliband has however said that he is brining back socialism and that he is influenced by his father.

He has also stated, on numerous occasions, that some of his policies would have his father spinning in his grave.

BTW, who actually penned that pile of factually inaccurate bollox you quoted earlier?

You'll be telling us next that Tony Blair was a Socialist and that the next Labour government will be Marxist...

Keep believing everything you read young man, you're keeping a handful of journalists and Paul "C***" Dacre in a job (his favourite turn of phrase...)

?

Do you dispute what I said?

Nope not at all - its just that Ed Milliband's idea of what is Socialism will be a million miles away from what his fathers idea of Socialism was - remember we are speaking of a time BEFORE the second world war, a time when both left and right wing governments across Europe bore no relation at all to what you perceive as left and right politics - Milliband could not sell his father's peers politics of 80 years hence to even the most ardent Socialist in his party today and nor will he - his will be a version of Blair's who in turn was more Thatcher-ite than any Labour Prime Minister before him, there is very little to choose from these days - thats half the problem and its why 2015 will return another minority government and possibly another coalition.

Please define socialism

But it is justified to examine his father's opinions isn't it? Perhaps not in the way that the Daily Mail did but to some extent?

Ed often brings up his father's influence on his own political leanings, his father was a socialist, and Ed has said he is bringing back socialism.

Should we perhaps rake over some of Thatcher's less "pleasant" views for Ajw, since speaking ill of the dead seems to be OK by him?