I think this is actually very interesting indeed. Think back 50 years….this would have been impossible. To use the language of those times….living in sin and siring bastards? Known to be so? Wouldn’t be able to be an MP let alone leader of a party.

Now the reaction is going to be a “who gives a shit?” shrug.

I think it’s a fascinating marker of how much better the society has got in 50 years.

Yeah I agree with you, Tim. The fact that he is leading a party out of wedlock means naff-all to me. What matters more are his policies and whether he is fit to lead the party and the country. The rest is mere background noise.

This is the Daily Mail we’re talking about here, though – so I wouldn’t hold my breath!

Of course, Ed and Justine’s family set-up is one shared by many people across the country and I really don’t think many people will be bothered by this.

“But the couple’s relaxed stance on marriage stands in contrast to David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s ultra-traditional set-up.”

One for News Quiz I think

Yes, its a disgusting report, but it’s bizarre that Ed Miliband didn’t have the time to register the birth of his child. He had 6 weeks to find time to do so.

@5

Seems to be a common thing with policians not being prepared: the Cameron’s new baby sleeps in a cardboard box because they haven’t got a cot yet! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11409577

@6 – I don’t believe that baby sleeps in a cardboard box at all.

I think its disgusting to be proud of immoral values as to live out of wedlock,he should be example to the young generation and most of it for his children,what is the difference between humain and animals.
Don’t take me wrong i am labour sopporter for last 20yrs and iam really dissapointed with ed milliband’s attitude towards family,society and morral values,these values are very important to me and i have brought up my children in the same way.
I am really confused how can i support a leader and a party who has no values and respect left for our society,who is there to destroy everything and there are lot of people like me so i have to really think wether i should support labour party or not????

@7

Well we already know Cameron gets his words confused sometimes, like when he said “I’m middle-class” rather than the more accurate “I’m a third-cousin of the Queen with five properties and a £30 million fortune”. So maybe “cardboard box” means “diamond encrusted, gold plated, carbon neutral baby residence”.

@ 8

Stop being so judgemental-which world do you live in? The 50′s? Marriage is an outdated concept anyhow that was created to control women but ho hum things thankfully progressive since we live in the 21st century.

People like you are the kind that would be happy with this fake Mr and Mrs Jones lifestyle where it’s all stepford housewives and god knows what goes on behind closed doors but as long as they are married!

I never trust conformists-always hiding something like all those religous nutjobs in the US.

earwicga

Why not believe it? I mean I know politicians lie alot – especially Tories – but it seems plausible that
1 – they didn’t have a cot on holiday with them
2 – their six year old “made” one for them.

…who is there to destroy everything and there are lot of people like me so i have to really think wether i should support labour party or not????

If only David Miliband had won. Oh, sure, he helped cover up torture but – hey! – he was married.

BTW

As relaxed as I am about unmarried couples and their having children. Let’s not pretend this is the Mail being quaintly 1950s in its outlook.

The aim of this story – as earwicga has rightly identified – is to cast doubt on the parentage of Ed’s son Daniel.

It is intended to raise questions about whether Ed’s wife sleeps around – and therefore what sort of relationship Ed’s really is.

And in some circles, as Earwicga’s comment hints, that will work.

So… is this gong to be our equivalent of the Birthers? Is Ed Miliband’s child secretly a Muslim?

@ 9 LOL!

@8 – you are truly an idiot. Sod off back to the tories where you belong. What you are saying is that you think of my children as lesser to yours. I sincerely hope that you are not passing this onto your children.

If parents are married at time of birth or conception, either the mother or father can register the birth on their own.

If the father’s details are not included in the birth register, it may be possible to re-register at a later date.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Registeringlifeevents/Birthandadoptionrecords/Registeringorchangingabirthrecord/DG_175608

15 earwig

I’m afraid our poster @8 probably is passing his offensive bile on to his children: it’s usually the way with moralistic nutters of that stripe, they are so convinced that their way is the only way.

The sad thing is he’s probably gotten away with without fear of having his narrow minded prejudices challenged in case it’s construed as attacking his religion or culture, rather than the fact he belongs in the Middle Ages.

Support like that the Labour party can do without I suspect?

Galen 10 @ 17

I think Naila is actually a woman’s name. And I think it’s going a bit far to describe her as a “nutter”. Nothing she says is out of keeping with mainstream (non-extreme) Islam. Not out of keeping with the CofE either really.

Standard operating procedure for the Daily Wail. They always go after their opponents through the persons family.

‘Family values’ seems to mean attacking other peoples families in Darce world. Bit like if you are a woman employed at the Wail, you must hate other woman. Especially if they are career woman.

The only people this will have any interest for are tory supporters whether or not they themselves are married, it will not have any impact on those who will consider voting for the LP.
There have been many MPs of all colours, who are gay, and in the 1950s they would be thrown-out of the party, now gay people openly stand for and get elected.
Did anybody ever expect anything different from the right-wing press?

There is obviously nothing wrong with bring a kid up out of wedlock. Do it myself. But there is something weird about him not registering the baby and being on the birth certificate.

The labour story that he was too busy is obviously a lie. So it suggests complete irresponsibility (assuming he is the father).

We the public do not know these politicians from Adam. So is the small glimpses we get of them that allows us to judge them and their suitability for such serious positions of responsibility. A could not careless attitude to his kid as this suggests does not bode well. Or is this just a childish two fingered salute at authority. But if that is the case why and what is the message, and why not say so.

@11 – because babies emit a lot of fluids. A cardboard box would not be able to cope with these fluids. That is why I don’t believe that that baby sleeps in a carboard box and not a cot.

@21
You can put any negative spin on this if you like, but using it as an example to equate it to his leadership abilities is pushing it a bit.

For information, almost half the births in England and Wales are now to unmarried couples:

“With the exception of the periods immediately following the two world wars, relatively few births occurred outside marriage during the first 60 years of the 20th century (Figure 2.18). Births outside marriage became more commonplace during the 1980s and 1990s, and by 2008 there were 320,800 live births outside marriage in England and Wales, accounting for 45 per cent of all live births that year. This was an increase of 1 percentage point on the previous year when there were 305,600 live births outside marriage.” [Social Trends 40, 2010 edition, p.24]
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Social-Trends40/ST40_2010_FINAL.pdf

Everyone

Read #21

This is the Daily Mail’s aim. To encourage people like Alan to question his wife’s fidelity or the nature of their relationship.

It can be dressed up as being about his attitude to parenting – and how that relates to his leadership. But it is really about attacking his relationship and encouraging a perception of it that diminishes him and distracts from his political importance.

We know he doesn’t have any particular regard for institutions in his personal life. Signing a silly bit of paper (birth certificate) makes no more difference to his fatherhood than signing a silly bit of paper (marriage certificate) makes to his love for his wife.

But that’s not why the story was run.

Well, how we’ve got onto David Cameron’s new child living in a cardboard box – I’ll never know, but hey, I honestly believed every word of the story I read on the Beeb. I never considered the practicalities, because as low as I think politicians might go, surely the PM wouldn’t lie about one of his children decorating a cardboard box to be used as a makeshift cot for his newborn?

Surely not?

As for the Mail, well, they continue to highlight the level they operate on. The tradition. The old times. The good old days.

I have never once considered a persons marital state, the amount of children they have, whether or not they have children, or how many – to be a critical factor when listening to their views on politics or their ability to run a political party. Anyone who does is an idiot.

who fucking cares, its 2010, geez, what the hell, anyone who would judge them for not being married is frankly a moron.

@17 they are so convinced that their way is the only way.

Dont be so naive cocker, surely you see that everyone is afflicted with this, have you never read the posts on here.

As a gay man, I find it all a bit “last century” to judge someone against the nuclear family ideal. But it is legitimate to consider the reasons the new leader offers on his personal arrangements:

1) Ed on why he isn’t listed on his child’s birth certificate: ” He simply had not time to fill in the form” said a spokesman. Seriously? He didn’t have time to properly register his child’s birth?

2) Ed on why he hasn’t yet married his partner: “I’ve been too busy”.

I’d have respect for the guy if he argued that 50% UK births are to unmarried parents and he believes that it’s just as legitimate as traditional marriage.

But he’s basically saying I’m crap, I can’t manage basic life tasks that millions of others seem to undertake.

D’oh!

I seem to remember a wee bit of a kerfuffle about William Hague and Ffion co-habiting before marriage when he was leader. Not much of one though. The bit of that story to watch, however, is the beginning:

“As the son of a North London Marxist intellectual…”

Expect the Mail in particular to run on that theme, because while it is true it contains a couple of negative connotations (negative for Mail readers at least). The most obvious is the ‘out of touch lefty’ one, and the slightly more insidious one is the ‘North London intellectuals – we all know what that means!’

So thats the father of a bastard Milliband rather than the Godless Heathen Clegg?

And Cameron…well he’s just a wanker…to be honest

the slightly more insidious one is the ‘North London intellectuals – we all know what that means!’

Tim J – yes indeed.

But I also think it’s an interesting reflection on the views of the Mad Mel – Nick Cohen – Harry’s Place axis. They would have us believe that the british left is the most antisemitic thing since Hitler’s death, and yet the largest british left-wing party has just elected an – um, North London intellectual as leader, a fact which has attracted precisely zero comment, as far as I can see. Most people probably haven’t even noticed. And why should they?

ovaljason

What do you mean “properly register his child’s birth”?

Why is the baby not properly registered just because it doesn’t have a dad’s name on the birth certificate? Many many children don’t. There is no requirement that the dad’s name be added.

How terribly old fashioned.

@ Larry

You’re absolutely correct to challenge me on the use of the word “properly” [register the birth certificate]. It implies judgement. I should have said “completely”.

Whatever values we on this board hold, many across country will consider it odd – to say the least – that a father cites lack of time for failing to add their name to their child’s birth certificate, especially when they have 42 days to do so.

As I’ve said; argue the principle that it’s old fashioned and isn’t relevant in the modern world. But don’t argue lack of time. It screams lack of interest or appalling disorganisation. Neither of which are good qualities in a future PM. And besides it just hands bullets to the Tory press.

Not me!

‘the slightly more insidious one is the ‘North London intellectuals – we all know what that means!’

Are they ‘the same’ as ‘New York intellectuals’?

36 – ‘They’ are all the same Shatterface…

I wondered how long it would be before the so called ‘tory friends of Israel’ started making anti Jewish comments about the new Labour leader.

There really is no limit to how far the brownshirts will go.

Was me – sorry – and I did it knowing that the implied judgement was not really intended.

As for not having time – that sort of makes clear he wasn’t fussed either way as it simply means he didn’t think it important enough to make time. (No one finds time for anything, they only make it)

But saying that in full would give far bigger bullets to the press. Appearing to be anti-family is a problem and they would use it for that.

If he had thought about his political career instead of his family, he would have signed the form and saved worrying about such petty nonsense.

Sally – may I refer you to this post here…

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/09/25/now-ed-miliband-needs-to-surprise-his-critics-and-supporters/#comment-178588

Isn’t registering as the father of your child normally expected as a sign of responsibility towards your offspring? That does concern me – if the birth of a child is not the most important thing in your world when it happens, there is something very wrong. Or maybe that’s just me, and most men are not concerned with their offspring at all.

But that only becomes an issue with Mr Milliband if he shows other signs of lack of care and taking responsibility – if it is clearly a pattern (which would be a problem for Labour, not the country). Otherwise it is a private matter between him, his partner (? – always hated that word when cohabiting, as it implied we were in business together or only interested in sex, but he’s too old to have a girlfriend surely) and ultimately a perhaps rather bemused child (a conversation to look forward to in about 14 years for him).

Overall, this is just the Daily Mail being its normal sickening, faux-morallistic self. Sally may see this as it attacking its enemies, but apart from the sad folk who read it, does it actually have friends?

Sally

I wondered how long it would be before the so called ‘tory friends of Israel’ started making anti Jewish comments about the new Labour leader.

I think the comments by Tim J and others above would be more accurately described as pro-Jewish than anti-Jewish.

At least, that’s how this rootless cosmopolitan read them.

Watchman

Agree that the birth of your child should be the most important thin in one’s life when it happen.

Not sure that equates to filling out an silly piece of paper being at all important though. Some people like officialdom and no doubt feel some sentimental touch of importance as they sign the birth certificate. Just as some people feel that marriage is a commitment. But just as some people see marriage as nothing more than a cause for a slap up feed and lots of booze, many people see filling in forms as a an insignificance.

Has Ed. Miliband inherited a political gene? What on earth has his fathers political views got to do with him

42 – They were supposed to be anti-anti-Jewish, if that’s any help. Personally I couldn’t give a monkey’s if he were Zoroastrian, Nestorian or Manichean.

margin4error,

Since the baby has to be registered by law, this is a task that has to be done, so it is hardly a matter of liking paperwork or not (its not even something you can give to an accountant, like tax returns…). Therefore, to not sign the form is pretty much a gesture of I don’t care to declare I am this child’s father. This is only exacerbated by not being married to the child’s mother – if the father denies paternity, there is nothing other than the fact he has acted as such (of his own violation) to prove this. I find that wierd.

As to a politician doing this, I don’t care. Politicians can be as wierd as they like – it is their politics and compotency that concern me. Maybe it is a good thing that Mr Milliband was to busy to publically acknowledge his son, as it shows his political devotion and priorities? My sentimental approach is hardly ideal for political success nowadays after all.

@45

They were supposed to be anti-anti-Jewish

….my enemy’s enemy is my…….etc.

18 Jay

“Galen 10 @ 17

I think Naila is actually a woman’s name. And I think it’s going a bit far to describe her as a “nutter”. Nothing she says is out of keeping with mainstream (non-extreme) Islam. Not out of keeping with the CofE either really.”

Irrespective of gender, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, guess what…..?

Did you actually read the original post? Offensive faith based twaddle. the Labour party would be much better off without small minded ranters like that supporting it!

@48 Galen 10

You wrote, “… Offensive faith based twaddle. the Labour party would be much better off without small minded ranters like that supporting it!”

They need the support!

As long as they don’t elect someone who believes that small-minded faith-based twaddle as leader.

Oops! http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/14/tony-blair-faith-foundation-america

Tim W is correct – it shows how much the UK has changed in the last 50 years.

We’ll have to agree to disagree as to whether it’s an improvement.

Sally @38 “There really is no limit to how far the brownshirts will go.”

They went as far as electing a Jewish leader (the Blessed Michael Howard) 2003-2005.

@ Galen

Post 8 is fantastic. It packs so much mindless conservatism into such a small place. We have some favourite buzzwords:

“…disgusting [...] values and respect [...] family,society and morral values…”

An obvious inability to see that people may have a different handle on morality to oneself:

“I think its disgusting to be proud of immoral values…”

Random rhetorical questions that are apparently meant to mean something:

“…what is the difference between humain and animals.”

A formal logical fallacy:

“there are lot of people like me”

And of course that all-popular terror of nothing very much in particular:

“who is there to destroy everything”

It really is one “I’m not racist but” away from perfection.

Watchman

No law saying it has to be filled in by the father. Or that it has to be filled in when he’s there. And once filled in he might have been more concerned with other things than bits of meaningless paper – which is all it is.

I am of course betraying my own view of such matters, what with my complete disregard for marriage as an institutions and my complete disinterest in filling in old fashioned forms for just about anything.

Give me a woman who loves me and a healthy child and institutions can go burn.

Galen 10 @ 48

Did you actually read the original post? Offensive faith based twaddle. the Labour party would be much better off without small minded ranters like that supporting it!

Frankly, as an agnostic, I struggle to find much difference between ‘faithists’ taking offence at alleged moral inadequacies and atheists taking offence at what the faithists say. You and Ms Naila seem to me equally shrill and equally intolerant of one another’s views or perspectives. How can you argue that society shouldn’t be judgmental on sexual morality, while turning very heavily judgmental against those who are so. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

53 Jay

You are of course entitled to your view. Obviously I think it is misguided. Hopefully others on a site which purports to be a place for those on the progressive left won’t share your view that such intolerance should be appeased.

If you feel that my response somehow makes my views somehow as bad as hers, I’m not sure I really even know how to respond. It seems to me some people just want a quiet life…perhaps they want it so much that they are afraid to stand up to intolerance and bigotry when they see it.

I’m not one of those people.

@53,

Jay, the post Galen is referring to implied that Ed M’s lifestyle blurs the distinction between humans and animals (not that there is one, but people who think that humans are above animals would obviously mean such a statement as a gross insult), and said that people like him “want to destroy everything”. Basically, it painted someone as a monster because they don’t subscribe to an illogical set of values.

Compared to that, what has Galen said that was ‘shrill’ or ‘intolerant’? Is he saying that married people are inherently “disgusting” and guilty of “immoral values”? Post 8 IS offensive nonsense and should be identified as such.

@ 54 Galen @ 55 Chaise Guevara

I suppose my point really is that nothing Nalia voices as @ 8 is particularly extreme. Truth is most of our grandparents would have held similar attitudes and prejudices well into the 1970s or 80s. (I’m pretty sure mine did, given all the fuss when a cousin got pregnant.)

These views – nowadays as common among conservative Christians as among Muslims – aren’t, as they are so often caricatured, ‘a return to the Middle Ages’, but reflect social norms within the lifetime of many still living in Britain. Even during the revolution in social attitudes in 1960s there was lots of public censure of couples who were “living in sin”.

Now I’m not arguing Naila is right. Far from it. But if we value tolerance, we shouldn’t jump down the throat of anyone who voices a mildly old-fashioned, religious conservatism. It’s out of proportion and….I say again…. hypocritical.

56 Jay

I would step away from the shovel if I were you.

The type of abhorrent attitudes which may have been acceptable in the past are NOT acceptable now. Hiding behind the fig leaf of the values of your chosen faith doesn’t make it any less abhorrent.

I don’t believe it is out of proportion, nor do I accept that it is hypocritical.

What WOULD be hypocritical (particulalry on a self-identifying left of centre site) is to allow such bigoted prejudice to go unchallenged.

No more pussy footting around the “people of faith” trying not to hurt their poor feelings when they come out with their offensive, atavistic nonsense. Let’s tell them firmly where to get off.

This kind of media coverage is exactly the sort of thing labour needs to encourage, nothing will drive people towards Ed Milliband more than unfair and extremely old fashioned moralising about the fact he had sex before marriage. Some rumours of youthful drug taking and kinky sex will also help greatly.

Galen @ 57

The type of abhorrent attitudes which may have been acceptable in the past are NOT acceptable now.

First, I think we have to take care before we label any attitude as “unacceptable” if we want to remain a free and pluralist society. Yes, there are some attitudes that society can and should condemn as “unacceptable” but I don’t think the view that parents ought to get married before having kids is one of them. Virulent racism is unacceptable, calls for violence against gays is unacceptable, but liberalism is all about putting up with people having different views to us.

Second, you brand this attitude “abhorrent”. That is far too OTT. More proportionate epithets would be “quaint” or “a bit old-fashioned”. But even those fail to recognize that many people in our society hold that view today. Are you seriously arguing that no Muslim, no churchgoing member of the CofE, no Methodist, no Baptist, Orthodox Jew etc. is welcome on the Left? Because you do seem to be saying that social attitudes common amongst the mainstream members of nearly all the big religions are “unacceptable”. But not only religious people – there must be loads of non-religious people who also have socially conservative views on marriage and the family. And quite a number of them will be working-class and members of the Labour movement.

59 Jay

I refer you to post 55 above.

We’re not talking about some mild mannered remonstration that they’d prefer it if people got married first. Quite apart from the fact it’s really nobody’s business but the couple themselves, I think you will find plenty of people (not just on the left) who find the views in the original post, and that type of socially conservative, narrow minded faith based outlook more generally abhorrent.

If they want to believe in some quaint, made up fairly tale fair enough: in the meantime they can keep their whacky notions about what is acceptable to themselves. People of faith need to be disabused of the intellectually lazy notion that they have some form of monopoly on morality or societal mores.

Let’s not be so liberal that we tolerate illiberality eh?

“Let’s not be so liberal that we tolerate illiberality eh?”

Err, sorry, but yes, that is actually what being liberal means. That you will tolerate illiberality in the opinions of others. Not the imposition of those illiberal ideas onto third parties, to be sure, but yes, to be liberal does indeed mean that you have to leave people alone with their thoughts, even if not with their actions.

61 Tim

So we’re supposed to be so liberal that we tolerate some nutter posting that Ed Miliband is somehow blurring the distinction between animals and humans, that he has no values, no respect for our society, and wants to destroy everything?

I don’t think so!

Yup, you do have to tolerates it.

That doesn’t mean you have to like it, agree with it or even refrain from shouting back that you disagree.

But yes, you do have to tolerate them saying such stuff. That is what it means to be liberal.

To tolerate something, of course, doesn’t mean one can’t argue against it…

The distinction one must bear in mind is that between toleration and respect. If some mentally-challenged fucknugget wants to argue that “living in sin” means that you’re no longer really human, that’s entirely up to them, but it doesn’t stop the rest of us from pointing and laughing. Ridicule can be an effective tactic.

There seems a lot of ignorance about this. As a father who has registered the birth of my daugther along with her mother, to whom I am not married, I would observe:

It required a perfunctory google to find out that unmarried fathers cannot be presumed to be a father at registration by the mother, so his attendance might have been a good idea.

He could have filled out a statutory declaration rather than attended in person, and could easily have re-registered the birth at any time since to add his details.

And it is not trivial or just a bit of paper: in the absence of an explicit parental responsibility agreement, the fathers name on the birth certificate now provides the father with parental responsibility, including for example potential for access rights in the event of a split.

So, by not exercising minimal consideration of the legal practicalities and processes, Ed Miliband appears to have failed to ensure he has legal status as his childs parent. I suppose he doesn’ understand this either.

As such it speaks to his personality, organisation, and seriousness with which he has thought about being a parent.

So, by not exercising minimal consideration of the legal practicalities and processes, Ed Miliband appears to have failed to ensure he has legal status as his childs parent. I suppose he doesn’ understand this either.

Or perhaps he understood perfectly well and made a deliberate, conscious decision to forgo his rights as a parent. We don’t know, and this kind of speculation is (a) pointless, and (b) in rather poor taste. It’s none of anybody’s business but theirs.

Dunc – and as others have pointed out, the government he was part of legislated to make joint registration compulsory by 2011.

Of course extending unlimited tolerance to the intolerant means that tolerance will cease to exist in a free society. The intolerant will eventually destroy the tolerant and tolerance. You can’t stop people thinking or saying what they want. However, the tolerant pushing back against the intolerant neanderthal is acceptable. It is liberal to speak out against intolerance and illiberal not to. The distinction that an intolerance has a religious source is irrelevant.

69

Word

I’d like to nail my colours to the mast of post 69 too, even though as a result the word ‘tolerant’ will now probably echo in my head until the end of time.

So, in summary: we don’t have to put up with intolerant behaviour, but we do have to put up with intolerant views. Although ‘put up with’ is not the same as ‘suffer in silence’. Shout at the nasty people by all means, but don’t seek to gag them. All agreed?

“So, in summary: we don’t have to put up with intolerant behaviour, but we do have to put up with intolerant views. Although ‘put up with’ is not the same as ‘suffer in silence’. Shout at the nasty people by all means, but don’t seek to gag them. All agreed?”

Err, yes, as I said @63

@ Tim

Yeah, you did. It just seemed we’d been squabbling over identical opinions for awhile there.

What is actually the aim of “Daily Mail goes for Ed Miliband’s family | Liberal Conspiracy” ?