To think that smearing a politician through his dead father is taking political debate too far?

[pointythings]

Yes, of course we have a free press. That's great. But smearing a politician you don't agree with by hanging an entire article on something his dead father wrote when he was an angry 17-year-old is just beyond distasteful. Attack the man's part and his politics, that is part of robust and free political debate, but leave a dead man out of it.I'm looking at you, Daily Mail.

I hope that papers on the other side of the political spectrum won't follow suit, although there is probably a wealth worth of sh*t to be dug up on the parents of current Conservative, Lib Dem and UKIP politicians...

I am that it has come to this, and I am naive to have thought that even the Daily Mail would not stoop so low.

YANBU

I think it's terrible to attack someone through their relatives, whether parents or whoever.

Why would Ed Miliband necessarily share father's opinions? Most children don't. Surely his father was entitled to his opinions anyway? Doesn't sound as though he did/wrote/believed anything that unusual, even if it was relevant (which it's not). The Daily Mail seemed to be quoting things that Ralph Miliband had written when he was 17 at one stage.

Also agree that it's a bit much to attack someone's opinions when they are dead and can't answer back.

Really pleased that this seems to be backfiring on the Daily Mail, and if anything making people sympathetic to Miliband.

Good point, Skyler.

The Daily Mail supported fascism. Ralph Miliband served this country in war-time and fought against fascists.

Which is the patriot? It's not the Mail.

It is vile and despicable.

But it is a nasty evil paper. I am right wing and I still think this. I would never read it.

I feel the need to add the fact that right wing is not a synonym for racist, sexist or homophobic either, as I am also none of these.

Vile tactics are always vile, whoever uses them. Damien MacBride, anyone? He should go and work for the Mail. He would fit right in.

Its nasty and im not fan of milliband and think dm does the right more harm and most reasonable people would see this as wrong.

Yanbu.

It's awful.

Bet the Daily Mail never runs an article on how Cameron's Dad wrote something in his diary when he was 17. Or how he made his money. Because not even Cameron's enemies would use that - it's not Cameron's doing.

So Miliband promises to freeze fuel prices after the next election = socialism but Gidiot promising to freeze petrol prices until the next election is not.

I'm really hard of thinking, obviously.

Yanbu--it is vile.

Although political debate is not what the Hate Mail is about.

YANBU but only to a point. Ed Miliband, like a lot of politicians, is not above referring to his father in speeches and pointing to him as one of his influences and inspirations. In his 2012 speech to conference for example he said 'This upbringing has made me who I am'. Isn't it right, therefore that we know more specifics about that upbringing?

He's also made the electoral race very personal in response to the accusations of him being a crap leader. In this year's speech he made a big mistake of saying 'if they want to have a debate about leadership and character, be my guest'. He can't throw down a challenge like that and then get upset if a right-wing newspaper pulls apart his background.

And David Cameron makes use of Sam Cam. Do you think the Daily Mail is going to pull apart her parents?

Leadership and character, Cogito, not background or parentage.

I feel the need to add the fact that right wing is not a synonym for racist, sexist or homophobic either, as I am also none of these.

This.

I'm as left wing as anything, but that doesn't make me automatically in favour of renationalising everything and following the North Korean model of politics and economics. Which is why we should be debating the issues, not attacking the people. Shouting 'socialism' or 'neocon' is meaningless. I can disagree as vehemently with people on these boards as anyone, but I do try to attack the argument and not the person, and at the end of it if we agree to disagree but have had a good old ding-dong debate (note: not a bunfight) then that's good.

I also really hope this backfires against the Mail.

Yanbu the Mail are vile. The original arricle was vile and the way it was done today was even worse. I hope this works against them, but i have a feeling it won't.

Gosh yes, pointythings, I couldn't agree more.

I read the other day that people are much too likely to only read what their own side writes about the opposing view and thus spend their time arguing against straw men. I am trying really hard not to do this anymore.

It does seem to be backfiring already if you look at the comments. Although the online readership (and online version of the Mail) is very different to the printed version. And presumably many commentators aren't Mail readers, they've heard about the outrage and have turned up to object.

Cogito a debate about leadership and character =|= a character assassination. And David Cameron can speak out and defend himself. I fail to see how something Ed Miliband's father wrote as an angry 17-year-old can be 'in the public interest' in terms of EM's politics - I wonder what we would find in DC's diary at the same age? Nothing very pleasant either. Blimey, if people judged me by my teenage self, I'd never have got a job, got married or been anywhere but in a deep dark hole. And that's my teenage self, not my Dad's teenage self (which would have been a worse problem, he blew things up conducting chemistry experiments in his mum's kitchen).

Politics is a dirty game IMO. Same with the newspaper industry. . Don't know much about the Damian MacBride thing but none of them come out of it looking good. Of course Milliband should be furious and defend his Father. But should he have to. Well perhaps not. I can see that it's a dirty trick too far.

I really feel the need to say that Damien MacBride really was the worst of the worst...they are NOT all like that. On any side of politics. Not all papers are as vile as the Mail either. Just have a read of Flat Earth News.

Oh yeah, I think the Mail owes us a series of articles quoting Cameron's diaries from his time in the Bullingdon club. I bet they are hilarious tales of vandalism and destruction. And that still wouldn't be as bad as this horrible smear because it would be Cameron's own behaviour, not his Dad's character.

" a debate about leadership and character =|= a character assassination."

Since when? When it comes to politicians, anything is 'fair game'. There's not an aspect of their lives that remains private. I agree that it is rather below the belt to drag a dead Dad into the picture but it's all part of the continuum. As for what we'd find in DC's diary, haven't the left-wing press frequently made a huge amount of hay out of his Bullingdon Club days?

I would hate to think my kids might be judged by what I was getting up to when I was 17. I still have my diaries somewhere and I cringe if I peek at them.

The Mail is a shit paper full of lax journalism. Though I hear it makes decent loo roll in an emergency.

Yes but he was in the Bullingdon club - nothing to do with his father at all.

I read this today and was shocked. This is a 17 yr old lad who made one comment in his diary. FFS that is just grasping at straws in terms of his lifelong political/personal beliefs. Plus to run it with the headline they did is just despicable.

Lazy hateful journalism.

They have mentioned it a lot because even within Oxford it's considered elitist and because it's something he chose to join, not something (like which school he attended) that was chosen for him. That is what he did as an 18 year old, not what his father wrote as a 17 year old.