<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Ed, and the Wedding."]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/54.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Ed, and the Wedding.
'He's living out of wedlock him you know....ooooooh'

Well, I have to ask, so what? Why is Marriage such a big thing to the right wing gutter press? If his relatonship is stable and happy, does it really matter whether some mumbo-jumbo has been said and a piece of paper dished out?

Seriously? What's the big fething deal?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1977863.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1977863.page GMT Ed, and the Wedding.
Ditto all their nice readers.

Hurrah for the (Doris) Daily Maily]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1977907.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1977907.page GMT Ed, and the Wedding.
Mr Mystery wrote:So, Labour has a new Leader (hurrah!) and the first thing the Daily Nazi says about him?

'He's living out of wedlock him you know....ooooooh'

Well, I have to ask, so what? Why is Marriage such a big thing to the right wing gutter press? If his relatonship is stable and happy, does it really matter whether some mumbo-jumbo has been said and a piece of paper dished out?

Seriously? What's the big fething deal?


It's funny isn't it? I said the same thing about Cameron meeting with Murdoch.

Of course, it absolutely ISN'T a big deal that he isn't married, but to take us back to the subject of 'undue influence', how do you feel about a Labour leader that's firmly in the back pocket of the unions? I mean, I love the '70s as much as the next guy, but....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1977962.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1977962.page GMT Ed, and the Wedding.
And I'd rather have a Leader friendly to Unions (who you know look after the little man. In theory at least) than one jumping into bed with a non-Citizen Media Magnate.

And this is a totally different thing. He's not married, so what? If that's the best dirt the Daily Arsehole can come up with, he must be pretty squeaky clean.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1977976.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1977976.page GMT Ed, and the Wedding. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1977977.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1977977.page GMT Ed, and the Wedding.
Mr Mystery wrote:Is he though?

Yes. He wouldn't have won without widespread support from them. They own him now. The other Miliband was more popular with the parliamentary party and the wider membership, meaning that if Ed doesn't play ball, and the unions stop favouring him, his party mandate would dissolve.

And I'd rather have a Leader friendly to Unions (who you know look after the little man. In theory at least) than one jumping into bed with a non-Citizen Media Magnate.

Are you aware of New Labour's relationship with the Tabloids? Tony Blair courted Murdoch too, y'know.

And this is a totally different thing. He's not married, so what? If that's the best dirt the Daily Arsehole can come up with, he must be pretty squeaky clean.

Yeah, it's not a big deal at all. I was just using it as an excuse to bring this up, to be honest.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1978010.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1978010.page GMT Ed, and the Wedding. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1978062.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/319832/1978062.page GMT