Would the Labour party be better off if David Miliband was their leader instead of Ed (UK)?

The Labour Party needs to decide what it is. It started out as the political wing of the Trades Union movement with strong socialist values. However, the Trades Union movement now represents a tiny fraction of the workforce and is run by millionaires who are more capitalist than the capitalists.

Under Michael Foot, they made themselves unelectable and condemned the British public to 17 years of Thatcherism. Tony Blair reinvented the party as Tory-lite (we're as capitalist as the Tories but kinder) and ushered in 12 years of "New Labour" government. That all went horribly wrong and we got the Tories back.

In 2014 we had a mad general election where the Conservative Party finished up with a working majority in the House of Commons with only a third of the popular vote. (The result in Scotland was even less democratic) In desperation, Labour went back to its socialist roots and brought in an elderly leftie from the wilderness to be leader - although the selection process was open to widescale abuse. That means the country has a Conservative government that two thirds of the electorate didn't vote for and an official opposition that few people want as an alternative government.

If we weren't so damned British, there'd be a revolution. I think I'll write to the Daily Telegraph.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.