The Reds said

-->

26th Sep '10 by SW10Chap

27 comments 8045 reads

Ed Milliband wins the Labour leadership over his brother with a margin of around 1%.

With a debt apparently owed to the Unions and perhaps the old left, will he be able to create a credible shadow cabinet of MPs who didn't support his candidacy?

Is Labour doomed to a Parliament of infighting as they try to discover the successor to New Labour?

What kind of opposition can they be expected to provide - and does the "deficit deniers" charge this drive the Liberal Democrats further into the Conservative's arms?

SW10

Unlock with Email

Unlock with Google

Already have an account?
Login here

About the Author

SW10Chap

Premium Member

27 comments

thegreatgeraldo

27th Sep '10

if the world does end in 2012, then the electorate might boot the tories out.

;-#))))

SW10Chap

27th Sep '10

It could be that after that election, david gets the chance to be the next labour leader, and in that sense perhaps he has won this contest.

I think that's an astute observation. Assuming the ConDems don't do too much damage then one way or another they'll keep Labour at bay next time around - whether alone or in a further coalition.

The big question remains whether Dave and Nick can keep the marriage going for the requisite five years; a severe fallout would probably see both being punished and allow Labour to come back in. In that scenario one could even imagine the Liberals giving Nick the boot and opting for someone of a redder tinge who could form a coalition with Labour.

Whilst it seems that the public accept the need for severe cuts, if the pain of the austerity programme starts to bite too deeply then there could be change in public opinion, charmed by a "spend-to-recover" message.

Something of a preview may be playing out in France now, where a president elected to create a "rupture" has failed, resulting in an electorate which has deserted him and is seeking solace from the comforting words of the Socialists.

SW10

thegreatgeraldo

27th Sep '10

Call me old-fashioned, but it strikes me that the ideal time to have discussed the cuts would have been during the General Election. However, I still think it' s worth the major parties having the debate, even if it changes very little, if anything. Regardless of who you think is right, it strikes me that democracy is best served in this case by both sides laying out their plans & spelling out what their proposed cuts will actually mean to services, employment, growth etc....

kenobi

27th Sep '10

Interesting thought, how does this marry with fixed term parliments ?

My understanding now is if the coalition fails, and the libs fail to support the government, they can vote them down, and even a non confidence but there is no election, the parties merely negotiate to form a new government, the maths make it very difficult to get anything other than a tory dominated party with the obvious being tory liberal. However if liberals start to defect, or even some tories if the going should get tough, then things might look different.

kenobi

27th Sep '10

Call me old-fashioned, but it strikes me that the ideal time to have discussed the cuts would have been during the General Election

My goodness what an out of date concept ! You are so slow tgg, how would you ever get elected by being honest about the scale of cuts needed. You'd just say we think we need to get rid of the majority of the structural deficit in one term, implying 51% in peoples minds, then when you get in, change to no, we're going to get rid of it all ! and all that stuff about the nhs being ringfenced, well maybe it is but they're cost cutting like there's no tomorrow, so we'll see about that.

Get recovery going, give the banks the option to buy back their own shares from the government and that way you can show a profit without having to wait for a future privatisation , perhaps force them to spend x % of their profits on this ?? ( just goes to show what a much better solution it would have been in the first instance to open huge lines of credit to the banks and support them that way, then we'd have made a guarenteed profit without destroying all that shareholder value and pension fund value - oh I forgot moral hazzard),

anyway jokes aside, couldn't agree more tgg, why couldn't we have had an honest debate at the time of the election and people could have chosen ?

sirlurkalot

27th Sep '10

The funny thing is that I was reading an article about "kidulthood" or some such odd name the other day, which is the way people in their twenties don't grow up and leave home, marry and behave responsibly. It seems many British people are leaving it until their thirties to grow up and think as an adult. And here we are with the Leader of her Majesty's Opposition being age 40 having only been in Parliament for 5 years. Am I the only one who thinks he's a bit too young and inexperienced? What happened to the leader being an experienced operator in his late 50s or 60s, who'd already held a couple of the great offices of state? Why has politics descended into who looks good on telly and gives a good interview?

What options does David M have now? I understand he was a safe bet as European Foreign Secretary or whatever that embarrassing Gordon Brown sycophant is called in Brussels these days, until DM declined to be put forward for that job. What a shame they can't offload her and put DM in her place. What other jobs could be available for him in the nearish future?

kenobi

27th Sep '10

And here we are with the Leader of her Majesty's Opposition being age 40 having only been in Parliament for 5 years

Relative to whom ?

say David Cameron ? Prime minister , aged 43 ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron

who entered the house of commons in 2001 ?
leader of the party in 2005 ?

prime minister 2010 ?

sounds like Ed is a few years older than cameron was when he became leader

kenobi

27th Sep '10

Sorry I meant to say, and then there's Barack Obama, beating hilary and then Mcain

I do agree with you, it seems we as a society seem to have lost some of the respect
for experience and age. But this isn't a new thing, Blair was pretty young when he entered
No 10, we've now had 2 leaders who have had children born at no 10 in a row.
It was many 10's of years since a single one happened , I would guess two consecutive
ones was unprecedented ?

Television and the media has a lot to answer for if you ask me,

cheers K

thegreatgeraldo

28th Sep '10

What happened to the leader being an experienced operator in his late 50s or 60s, who'd already held a couple of the great offices of state?

Oh dear! The Libs tried that, but old age brings with it the odd drawback - so then they gave the job to a member of the yoof, some spotty teenager with a skateboard - & look how that's turned out........

emptyend

28th Sep '10

Am I the only one who thinks he's a bit too young and inexperienced?

No. And I suspect that there will be a strong contrast for a while between him and his brother, with David showing Ed up (which may well be why David will, I suspect, not put himself forward for the Shadow Cabinet this time round). I'd guess they will wait to see just how badly Ed's speech today bombs in the hall.

However, it is worth remembering that when Blair became Labour leader he had previously had a very similar profile to Ed M....being a relatively minor Shadow Cabinet minister with a reputation from freezing in the headlights (hence the "Bambi" nickname).....and look what happened to him!!

In this case though, I think Labour will eventually realise that they have picked the wrong one - which will eventually mean that Charlie Wheelan's lobbying for Ed ("persuading" Balls' MPs to put Ed second.....distributing voting materials to union members with only Ed's picture on etc) will come to be seen as yet another cock-up .....and (one hopes) may lead to a diminution of union power within the Labour movement. I do think it absurd to have a "proportional" system can lead to both the party membership and the MPs voting for David (but getting Ed foisted on them by the Unions) - and I dare say that will be changed once they realise their error.

What happened to the leader being an experienced operator in his late 50s or 60s, who'd already held a couple of the great offices of state? Why has politics descended into who looks good on telly and gives a good interview?

Basically the problem that Labour have is the same as the one the Tories had in 1997.....all the experienced hands have been tainted by association with previous failures! The one exception to that in 1997 was that Ken Clarke should have been immune from such criticism - and the Tory rank and file failed to elect him.....with the result that they stayed out of power at least 5 years longer than they should have done!

What options does David M have now? I understand he was a safe bet as European Foreign Secretary or whatever that embarrassing Gordon Brown sycophant is called in Brussels these days, until DM declined to be put forward for that job. What a shame they can't offload her and put DM in her place. What other jobs could be available for him in the nearish future?

I very much agree that he has made a good fist of foreign affairs - and, as you say, it is a shame that won't be put to good use. I suspect he'll be biding his time away from the limelight - and may return (perhaps with William Hague on the other side) in the guise of "an experienced operator in his late 50s or 60s, who'd already held a couple of the great offices of state?"

sirlurkalot

28th Sep '10

kenobi,
Yes, my point does apply equally to Cameron. It wasn't a party political point, it was an observation about British society.

ee
"all the experienced hands have been tainted by association with previous failures!"
Yes, that's generally true, but aren't there a few senior Labour figures who've fallen out with Brown in the last few years and resigned from Cabinet without getting tainted? Or Alastair Darling? Or Charles Clarke?

Surely David M declined to go for the European Foreign Secretary job last year specifically because at this moment he thought he'd make leader? Surely David M won't be the leader after Ed M, if he ever is: if Ed M is a success, David M's defeat would be proven to be vindicated, whilst if Ed M is a failure, the Labour party won't go for another Miliband next.

emptyend

28th Sep '10

Yes, that's generally true, but aren't there a few senior Labour figures who've fallen out with Brown in the last few years and resigned from Cabinet without getting tainted? Or Alastair Darling? Or Charles Clarke?

Darling is as tainted as they come - and is also saying that after 23 years on the front bench that is enough for him.

Clarke is a man who SHOULD have been well-positioned, having made his disaffection very plain some while ago with the way things were going. However, he lost his seat last time and is in any case (paradoxically!) distrusted for disloyalty. He now works for the UEA.

It is unfortunate that there rarely seems to be a way back for those who resign from Cabinet (look at Heseltine, Brittain, Pym and others under Thatcher). Gould was one Labour man who seemed fairly sound - but he went back to NZ. Cook of course was bright but flawed.....can't think of anyone more credible than Clarke on the Labour side who left.

Surely David M won't be the leader after Ed M, if he ever is: if Ed M is a success, David M's defeat would be proven to be vindicated, whilst if Ed M is a failure, the Labour party won't go for another Miliband next.

Can't argue with that! Time for something completely different perhaps? Some suggest a career at Harvard.

AnonymousUser858

28th Sep '10

He could always take an internship with Hillary Clinton* as a way of getting some real work experience whilst figuring out how one member of a political family can emerge from the shadow of another.....

*she has made some famously complimentary remarks about young David. Thinks he has a radiant smile. And boyish good lucks. And great hair......

kenobi

28th Sep '10

Yes, my point does apply equally to Cameron. It wasn't a party political point, it was an observation about British society.

>> yes sure, it's just difficult for an opposition to elect an older leader than the government, so the cameron leadership puts pressure on other parties to go for youth. (especially if the electorate seem to like it),
I recall (I think it was paddy ashdown), saying I'm going because I don't think it right that the youngest party has the oldest leader.

These things are trends, it's a shame vince cable didn't run, but after the lack lusture performance of Menzies Campbell the party probably would not have gone for him anyway.

Cheers K

sirlurkalot

28th Sep '10

Some of the analysis of who (didn't) vote for Ed Miliband is interesting.

We can see which candidates each Labour MP voted for here http://www2.labour.org.uk/leadership-mps-and-meps .

Comparing that to the list of Her Majesty's Shadow Cabinet here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Opposition_Shadow_Cabinet , you can see that the only Shadow Cabinet members to have voted for Ed M as a first choice, apart from himself, are those well-known thought leaders:
John Denham
Hilary Benn
Peter Hain
Rosie Winterton

http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2010/09/eds-southern-discomfort.html states "In London..... David Miliband came first in every single one of the capital's 73 seats" and "In the South outside London (and by that I mean from the Severn to the Wash), Ed Miliband came first in just seven [Constituency Labour Parties]." and "By my rough count, Ed came first only in 62 seats out of 650 across the whole of the UK. So David won a massive 90.5 per cent of the [Constituency Labour Parties]"

bugsmunny

28th Sep '10

jeeez it's like an edition of GOM...no evidence that old blokes, usually lawyers or judges earning 100s K per year have made the world a better place - they just perpetuate the same crud that lines their pockets, their friends pockets and shafts everyone else.

sirlurkalot

29th Sep '10

I guess I'm responsible for this thread getting ageist and sounding like GOM. I'll just observe that I'm only half a dozen years older than Ed M, and I hardly consider myself grown up yet! LadyL thinks I still live like a student or beach bum. I don't think of myself as "old", but I'd reckon someone a decade+ older than me would be more experienced and surely much better at governing a country!

bugsmunny

29th Sep '10

Guess there are lots of lawyers and Bankers on here.

StrollingMolby

30th Sep '10

It seems like the Labourites have elected the wrong brother - wasn't David supposed to be the up-and-coming swashbuckling type to lead Labour back into government?

Contrast clean-cut & slick David with Ed - everytime I see Ed on TV I think his face has been moulded out of plasticine by Nick Park.

"It's the wrong Miliband, Gromit!"

emptyend

2nd Oct '10

Excellent Private Eye cover on the Milibands this week:

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Take a free trial

Facebook Twitter Youtube Instagram RSS

This site cannot substitute for professional investment advice or independent factual verification. To use it, you must accept our Terms of Use, Privacy and Disclaimer policies.

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Take a free trial

The Reds said "We'll be led by Ed"

Unlock the rest of this article with a 14 day trial

About the Author

SW10Chap

27 comments

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...