Earlier this afternoon. He beat out his brother by 1.3 percentage points, with support of the unions tipping him over the edge. What now for Labour? A swing to the left? Is Ed Milliband actually electable?
I don’t think he is terribly electable, no. Not much charisma, too nerdy, too young. Maybe I’m getting old, but he looks like a sixth-former. A mistake, I think.
Miliband senior was not hugely better, but he is a bit more Prime Ministerial, and I think these things matter to the electorate. But the whole Miliband clan thing is so weird (“I love you so much, David”) that I think they would have been better off going for Ed Balls. He seems to have an actual personality. And I wanted a Prime Minister Balls, dammit! Maybe the time after next.
I couldn’t have stood David Milliband as PM. He’s another Tony Blair clone. I think Cameron will be pretty pleased that Ed got the job as opposed to David or Ed Balls.
Wouldn’t say he was electable either, but it’s early days. David is miles more polished but is extremely New Labour so I’m not sure how electable he would have been either. Ed does have a more genuine way of speaking, so if he gets good advice (or maybe ignores everyones ‘good advice’) he can maybe build an appealing public personality for himself. He should look at Cameron in this regard - he’s massively improved over the past couple of years, and has a similarly vacuous CV to Ed M.
You know it’s ironic, I work across from where his constituent office is in Doncaster, and the management routinely abuse our employment rights as workers i.e they’ve not offered the workforce any employment contracts, and if asked you will get dismissed, yet this guy is Labour leader standing on the platform of fairness for all, yet cannot seem to get the house in order 20ft away from his office. Amazing.
On Ed Balls, how is a sycophantic personality of the previous PM ever good as Labour Leader? He’s like the Martin Bormann of the party.
I think the whole contest was a bit sad as none of the candidates looked ready for leadership (although if I were to try to separate them, I’d say DM looked most ready), and labour generally looks in disarray.
It’s weird how personality doesn’t enter into these leadership contests. Of course policy and ideology should be more important. But ultimately you need to win an election, and arguably being a good leader involves some style as well as substance.
Picking the candidate that offends the least party members is the mistake the Tories made several times.
I’m another one who would have said David - I used to work for him and the person running his election campaign. Personally I think he would have made a good opposition leader on the grounds that you could see him being PM, regardless of whether he was a Blairite or not (lots of people on the front bench still are).
I can’t take Ed particularly seriously, but then I’m struggling to take any of them seriously right now (that is any of the politicians from any party) - I think I’m losing my interest in politics, which is a bit of a shame as I work in it!
So so happy, at first was apprehensive that he’d be the same old but he’s geeky and cool and young, I’m reading his speech online http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/28/ed-miliband-labour-conference-speech
I’m confused. Does Milliband’s office have direct authority over your employer?
I was wondering the same thing. Sounds like your employer is breaking the law - can’t see how that falls under the remit of the Leader of the Opposition. Try the Citizen’s Advice Bureau.
It might be something that the MP for Doncaster North could have done something about, however.
I’m not implying that, however it’s quite an irony to have such a place directly opposite his offices here and he’s now Labour leader on a platform to stop that kind of situation from happening, and it’s not something which is minor like say pay or better working conditions, it’s illegal employment practices which threatens to embarass him and the party he leads.
From this side of the pond, it seems like Labour’s best chance at this point is to woo the LibDems into being their coalition partner.
How could they do that, I wonder? And how would a Labour-LibDem coalition govern?
They’re in a far better position to do it now that Labour have jettisoned a thoroughly unpopular leader and elected a much better one. However depending on what happens between now and the next election a coalition might not even be on the cards - it only happened because the last election was so narrow that it became clear no one party would command a majority. If there’s a big swing towards Labour or the Conservatives then the Lib Dems will be on the sidelines again.
In our system no party voluntarily seeks coalition if it can avoid it.
Milliband’s just revealed he doesn’t believe in God. That’s two out of the three leaders of the main parties who are avowed atheists, and the third (Cameron) doesn’t attend church regularly.
Miliband not Milliband
In the same way that David Cameron was content to sit back and allow Gordon Brown to destroy Labour’s electability, Red Ed Milibandski will probably hope the coalition destroys itself in the next year or two.
Any collapse would write off the Lib Dems as a credible political force, and then it’s just a straight fight with the Conservatives. Depending on how well Cameron has handled the budget cuts from October it might be quite a close call.
To be fair having Tony Blair wear his religion on his sleeve is actually an aberration in our country. I can’t think of any recent prime ministers who talked about their views on religion or god as a factor on why they should be elected (although I’m happy to be corrected on this).
And likewise no politician has implied that their atheism makes them better at their job.
It’s the way it should be.
The situation in america where politicians must either be religious or pretend to be is ridiculous.