Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,960
I keep seeing this and I can't understand it all. As far as I can see, David M was the anointed heir, a shoo-in for the leadership and completely cocked it up. Ed M was the rank outsider (he wasn't even second favourite) but, being a consummate politician, worked the field, built up alliances and set out a vision that won the day. The Labour leadership election demonstrated two things clearly - David is no politician, he was a policy wonk and ace bureaucrat but had no feeling for an electorate; Ed emphatically is, he set out a vision and persuaded enough voters to back him.
Now, people may not like him or reject his policies but to say that his brother is a better politician than him is complete nonsense: Ed wins elections even when the odds are stacked against him; David can't win when everything's in his favour - that counts for a lot
David Milliband had the highest number of votes from MP's
David Milliband had the highest number of Party members voting for him
Ed Milliband had the highest number of votes after a concerted Union campaign by UNITE etc to vote him after he promised the earth to them which tipped the balance.
The older Milliband is statesmanlike, came across well to the general public (Certainly in comparison to the 3 above I mentioned) and quick qitted in interviews - Everything Ed Milliband isn't. This election is an open goal waiting to be tapped in. We will never know, but I'm convinced it would be a Labour landslide if they had chosen the other brother. Another thing, what is the 'Vision' that young Ed has set up? All I hear is a miss mash of un-implementable nonsense. The energy price capping for example.