91Èȱ¬

Labour governments, including the one Ed Miliband was part of, and chief advisor to Brown totally screwed up the country during 13 years in power. He says "We will learn from our mistakes" with one breath and then please let us have another go !!!!!
Ed Miliband says time for a change, a fresh labour party. He wrote the 2010 manifesto and will keep Balls, Cooper, D Mil, and many more rotten ex ministers in his 'fresh' shadow cabinet, how refreshing is that?

Labour are finished, thank God.

A core of Marxism, with an outer of opportunism, sprinkle with PR and put under the grill for 20 minutes until golden brown.

I saw Ed Milliband interviewed by that other chap, Andrew Marr this morning and to be fair he scrubs up well and sounds a pleasant enough person.

I have been saying now for at least two years that Labour needs to go back to its roots and ask itself some serious questions about where it wants to go. I had hoped a seriously punishing election defeat would force this on them. This has not happened which is unfortunate for the Left in British politics.

So now we have a new leader of the Labour Party worrying about the squeezed middle. If the middle are squeezed then it must be sheer hell at the bottom.

My question is whether our politics for the immediate future is going to be squabbling about how to divide a substantially smaller cake rather then about how to find the means to bake a far larger and more sustaining cake.

Nick

Good report. You nailed it. I watched most of the interview with Marr, and Ed was on the defensive throughout - even Marr was unimpressed. Aren't new leaders supposed to get a honeymoon period?

I never thought I would comment here, (it's all GeoffWard fault) ;-)
First thoughts:
He looks almost too smart and intelligent.
He looks like a tough character under the smooth exterior.
Will he serve the ordinary people as well as the country?
His brother looked as if he was gritting his teeth very hard at the outcome.
Rather impressed at his speed with the cube.
His name is easy to remember and spell.
He has presence.
I think most of us would like to know even more about this person.
He is pretty good at maths and will know to argue for cash for projects.
His background in Philosophy will be useful (less likely to be deluded by the appearance of things)
He likes to think of himself as less of an academic and more of a motivator.
He has inherited good genes, that is to say he will not be easily swayed by popular opinion and will be willing to accept the struggle. (my hope at least)
He appears to spend less to get a better result.
Does he have good prescience?

Ed Miliband only has to reinstate Clause IV, "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service", and the UK can have deja vu with the Labour Party when we revisit the mid '80s and see Labour seek to nationalise and manage by "Big Government" which alwasy their downfall - as it was then and as it was until Blair got the Party to give up that aspiration.

We would see the UK return to Winters of Discontent and, with the Unions clearly intent on ascendancy, one can see that Ed Miliband will be under enormous pressure to rescind much of the Union Restraint legislation (introduce by both Conservatives AND New Labour) so that the Union Barons can hold the country to ransom once again.

deja vu indeed!

It is such a shame that Labour has taken a lurch to the, probably unelectable, too far left of the political middle ground but then they were, with the beauty of historical perspective, always a Party best suited for being THE mainstream Political Opposition rather than ever being truly successful in managing the government of the UK.

I wish Ed Milliband every good luck. We need someone who can lead their party with intelligence and humility and I think he's got it, as I think his brother has too. David will do what is best for the party and what he thinks will help his brother. The Tory press will be out there trying to demean him, but I think the Tories and Nick Clegg should be quaking in their boots to have such a superior challenger to their destructive policies. Go take the fight to them Ed. You weren't my first choice, but I am happy with you. David Cameron is just a shallow face of the hard right - he's got no idea what it's like to struggle. Nick Clegg can't hide his true colours forever. You've got real opposition now. It makes my heart beat with excitement and hope again.

Ed's bigest problem will be to reunite the Labour Party.
The Labour Party bigest problem is to re-write histroy.

Good luck to them, their going to need it.

One last point, Ed said "he gets it." Wasn't that what Gordon Brown said on more then one occation and didn't have the guts to change policy. I hope Ed does or he'll go the same way as Gordon.

I await to see the policy changes.

The labour leadership contest is a perfect example for the tories to use as an explanation of why AV shouldn't be introduced.

In the vote, the person who came second in the amount of votes ended up winning the leadership, and the person who came first in the amount of votes ended up losing.

ie by using AV, it means that the least popular candidate wins, and the most popular candidate loses. unless the person gets over 50% on the first-choice vote-count, then the person who lost the main vote wins the contest.

Ed only won because he didn't have enough people selecting him for their choice, so Ed won, not because he was 1st choice (as his brother won that stage), not because he was 2nd choice (as his brother won that stage too), and not evem because he was 3rd choice (as his brother won that stage too), he won in the end because more people selected him for their 4th choice than his brother.

So, with AV, you end up getting the exact opposite of what people voted for. People are forced into voting for people (on their 2nd/3rd choice) that they specifically don't want elected purely in order for their main vote to be counted as valid.

The leadership election has proved that AV produces the wrong result (ie the opposite of what people voted for or wanted), and that the new labour leader's position is completely dependant on the unions.

When Ed says "new labour is dead", he's not referring to getting rid of spin over substance, or getting rid of bullying, smearing, lying, or getting rid of a spend/borrow/tax mentality, or finally admitting that new labour under brown bankrupted the country, he's referring to the idea that he wants to lurch to the left.

It'll just be deficit-denial, not taking any responsibility for the mess we're in, and trying to convince the voters that the only way out of debt is to spend/borrow more money to pass onto labour voters.

He'll effectively buy-off the "core" labour vote, but he'll lose the rest.

Labour won't get anywhere near power for a long time.

"What could have been" is an interesting question. If his brother had had the guts to stand up to brown a year before the election and apologised to the country for making us go bust, then we'd most likely have David Miliband as the labour leader, and he could well have won the 2010 general election.

So, instead of having a labour PM (David Miliband) with 5 years left of labour in power, we've got a coalition government where labour has no power at all, and a labour opposition that'll never get anywhere near power in 2015. It's been self-inflicted political suicide by labour across the board for the last 3 years or so; they're too gutless (or too stupid) to ever do what's right, either for them, or for the country as a whole. I imagine that David Milband is crying in his corn flakes this morning, because he knows that his lack of courage has meant that he's lost out forever on his chance to lead the party/country, and that that lack of courage has also left his party to become unelectable and won't get the chance to even get close to power for at least 10 years.

Labour are history.

We shall know on Tuesday if he is to be defined as Red Ed. Personally, I hope he is a Red Ed and decides to go against the Darling budget, and opts for a slower cuts process, in line with what Ed Balls has been saying. I believe he would do well to suggest early that he would like Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. This will be music to the ears of the Unions and will send a very clear message to the Coalition. We should not be afraid of turning to the left at this time in British politics.

After the failures of New Labour, this might be chance for the Labour Party to regain itself.

The huge failure of New Labour was that it ceased to be the Labour Party anymore - it turned its back on the people. It turned its back on the people who look to it for fairness, justice, and equality.

They have a long way to go before I could consider them electable again, but it's better Ed than David.

Well he obviously doesn't have a chance in certain parts of the press. I'm really disappointed in the Telegraph; until today I thought it a fairly level-headed paper but instead the handful of agenda-blinded journos decided they knew Ed bettter than they knows himself; completely contradicting what he himself said in that paper.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Yes I've heard enough about how much he "loves" David. Time on that now.

Oddly enough I wanted to know just how long Ed has worked in the real world, not just the political one. Briefly as a TV journalist seems to be all we are allowed to know by the 91Èȱ¬. It would be good to have a leader of the Labour part who has actually worked outside of politics and unions for a change.

Ed needs only to define himself as being pragmatic and a believer in social justice. "Middle England" may well suffer most in the next 24 months and I suspect that being Labour leader may be a rather easy job. I don't believe brother David will embark on the sought of factional wars that be-devilled the Brown-Blair years. That being the case then, Labour and Ed can connect with the electorate and put many Liberal MPs and voters under pressure to re-evaluate what they believe in and what is truly best for the country.

Ed was a researcher and speechwriter for Harriet Harman so we have good idea what his thoughts and ideas will be... All great news for the tories now RED ED is the new Labour leader...

A very big mistake would be to be 'responsible' about the cuts to public services. Ed needs to hound the coalition when they start to take effect and by doing so drive a wedge between the LD's in government and those left wondering what the hell is happening to their party. He does not have to be positive because the negative is what this government is all about. At the same time he can ditch the excesses of New Labour like toadying up to the city and the extreme corporateness in the public services and the tolerance of the obscene concentration of wealth in the UK.

Doesn't matter to me, I will never again vote labour after what Tony Blair did to this country.

With the UK now under the current Coalition is NOW firmly swinging towards the Right of Center in British Politics with the Rich getting Richer, so to Counter-Act this position there really is NO reason as to why a more traditional Older-Style working mens/womens Labour Party under Ed Miliband should not move further towards the Left.

Otherwise, you will simply have ALL 3 Leaders standing upon each others shoulders in the Centre of British Politics ALL sounding like Carbon-Copies of each other, while the People continue to suffer the way these current Cuts in Public Expenditure are and will effect their everyday livlyhoods.

The only way to bridge the Gap between the Rich and Poor is to Tax the Rich far more than at present, since with such as Bankers and their Life-Style Bonuses they should have their Bonuses ended and their Pay Cut.

Other prefessions should also drastically have their Pay Cut back in areas such as in the Legal Profession [ Soliticors ] and Medical Profession [ General Practictioners ] etc., while other lower paid Workers should get a Pay-Rise.

Seems most, including the man himself, are pretty firm on what he's not.

And that seems to be many things.

Sterling start.

However, looking at the 91Èȱ¬ political blogs, as a Miliband he seems to at least be an endless source of rather hard to grasp fascination to the exclusion of all else, and here at least a means to simply stick various grammatical devices in front of 'Ed'.

I wonder who will give up first. You... or your audience?

But the 'he's really in the middle by not being as left as he could be' meme is an interesting one being played concurrently, and closer to home. By sheer coincidence.

1. At 11:17am on 26 Sep 2010, FairandTrue wrote:

A very good analysis, how can Labour redefine themselves when they are serving up the same as what lost them the election.

Blimey,at the speed these posts are being moderated Ed will be PM by the time all the RWTs read this !

@3 truths33k3r

A masterly statement which gives no evidence, and actually says nothing about the subject. All it does is convey your distaste.

I have always been suspicious of any name containing the words "true" or "truth", remembering what my Russian mother told me about Pravda and Izvestia: "In 'The Truth' there's no truth, and in 'The News' there's no news. Your post actually contains neither.

1/10 - must try harder.

I wish him well. God knows the average Labour voter deserves better than they have had of late.
But he carries baggage, not only of his role in the final days of the last govt but also in the genes. He comes from a Marxist family.Britain may often play slightly to the left of centre - but never as far as marxism - and some of his early language sound a little bit too much towards that.
But, to be fair, I think I prefer his 'freshness' to that of his 'superior' brother.
I hope he sweeps the stables clean. If he is wise, he will rid himself of known troublemakers - who we can leave nameless for now.

Let's see where he takes Labour, but right now I think Cameron and Clegg will be quietly pleased.

Ed Miliband has the ability to lead from the centre ground of British politics. Judged by his TV interview he intends to do that.
As unemployment mounts in 2011, he may even gain traction from discontented electors who'll be even more fearful than today.
If Ed Balls and others are correct - that the Tory Government-cum-Liberal poodles are risking a big double-dip recession - Ed Miliband will lead a Labour opposition that will be miles ahead in the Polls by the end of 2011. But not in power.
Ed's only problem then would be that the (by then) discredited coalition will try to save their seats by clinging on till 2015.

Everything Ed Milliband has said so far suggests that Labour will go back to old policies. Nu Labour was a marketing tool but at least seemed to distance themselves from the past. Truth is Brown was still essentially old labour spending money we didn't have creating more of a welfare state than before. Ed the Red is/was a Brownite so expect much of the same - result the Labour historians might as well start writing 'Labour the wilderness years' right now. Anybody in their right mind wouldn't want this bunch of welfare malingerers.

I very much doubt 'Red Ed' has learned from his mistakes, but the real issue is whether the electorate have learnt from theirs.

Labour was, is and always will be the party of tax and spend, waste, bureaucracy, the nanny/surveillance state.

You can't trust Labour.

If the Ed of the thouroughly modern Milliband of brothers were a true marxcystic fibrosis then he would not be able to rubberneck at the next labourrowers conferants and say .


"Thats anuvver fine mesh we've gotten arself into"

and

"Any club that would ave mia as a memsahiber isn't worth belong too 'i'm leaving... for bollywood"

I can't figure out who would be the best of the bunch but somebody has to do the job.

There just isn't anyone capable, lets face it he's a new face out of Oxford, we want someone with guts, most of all experience... does he know about banking, farming, agriculture - no wonder there is so many advisers and quangos and we are in a state we are now in.

I doubt the party will all be united... and the unions rubbing their hands with glee.

Why didn't he speak his mind whilst in government, you'll soon see how a leopard changes it's spots.

Another product of the Labour production line of plausible, do nothing to upset the union, politicians. He lacks any kind of substance like his immediate predecessors and has nothing in his make up to set him apart from the rest of Labour's pseudo intelligentsia . His interview with Marr demonstrated his lack of conviction in the policy intentions he was making, replies interspersed with the Blair speak " look " or "now look " used to gain time to think of a non committal answer to questions he cannot or does not want to answer. He is an obvious product of the Labour school of double speak.

Labour will regret not choosing Burnham. How can a London born and bred Marxist academic theorist relate to a northern working class family?

The unions have sacrificed the opportunity to elect a leader who would relate to their working man core for some meaningless power over a party that looks like it will long be in opposition.

I have been surprised by what I have seen/heard of Ed/miliband recently -there was I listening like many to media reports -we the public never learn do we? We still listen to our irresponsible and biased media with it's own agenda. We need more from the horse's mouth the British media does not help the country. I suppose it doesn't have a conscience about the mess we arre in. It is sensationalist and irresponsible and often creates stories to then creats another 'story' out of this.

Ed Miliband is clearly tough but appears to be fair and responsible. Perhaps all this talk of new cleaner politics might also lead to a newer cleaner and responsible media. In fact one day we might have a Prime Minister who doesn't pay homage to Rupert Murdoch and actually puts the interests of the vast majority of the people first.

Whenever I see this guy, I am always reminded of a little boy lost. I keep expecting someone to pop their head over his shoulder and tell him what to do. I simply can't imagine him as prime minister. He still looks like some chinless upper class socialist twit straight from college, who ends up working for some third rate politician in order to get his feet in the door of the Westminster gravy train.

I'm glad I'm getting old, with luck I'll be dead before another labour demolition squad gets into No10.

Nick, talk of Ed having to "define himself soon" is truly absurd, and as a seasoned politcal commentator you must know this.

The reality is that the next election is at least a couple of years off, probably more. Ed has plenty of time to define himself. The electorate will have plenty else to keep their attention in the meanwhile - not least the economically illiterate cuts being imposed by the Tories and their LibDem allies. (As Ed says it is not being very left wing to take this view - just try reading most of the economic commentators in the Financial Times.)

David Cameron made an art form of taking years to NOT define himself as a politician (has he yet?) - and still he became PM. Ed has already defined himself as not continuing New Labour, and that will do quite nicely for now.

He is going to have a hard job defining himself if the 91Èȱ¬ keep insisting on doing the job for him.

Ed is the Unions' man, the 91Èȱ¬ keep pushing. However, the numbers say something very different. Here are the actual numbers of union member votes:

Diane Abbott: 25,938
Ed Balls, 21,618
Andy Burnham: 17,904
David Miliband: 58,189
Ed Miliband: 87,585

So, although Ed Miliband got the highest total with 87,585 votes, 123,649 union members voted for someone else. 58,189 voted for his brother, to start with!

So, are we going to see the new labour leader defined in terms of what the Media want, or will the public be allowed to see the true picture?

Guess.

New Labour need a May[1]cover story now that their inflatuated balls have been sidelined.

How about "Renewt'rd Labour " for the partee on the way out.

Yet again on the Marr show the words "The truth is......" from Ed.

This blatant untruth or twisting of the truth along with "to be honest" and other such classics are and have been repeated over and over by Balls, both Milibands, Harman, Mandelson, Blair, Campbell, Hain, McNulty, Cooper, Vaz, Straw, in fact every labour minister and most labour MP's and even a couple of MP's from the other parties.

As soon as I hear these words from a politician from any party I switch off or use the mute button.

When politicians put their main concern as the electorate instead of their own position and financial gain, the country might get somewhere good. Most of them are not believable as soon as they open their mouths.

Clearly Punkawalla, you would dearly like to think so about Labour - "a partee on the way out". (Interesting if it is now common among you Tories to favour a one party state? Especially now that you have annexed the LibDems.)

A more likely scenario is that the economic cuts will come to be seen as unnecessarily harsh, economically foolish and vindictively unfair (the Tories' banker friends will continue to rake in their bonuses...); the LibDems will fall apart under the pressure and bring the Government down; and one Ed Miliband will have a pretty good chance of becoming PM - if only because Cameron and his unattractively oily acolytes such as Clegg, Osborne and Gove will be so deeply unpopular.

If the Tories can't win an election in 2010 at the height of a recession, against a deeply unpopular opponent such as Brown, after 13 years of Labour Government with a demoralised and disunited party - well, you aren't going to win one once you have decimated the economy and stood by your banker friends in 2012 or 2013. Think about it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Happy that Ed Miliband won and can now spearhead Labour back to true values they lost and challenge a coalition that should already have crumbled after their uncaring and suicidal cuts.

Those who say that they are suprised by certain newspapers attacks etc should not be so naive and realise that 80% of UK papers, broadsheet or tabloid, adhere to agendas set by their powerful owners e.g. Murdoch and Barclay brothers etc. I believe that the Cameron and Osbourne are getting it so easy is because they are keen to dismantle the 91Èȱ¬ like Murdoch has been lobbying for long time.

I hope Ed sorts out a decent challenge and honours his pledges because if this coalition continues (Cable aside) we will all suffer and the wealth gap will vastly increase !

Define your enemy before he can define himself.
This statement sums up why I don't like America's army of paid political strategists. Paid political strategists seem to have their minds made up before they speak. I guess that's why they're paid - to speak someone else's thoughts.
The problem with defining your enemy is that the "enemy" comes with a self-definition, and that self-definition will be far closer to the truth than anything a third person can conjure. Defining your "enemy" leads to assumptions and you know what they say about assumnptions: "They make an ____ out of you and me."
If Ed Miliband can avoid assumptions, he will likely be able to appeal to the mainstream, the anxious middle class, and those who work hard just to pay the bills. It seems that Ed must learn not to spend so much time rebutting things that people say about him. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. What will count in the long run is what Ed does, his accomplisments, his patience in coming to understand the real "enemy".
I always saw David Milibant as more attached to New Labour – Brown and Blair. Though I liked Gordon Brown, I didn't like Topny Blair. Accordingly, I (for one) will be glad if New Labour is "dead".
Long live Labour, the respect for the working person, respect for Labour upon whose shoulders comfortably ride the elite.
Ed Milibant cannot help but define himself; he is a man of opinions and leadership. As I said above, he must learn to distance himself from what people say about him; he need not always rebut.
Maybe the unions voted him to power because he defined the working person as not the enemy; rather, he defined some other people as the enemy.

AV does not force the voter to put preferences--you can choose to only vote for one candidate--in which case no transferable vote. The advantage of the system is that you can transfer your vote -if you wish- if your main candidate is eliminated.

If only Balls had stood the test , then they could have removed the "international red flag...ellants" theme tune.

Unrenewt'rd Lab could then have sung as their orwellian wining anthem

"Weave got a lovely bunch of coconuts" to the tune of "things can only get barter"

Now they dont have t o

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think that it's a shame that politicians like Ed Milliband are too young to have any real experience or gravitas. Neither do they have the courage of their convictions to actually state what they really believe in, rather than sound-bites they think the electorate want to hear.

Is being a puppet of the City, which created the recession and destroyed millions of jobs - never mind millions of hopes - any better than being a so-called puppet of the unions?

Last time I looked it wasn't the unions who were charging outrageous 30% credit card fees on loans which people have to take out to pay their bills, because their income is being squeezed by shareholders, banks and owners who demand 20% or 30% returns year on year from their 'investments.'

It's not the unions who are in favour of importing immigrants because they're cheap and easy to fire when they're no longer needed.

It's not the unions who run smear and fear campaigns to keep decent politicians locked out of decision making.

Shame on Ed for pandering to the hooligans already. He should have made it clear that he was going to take the country back from the City and give it the rest of us - as a reminder that we actually own it anyway.

Now if only Labour could get back to its roots and start sorting out the basics - high quality health care and schools, social investment, affordable housing, and a saner spread of wealth and opportunity - we might see some progress in the UK.

I hate to say it, but I told you so. The clever money was on Ed. Which should mean that we will at least get a little blue water between the parties. If Ed sticks to his beliefs then Labour, or is it NU Nu Labour or Old Labour or Nu Old Labour will move to the left. There of coarse will be support for this from the Unions. However there will be opposition from many who burnt their bridges while following the Blair gang. Alister and Mandy are now going to be a thing of the past, or are they? We thought this when Gordon took office only to be caught out when both rose again from the ashes. Can they do it once more. Well I suppose it depends on how well Ed does. If things don't go smoothly then we could see the Houdini's of the political classes manage on more miraculous trick.

Well here's hoping that Labour will regain its true position on the left. How far left could be the next big question?

Saturday 25th September 2010 will go down in history as the day newlabour gave the next election to David Cameron. One of the worst interviews anyone new leader has ever given.

Do they know what damage this man is going to do to labour?

The labour party are history. He has the worst combination of TBs estuary English and GBs inability to connect with ordinary people.

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition look like staying that way for a decade.

It's sad for labour that Tony Blairs legacy is completely forgotten. The clowns in the hall in manchester yesterday ought to remember that it was TB who made an unelectable shambles electable.

Also New Labour did not do a half bad job. (the other half was terrible).

It's a bit like TBs policy on Iraq. If all had been sweetness and light after Saddam had been deposed, Blair would have been a hero (just like after Kossovo), alas we know what happenned.

Neither Blair nor Bush had any plan for Iraq after the war.

So Blair had no plan for his succession. GB was inevitable in his mind. That may make "new Labour" an interlude of sanity between business as usual (labour in almost permenant opposition and in thrall of the unions.

48.

"Well here's hoping that Labour will regain its true position on the left. How far left could be the next big question?"

I don't think we'll see a lurch at all....maybe a slight realignment. This union rubbish posted above is just that.

What will be interesting is the reaction of the LibDems, and Clegg in particular. After all Ed's remarks on Grad Tax and nasty bankers were pretty close to those of Vince C a couple of days ago...

So...will Clegg say he agrees with Ed on certain issues, or will he read from the Tory script ?

I have a suspicion it will be latter.

Ahhh...Robin's here with his balanced political analysis.

Mind you he makes Norman Bates look balanced.

Its a great time to be a Tory Troll..

#9 labourbankruptedusall

"Labour are history."

Unfortunately, history has a habit of repeating itself.

It was incredible that after the mess Labour left in 1979 that they would ever be elected again - yet Blair and his spin machine convinced a gullible electorate that Labour was now somehow "new".

It suits Labour to have voters with short memories - which is why they were planning to reduce the voting age.

Once again, Labour has left the economy in ruins - as they always do. No doubt they will try to re-brand themselves and pretend they have 'learned from their mistakes', but it's much more important that the voters learn - you can't trust Labour. It is the party of fiscal incompetence.

hello Ed Miliband
Here is a problem for you to chew on from the bottom of the poverty pile. After the accolades and the party is over you will have to deal with real issues including those of poverty. Drastic spending cuts across the poor end of the spectrum are creating a situation that the victims have no immediate control over. After school clubs are being dramatically reduced in number due to low funds. After school clubs are a lifeline for those who are now being told they must go to work once their youngest child is 5 years old. Where do families place their children if they are in a low paid job that requires them to work longer hours than a school day? Are we to expect more children to roam around unsupervised because the parents have no means of providing care while they are at work?

A couple of observations...
Milliband E has to fight an election 5 years hence: the world will be a very different place and he need not formulate any policies yet as his job is opposition. Cameron et al were wonderfully opaque, let's not have double standards.
Second: all this talk of 'accepting responsibility for the mess we are in'..this recession is worldwide, yes tougher in some places than others ( who would want to be Irish....)but even countries where the governments might claim to have seen it coming ( or 'fixed the roof) are suffering
Finally, the idea this guy is a rabid socialist suggests the authors of many of these posts are either very young or poorly read.

The number of comments on here from non supporters of the Labour party indicates to me that they're already rather rattled. Observations like 'Labour are history' and 'Labour are finished' (they're currently level pegging with the Tories in all the opinion polls)are clearly absurd, as Labour is now the only serious opposition party to the Con/Lib Dem coalition. Yes Labour lost the last election but so did the Tories and the Liberals. No one won. Labour still has 275 MPs (far more than the Tories did in opposition.) If you think Labour are history dream on.

And it's far too simplistic to say Labour caused the economic mess, it clearly was a financial meltdown that started in the USA sub prime property markets and went on to affect the entire world. Check out how the British economy was doing up and till the May election and then check out where we are now... and were I fear we are heading... then talk about financial incompetence. In that department I'm afraid you aint seen nothing yet...

He's going to have big problems trying to meld a more uniform Labour movement. Who had the most parliamentary support? His brother. The cabinet elections - this time restricted to that part of the party - should prove interesting. But I see the biggest problem being the immediate past. Who had the first standing ovation at Labour's conference? Why, none other than one Gordon Brown! What is it with Labour and losers? A sort of perverted version of 'play up and play the game' with them being all jolly good chaps even though they found themselves on the losing side! I'm sorry, but it was all rather more important than that. When Labour lost so did a lot of other people with many more to come. If Ed can't or won't acknowledge the mistakes they made and commit to correct them then the wilderness beckons.
Regards, etc.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Define your enemy before he can define himself". Nick Robinson's statement and observation regarding Ed Miliband's political image and identity is bang on.

The erudite Nick has identified a very tricky and pertinent problem that the new labour leader now faces and must address.

"Red Ed" is a catchy and dangerous media mantra and one which both the coalition and the media pundits will continue to milk in order to denigrate the man and manipulate public opinion against him. It's also an overt signal that the powerful and the wealthy elite, which pull the puppet strings of government and media alike, have much to fear from the new Labour leader. As a result, the British public will be fed the usual fear mongering and hype from the daily news rags etc. for months to come.

The Big Public Cutting and ideologically driven duo - Dave and George, often referred to as "Slasher and Smasher" together with their Lib Dem stooges, will undoubtedly have a field day promoting their propaganda and defining Ed as a Commie Marxist. So Ed needs to disempower his enemies' psychological and political polarizing tactics pronto.

The mainstream media and the electorate need to be wary of the coalition's "right way" paradigm, which they promote and implement as the "only way" to solve this country's structural deficit and financial crises.

There is a huge amount of wealth held and not necessarily created by a powerful, greedy but small proportion of the electorate. They cannot be excluded or ring-fenced from the Austerity and Desert Years, which we are told by this government are necessary and irrevocable.

So Ed needs to clearly define his political and fiscal agenda whilst presenting a user-friendly political identity, which is centrist and balanced. This means it needs to be inclusive of both moderate traditional Labour values and those of hard-pressed Middle England.

I believe Ed Miliband needs his big bros' experience, clear-headed pragmatism and political support. I hope that Dave Miliband can overcome his disappointment and the undeniable blow to his political career so that he can stand shoulder to shoulder with his bro as he faces the huge tasks that lie ahead for the discrdited and deflated Labour Party.

Despite the huge tasks which Ed faces, his warm, open and affable style will appeal to many. But as his opponents know to their cost, Ed Miliband is also a very clever and wily political strategist. He has a steely determination, a ruthless political focus, a very nimble mind and an accurate finger on the pulse of ordinary hard working folks' fears and aspirations.

We'll have to wait and see just how Red is Ed. What I've seen of and heard from him convinces me that he is very much his "own man". I would like to further suggest that Ed needs to identify who the opposing "enemy" actually are in his own rank and file and that his immediate response will be to inspire, unite and integrate them quickly.

Despite left wing crowing about forthcoming expenditure cuts the centre ground of British politics has become very crowded. To be credible Ed has got to forge some sort of coherent policy on deficit management because Labour has been in denial since the election. That won't be easy.

In fact its rather odd that Red-Ed wants to look after the middle classes when the Conservative right wing is grumbling about the way the middle class has been ill served by the Tory part of the Coalition.

All the more reason for cherishing coalition government. Welcome to the new normal.

#Central65

I presume Central refers to central labour party office from your comments, either that or it seems you may have been brainwashed by labour propoganda (lies) over the years.

You are quite right that non supporters of the Labour party are rather rattled. they have been for the last 13 years of suffering under labour governments and gave their verdict on labour at the election.

Observations like 'Labour are history' and 'Labour are finished' are the hopes of non labour people and labour people who do not want the unions to return to making government policy via Ed Miliband & Co.

Opinion polls so early after the formation of any new government are absurd, even more so with a new type of coalition government.

Labour lost the last election with their worst result since the early part of the last century. The bias of the electoral boundaries (soon to be rectified) and dodgy postal voting in some constituencies enabled labour to perform dreadfully but still retain a large number of MP's.

It is too simplistic to say Labour caused the economic mess, Brown & labour did however remove the Bank of England's role in looking after the banks and form an incompetent FSA which totally failed.

Brown & labour also allowed banks to give 120% mortgages etc. encouraging banks and people to take more risks with mortgages they could not afford and expensive housing, promising no more boom and bust, sold the country's gold at $250 per ounce (it is now over $1200 per ounce).

Brown continued borrowing, denying anything was wrong with the UK economy whilst piling up debt and the deficit.

Financial incompetence is what Brown and labour will be remembered for.

It's incredible how Labour always screw up by ignoring the basic fact that the electorate will not accept left wing politicians. When Thatcher was there for the taking they front up with the very left wing Michael Foot and lose. When Major was wobbling they allowed Kinnock, another left winger, to get ahead of himself and loose the election. Now after the electorate has yet again said a big NO to Gordon Brown and the politics of the old left what do they do - elect a Brown protege and hope to carry on as before refusing to accept that the electorate will not accept old style socialism. Like or loath Blair he won three elections for Labour by adopting the middle ground and as soon as they moved left again with Brown they lost. If Milliband gets stuck with the "Red Ed" tag he's finished from the start.

fromtheedgeofthefen at post 55
Ed Miliband may not be a 'raving socialist' but if he has inherited any Marxist tendencies he will have to address socialist issues first. We live in an imperfect world.

The Unions put him into power however if the Union Modernisation Fund (otherwise known as state subsidy for New Labour) is closed the question that will be asked is who is paying?

The Labour party is penniless, if not almost bankrupt and totally dependent on Unions that will have their income slashed by the Coalition.

Will Labour exist in 4 years is the question that Nick, Andrew Marr and others should be asking.

58. At 5:54pm on 26 Sep 2010, you wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.


-----------------------------------------------


Name them and shame them I say ,then send them back to college to study inglesh.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Couldn't disagree more, Robin (49). Wishful thinking on your part there, I suspect. Ed Miliband could (very probably WILL) turn out to be extremely effective. Good communicator. Consensus builder too. In particular, I'd see him being able to work well on London matters with Livingstone; odds of Ken beating Boris in the rematch are shortening every day as you've no doubt noticed.

"... Finally, the idea this guy is a rabid socialist (Ed Miliband) suggests the authors of many of these posts are either very young or poorly read" (fromtheedgeofthefen wrote @ 55)
....
I ask again, is Labour a Socialist party? If not, why not?
Is Ed Miliband a Socialist? If not, why not? - bearing in mind his whole family is steeped in Marxist Communism.

[Socialism (Wiki): is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a free association of workers to directly maximise use-values (instead of indirectly producing use-value through maximising exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the means of production.
Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind; at least for the factors of production.]

If anybody can define Socialism within the doctrine of the present-day Labour Party, with his background, it should be Ed Miliband. .... unless, of course, he's a closet Capitalist.

On another tack, posters are sorry that Andy Burnham did not bring the 'gritty' North to the Labour Leadership. Scanning the votes cast by the eligable union members, these card carrying members voted for anybody but a Northerner! Seems the unions these days are largely peopled by 'effete Southerners' - either that, or they prefer them to 'them that puts their back in real man's work'.

Opening piece by NR could well have been wriiten by Lotta Nonesense. Ed Miliband must define himself soon? Well now, I seem to remember a certain Mr Cameron who up till 2008 said he would match Labour's spending plans up to 2010. He didn't define himself until 2 years before the election. Seemed to work for him. (With a little help from his friends!)
Perhaps more danger in defining himself too strongly too soon. If his objective is to win he needs the flexibility to attack at the right time using the most effective tactics. Much could change over the next 2-3 years.