I thought he was an adviser and Crosby was running the show ?

Yep political people who specialise in running campaigns come and get some work at a rich election while there isn’t an election going on in the US. It probably helps that they speak English. Probably one of your weaker conspiracies there. Most people in that end of politics will move round and jump between jobs especially if they are good, hope the Labour guy got paid well

The Labour one wasn’t really according to the FT he only set foot in this country about 3 times.

Similarly Jim Messina was based in the US whilst the campaign was underway, but nonetheless, both he and Axelrod were key players…

There were of course many others from US politics involved behind the scenes

I think I’m with the poster that said it’s basically him popping up to say “I told you so”- Labour lost the 2015 election in 2010 when they picked the wrong brother. They either had to man up and go full left Old Labour and stand up for their voters or keep on keeping on with New Labour, not whatever this weird Tory Light without Austerity thing was.

An interesting take nabbed off twitter:

Trident. Rendition. Iraq. That mug. I can’t believe people mistook Labour for a left-wing party

Most embarrassing part of the election? Seeing people mistake Labour for a left wing party

I thnk a Labour Party under the leadership of someone like Michael Foot that took it’s inspiration from Marx and Engels and possibly Mao’s Little Red Book would be a fabulous development.

Perhaps ernie would consider a career change?

😀

It’s interesting that so many people passionately believe that a fairly talentless and inexperienced politician, with no proven leadership skills, would have definitely won the general election for Labour.

The only thing I can put it down to is that they read it in the Sun, Telegraph, or Daily Mail. Or someone who did told them.

would have definitely won the general election for Labour

I didn’t say that- but having Ed as leader definitely lost them it. David gave the impression of being a more confident leader, which is what you need to bluff your way to the top. Look at Dave- he’s useless, but is confident about it so gets away with it.

Perhaps ernie would consider a career change?

Judging by your comments on the other thread Woppit you really are keen for a puerile argument today.

Sorry ernie, I thought you were all for that sort of thing. 🙂

The only thing I can put it down to is that they read it in the Sun, Telegraph, or Daily Mail. Or someone who did told them.

Papers? Are you stuck in the 70s?

More likely they’ve seen the TV interviews and noticed he’s not an embarrassment.

If David really was a snidey little shit he’d have stayed on as an MP and had a go at Ed at every opportunity.

Taking yourself out of the country and keeping your mouth shut for 5 years are IMO not the traits of a snidey little shit.

Didn’t David M spend some time plotting against Brown leading up to 2010 and in the end fell flat on his face which may be one reason why he wasn’t elected as the Labour Leader following the election? Having a second unelected PM following the unelected Brown probebly wouldn’t have gone down well with the general public either.

Taking yourself out of the country and keeping your mouth shut for 5 years are IMO not the traits of a snidey little shit.

To be fair, I agree with this. I’m sure he has been handsomely rewarded financially recently by the (IRC) but his actions after the leader elections were spot on in terms of giving his brother and the party the best chance to move on.

The whole thing of political parties changing their views just to get elected gets on my wick.

What is the point of having a view if you’re never elected and never influence anything?

If David really was a snidey little shit he’d have stayed on as an MP and had a go at Ed at every opportunity.

Taking yourself out of the country and keeping your mouth shut for 5 years are IMO not the traits of a snidey little shit.

+1

Like Alan Sugar, he kept quiet and waited for a sensible time to voice his opinion.

What is the point of having a view if you’re never elected and never influence anything?

What is the point of a politician without a view they believe in? Politicians are for setting policies – the real work of implementation is done by the civil servants who have the actual capability to manage the task. A politician without passion for their beliefs is worthless; which is why I suspect so many folk are so disengaged with politics and frequently state ‘they are all the same’. They appear all the same for so many people because so many of them are trying to mirror the beliefs of the middle ground voter and not offend rather than having any real vision for the future.

Labour was too far left to be elected @jj. UKIP finished second in many Labour constituencies (in fact eyeballing the map more than it did to the Tories).

Perhaps it will do Labour a favour if UNITE start a new left wing party then it will end the debate about where Labour should be and they can focus on the center ground. UK politics has moved to the right in the last 50 years. We are still further left than the US, further to the right than France.

If Labour moves left its going to be consigned to history. Look at the map, to form a government it needs to win seats from the Tories which it’s not going to do if it goes left from here.

It’s a sad day when a Labour party plonked here on a political map:-

is too far left.

Perhaps it will do Labour a favour if UNITE start a new left wing party then it will end the debate about where Labour should be and they can focus on the center ground. UK politics has moved to the right in the last 50 years.

Absolutely, there’s no way Old Labour could ever get elected, there are too many aspirational middle class voters who are completely turned off by it.

footflaps – Member

What is the point of having a view if you’re never elected and never influence anything?

None- that’s why you have to convince people to vote for you. Something the Labour party failed to do over the last period- neither selling their own message or countering their opposition’s.

I’m not sure why this takes on such a binary state, in these discussions. There’s more than one way to get elected, it’s not this way or that way. You can figure out exactly what the electorate will vote for, and offer that, but if that means you end up with policies you don’t want, it might be you’ve lost before the election even happens. Or, you can run on the platform you want to, and persuade others of its merits.

And of course, that means there’s more than one way to not get elected.

There’s more than one way to get elected, it’s not this way or that way.

I have to agree with Tony Blair on this, you’ll only get a majority in the House of Commons if you fight on the central ground. Labour chose a left of centre stance (which personally I like), and paid the price.

None- that’s why you have to convince people to vote for you.

But there’s a limit to how much people can be persuaded. Which is why parties end up having to shift their position.

BD I’ve read the Irvine Walsh article a couple of times now, and I’m no clearer about what he’s trying to say. 😕

What is the point of a politician without a view they believe in? Politicians are for setting policies

Surely Labour Party policies are traditionally set by the members, not the politicians?

Taking yourself out of the country and keeping your mouth shut for 5 years are IMO not the traits of a snidey little shit.

It was a fairly cushy form of exile…

It was a fairly cushy form of exile…

He still behaved impeccably e.g. he could have been sniping from the sidelines for the last 5 years.

footflaps – Member

I have to agree with Tony Blair on this, you’ll only get a majority in the House of Commons if you fight on the central ground. Labour chose a left of centre stance (which personally I like), and paid the price.

Hands up everyone who thinks they ran a brilliant campaign and only failed because they were just too left wing?

Some people want to use this result as proof that a left-of-centre campaign can’t win. That, to me, is just Obvious Bullshit- considering all the factors that went into this failure, attributing it all to one is just illogical.

Personally, I do think that a competent left-of-centre campaign could win. After all, an incompetent, somewhat leftwing one just got to within 6% of the tories. But that’s just opinion. What is fact, is that this election wasn’t settled on just that one thing.

That stupid stone thing didn’t do Labour any favours, who ever came up with that should be shot.

What would be the key messages of a competent true left-of-centre campaign that could attract a Parliamentary majority?

I think the worrying thing from this election is there isn’t necessarily the cohort of voters in key constituencies who can be relied on to respond even to centre-left messages.

All the decent majorities of recent decades have been secured by parties on a centre-right or further message.

They had zero press backing and an uncharismatic leader. I suspect the main issue was lack of press backing which was all down to the left of centre stance which doesn’t appeal to the billionaire press moguls. I doubt you’ll ever get a left of centre party with Murdoch’s backing…

…and yet some people think that the Murdoch-backed SNP is a leftist party!

Hands up everyone who thinks they ran a brilliant campaign and only failed because they were just too left wing?

Not me…but I believe all you Lefties make so much noise and believe everything you say so vehemently, you sometimes don’t see the wood for the trees!

For example…despite the policies, the UK population were never going to elect the two Ed’s, so the rest is purely semantics!

I am always surprised at “press backing” comments hardly anyone reads the newspaper these days. People form their opinions based on what they see on TV and on the streets in their neighbourhood.

I am always surprised at “press backing” comments hardly anyone reads the newspaper these days. People form their opinions based on what they see on TV and on the streets in their neighbourhood.

Just about every morning news show covers the papers. Who Murdoch backs gets coverage on all the TV stations etc. Newspapers often set the news agenda which TV then follows as in most cases they have a political agenda directed by their owners. Far more influential than TV.

40 % still read neswpapers

I guess hardly [ as its less is it barely?] anyone just voted for the Tories

They do have tremendous power[ how much is worthy of debate] and “red ed” clearly was not given an even handed approach by the written media who are largely foreign owned and pretty right wing
I dont think its fair to say “it’s the the sun wot won it” but the lack of support and constant scathing and personal attacks certainly did not help his credibility. What do you think the ratio was of attack on ed v attack on cameron in the media? 10 -1 higher? Its not helpful to an informed debate

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-research/news/2014/News_Report_2014.pdf

The majority of adults in the UK (95%) say they follow the news. Television is by far the most-used platform for news, with 75% of UK adults saying they use TV as a source of news; this figure has seen a small decrease since 2013 (78%). There has been growth in the number of those who use any internet or apps for news, with over four in ten (41%) doing so this year, compared to just under a third last year (32%). This is particularly evident in the 16-34 age group, where use of internet or apps for news has increased from 44% in 2013 to 60% in 2014. Newspapers are used by four in ten (40%), the same as last year (40%), and radio by just over one-third (36%), the same as last year
(35%)

Labour lost the election the day after they elected EM. Personally I think DM behaved impeccably and said nothing that a lot of New Labour voters weren’t thinking. UK politics has moved on.

I have listened to that three times and I dont see what he has done to warrant the claim he has savaged his brother

Rockape63 – Member

Not me…but I believe all you Lefties make so much noise and believe everything you say so vehemently, you sometimes don’t see the wood for the trees!

For example…despite the policies, the UK population were never going to elect the two Ed’s, so the rest is purely semantics!

The irony of saying “you lefties can’t see the wood for the trees” then agreeing with me 😛 I think maybe I’m not the one with a problem seeing?

Labour chose a left of centre stance (which personally I like), and paid the price.

That now often repeated claim really must be candidate for most monstrous lie of recent political history.

Usually people who make this ridiculous claim don’t even bother to provide any evidence of the alleged left-wing stance taken Miliband.

I remained totally mystified as to what this absurd allegation was actually based on until a couple of days before the election when I read an FT article in which they repeated the claim and qualified it by referring to Miliband’s election promise to freeze gas and electricity prices for 20 months, and to reinstate the 50p top rate of income tax.

I kid you not, some practically meaningless gimmick to freeze energy prices for 20 months and to slap an extra 5p tax on higher earners was the only evidence provided to backup the claim that Miliband was “left-wing”, ffs.

In the case of the energy price gimmick Miliband took it precisely because as a committed right-winger it was all that he could offer. Time and again public opinion has been shown to be far to the left of the Labour Party with regards to the utilities with a majority of even Tory voters backing nationalisation of gas and electricity.

But spineless, cowardly, and right-wing as the Labour Party is today, it was completely incapable of backing public opinion and nationalisation was off the agenda, the price freeze gimmick was some pathetic sop to make up for Labour’s lack of left-wing commitment, not proof of left-wing commitment ffs. Seriously – ffs, how can people come out with such bollocks ?

Labour this election was well to the right of public opinion. Certainly when it came to nationalisation of the energy and rail companies. On that issue Labour was even to the right of Tory voters.

Labour this election was well to the right of public opinion. Certainly when it came to nationalisation of the energy and rail companies. On that issue Labour was even to the right of Tory voters.

This first sentence is where you totally lost it @ernie this election the electorate where to the right of the Labour party. Did you see Chucka’s comment today that Labour lost votes in working class cities to UKIP and in middle class constituencies to the Conservatives ? You cannot nationalise anything anymore, it’s against EU policy.