ED WON!

[pinkbasket]

There you go.

God, I've gone all Tory. I probably would have voted for a David led-labour. And I'd have voted for Oona. Definitely. Not keen on Ed and can't stand Ken.

Depressing.

how could you blurt it out like that?!! I was saving it for a surprise.

Ed M is not a fool. He will swim to the centre ground and will now talk to the country rather than the unions

He's already talking to the 'squeezed middle'.... do me a favour. If he were to try angling the Labour Party towards favouring the middle classes there are only two things that would be getting squeezed.... and they'd be soft, dangly and firmly gripped by Bob Crow.

What is a 'squeezed middle'?

I don't know, but as an aside I was reading some articles from the Times etc. dated in the last couple of years and they started off staunchly against DM saying that EM had much better qualities for a PM; and now its RedEd, a whole Cain and Abel thing and how DM would have been a great leader. Seems like a lot of 'Journalism' to me.

Actually, Hillary Clinton rather liked DM didn't she? I can't help wondering what she would have been like as president.

Oh no I am just rambling on - I need a cup of tea and to get on with Sunday Lunch.

the squeezed middle are those families on middle incomes which don't entitle them to any state benefits but are certainly not rich enought to afford tax hikes.

They are the centre left. Or indeed the centre.
They do not wish to see the vulnerable do without and they support the NHS and a benefit safety net, but they accept that there have to be cuts.

Blair appealed to exactly these people and won two land slides.

As the party became ever more state centric and left they turned away.

Labour can never win another victory without them.

we are a middle income family and I haven't been tempted to vote labour yet and doubt I ever will. There is the negative union association and also I think of labour as being a towny/city party not very interested in the countryside/environment. I didn't mind the idea of paying more in tax to have better education/NHS. However it has become clear that the money wasn't being directed at all areas of the country just labour heartlands.

mj - well of course not every middle income family voted Labour. Many don't vote full stop.

But this is the section of the electorate that Laboour targeted under Blair's leadership and who gave him two landslides.

The loss of these voters is election suicide.

So specifically what is wrong with Ed? Not as good looking as his brother but very warm.

There's a lot wrong with Ed. Mostly that his parliamentary party are anything but 100% behind him and are, even now, plotting to replace him with big bro 'I'm not bitter, honest' Dave. And when he has to say something like 'I'm certainly not Bob Crow's man' out loud it sounds like he's trying to convince himself rather than us. Should be an interesting few months.

Think you're being harsh. He is Leader of the Labour Party, as of yesterday, which changes his profile, possibilities, responsibilities and choices.

EM makes it harder for a Labour govt., but one with DM would be a leeetle too Blaireque.

Just bumped into a neighbour who was at university with Ed and says he is a Good Egg. She's thinking of rejoining the Labour party now he's in charge.

Can't work up much enthusiasm for any of them, myself, but hope he'll make me change my mind. David struck me as glib and I don't understand the claims about his charisma - certainly doesn't come across in the media.

Agree that Ed has more charisma than David. But 'I'm certainly not Bob Crowe's man' sounds like something that Bob Crowe taught him to say.

I voted for DM, I'm sure DC is delighted.

A senior New Labour figure is quoted in the Guardian today as saying:

"This is a miracle result for the Tories - a leader who does not command majority support among MPs or party members."

Oh Ed, is indeed a good egg.
But he is far too left wing to take the party to a win at the next election.

Absolute gift for the coalition.They can't believe their luck!

The labour party conference appears to be in a state of shock at having shot themselves in the foot.

They should tell themselves you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

the telegraph said 'Ed Milliband is as much use to the Labour party as a furry woodland creature'!

good news - a break from both Blair/Brown and Cameron/Clegg. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and see how he makes his mark. My daughter and I went to hear him and the other candidates locally and he seemed the most genuine and enthusiastic...

LOL, Redflower, unless his bro bows out, it'll just be Milibrand/Milibrand feuding in place of Blair/Brown feuding, rival camps, thrown phones, etc. Think David's wife is the most likely phone-thrower at the moment, although apparently David's camp are briefing madly against Ed all over the place.

I don't know whether I like him or not - will give benefit of the doubt until I have actually seen some more of him.

But in the clips on the news last night of when he won/immediate aftermath he looked absolutely bleeedin terrified. Like the rabbit in the headlights!!!! Blither. dither.

He needs to get his act together, and FAST!!!!!

And the fact that David is uttering the "well dones" through such obviously gritted teeth, and is sooooooo much more the statesman (but not necessarily the better politician of course) just makes for a great big bun fight.

OOOO, let's see how he does.

...not voted for Labour since John Smith died.

I doubt I could vote for the party now or the foreseeable, as its rotten to the core with New Labour career cronies.

I think Ed M has been elected too soon, which is a shame really as I actually think he was quite promising. Really Dave M or Ed B should have been elected first, taken the flak and Ed M taken up the leadership in a few years when the party had the will to purge itself properly of the NewLab failed experiment.

This article from Paul (Newsnight) Mason's blog provides an excellent analysis of the dilemma facing Ed Miliband on the economy.

Paul Mason concludes:

"The unresolved debate within Labour is whether or not it can achieve the social objectives it believes in with a smaller state. If it cannot,.....then its concepts of equal access, universal benefits, healthcare free for all etc may have to be rethought. Alternatively it has to fight, overtly, for a large state and the means to finance it.

That is the real point at issue as the press - denied any guiding narrative by the new Labour leader - busies itself with stories of sibling rivalry."

Jackstar - you've hit the nail on the head.

The party is in flux at the moment.

Having seen Ed M during hustings, he made it pretty clear that he wishes to fight virtually all of the cuts proposed by the Coalition. Apart for the ususal mutterings about chasing up 'waste' in the NHS, I can't think of one cut he accepts as necessary.

Indeed, he talked about lots of new programs, which of course, will cost even more.

He also accepted absolutely no responsibility for the huge borrowing. This was placed squarely at the door of the bankers. When it was pointed out to him that the difference between borrowing and spending had risen dramatically before the banking crisis, he just blinked like a tree frog.

The reality is that he believes in big giovernment which means expensive governemt which means high borrowing/and/or taxation.

Now there is nothing wrong with that as a political standpoint. But it is light years away form the Blair administration and it will make the party unelectable.