Ed's keynote speech - what did you think?

[cinnamontoast]

I liked it. Perhaps all the jokes showed too much eagerness to please but he talked tough as well. At last, a party leader who says it is just plain wrong for a banker to earn in a day what a care worker earns in a year. Do we have a conviction politician here?

I haven't heard it - I just watched the news reports I guess they don't always show the best bits - Nationalise a train set? In what respect did he compare Hazel Blears to Margaret Thatcher? I would like to know more about him. Is the speech on YouTube I wonder?

Oh look here's my chance to hear a digested version on Newsnight

Very lightweight, I thought.

he still looks like a frightened rabbit in the headlights - as if he can't quite believe he's party leader...

i know he looked terrified but that's not a bad thing.....better than smug

here's a link to the whole thing. I don't get the rabbit in the headlights thing at all - thought he seemed pretty relaxed, considering.

I do think EM was right that tuition fees were unfortunate, especially for those in the middle income bracket and they do put children off university where I used to work you could clearly see that - but I don't think a graduate tax is fair either and it would still put the selfsame children off further education, possibly even more so.

Isn't it a good thing to find out what people want rather than try to 'shape' their wishes?

Thanks cinnamontoast

To be honest even I feel a bit excluded even though I'm not part of this Labour thing. All this new generation talk does feel a bit excluding.

I took it to be symbolic rather than age related. (otherwise I'd definitely be excluded.)

maybe its just a use-of-English difficulty then.

Who is joining the Labour Party in such numbers - is it Lib Dems? They are (sorry used to be) quite radical aren't they?

Crikey - look at my use of English!!! I am up too late I think.

i take it to mean a new phase in labour rather than loads of young uns. an awful lot of lib dems have moved over because they are unhappy with the coalition and the compromises that are being made. one of my friends (whose wife is a member of the lib dems) has moved to labour today because of Ed's left wing lean.

I read the transcript rather than watching it live, and have only seen the clips on Newsnight, so I may be missing something, but it came across as a little flat. To be fair, he can't actually talk yet about policy or about things he has done (as leader), but it didn't inspire me, nor did it seem very detailed. However, it wasn't terrible. He's a competent speaker if not a great one. Unfortunate in a way to come after Blair and Brown - both of whom, regardless of what you may think of their ethics/politics, had admirable and inspirational public speaking skills, although in very different styles.

It was OK.

His delivery was bad, but he can fix that.

Nothing amazing but nothing terrible either.

His positioning is the most interesting thing. Will he really be able to "shape" the centre ground without "occupying" it first? If he became PM and did that, he would be the first since Thatcher.

I am unconvinced. I think the British public - or at least the English public - are on average just a tiny bit right of centre.
I don't think anyone much to the left of Blair could really win over floating voters. I also think anyone much to the right of Cameron would find it very hard to win.

Bagehot's analysis seems spot on to me

www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2010/09/ed_miliband_1

Ed really is taking Labour quite far into its comfort zone. Even when he says "hard truths", they are either criticising right-wing aspects of New Labour, or are very heavily qualified.

Is he electorally appealing enough to take the country with him as he takes the Labour party leftwards? I don't think so, personally.

He might pick up lots of disaffected Lib Dem votes, but not that many in Labour-Tory marginals where they matter.

I thought his speech reflected who he is - a sincere man with left leaning politics.

Will that convince the country? I doubt it. First he has to convince the parliamentary party and the ordinary members who voted for his brother. And then there's the shadow cabinet.

alicatte, you said "Isn't it a good thing to find out what people want rather than try to 'shape' their wishes?"

I think the nswer to this is 'yes - to a point'. We need a leader/party that has a clear vision, strategy and policies. And sometimes this will not always reflect the people's wishes.

I thought it was a good speech. Even if I disagree with some of it.

I'm listening as I mumsnet- am 30 mins in and he's onto the unions.

Apart from the cringey matey-ness about the trainsets I like it.

LFN The Bagehot article was great, but quite misleading especially about the spending during the previous Labour government. (They had to spend more after years of neglecting the public services by the Tories.)
Also not seeing his policies for what they are (Keynesian I wold say) is just silly. All this business about, but "Why does he want to spend in tough times?"

He has a strange voice. I think some areas of the electorate will find him a bit weird.

I think he looks like the sneaky one at school who skulks around telling everyone what they want to hear then stabs them in the back if there is any profit in it for him.

They made a good point in The Times, that he needs to drop the repeated "I love and respect my brother SO much" rubbish, as if he did love and respect him so much why did he destroy his political career? At least have the courage of your convinctions.

He's VERY good at not giving a straight answer though, he wriggles around all over the place when questioned. Lots of saying what he thinks people want to hear, not much actual commitment to policy. He needs to give a straight answer about exactly what he thinks about deficit reduction (how much, how fast, from where), otherwise he can't argue about the economy with any credibility.

Nice enough but didn't light my fire.

David is a more natural communicator and almost certainly have got my interest if he had won the contest.

But it's early days.

And btw, does anyone genuinely think David was "accidentally" caught out re Harman, knowing that there were cameras trained on his face watching for wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Lucky1979, I don't find him loving his brother incompatible with standing against him - it proves he has got the courage of his convictions. The idea that Ed stole David's crown just doesn't wash - no one can assume they are entitled to become leader and if David didn't win then he bears some responsibility for that himself.

I think EM will argue about the economy in more detail later but at the moment he's setting out his values, so everyone knows where he's coming from. I think that's quite refreshing.

I was hugely underwhelmed by it. And his voice... too much reminding me of Tony Blair for my liking. And the mateyness is os IRRITATING.

"I get it...."

(screams and tears hair out)

Too professional speechwriter-y and feels as though it is all just words....

(bitter and disillusioned emoticon)