Is Ed Miliband responsible for the state we are in?

[IdaBWells]

By running against his brother for party leader, changing the rules to vote for Labour leadership (enabling Corbyn's rise) and refusing to support Cameron in Obama's desire to move into Syria I read an article that blamed Brexit and Trump on Ed. Is this reasonable to make one person responsible for so much?

Completely reasonable, in some alternate universe, his brother became labour leader and then PM and we wouldn’t be suffering the ongoing Tory shit show.

No, there's plenty of blame to go around - milliband isn't responsible for the long-standing problem of euroskeptics in the Conservative party, and all that stemmed from it, for instance.

But he certainly bears a share of the blame, in particular the horrible mess Labour is in which means we're stuck with increasingly extreme alternatives instead of the former more moderate ones.

Yes, it's entirely his fault. He was also responsible for the financial crash, last summer's heat wave, the Napoleonic Wars, the eruption of Krakatoa, and the failure of my tomato plants. We should think ourselves lucky he wasn't elected, he'd have wreaked even greater havoc if he'd actually had a modicum of power.

I broke a cup this morning - that was Ed's fault too! People might doubt it but when a butterfly flaps it's wings ...

Ed isn’t responsible for Brexit. The Tories get 100% of the blame for that fiasco.

He is, however, to blame for Corbyn. His changes allowed Labour to be infiltrated by Trots who paid £3 per head to hijack the party and forcibly drag it to the fringes.

No no, it's all #nickcleggsfault.

For those who don't remember those heady days:
www.markpack.org.uk/10144/it-was-nickcleggsfault/

Gosh, it's making me quite nostalgic to read an article which felt it had to explain newspapers were no longer the only opinion-making game in town...

Jsmith99 isn't the hijack permanent? How can the rules be changed again if a majority of party voters are happy with the outcome?

I would blame the power of the unions before Ed. They wanted him because he is left of the party and they thought they could manipulate him. By changing the rules he allowed Corbyn to slide in and ruin the Labour Party.

I think he played his part yes. From the moment he "won" my stomach dropped. I knew labour would never get into power with him leading and here we are.

I broke a cup this morning - that was Ed's fault too!

I think you'll find that was Jeremy Corbyn the sneaky cup smashing marxist magic grandpa that he is

HappyDays but Ed's ambition and perhaps political dimness meant he was willing to be used by the Unions as MPs and Labour members had chosen David.

Ffs, you can blame Labour for a lot of things (starting with , but not exclusive) to the Iraqi war.

If you really need to "blame" someone for the state we are in, start with Cameron, for being so weak as to hold the referendum ( in an attempt to circumvent Farages party of the day, to ensure the torries got back in), or May for deciding she needed her "red lines", or the Leave lot for telling outright lies (turkey are joining the EU and we will be inundated with immigrants, the 350 million lie, take your p ick).

But really? The brothers? I suspect it's a family tragedy, but it certainly isn't a national one

FFS - why shouldn't he have run against his brother? Who says brothers can't compete against each other? Stupid assertion.

He was working against the will of his own party, who had all (except the Unions) chosen his brother, as it was only through the support of the Unions that he won. Although of course the Unions began Labour, so it's how much power you think Unions should have in choosing the leader.

JustAnotherPoster00

But all of that has fuck all to do with the state we are in. It might make Labour less able to fight against where we are, but they most assuredly did not put us here

User well even Cameron was surprised at how unpopular Ed was and never expected to have a majority government. Although of course he was a very weak and incompetent leader for having the referendum when he didn't want to leave the EU.

I think David Milliband is a brilliantly talented politician. I was devastated when he lost the leadership to his brother and I really hope he will return to politics one day.

user well Ed changed the rules of the party to elect a leader and I don't think anyone would think we would have Corbyn as leader without those changes. By Labour moving further left it has helped polarize the nation as the referendum took the Tories to further right.

BIWI it's not a case that he shouldn't run against his brother, only that by running he changed the outcome of the leadership election which almost certainly would've gone to David who had been chosen by a majority of MPs and individual Labour party members.

The Tories didn't move to the right because Labour moved to the left!

The Tories moved to the right because New Labour had previously moved to the right and taken the centre ground.

Labour swinging left again left a huge middle ground open for the Tories to take, but the current crop (who are not the finest the party has ever fielded

And all of what you say excuses and nullifies the lies Leav e has propigated? The biggest villain (despite the outright lies, and the cowardice, the "putting party before country" ((Cameron, May, Johnson)), is the Labour party?

Really??

The Tories moved to the right because New Labour had previously moved to the right and taken the centre ground.

Yes, this.

Don't blame poor Ed, blame the person who handed him the bacon sandwich!