Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

David Miliband







ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,213
Just far enough away from LDC
No one in the party stood a chance against Brown after Blair, hence he stood unopposed. He then didn't stab his leader in the back when the party 'wobbled'. Don't think you can portray these as characteristics of not having leadership ambition.

David Milibrand was a Blairite and a centralist for Labour - hence the unions swung to his brother. Not sure you can also conclude he wouldn't have made Labour more appealing to the voters.

Having met him (just once) I would say he wasn't the charismatic individual that people believe
 


Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,340
Uffern
David Milibrand was a Blairite and a centralist for Labour - hence the unions swung to his brother. Not sure you can also conclude he wouldn't have made Labour more appealing to the voters.

All this stuff about the unions swung behind Ed makes it sound like David was sweeping the board until the nasty unions spoiled things. David beat Ed 18% to 16% on MPs; 18% to 15% on party members (winning but not a massive endorsement) while Ed beat David 20% to 13% on unions - healthy but there was still plenty of union support for David. Yes, it was the unions that won it for Ed, but there was plenty of support for him in other parts of the party.

The way that I read it as the Ed read the situation better and actively campaigned for union support while David was content with the union support he had. It doesn't suggest to me that David would have fought a better campaign than Ed.

And as an aside, Ed with his union support would certainly have found it easier to push through the union reforms that will shape the next election
 


I think David m's comments today show why Ed m stood for leader.

David had his chance to stand for leader twice before. Once when Blair resigned and once when the labour party wobbled over Brown. In the latter he even spent time garnering support before backing off. In my view that showed why he didn't deserve the leadership in 2010. He wouldn't have charmed the voters, press or business any more than Ed m did.

All the good leaders have shown am element of ruthlessness to take their chance

That's fair comment. I think David Milliband did bottle it; Blair certainly would have backed him against Brown but I suspect Miliband wondered if being backed by Blair would have gone down well with the party.

Pity, because I think he would have made a good leader and may well have been PM today if the unions hadn't backed his brother.

He may still do so but not this time around. If Labour elects someone else who turns out to be unelectable maybe they willl turn to him in due course? But I doubt it, he's probably missed his chance.
 


Bevendean Hillbilly

New member
Sep 4, 2006
12,805
Nestling in green nowhere
And ?? He either celebrates it or he's peddling false images about himself and his family.View attachment 65277

Famously Jewish politician celebrates pagan festival. He'd rock up at midnight mass and belt out "little donkey" whilst sucking a pork matzo ball if he thought it would win him a vote. My point was lighthearted but go ahead and get your panties in a bunch.
 






ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,213
Just far enough away from LDC
Completely disagree.

Labour with David Miliband in charge would have walked this election.

He's never really been under the public scrutiny that a leader has to go through
He was no more rounded than his brother at that stage
 


alfredmizen

Banned
Mar 11, 2015
6,342
Completely disagree.

Labour with David Miliband in charge would have walked this election.
Completely disagree with you , David suffers from the same 'weirdness' factor as Ed.

badmiliband2.jpg
 












Mellor 3 Ward 4

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2004
9,819
saaf of the water
He's never really been under the public scrutiny that a leader has to go through
He was no more rounded than his brother at that stage

I still maintain he would have stopped the lurch to the left and kept Labour in the political middle ground a la Blair.

Like it or not, it's what the electorate likes.
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,799
Hove
All this stuff about the unions swung behind Ed makes it sound like David was sweeping the board until the nasty unions spoiled things. David beat Ed 18% to 16% on MPs; 18% to 15% on party members (winning but not a massive endorsement) while Ed beat David 20% to 13% on unions - healthy but there was still plenty of union support for David. Yes, it was the unions that won it for Ed, but there was plenty of support for him in other parts of the party.

The way that I read it as the Ed read the situation better and actively campaigned for union support while David was content with the union support he had. It doesn't suggest to me that David would have fought a better campaign than Ed.

And as an aside, Ed with his union support would certainly have found it easier to push through the union reforms that will shape the next election

I wasn't really making a big case for Dave, just thought ROSM's conclusions were hard to justify.

As for the above, the critical thing about David Miliband wasn't his support from within the Labour party, it was his perception and popularity outside the party that was important. Sure, the leadership election was close from within the Labour party, but that doesn't win you elections. All those voters that left the Tories and the Libs for Blair had a greater connection with David than they did Ed. Ed got in because the Labour party wanted to be more left. That wasn't what the electorate wanted though as has just been proved.

Michael Foot was once questioned about how he thought he was doing in one election, and whether his campaign was working, he replied that every rally he attended the support was overwhelming, the interviewer then said, but aren't your rallies mainly in front of Labour supporters?...
 


Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,340
Uffern
Completely disagree.

Labour with David Miliband in charge would have walked this election.

That has no basis in any sort of reality. The party was hammered in Scotland because it was seen as a right-wing metropolitan elite - making it even more right wing would have probably lost it its one remaining seat.

It lost out to UKIP in the north, preventing it from making any gains, mainly because Labour was regarded as run by metropolitan elitists (get the theme) who did nothing to stop the Polish plumbers and Romanian fruit pickers.

Maybe David M could have picked up a dozen or so seats in middle England (but may also have lost a couple more in London). But maybe not, there'd still have been the fear of the SNP to scare voters away - there'd still be resistance to Labour, whoever was leader. And that's before you take into account David's less than stellar record for winning elections.

At most, I predict he'd have got 10 more seats but I'm not wholly convinced he'd have done that
 




West Hoathly Seagull

Honorary Ruffian
Aug 26, 2003
3,540
Sharpthorne/SW11
I think David m's comments today show why Ed m stood for leader.

David had his chance to stand for leader twice before. Once when Blair resigned and once when the labour party wobbled over Brown. In the latter he even spent time garnering support before backing off. In my view that showed why he didn't deserve the leadership in 2010. He wouldn't have charmed the voters, press or business any more than Ed m did.

All the good leaders have shown am element of ruthlessness to take their chance

To a certain extent, this happened to the Conservatives as well. Michael Portillo backed out of challenging John Major in 1995. He had rented an office (on the corner of Barton Street and Cowley Street as it happens, in the house of a supporter), then bottled it at the last minute. The Conservatives ended up with Iain Duncan-Smith instead when Portillo did finally make his challenge after William Hague got hammered in 2001.
 


Lower West Stander

Well-known member
Mar 25, 2012
4,753
Back in Sussex
That has no basis in any sort of reality. The party was hammered in Scotland because it was seen as a right-wing metropolitan elite - making it even more right wing would have probably lost it its one remaining seat.

It lost out to UKIP in the north, preventing it from making any gains, mainly because Labour was regarded as run by metropolitan elitists (get the theme) who did nothing to stop the Polish plumbers and Romanian fruit pickers.

Maybe David M could have picked up a dozen or so seats in middle England (but may also have lost a couple more in London). But maybe not, there'd still have been the fear of the SNP to scare voters away - there'd still be resistance to Labour, whoever was leader. And that's before you take into account David's less than stellar record for winning elections.

At most, I predict he'd have got 10 more seats but I'm not wholly convinced he'd have done that

Have to say that's an interesting point.

I am very much of the view that Ed was unelectable because of his union banking, poor economic record and inability to eat a bacon sandwich. But given the surge of the Scottish Nationalists would it really have made a difference who was in charge of Labour?

Perhaps David dodged a bullet.
 


West Hoathly Seagull

Honorary Ruffian
Aug 26, 2003
3,540
Sharpthorne/SW11
That's fair comment. I think David Milliband did bottle it; Blair certainly would have backed him against Brown but I suspect Miliband wondered if being backed by Blair would have gone down well with the party.

Pity, because I think he would have made a good leader and may well have been PM today if the unions hadn't backed his brother.

He may still do so but not this time around. If Labour elects someone else who turns out to be unelectable maybe they willl turn to him in due course? But I doubt it, he's probably missed his chance.

I'm not sure he really wants it. As with my previous example of Michael Portillo, who became a TV presenter (a sorry loss for those of us on the other side who realised that the Conservatives needed to reach the suburbs - we were reduced to the shires, just as Labour is to the north and urban areas of cities) and appears to be far happier than when he was a politician, David Miliband appears to be very happy with his new career in New York. A pity, as strong opposition is necessary, whichever party one supports.
 


Bevendean Hillbilly

New member
Sep 4, 2006
12,805
Nestling in green nowhere
Get Shuka Ummuna or Andy Burnham in the drivers seat and Labour have a chance. Yvette Balls, sorry, Cooper in and I'm OUT. she's got Ed sitting around the house all day in his pants drinking spesh at the moment. She'll be too busy nagging that poor bugger to get off the X Box and sign on to reform the movement.
 




Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,340
Uffern
Perhaps David dodged a bullet.

Indeed. I think that this election was a bad one for Labour ... and the next one will be. I thought Ed did better than the party could have hoped for, personally. I think the next leader is on a hiding to nothing too.

I'm not sure he really wants it. As with my previous example of Michael Portillo, who became a TV presenter (a sorry loss for those of us on the other side who realised that the Conservatives needed to reach the suburbs - we were reduced to the shires, just as Labour is to the north and urban areas of cities) and appears to be far happier than when he was a politician,

He does seem to be happier out of the limelight - he's actually left the party.

I've actually met Portillo in two different walks of life (his and mine) and he's a far more engaging person than his right-wing image suggests
 


I think David m's comments today show why Ed m stood for leader.

David had his chance to stand for leader twice before. Once when Blair resigned and once when the labour party wobbled over Brown. In the latter he even spent time garnering support before backing off. In my view that showed why he didn't deserve the leadership in 2010. He wouldn't have charmed the voters, press or business any more than Ed m did.

All the good leaders have shown am element of ruthlessness to take their chance

He'll be forgotten very quickly. Ed however will go onto serve in a senior role in the next Labour government, delighted he intends to put himself forward for shadow cabinet roles. There will only ever be one Milifandom :)
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here