That's got to be a joke right?
Rightly or wrongly, it was the narrative going around in the run-up to the election.
Ed won because he was the more left wing candidate compared to David.
He won for the same reason that Mitt Romney and Michael Dukakis won their respective party nomination - he was the best or least worst of an unimpressive field.
That's why certain lefty trade unions recommended him in their ballots without mentioning his brother.
The big Labour-supporting unions are certainly not 'lefty' in Labour Party factional terms.
Democratic huh? lol
Yes, because we all know that union members are not capable of researching candidates on their own terms and have to be told who to vote for...
Labour has a rich tradition of voting the more lefty candidate as leader.
Except on those occasions when they haven't (which is quite often).
Harold Wilson won in 1963 because he aligned himself with Aneurin Bevan in the late 40's.
He won because he was up against a drunken idiot in the second round. He would have lost a two-way battle between himself and Callaghan. Just over two years prior to his election, Wilson lost by a 2-to-1 margin to Hugh Gaitskell.
Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were the lefty candidates in 1980 and 1983 respectively
Granted, though Heffer was obviously to the left of Kinnock.
and Jim Callaghan won in 1976 because he was seen as a friend of the unions (ironic I know).
And, as I previously said, those unions are generally not on the Labour left.
Only when they got desperate after 4 election defeats did the Labour movement start electing "right wingers" to the party leadership (John Smith in 1992 and Tony Blair in 1994).
Smith had been seen as Kinnock's natural successor even when a 1992 victory looked likely. The main alternative to Smith was the then-leading moderniser Gordon Brown (though of course he did not contest). Blair, yes, although he charisma had a lot to do with it too.
David would have been dull, boring and wooden (as is his personality) but I'm certain his approval ratings would have been light years ahead of Ed's right now had he won the leadership in 2010 because he looked and sounded the part of a potential prime minister.
Have you ever seen that image of him holding a banana? As for looking and sounding like a potential Prime Minister, the same could have been be said of Tony Benn.
What appeals to the Labour movement internally is very often not what appeals to the British public as a whole.
Sure, but there is little correlation between the faction of party leaders and their electoral successes/failures. Of Labour's three most successful post-WWII leaders, two (Wilson, Attlee) were from the left and one (Blair) from the right. Of Labour's two lowest post-WWII vote shares, one came under a left-winger (Foot) and the other a right-winger (Brown).