Which Miliband brother would have done better in the 2015 Election

[hangfan91]

In hindsight, would David Miliband have done better than Ed if he won in 2010 in your opinion?

[Gallium]

David, absolutely. He was the first choice of Labour MPs and party members in the leadership election for a reason. In the end people just didn't think Ed was competent enough to lead the country.

But Labour would still have lost badly. They would have been wiped out north of the border just the same after the Scottish independence vote, and the inevitable universal Lib Dem collapse meant the Tories would have picked up the same Conservative/Lib Dem marginal seats. However, if David was the leader Labour would have performed slightly better in the Midlands and London and ensured the Tories, although still the largest party, remained short of a majority.

[Torie]

David, absolutely. He was the first choice of Labour MPs and party members in the leadership election for a reason. In the end people just didn't think Ed was competent enough to lead the country.

But Labour would still have lost badly. They would have been wiped out north of the border just the same after the Scottish independence vote, and the inevitable universal Lib Dem collapse meant the Tories would have picked up the same Conservative/Lib Dem marginal seats. However, if David was the leader Labour would have performed slightly better in the Midlands and London and ensured the Tories, although still the largest party, remained short of a majority.

Sounds about right to me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

David Miliband is no better a media performer than his brother and his association with the previous Labour government (which, I'm afraid, is still holding us down a bit) is much stronger. There would also have been (almost certainly) serious factional infighting had he won, and the historic consequences of that for Labour have rarely been pretty.

[Torie]

David Miliband is no better a media performer than his brother and his association with the previous Labour government (which, I'm afraid, is still holding us down a bit) is much stronger. There would also have been (almost certainly) serious factional infighting had he won, and the historic consequences of that for Labour have rarely been pretty.

This chap in a quite colorfully written - sort of a polite polemic - would beg to disagree with you. Ed certainly came off as the ultimate nebbish to me - almost embarrassing really.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[Vega]

The grass always looks greener on the other side. I could see David dividing the party and turning in an even worse preformance this year.

He couldn't have changed how Scotland voted, and that's why Ed lost.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Incidentally, we can be sure that David Miliband would have run a similar campaign to his brother - a cautiously cerebral affair based on a realistic plan for government and mass canvassing - and while it would have been much praised, the result would not have been notably different.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Funny, I was about ten minutes away from making this poll myself.

[Oakvale]

I've never really bought the idea that a different leader would have done no better, although whether that means David Miliband would have won I don't know. I think he may have held things together a bit better. Alan Johnson?


EDIT: Just remembered that Dennis Skinner voted for David.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've never really bought the idea that a different leader would have done no better, although whether that means David Miliband would have won I don't know. I think he may have held things together a bit better. Alan Johnson?

Johnson would have done better (possibly a lot better) and was the man a lot of us wanted after the 2010 election, but unfortunately had no interest in the job.

[bore]

Or, even better:

[Landslide Lyndon]

On another note, is this article close to the truth? If so, then British press's conduct seems to me to have played a much larger role than Miliband's lack of charisma.

www.politico.eu/article/the-british-press-has-lost-it/

[Phony Moderate]

The best choices didn't even stand in 2010.

[Blair]

Look how weird David Miliband is, look at him he's so weird he can't even hold a Banana how can we elect him?

David would have been subjected to 5 years of what Ed had. The papers and Labour Party really hated David because well he was a coward (backed away from axing Brown) was tainted with torture and murder at the foreign office and came across as aloof and boring. No joke in 2010 everyone said Ed was a much better performer and debater because 'Ed did human'

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't care what everyone says Ed Miliband is a massive FF and a fine politician. He was the victim of bad luck, biased press coverage, and Cameron's demagoguery.

[Silent Hunter]

I don't care what everyone says Ed Miliband is a massive FF and a fine politician. He was the victim of bad luck, biased press coverage, and Cameron's demagoguery.

Quoted for truth. Labour didn't actually go backwards overall; it increased its share of the vote. It's just the Tories increased theirs more.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A fine politician in certain respects, but by no means an ideal opposition leader.

[Blair]

Irony is that Miliband won more votes in England than Tony Blair did in 2005. Most of that was labour getting their vote up, but people are making it out like we got 20% of the vote. Great read here if you have free time.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election

[Lurker]

Irony is that Miliband won more votes in England than Tony Blair did in 2005. Most of that was labour getting their vote up, but people are making it out like we got 20% of the vote. Great read here if you have free time.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election

That's a pretty pointless statistic though. Labour got 31,6% of the English vote in 2015, 35,4% in 2005. And the Tories beat them by 9-10 points in the English popular vote this year, compared to a virtual tie in 2005.

[Oakvale]

Mitt Romney got twice as many votes in 2012 than FDR did in 1936!

[Phony Moderate]

It may be a different country but very few have put Obama's two victories down to his appealing to the 'centre ground'. The most common explanation is that he inspired traditionally D-leaning demographics to vote in heavy numbers. Given that Labour would have won the PV if they had achieved the same number of votes as Kinnock in 1992...

[Blair]

Irony is that Miliband won more votes in England than Tony Blair did in 2005. Most of that was labour getting their vote up, but people are making it out like we got 20% of the vote. Great read here if you have free time.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election

That's a pretty pointless statistic though. Labour got 31,6% of the English vote in 2015, 35,4% in 2005. And the Tories beat them by 9-10 points in the English popular vote this year, compared to a virtual tie in 2005.

It's not pointless-whole argument has been that Labour failed to do well in English marginals so they should become right wing, when in fact Miliband did better than the last two labour efforts in middle england. It's lazy labour