Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2019 19:04:02 GMT
In 2015, Ed Miliband manages to eat a sandwich without looking like a tit. As a result, he winds up Prime Minister. Would he be leading a minority or majority government? And what happens next?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 24, 2019 19:23:04 GMT
It was clear before then that Ed Miliband did not have the charisma or the bold ideas needed to become Prime Minister.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 24, 2019 20:49:02 GMT
It was clear before then that Ed Miliband did not have the charisma or the bold ideas needed to become Prime Minister. He had more charisma than David...  People with 'charisma' rarely have much in the way of ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 24, 2019 23:05:47 GMT
In 2015, Ed Miliband manages to eat a sandwich without looking like a tit. As a result, he winds up Prime Minister. Would he be leading a minority or majority government? And what happens next? Presumably he has apple pie for dessert. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,767
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Feb 24, 2019 23:43:14 GMT
In 2015, Ed Miliband manages to eat a sandwich without looking like a tit. As a result, he winds up Prime Minister. Would he be leading a minority or majority government? And what happens next? Do you honestly think that this trivial incident lost him 50 seats at the election? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 1:08:10 GMT
He had more charisma than David... People with 'charisma' rarely have much in the way of ideas. Rubbish. You can draw on hundreds of examples both in and out of politics which disprove this point. Martin Luther King? Steve Jobs? |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 25, 2019 8:05:50 GMT
People with 'charisma' rarely have much in the way of ideas. Rubbish. You can draw on hundreds of examples both in and out of politics which disprove this point. Martin Luther King? Steve Jobs? The exception proves the rule. Far more examples of the vacuous with charisma. And MLK was before the media age and given his personal life would have been "disgraced" on social media well before having the chance to make a difference |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 25, 2019 10:45:45 GMT
It was clear before then that Ed Miliband did not have the charisma or the bold ideas needed to become Prime Minister. Charisma is both in the eye of the beholder and overrated. And he did have ideas, many of them quite correct and developed under his successor, but unfortunately he never had the solid base of support in the party to realise them fully - especially with a large part of the PLP never accepting his leadership from the start. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 25, 2019 11:37:13 GMT
It was clear before then that Ed Miliband did not have the charisma or the bold ideas needed to become Prime Minister. Charisma is both in the eye of the beholder and overrated. And he did have ideas, many of them quite correct and developed under his successor, but unfortunately he never had the solid base of support in the party to realise them fully - especially with a large part of the PLP never accepting his leadership from the start. I think future PLP's will have lost the sense of entitlement that many of those who were used to having a major role in the selection of the leader have to this day. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 1, 2019 4:49:40 GMT
It would have made no difference whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on Mar 1, 2019 11:39:11 GMT
It was clear before then that Ed Miliband did not have the charisma or the bold ideas needed to become Prime Minister. Despite that.... Ed would be elected today in a competition between May and Milliband.. and frankly I'd welcome it.. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 1, 2019 12:08:48 GMT
I'm still surprised by the 2015 election result. I thought Ed Miliband would do at least slightly better nationally than Gordon Brown in 2010. He did in vote terms, the Scottish wipeout meant he didn't in terms of seats. |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Mar 1, 2019 12:23:35 GMT
It was clear before then that Ed Miliband did not have the charisma or the bold ideas needed to become Prime Minister. Despite that.... Ed would be elected today in a competition between May and Milliband.. and frankly I'd welcome it.. Well yes, it's unlikely that he'd lose Doncaster North. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 16:09:20 GMT
I'm still surprised by the 2015 election result. I thought Ed Miliband would do at least slightly better nationally than Gordon Brown in 2010. He did in vote terms, the Scottish wipeout meant he didn't in terms of seats. And Labour did actually have a net gain of 15 seats in England in 2015. |
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765 
|
Post by clyde1998 on Mar 1, 2019 21:36:24 GMT
In 2015, Ed Miliband manages to eat a sandwich without looking like a tit. As a result, he winds up Prime Minister. Would he be leading a minority or majority government? And what happens next? Do you honestly think that this trivial incident lost him 50 seats at the election? This.
For me, two major factors cost Labour that election before taking into account Miliband's impact on the campaign. 1. The Scottish end of the party lost him 40 seats due to their hopeless mismanagement of the independence referendum campaign. 2. The Lib Dem collapse gifted the Conservatives a large number of seats over Labour, due to their being much more Lib Dem-Conservative battleground seats than Lib Dem-Labour seats. The failure, also, to have enough policies to appeal to middle class voters lead to the party not making progress in England to win the election. The rise of UKIP probably had an effect too, but I'm not familiar enough with the distribution of their votes to know how much of an impact they had on Labour's electoral chances in 2015. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Mar 1, 2019 21:41:45 GMT
Do you honestly think that this trivial incident lost him 50 seats at the election? This.
For me, two major factors cost Labour that election before taking into account Miliband's impact on the campaign. 1. The Scottish end of the party lost him 40 seats due to their hopeless mismanagement of the independence referendum campaign. 2. The Lib Dem collapse gifted the Conservatives a large number of seats over Labour, due to their being much more Lib Dem-Conservative battleground seats than Lib Dem-Labour seats. The failure, also, to have enough policies to appeal to middle class voters lead to the party not making progress in England to win the election. The rise of UKIP probably had an effect too, but I'm not familiar enough with the distribution of their votes to know how much of an impact they had on Labour's electoral chances in 2015. I do think Labour bear some responsibility for point 2 though - they thought (and, in fairness, it was received wisdom during the coalition) that focusing a lot of their attacks on the Lib Dems rather than the Tories would deliver a tranche of marginals, but the Lib Dems would hold up far better vs the Conservatives than happened in reality. It is harsh to blame Labour for not noticing that they were wrong, as most people thought they were right at the time, but the fact remains that they miscalculated. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 2, 2019 1:25:58 GMT
Do you honestly think that this trivial incident lost him 50 seats at the election? This.
For me, two major factors cost Labour that election before taking into account Miliband's impact on the campaign. 1. The Scottish end of the party lost him 40 seats due to their hopeless mismanagement of the independence referendum campaign. 2. The Lib Dem collapse gifted the Conservatives a large number of seats over Labour, due to their being much more Lib Dem-Conservative battleground seats than Lib Dem-Labour seats. The Lib Dem collapse was the more important factor. In the event of a hung Parliament in 2015 the SNP would have been much more inclined to back a Labour minority government than a Conservative one. |
|
|
|
Post by catking on Mar 4, 2019 15:15:49 GMT
This.
For me, two major factors cost Labour that election before taking into account Miliband's impact on the campaign. 1. The Scottish end of the party lost him 40 seats due to their hopeless mismanagement of the independence referendum campaign. 2. The Lib Dem collapse gifted the Conservatives a large number of seats over Labour, due to their being much more Lib Dem-Conservative battleground seats than Lib Dem-Labour seats. The Lib Dem collapse was the more important factor. In the event of a hung Parliament in 2015 the SNP would have been much more inclined to back a Labour minority government than a Conservative one. Indeed, the two factors are very closely linked. I think a number of the Tory gains from Lib Dem were down to fears about a hung parliament dominated by a large SNP block. |
|
|
|
Post by Ron Swanson on Mar 11, 2019 12:02:55 GMT
The Lib Dem collapse was the more important factor. In the event of a hung Parliament in 2015 the SNP would have been much more inclined to back a Labour minority government than a Conservative one. Indeed, the two factors are very closely linked. I think a number of the Tory gains from Lib Dem were down to fears about a hung parliament dominated by a large SNP block. I would agree. I think also plenty of people who'd previously voted Tory but were UKIP inclined in 2015 held their noses and backed the Tory candidate, especially if it was a close Lab/Con battle. |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Mar 13, 2019 12:41:15 GMT
More to the point, what would've happened without the 'he had a girlfriend before he met his wife outrage!' scandal?
|
|
