Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2016 12:06:25 GMT
The evidence for this is basically non existent, I'm afraid. I agree but only because DM was even more Blairite than Blair. Ed was badly served by his advisers.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 30, 2016 12:54:07 GMT
Looking back I now think Labour's mistake in 2010 wasn't in picking Ed but in picking Miliband. They should have gone for Balls.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Oct 30, 2016 13:36:39 GMT
Looking back I now think Labour's mistake in 2010 wasn't in picking Ed but in picking Miliband. They should have gone for Balls. How would he have done better?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 30, 2016 13:58:09 GMT
There is a bit of revisionism going around about Balls at the minute, it seems.
In retrospect, 2010 might have been a good time for a veteran like A Johnson to "steady the ship" for a few years?
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 30, 2016 15:37:36 GMT
Looking back I now think Labour's mistake in 2010 wasn't in picking Ed but in picking Miliband. They should have gone for Balls. How would he have done better? He wouldn't have. That's the idea, I think...
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Oct 30, 2016 16:47:27 GMT
There is a bit of revisionism going around about Balls at the minute, it seems. In retrospect, 2010 might have been a good time for a veteran like A Johnson to "steady the ship" for a few years? I recall being impressed by Harman during her first stint as acting leader. Can't say the same of her second stint though.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Oct 30, 2016 17:05:41 GMT
How would he have done better? He wouldn't have. That's the idea, I think... I suppose the affiliation of the individual who posted that should've tipped me off there...
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 30, 2016 17:14:22 GMT
Balls would have given the Labour leadership a toughness and an edge that neither Eric Wimp nor Horace Quilby could provide.
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 30, 2016 21:00:46 GMT
The fact he lost his own constituency last year would suggest he wouldn't have won over the country as a whole. IIRC Labour topped the poll in the wards of his constituency in the simultaneous local elections.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 30, 2016 21:12:24 GMT
If Balls had been leader he'd probably have held on with the help of the increased profile and a leader's office actually working in his favour. I don't think he'd have swept Labour back to power in a single election but he'd have given the party a confidence and credibility it could never have with either Miliband and perhaps also not left it vulnerable to kneejerk madness.
|
|
baloo
Conservative
Posts: 760
|
Post by baloo on Oct 31, 2016 12:06:54 GMT
I think the whole field of candidates in that election was terrible and that none of them were a match for David Cameron. I seem to recall Ed's campaign selling him as the more normal Milliband ("he speaks human"?). I'd guess that Ed Balls would have been a more competent leader but was widely loathed. Diane Abbot would probably have delivered a Conservative landslide. You could certainly make the case that they actually picked the best/least terrible candidate.
IIRC most of the senior people under Blair and Brown had either left Parliament or said they didn't want the top job.
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 31, 2016 17:23:34 GMT
I wonder if Corbyn could have enjoyed the same stupendous momentum he now has, and how subsequent events might have turned out.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 31, 2016 21:39:30 GMT
Looking back I now think Labour's mistake in 2010 wasn't in picking Ed but in picking Miliband. They should have gone for Balls. I'm no fan of Balls but I certainly agree that he would have done better than Miliband. The latter simply never passed the "looks like a Prime Minister" test and while Balls was arguably less likeable he at least came across as someone tough enough to be Prime Minister.
|
|