Six Votes In It: Ed Miliband's Margin of Victory

Because the Labour Leadership election is not down under one member one vote just how close was the final outcome. After all1.3% is a pretty close race. But all the talk of the Unions winning it for younger brother Ed need to be looked at in light of the six people who actually cost it for David.

My friend and once upon a time blogger Mark Thompson has actually done the maths.
With just 1.3% in it David only needed a 0.65% swing so from the smallest electorate making up 33.33% of the electorate that was the MPs and MEPs. Each of their votes counted as 0.1253% overall for the entire election. Five of them comes to just 0.6265% whereas six comes to the magic 0.7518% or but another way 50.1018% of the vote enough to have edged out his younger brother.

The Unions Anoint Ed

Well in the end it really was a nail biting finish. It was down to the fourth round of the ballot that decided the result between the Milibands. In the end it came down to:

MPs 53-47 to David;
Members 54-46 to David;
Unions 60-40 to Ed.

Overall Ed 50.65% David 49.35%

Yes I was doing the maths in my head before the result for David was declared first (how much of a geek am I?) even turning and saying it. I knew before that forty nine came out of the Chair of the NEC's mouth which Miliband brother was next in line. But the split is that he lost out in two of the three colleges. The members and MPs/MEPs were not behind him, but the Unions were.

However, Nick Robinson and Laura Kuenssberg were talking over round two declarations and most of round three to tell us that David Miliband was smiling and Ed was looking tense, before Nick 'declared' the result for David. My friend Helen Duffet posted a tweet 'Ed Miliband wins title of Labour's best pokerface. Watch 'im.'

So in honour of the new Labour leader's performance before the count was declared here's this.

Dear Daily Telegraph: The History of Splitting

The Daily Telegraph today has an article entitled 'The Liberals have a History of Splitting'.

It says that:

"Most Lib Dems chose Charles Kennedy as leader. Most chose Sir Menzies Campbell. Most chose Paddy Ashdown. And most have just chosen Simon Hughes to be the party's deputy leader."

Of course the last part in inaccurate as only the majority of Lib Dem MPs chose Simon as Deputy Leader. But the whole tenant of the argument is that over the last century only the Liberal had a tendency to split or splinter.

It ignores the fact that at the time that the Liberals split before the Nationalist Government the Labour party itself had split with the Independent Labour party opposing mobilisation during the First World War, the anti-war campaigner Ramsey MacDonald resigned as leader and Arthur Anderson took over. The same grouping would disaffiliate itself once more in 1932 under MacDonald. But in 1931 the Labour cabinet itself was split over spending and wage cuts split. It led to MacDonald and his keys allies resigning and setting up the National Government with the support of Tories and Liberals.In 1951 there was a split into the Gatskillite and Bevanite camps over the future direction of socialism.

Of course in 1981 there was a major split that led to the formation of a new party, whose successors would later go on to be in Government, that was of course the SDP. There followed the Militant tendency which led to a further split as some Labour MPs and members went off to the Socialist groups.

Which leads us on Ed Miliband telling us that Nick Clegg is betraying Liberal tradition and that he is actually a Tory. Now if ever there was a Government that had betrayed its own tradition it would be the Labour government of the last 13 years of which Ed was a part of in the later stages. As for betraying the Liberal tradition maybe Ed would like to define exactly what he means by that. There are a number of liberal ideologies all contained within the Liberal Democrats, so we are always coming to compromises on setting out policy and our stall.

He goes as far as calling Nick a Tory. Having read his thoughts on the future of Liberalism in the The Liberal Moment at about this time last year was able to ask questions a matter of hours after finishing reading it. I know he's not a Tory, but his is part of a Government that is largely occupied by Tories, therefore of course there will be more Conservative policies straight out of their manifesto than ours, but there are also a number of compromises on policies where than can be action.

Waking up this morning as I did in Conservative-free* Northern Ireland I don't fell like a Tory because of the coalition. Every upheaval that faces Miliband's party does seem to lead to another split. There are so many socialist parties in some parts of Scotland (esp Glasgow) that they are tripping over each other.

So Ed be careful throwing those stones about, there are dangers as always under the Labour party, just because you are being called the Bennite candidate is no need to go off in a huff.

* And Ulster Unionist at Westminster level.

Messers Ed Talking Balls Over Iraq

Is there a war going on?

Today Ed Balls said in the Telegraph that the war on Iraq was was "wrong" and "a mistake". Going on to say:

"We shouldn't have changed our argument from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way. It was an error for which we as a country paid a heavy price, and for which many people paid with their lives.

"Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, and I am pleased he is no longer running Iraq. But the war was wrong."

Ed Miliband told the Guardian the decision to go to war was taken "led to a catastrophic loss of trust in Labour" adding:

"I was pretty clear at the time that I thought there needs to be more due process here.

"As we all know, the basis for going to war was on the basis of Saddam's threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction and therefore that is why I felt the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to find out whether he had those weapons, and Hans Blix – the head of the UN weapons inspectorate – was saying that he wanted to be given more time. The basis for going to war was the threat that he posed.

"The combination of not giving the weapons inspectors more time, and then the weapons not being found, I think for a lot of people it led to a catastrophic loss of trust for us, and we do need to draw a line under it."

You'd think there was a leadership election on or something. Oh yes there is.

Of course Balls was an advisor for Gordon Brown at the time of the invasion and is going to some lengths to try to distance himself from the decision that was backed by his then boss. Strange then that he also says if he had been an MP at the time he would have voted for the decision based on the evidence provided and at the same time saying:

"It was a mistake. On the information we had, we shouldn't have prosecuted the war."

So on the information he was privy to he said we shouldn't have prosecuted the war yet at the same time says if he'd been elected he would have voted for it. Huh? Is it just me that finds that argument doesn't add up.

Miliband was in the states at the time unlike big brother David but said he had 'some very heated arguments' with Gordon Brown about it but decided it was better to fight for climate change from inside the cabinet. That would be fighting so hard that you couldn't even get the party to make Parliament cut their own carbon emissions by 10% in 2010 as part of the 10:10 initiative that you said you supported in principle, right?

Well as the only two leadership candidates who weren't elected to the House of Commons at the time of the vote to go to war on Iraq these two may have been able to put a line under it. Sadly they failed to do that with their diversionary tactics.