Friday, June 17, 2011
Brotherly Love
Under the heading 'Silent assassin' today's Daily Telegraph reports on revelations in a new book by journalists Mehdi Hassan and James Macintyre that they say makes some startling claims about the way the Labour leader conducted his bid for power.
They say that Ed Miliband began planning his campaign to become Labour leader months before the party's general election defeat and did not tell his older brother David he would challenge him for the post until 12 May, six days after the election resulted in a hung parliament. But the book reveals that Ed had been weighing up his options long before that:
A pivotal moment came in February last year, when Ed met the former Labour leader Lord (Neil) Kinnock, who told the authors: "I told him [Ed], if we lose, given the condition we are in, he should run for leader... He told me he had thought about it a lot... He couldn't give me the answer. I replied by imploring him to do it for the party. Think of the party, not David... He told me, 'Because it's you who has raised it I'll have to give it more thought'."
More interestingly, Ed Miliband's allies began mobilising support for his leadership bid on the weekend after the general election, whilst Ed was part of the Labour team trying to negotiate a Lib-Lab coalition with senior Liberal Democrats.
That underlines accounts from David Laws amongst others that Labour were completely disengaged from the process of negotiation and were more interested in getting on with being in opposition than in making a serious bid to be back in government with the Liberal Democrats as a partner.
They say that Ed Miliband began planning his campaign to become Labour leader months before the party's general election defeat and did not tell his older brother David he would challenge him for the post until 12 May, six days after the election resulted in a hung parliament. But the book reveals that Ed had been weighing up his options long before that:
A pivotal moment came in February last year, when Ed met the former Labour leader Lord (Neil) Kinnock, who told the authors: "I told him [Ed], if we lose, given the condition we are in, he should run for leader... He told me he had thought about it a lot... He couldn't give me the answer. I replied by imploring him to do it for the party. Think of the party, not David... He told me, 'Because it's you who has raised it I'll have to give it more thought'."
More interestingly, Ed Miliband's allies began mobilising support for his leadership bid on the weekend after the general election, whilst Ed was part of the Labour team trying to negotiate a Lib-Lab coalition with senior Liberal Democrats.
That underlines accounts from David Laws amongst others that Labour were completely disengaged from the process of negotiation and were more interested in getting on with being in opposition than in making a serious bid to be back in government with the Liberal Democrats as a partner.
Comments:
<< Home
I do not think their is anything shocking in that do you, Brown was planning before 1997 to take power, I'm sure the Liberals had people planning before Clegg took over.
Politics is well known for back stabbing from all parties sadly of course it should be above reproach, but as we know if your a member of the front bench you some how become power mad, the eyes are on you, have a whiskey your a drunk, smoke to much your obviously with the tobacco lobby.
The problem is the words Red Edd, must be something to do with his nose in the morning.
Politics is well known for back stabbing from all parties sadly of course it should be above reproach, but as we know if your a member of the front bench you some how become power mad, the eyes are on you, have a whiskey your a drunk, smoke to much your obviously with the tobacco lobby.
The problem is the words Red Edd, must be something to do with his nose in the morning.
# posted by 
: 1:02 PM
: 1:02 PM
The point of this post was not to highlight Labour intrique (even that which had been previously denied) but to show that Labour were never serious about providing an alternative coalition in May 2010.
"That underlines accounts from David Laws amongst others that Labour were completely disengaged from the process of negotiation and were more interested in getting on with being in opposition than in making a serious bid to be back in government with the Liberal Democrats as a partner."
This is an absurd statement. The Lib Dems made it abundantly clear that they would not enter coalition with a Labour Party lead by Gordon Brown, so a change of leader was on the card regardless of whether Labour would continue in government or go into opposition. And you know that.
This is an absurd statement. The Lib Dems made it abundantly clear that they would not enter coalition with a Labour Party lead by Gordon Brown, so a change of leader was on the card regardless of whether Labour would continue in government or go into opposition. And you know that.
I think you hae got a problem with your timeline there. According to David Laws the negotiations that took place did not involve a discussion around Gordon Brown's future nor was it a precondition for those talks. Laws' account also indicates that the Labour negotiating team was largely dieengaged and were going through the motions.
Taken from your posting of December 29th, 2010 after reading David Laws book.
"David Laws talks about how toxic Gordon Brown was and how it would have been impossible to enter a coalition with Labour whilst he was Prime Minister."
"David Laws talks about how toxic Gordon Brown was and how it would have been impossible to enter a coalition with Labour whilst he was Prime Minister."
# posted by : 6:24 PM
: 6:24 PM
"According to David Laws the negotiations that took place did not involve a discussion around Gordon Brown's future"
On the contrary, Laws's book says precisely the opposite. Of the very first Lab-lib talks Laws writes:
"We talked through the electoral arithmetic with the Labour team and some of the key issues of importance to both sides. There was one uncomfortable point later on in the meeting when Chris Huhne took it upon himself to raise the issue of Gordon Brown's future. "We have yet to discuss" he said, "how to deal with the Gordon Brown problem".
"Peter Mandelson pretended to look surprised and take aback, though he knew, of course, that for us this was already a key consideration."
That passage, incidentally, related the discussions that took place on Saturday the 8th May.
Apart from the blindingly obvious point that it would be most unwise to rely exclusively on Mr Laws's version of events, he makes it very clear (as indeed did all the media coverage at the time) that the Lib Dems from the outset were telling anyone who would listen that they would not serve in a Gordon Brown administration.
So if (and it is a very big if) Ed's supporters were mobilising that weekend, it was probably in no small part due to the fact that your party has ensured that there was no conceivable scenario in which Gordon was to continue as Labour leader.
On the contrary, Laws's book says precisely the opposite. Of the very first Lab-lib talks Laws writes:
"We talked through the electoral arithmetic with the Labour team and some of the key issues of importance to both sides. There was one uncomfortable point later on in the meeting when Chris Huhne took it upon himself to raise the issue of Gordon Brown's future. "We have yet to discuss" he said, "how to deal with the Gordon Brown problem".
"Peter Mandelson pretended to look surprised and take aback, though he knew, of course, that for us this was already a key consideration."
That passage, incidentally, related the discussions that took place on Saturday the 8th May.
Apart from the blindingly obvious point that it would be most unwise to rely exclusively on Mr Laws's version of events, he makes it very clear (as indeed did all the media coverage at the time) that the Lib Dems from the outset were telling anyone who would listen that they would not serve in a Gordon Brown administration.
So if (and it is a very big if) Ed's supporters were mobilising that weekend, it was probably in no small part due to the fact that your party has ensured that there was no conceivable scenario in which Gordon was to continue as Labour leader.
Well clearly Ed Miliband was organising well before that. Laws also makes it clear that Labour were largely disinterested in doing a deal. They wanted to get on with being in opposition.
Post a Comment
<< Home
