It could just be me, but while David Cameron revealed during PMQs that he finds Ed Balls the most annoying MP in politics, I personally find Ed Miliband quite ridiculous.
Perhaps it’s because he looks a bit awkward? While he seems nice enough, in reality he has all the dynamism of a broken action man doll.
He claims he is the voice of Middle Britain, and that the government’s austerity measures are too fast and too deep. Yet despite the cuts, Labour’s poll rating is barely ahead of the Tories and consistently behind the coalition parties combined – by his logic he should have a lead in the double digits. He doesn’t.
The problem is I can’t take him or his party seriously, whether it's Ed’s Rubik's cube, Balls claiming there was no structural deficit or Tom Baldwin, Miliband's spin doctor, trying to force the media to call the coalition the ‘Conservative-led government’. Everything Labour says and does at the moment has an air of ridicule.
Maybe it’s his narrative? He does have an instinct for the hyperbolic, comparing with all seriousness, a rally against taking public spending back to 2007 levels to the great movements seeking to give women the vote, end apartheid in South Africa and give black people civil rights in America. I’m sure he believes they are completely the same thing.
Perhaps he’s simply unlucky? A few weeks ago Miliband told Nick Clegg to ‘lie low’ on the basis that he was too unpopular to help win a Yes vote in the referendum. Then two days later an Ipsos Mori poll found that Mr Miliband was in fact less popular than Clegg.
While that’s fairly unlucky he later accused the two parties sharing power of peddling the politics of division. That’s not unlucky, that’s intellectually dishonest - if you multiply divisions you get back to where you started.
The work of a leader of the opposition is to make their party credible; a party which people can take seriously as a government-in-waiting. Sure he wins the odd by-election or two - Labour had a stonking majority in the Barnsley poll in March -but then, so did Michael Foot in 1983 with a suicide note as a manifesto. The point is Ed is not leading Labour anywhere near where they need to be to regain power.
Instead of building a credible policy platform he has a blank sheet of paper. Instead of atoning for Labour’s economic record he denies it. Instead of building consensus within his party, his members, such as Luke Bozier on Labour List, openly admit they are ashamed by his rhetoric.
There is open disquiet among Labour’s rank and file about Ed’s ability to do the job. Meanwhile waiting patiently in the wings is another Miliband, one with more gravitas and experience than Miliband junior could ever muster.
This Senior Miliband, the one his party wanted, the one Ed won’t have as best man at his wedding and the one whom Conservatives fear, could have gone to Washington to make big money on the lecture tour. Instead he’s lying low in Sunderland, perhaps waiting for the right time to re-emerge as Labours true prodigal son. That for Ed and the coalition, I fear, is the problem waiting to happen.
Why Ed Milibland is quite ridiculous
by Martin Shapland / 01 Apr 2011 09:32
He accuses a coalition of division, compares a rally against cuts with the South African anti apartheid movement and is the most unpopular party leader in Britain – Martin Shapland asks – what is the point of Ed Miliband?
Getty Images













Comments
Grumpy Old Man / April 01 2011 10:44am
And either Milliband stands in the path of Balls, like tethered goats waiting for the tiger. Cooper has more than a passing interest in the Leadership, and I doubt that the fire is totally damped down in Harriet's ample bosom. The Labour leadership race will be a marathon, not a sprint, and the next Labour PM is probably not yet an MP. This particular entertainment will run longer than the Mousetrap.
John Spence / April 01 2011 11:10am
Wow. If this article is indicative of the 'new breed' of political intellect and incisiveness, then God help us all!
Where to begin with it?
"...I personally find Ed Miliband quite ridiculous.
Perhaps it’s because he looks a bit awkward? While he seems nice enough, in reality he has all the dynamism of a broken action man doll."
I realise modern politics is increasingly an image game, but I would expect a more sensible and, frankly, less childish line of attack from a supposed political insider... but we'll press on...
"He claims he is the voice of Middle Britain, and that the government’s austerity measures are too fast and too deep. Yet despite the cuts, Labour’s poll rating is barely ahead of the Tories and consistently behind the coalition parties combined – by his logic he should have a lead in the double digits. He doesn’t."
Approximately 95% of the cuts haven't happened yet, but they'll be beginning to impact on the Job Centres and in people's pockets starting in about 5 days time. That Labour are ahead currently is a thing of wonderment, given how they were detested prior to the 2010 election.
And I notice you fail to mention your own party's polling data - bobbing between 9 and 11% UK wide, down to 5% in Scotland? The Tories are doing incredibly well using the Lib Dems as a sponge for all the opprobrium towards the Coalition.
"The problem is I can’t take him or his party seriously... Everything Labour says and does at the moment has an air of ridicule."
And yet, as you point out yourself, Labour are topping the polls.... Perhaps Labour aren't quite as ridiculous as a Coalition who are not so much performing policy u-turns as they are trapped on a policy roundabout.
"A few weeks ago Miliband told Nick Clegg to ‘lie low’ on the basis that he was too unpopular to help win a Yes vote in the referendum."
But where is Clegg? This was his big concession from the Tories, and yet he is so toxic he can't even front his own campaign.
"Then two days later an Ipsos Mori poll found that Mr Miliband was in fact less popular than Clegg."
But that's not the full truth though, is it? The data to which I presume you're referring (seeing as you fail to provide your own sources) is the Ipsos Mori data from 11-13 March, found here: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Mar11polmontopline.PDF
The data actually shows that, on a national basis, Miliband is the most popular leader of the three main parties (net satisfaction ratings Mili, -5; Cam, -8; Clegg, -22) Clegg only does better than Miliband when comparing satisfaction levels within their own parties.
So that is VERY selective use of data, wouldn't you say?
"The point is Ed is not leading Labour anywhere near where they need to be to regain power."
But the current 'poll of polls' data supplied by Uk Polling Report (admitting that it's based on the not flawless UNS projection) shows Labour with a 46 seat majority, again before the majority of cuts have bitten, so again a false assessment on your part based in the available data...
"Instead of building a credible policy platform he has a blank sheet of paper."
Classic advantage of the opposition. Cameron had no policy platform for approximately 4.5 years. Why? Any half decent policy is nicked by the government. It's intellectually dishonest of you to present otherwise.
"Instead of atoning for Labour’s economic record he denies it."
Where? When? Show your working.
"Instead of building consensus within his party, his members, such as Luke Bozier on Labour List, openly admit they are ashamed by his rhetoric."
He's been in the job six months in a party that is reknowned for its internal factionalism, especially as large numbers of the party membership, myself included, want to see the party put clear blue water between the current incarnation and the failures, including the economic ones, of New Labour.
You've sourced one Labour member, clearly from the Labour right judging by his article, and extrapolated his view to reflect an unidentified number of 'members'.
No doubt some will be embarrassed by his rhetoric, but in providing no analysis you can't reasonably argue one way or the other whether Luke Bozier's view is representative of the membership or not, can you?
"There is open disquiet among Labour’s rank and file about Ed’s ability to do the job."
I can agree there. Given the recent Spring Conference snub, we can assume the same is true about Nick Clegg also, can't we?
"This Senior Miliband, the one his party wanted..."
Nope, wrong again. The Left Futures team did a Labour leadership vote analysis based on OMOV (http://www.leftfutures.org/2010/09/ed-would-have-won-by-more-under-omov/). The result? Ed Miliband would have romped home by a 9% margin (or about 28,000 votes), far greater than his actual victory under the current system. So, no, David Miliband was NOT the one Labour voters wanted.
So all in all, a pretty poor effort, Martin. 10/10 for bile and rhetoric, 1/10 for factual analysis.
Peter Cadwgan / April 01 2011 12:18pm
Martin Shapland 1/10, John Spence 10/10.
Mark / April 02 2011 9:57am
John Spence: "Approximately 95% of the cuts haven't happened yet"
And STILL we get "savage" cuts rhetoric, and the comparisons to womens votes etc etc.
The problem with (your) the left wing is that they only believe in democracy when it's them doing it. Otherwise all we get is polemic about how bad the world will be with a mere 3% cut in public spending. You need to rejoin reality....
BritainNotProductive / April 03 2011 9:30pm
Ed Miliband has no presence, no charisma and no clue. Repatriation of the younger Miliband would be a good start. Drop him into the Atlantic Ocean with a lifejacket and a book called, 'how to win friends and influence people.' Then beg the older Miliband to take over New Labour. Otherwise, Labour is going to hell in a bathtub!
John Spence / April 05 2011 11:41am
Mark -
What you're describing with regard to Labour's polemic is simply modern politics; the same kind of misrepresentation the Tories used when comparing Britain's deficit issues to the like of Greece and Portugal when our situation was by no means as problematic (longer terms over borrowing, no state retirement age of 52 to fund as in Greece etc etc), so please to try and portray hyperbole as simply a Labour trait.
The problem in and of itself isn't a 3% cut in spending which, as you rightly point out, takes us back to 2007 spending levels - the problem is that the cuts are happening too quickly at the wrong time in order to placate the likes of Moody's and S&P, the very same ratings agencies who encouraged buy ins to sub-prime debt.
The private sector is in no shape to soak up the coming job losses, never mind the 2.5m+ jobless that already exist - after all, it's management orthodoxy to first work existing staff harder before looking to take on new hires, especially during economic downturns.
Liz / April 05 2011 6:40pm
The ink monitor has just established a company registered in his name which only attracts tax at 20%. I rather think that this rules him out, as it smacks of corruption to me, even tho this is apparently legal