Is Ed Miliband the New Clem Attlee?

Sadly, this article is similar to the "England will win the World Cup" emails that do the rounds every 4 years that refer to events in 1966 and draw a coincidental parallel to current squad at the time - everything from a bald manchester striker to strange number combinations of previous defeats predicted a win. If milliband seeks a 1997 level victory, he should look at the specifics of history not the coincidental traits. In 1997, the shadow cabinet was as recognised as the cabinet. The shadow manifesto was as costed as the current govt one. The shadow cabinet spoke with the gravity, authority and pragmatist approach to the sitting cabinet. No show boating, or band wagoning or Sheffield rallies. That is his task , if he is serious about the challenge.

I hope you're right Francis but the fact that he turned on his elder brother is probably the biggest reason why Ed may struggle to build the kind of trust that Attlee had. I'm not saying it's an insuperable obstacle, but us Brits don't like that sort of thing.

My favourite Attlee story is the one about his refusal to allow a minister to publish a volume of poetry, saying: "Don't rhyme, don't scan." The 'Not up to it' comment was directed at Philip Noel-Baker, I believe.

I'm pleased to confirm that I did indeed make this rash promise. It would give me the greatest pleasure to lose. Ed has shown real leadership over Murdoch, I agree. But whether it will translate into a 1945 size majority - or even contribute to one - I doubt. So, Francis, I hope you're right and I'm wrong. You'll note that I didn't have the heart to suggest that you buy dinner if Ed doesn't prove to be another Clem.

My prediction is this: we'll both go hungry.

There are two key reasons why I believe this analysis is wrong, and they are to do with Attlee being elected, not so much what his government achieved in office.

The first is that the war helped. It wasn't of course all easy - politically I mean - but Attlee basically had six years as leader without significant challenge. He was also in the Cabinet, so had time to gain significant experience. And being in Government during the war enabled Labour ministers to push through policies, particularly since Churchill paid very little attention to domestic policy - not only did that help win the election, but it also meant Attlee's 1945 government had a running start. Finally, the war made a Conservative defeat in the 1945 General Election almost inevitable, for a number of reasons. (As an aisde, it is interesting to note he didn't have quite the same success in subsequent elections and Labour was then out of power for 13 years.)

The second is the concept that a bald man can never again become President. The media isn't the same as it was in the 1940s - I don't need to rehearse the whys and wherefores of that here. I suspect Ed M is too geeky for today's environment.

I'm sure Francis is right that Milliband shares some characteristics with Attlee would have had the same success if he was operating in the same circumstances. But he isn't.

I enjoyed this article as Clem is my political hero. It prompted this short blog:
http://razmit-timsblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-like-clem.html

I agree with Paul's comments above. I did not forgive GB for his antics against Tony Blair and my disapproval was demonstrated in not voting for him at the last election. I will never come to terms with him standing against his brother who in my opinion is head and shoulders above him. So - again he will not get my vote. Much easier the second time around to abandon a party that I have supported for over 40 years. Family loyalty matters......

Im with Jane and Paul. I voted Labour consistently since I first voted (for Wilson) in 1974. It was very hard to vote conservative first for Boris then for Cameron, but it was made very much easier by my deep dislike for the politics and personalities of Livingstone, Brown, Balls et al.

I was astonished when Ed stood against his brother, and nearly as shocked as he was when he actually "succeeded" in defeating him. I think Ed stood for complex reasons some connected to sibling rivalry, and some to do with jockeying for long-term party position never expecting to win; and in standing gave the machiavellian schemers around Balls and the Unions an opportunity to do for both brothers.

Ed is completely un electable. No-one I know from across the spectrum has a good word to say about him, and he manifestly lacks the skills and characteristics necessary to put any of this right.

Whatever the Flashman narrative Cameron wipes the floor with Ed and you cant help feeling he richly deserves the regular humiliation. All this guff about him speaking for England over the hilariously over-blown fall of the Murdoch tyranny has no traction at all outside the political-media nexus. He comes over as what he is: a rather unpleasant and weak man with none of strengths of character, intellect or belief that make a unsuccesful but well liked leader like Kinnock; let alone a brilliant, if flawed, one like Attlee or Blair.

Let's have a little perspective. Clem Attlee was 62 when he became Prime Minister. He served with distinction in WWI as an officer, seeing action from Gallipoli to Mesopotamia where he was badly wounded through to the final confrontation of the Ludendorff Offensive on the Western Front in spring/summer 1918.

In WW2, he had been at the heart of a wartime government as Deputy Prime Minister in a fight for national survival. To say that Attlee was blooded - in every sense - a tough, capable and a proven trainer and leader of men as a result would be an understatement.

Ed Miliband is none of these things. He has none of this experience. He has no moral and practical compass forged in the white heat of national crisis. Judging by his utter hypocrisy over HackGate and his continued denial of responsibility for a goodly part of our current economic woes, he is also fundamentally dishonest. He has not lived in the real world, being merely the cerebral, privileged and socialist offspring of a minor Marxist academic - and whose entire life thus far has been spent cocooned in a political bubble. It is no wonder that he finds it hard to communicate in human. He is merely in notional control of a Labour rump that continues to bleed out and that has no electoral credibility outside of its tribal voting core - regardless of how the BBC, C4, the Daily Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent spin it.

Attlee and Miliband? That dog don't hunt. Ed is unelectable. England are more likely to win the World Cup in Brazil.

Jules has it spot on.

By 2015 nobody will remember Hackgate. The Murdoch empire will still control a sizeable amount of newsprint. Sky TV, whether under NI control or not, will be required to be politically neutral (probably more enforced, but still just as neutral). The public will, if Ed Milliband is still in place, observe a 'wonk' at work. They won't perceive any sense of connection with the Ordinary Joe, despite Ed's protestations.

Ed Milliband is, not to put it unkindly, really really boring. Nobody votes for boring. Just look at Boris. Few politicians can get away with being known only by their first name, but like Maggie, Boris has that star quality in shed loads. Ed Milliband, hamstrung of course by Ed Balls, can't ever achieve that quality. The public like 'star quality'. It may be entirely irrational that they do, but that's the way of the world.

"England are more likely to win the World Cup in Brazil."

And that *certainly* won't be happening.

Labour may currently be leading in the polls, but that's by default, not by design. They're not in that position by any virtue of anything that they've said. And, given all the deep and painful cuts the Government is being forced to carry out by the circumstances the last lot bequeathed to them, it's astonishing that the Tories have maintained their support as much as they have.

Labour won't win the next election. Not with Ed Milliband in charge.

A bit sad to be commenting on comments on your own post, but who cares?
No, people don;t like star quality in their politicians - but there are an awful lot of poundits out there, in journalism and in spin doctery, who have a vested interest in telling them they do. They donp't mind a geek, and they don't mind a guy who sounds like a family solicitor in a sleepy country town, because they feel fairly sure he won;t be sending their sons to fight in Iraq unless he absilutely has to.

I think that with Atlee some people did not see the man behind the outward persona.

With Ed Miliband I think what you see is what you get. Unfortunately.