The Sunday: Banker Hunting Edition

Reclaiming Responsibility: Don your deerstalker and load up your shotgun. The now annual Banker hunting season is in full swing and not a hefty bonus, nor an errant Knighthood, are safe from the foxhounds of Cameroon opportunism or Milibandian rhetoric.

Bonus-less

On Monday, Stephen Hester, uberboss of RBS at the moment, decided to waive his bonus worth a little under £1m. Now Hester runs RBS right now, when the bank is majority owned by the Government, from whom the money provided in the bailout kept the bank alive. Whilst it would have been nice if Mr Hester had somehow stumbled across his morals in the pocket of one of his briefcases and chosen to decline it voluntarily, the manner of the decision was somewhat brought on through a public haranguing. And quite right to, for the bonus for Chief of a lucky-to-be-alive bank like RBS was clearly absurd. Things aren't quite as bad as they were at the depths at RBS, but the money machine's certainly not pumping out profits like it used to.

Fred Goodwin was uberboss at RBS when the money machine was lubed up and spurting out profits like mass-produced chocolate biscuits. For that, they gave him a Knighthood. Fred Goodwin was also uberboss at RBS when things got uberbad. For that, on Tuesday, they stripped him of his Knighthood. The fall from grace puts him in the good company of Nicola Ceaucescu and Robert Mugabe in having been demoted from Knight of the Realm. Without wanting to draw a comparison between the scale of destruction caused by these three unhappy musketeers acts, there is a parallel in  the way that the awards were handed out by an easily impressed, cosy cabal of elites at the top of the British establishment, disconnected from both the  troubles and value-system of those commoners in the real world. One could almost say it makes the Honours system appear ridiculous.

Amusingly, both main political parties managed to find themselves straddling the fence on an issue on which there was only one side to be. Labour drew up Hester's Brucie-bonus contract and Knighted Fred the Shred for services to bad nicknames. The situation was basically all their fault. Ed Miliband, however, did a pretty good job of ignoring what he'd been involved in a few years ago and going successfully on the offensive. For the Tories, it provided some good headlines, and whilst some genuinely see the sense in the actions, stripping a rich man of  undeserved money clearly still rankles with many enough to provide some petty, whinging column inches for the Daily Telegraph. It is a strange world. Labour, former members of the Royal Society for Bonues and Knighthoods for foxes, and current members, the Tories, both sit smiling while the hounds tear the beasts apart.

Cool Fact of the Week: (Courtesy of Slate's Political Gabfest- well worth a listen, especially this being an election year) President Tyler, 10th President of the United States (1841-45), born 1790, still has grandchildren alive. Best of all, one of them thinks Newt Gringrich is 'a jerk'.

Setting an example: Seems like this was the week for the great and the good (or the deceitful and bigoted) to fall on their swords.

Chris Huhne has always been a careerist egomaniac, happy to trample upon anything in the cause of self-advancement. That seems to include both his marriage and the maxim that you don't lie on matters of a criminal nature. For the Lib Dems Huhne was like a dodgy kitchen appliance that was broken, but not quite faulty enough to get rid of. Finally, this week, it blew up on its own accord as Huhne was charged with perverting the course of justice by trying to pass his speeding points on to his wife. Whilst the Government made all the right noises about being sad to see him go, one senses that on both sides of the coalition the Champagne corks were hitting the door as it closed behind him.

Just an all-round good guy...

And then John Terry. Sir John Terry of Stamford Bridge. Is it possible to find anyone who isn't a Chelsea fan willing to say a good thing about John Terry? To be fair to Chelsea fans, quite a few of them can't stand him as well. Whether it's taunting American tourists at Heathrow in the aftermath of 9/11, carrying on affairs with teammates girlfriends, or racially abusing fellow professionals, Terry has always done his best to uphold the highest levels of coarseness, degradation and ignominy. This week facing a criminal charge of using racist language, and the terrifying prospect of the FA's justice system (in what othe profession could you make such overtly racist comments and keep your job?) he was this week stripped of the England captaincy. I fully believe in innocence until proven guilty but John Terry puts forward a good case for the opposite.

In related news, Harry Redknapp's tax evasion trial is drawing to a close.. What a wonderfully high moral standard the high-achievers of our society exhibit...

Six Nations Picks: Made before the weekends games


Final Table:
1. Ireland
2. England
3. Wales
4. France
5. Scotland
6. Italy

This weeks games:

England over Scotland: First the history. England haven't won north of the border since 2004. Scotland haven't scored a try against England at Murrayfield since 2004. If Scotland can keep it tight they could edge a kicking contest, but I fancy the new England crew, without the baggage of players of old, to put on a bit of a show and take a 10-15 point victory.

France over Italy: I know Italy won this fixture last year and that the plucky Romans keep improving but at the Stade de France I can't see anything other than a Gallic victory.

Ireland over Wales: Ireland will be out for revenge after their quarter-final defeat in the World Cup. A glance at the Heineken Cup quarter finals would suggest that Ireland have the strongest pool of talent to choose from at the moment, and I expect that to play out over the course of this Championships.

Made after the weekends games


So... were it not for a couple of questionable decisions by Wayne Barnes in the last 15 minutes of a match that brought the Six Nations to light, I'd be a perfect 3-0 after the first weekend. Bradley Davis deserved a red card, and even with a yellow he deserved to cost Wales the game through a moment of brute idiocy. It's a credit to the rest of the Welsh players that they kept at it, dragged themselves back into the game with a 14-man try, before, in a moment of cruel irony, Barnes gave them a penalty for a rather innocuous tackle on the returned Davis. As for Ireland, with eight minutes to go and a penalty just inside their own half against 14-men they should have kicked to touch. Sexton's speculative effort took time off the clock, but provided the Welsh team with a brief rest period instead of knocking them further on to the back foot. If he makes the kick fair play, but in the circumstances the option more likely to lead them to victory was to bury Wales deep inside their own 22.

Anyhoo, on to next weeks picks:


England over Italy: So the English didn't exactly impress the way I though they might at Murrayfield but they ground out the win. After a solid defensive performance, the Italian challenge should allow them to get a good workout on the offensive side of the ball and move to two wins out of two.

France over Ireland: Can't say we really learned much from France's performance on the weekend, but what we learnt from Ireland is that without O'Driscoll the midfield defence is liable to be punctured at any moment. Ireland have a terrible record on French soil, and I think weakness in the centres, along with the blow of today's defeat, tots up to a French victory.

Wales over Scotland- This fixture two years ago provided one of the best matches I've ever seen and on of the biggest sucker-punches I've ever felt. If Scotland could replicate their performance from that game, minus the last ten minutes, then the impotent performance against the English will be partially atoned for. Wales look impressive though. Up front they're solid, if a bit shaky in the lineout, and their backs play with an impressive mix of pace and force. A win in this could set up a cracking encounter at Twickenham in Week 3 between two unbeatens.

Musical Outro: So this Lana Del Rey. She may not be the self-made, self-financed, album recorded in her bedroom, video made on her laptop, story to make a hipster muso wet themselves. Her performance on Saturday Night Live was pretty awful, the majority of her album is pretty mundane, and her lips look like they've been fiddled with on photoshop. But... I really like this song:

The Sunday: 2012 Predictions Edition

I know, I know. Tl;dr. The extensive format is actually an attempt to make me stick at this blogging lark for longer that the month or so my trio of previous attempts lasted. Rather than trying to pump out two or three posts a week I'll slowly accumulate to one 'review of the week' kind of thing that'll haphazardly espouse my take on a sprawl of different subjects. It might well work. It probably won't. Enjoy it while it's here.


NEWS

Seal: Bin Laden killer and all round good guy

2011 predictions: There was a lot of comment at the end of last year on the fact that 2011 had a lot of news in it. There was the uprisings in the Middle East, the injunctions scandal, the Royal Wedding, the phone hacking scandal, riots across the country, Seal killed Osama Bin Laden, and much more. Busy year, huh? Well guess what... there's going to be even more news this year! How do I know? Well there's a whole extra day! 2012's gone and snuck an extra 24 hours on top of what 2011 had. A whole extra 24 hours...for 24-hour news channels to bring us... news...for another 24 hours. Man, 2012's gonna be busy. That is of course, unless,  as per the Mayans prediction, the world comes to an end on December 21 2012, an event that would not only knock a whole potential 10 days worth of news off of 2012's attempt to eclipse 2011, but would also, rather paradoxically, provide a massive news event that there'd be no-one left to cover. Go figure. Anyway, here's some predictions for 2011:


1) Boris will defeat Ken in the London Mayoral election- the result will leave it 50-50 as to whether Ed Miliband is Labour leader at the end of conference season in the Autumn
2) Obama will win re-election in November- the Republicans will get crazier
3) There will be a major scandal within an institution of British life. Politicians expenses in 2009, the press and phone hacking last year- this year maybe the police, a major business/industry or maybe a mainstream sport
4) Said scandal will result in a 'full independent public inquiry' or FIPI for short. Any potentially big news story/event these days is greeted with a call for a FIPI by politicians- they love them. At this rate we'll soon be seeing FIPIs into George Osborne's obscene levels of smugness, Alistair Darling's bewildering eyebrow/hair colour discord, and who's punching further above their weight wife-wise- Clegg or Cameron
5) A country will leave the Euro- probably Greece
6) Man City will win the premier league. Oh, and at some stage this year Mario Balotelli will be, if not arrested, interviewed by police in relation to some bizarre antics
7) Team GB will under-perform at the Olympics but there will be some stand-out individual performances with golds for Phillips Idowu, Mark Cavendish and some female swimmer/cyclist/modern pentathlete I've never heard of
8) An Elbow song will play out the closing montage to the Olympics TV coverage- a choice not at all becoming a cliche
9) A Royal pregnancy will be announced
And finally...
10) The world will not end- The Mayan's fatalistic prediction is due to their calendar running out on the 21st December 2012. Now if they'd just pop down to Calendar Club...

Whistlin' the blues

Miliband's 5-year problem: Ed Mililband had another relaunch this week, a relaunch that was met with the usual derisory media coverage Ed Miliband seems to attract (for an example see this interview with an unprofessionally callous John Humphries on the Today program). Miliband's struggling to gain any traction at the moment and whilst a lot of this is to do with his lack of policies, lack of a clear narrative, poor communiction, insubstantial PMQs performances, and all-round shortcomings as a leader of a major political party, I think at least part of it can be put down to the establishment of 5-year parliaments by the coalition.


Since 1979 the only 5-year parliaments the UK has witnessed have been the final parliament of the Tory years (92-97) and the New Labour years (05-10) with an unpopular Prime Minister clinging to power amongst withering support. Once the coalition took power in 2010, however, they decided to effectively set 5-year fixed term parliaments as the norm (see this for a bit more detail). The rationale behind this is fairly sound- to stop governments choosing advantageous dates to enhance their chances of re-election. But why 5-years? Well, the coalition realised that it was going to take a while for economic recovery to take place. The further into the future they could push the next election (within reason of course) the more chance of them going to the country as architects of a strong economy.


So why does this affect Ed? Well, it makes it pretty hard for him to generate any positive coverage. If he was riding high in the polls at the moment its still distant enough from the next election to not really matter. He get's a little credit, but not all that much as an Opposition should be ahead in the polls anyway in a situation like we're in now. What's happened in reality is that Labour have been marginally ahead in the polls for the majority of the past year. Two years from an election and that's a solid base to build a campaign on. Three years from an election and the question is why aren't Miliband and Labour further ahead? 


I'd personally prefer four-year parliaments. Mainly because I'm an elections junky, but also because it offers a good balance between allowing a government to achieve things whilst also giving people regular enough chance to remove their leaders. We don't want things to become like America where the President's barely formed an arse-groove in the White House couch before he has to be out campaigning again, but in a 5-year parliament the Opposition face a pretty much Sisyphean task trying to generate positive coverage. At the moment Miliband's trying to walk up the down escalator and failing.

Econ 101: For anyone at all interested in economics (and now's as good a time as any what with the Eurozone imploding and all) I recommend you read Paul Krugman's blog at the New York Times. Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist so he knows his stuff, but what's best is that unlike the majority of economics academics who spend their time creating worthless models on the sandy foundations of assumptions of rationality and complete information, Krugman deals in the reality of actual policy. And he's not afraid to tell it like it is- check out his defence of his style here in a post titled 'The Mendacity of Dopes'. The world needs more commentators calling out the wrong-headed, masochistic response to the Eurozone crisis and the fallacious claims and ideas flying from the inverted reality of the Republican nomination race. Krugman is leading the way.


CULTURE


Infinite Jest: This week I finished reading David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest. It's probably the first book I've read that I've felt a real sense of achievement having finished,and I mean that in best possible way. It took me two months to get through and it's an effort to read- there's a vast panoply of  characters to keep track of, the need to refer to extensive footnotes throughout (386 in total), and you have to put up with a lot of comments from other people about the fatness of the book you're reading and the smallness of the type. But put the effort in and you're rewarded with a supremely funny, wonderfully inventive, sweeping broadside at American culture, that keeps you entertained throughout. Read it!


The Iron Lady- A review: A poor spin-off of the Iron Man franchise 


(I haven't actually seen it. I haven't even seen the Iron Man's. And that's a pretty lame gag. I apologise)


(I say it's a pretty lame gag but I've just read Stewart Lee also use it in this non-review of the film- great minds and all that...)


SPORT

Serious foul play is serious foul play: I didn't see Sam Warburton's red card in the Rugby World Cup semi-final. I was in bed at the time (it was at like 9 on a Sunday morning- they play Rugby at funny times in New Zealand). However,I have seen it since and the right decision was made. The aftermath of Vincent Kompany's red card in the Manchester derby at the weekend reminds me a lot of the controversy that followed Warburton's dismissal. Those vilifying the respective referees do so on two main points, both equally spurious.

"OFF! OFF! OFF! OFF!"

Firstly, critics of the decisions point to the early stage of the game at which each 'offence' occurred. This argument often comes from those who call for more consistency from referees decision making- an ironic inconsistency in their own thought process seeing as policing the game to different standards depending on time expired is, how should I put this, inconsistent. The clock has nothing to do with how a referee should adjudicate the game. If a player puts in a dangerous tackle early in the game, as both Warburton and Kompany did, there is no basis for a referee to err on the side of lenient punishment for the sake of not 'spoiling the game'. This argument was made a lot surrounding the Warburton incident, with the loss of a man in rugby a far more damaging situation to find yourself in than in football, but it holds no water. Warburton's tackle was a red card whether it occurs seconds after the kickoff, seconds before the final whistle, or anywhere in between.

Which brings us to the second defence made of the tackles: that there was no malicious intent and in the case of Kompany that he was actually successful in winning the ball. Those who make this results-based argument show a clear disregard for the condition of those players that they are so entertained by. If, in the course of a rugby tackle (or in any situation really), you lift someone's legs above their head, the inevitability is that they will come down on their upper-body, quite possible their neck or head. This is clearly very dangerous and should be discouraged with the threat of the strongest punishment possible on the field of play. Sam Warburton may not have meant to raise Vincent Clerc off the ground the way he did, but he left Alain Rolland with no choice but to issue him with a red. In football, going into a tackle with both your feet poses a severe threat to the legs of the player you are challenging and again should be punished with a red card. It doesn't matter that Nani jumped out of the way as if Kompany had javelin for feet, Kompany did not need to go in for the tackle the way he did. Though no harm was done Chris Foy was right to let the remaining players know that if they intended to tackle in such a reckless way then their afternoon would be swiftly curtailed.

Now, I don't feel that Warburton or Kompany are dirty players but their punishments in their respective cases were correct, as were the rejection of their subsequent appeals. Rugby and Football are physical games in which injuries are inevitable. However, they are also sports that thrive on the entertainment provided by their players. Thus any reckless action by a player that is likely to endanger the fitness of another must be punished strongly, regardless of whether they cause injury.


Talking Tactics: I came across Zonal Marking this week, a website dedicated to discussions of football tactics. I've also started reading more of The Guardian's pieces on the thought processes behind the game and find them far more insightful than the banal remarks emanating from so-called pundits on TV.


This weeks Carling Cup semi first leg on BBC between Man City and Liverpool was indicative of the perfunctory nature of the Alan's Shearer and Hansen analysis and the indefatigable will of Mark Lawrenson to come across as some kind of comic quipster that the BBC provides us. Stefan Savic, in for the suspended Vincent Kompany, was identified as a weak link in the City defence. Why's that Hansen? He'll be nervous because he hasn't played much we were told. No discussion of Savic's technical ability, his strengths, his weaknesses. Just idle speculation about his potential state of mind (Savic did end up having a shocker to be fair). On the Liverpool side we were informed Andy Carroll lacks confidence, an observation from Shearer about as astute as his suit was shocking. As for Lawrenson, his 'analysis' was about as funny as your best striker breaking his leg on a 'football hilarity scale' that ranges from your team getting relegated at the low-end through to the comic majesty of the following at the high-end:

Most analysis-and this goes for the great minds of Jamie Redknapp and co on Sky Sports as well- seems entirely focused on the simple notions of form and confidence, barely scratching the surface of the different layers within a Premier League match (to be fair to Gary Neville he makes a decent stab at providing a bit more analysis- it's a pretty bad sign when Gary Neville's a leader in your field and your field isn't either being a right-back or sleazy facial hair). It's received wisdom that the best players don't make the best managers. TV should realise the same applies to pundits and and look harder to find new pundits to raise the level of analysis beyond that of the current bilge provided by "the experts".  

Aussie Open pick:  So the first Tennis grand slam of the year is upon us and I'm calling it now: this is the one Andy Murray wins. Murray gets a tough rap for underacheiving when in reality in each grand slam he enters he's up against three of the best players ever to play the game. It's a bit like turning up with your mates to perform at a Battle of the Bands only to find out the competition is The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Who. This then happens at every Battle of the Bands you perform at and still, even when you come second, you get criticised. However, going into this years Australian Open Nadal's battling a shoulder injury, Djokovic still doesn't seem 100% after his fitness issues at the end of last year and Federer pulled out of a tournament due to injury for the first time in his career last week. Put this together with it being a tournament at which Murray's reached the final pretty convincingly the past two years- albeit before being beaten equally convincingly in the final- and this is his best chance yet. The final: Murray over Federer in four sets.

What Ed Said

Ed Miliband's certainly not going to win any prizes for his public speaking delivery. On Tuesday a technical error with the auto-cue caused an awkward delay at the start of his speech, and his body language was much more subdued than that of the over-eager gesticulations of his brother and the more flamboyant presentations of other political leaders. Throughout the first twenty minutes he would occasionally stumble through his words like a predictive text service, pronouncing one word before quickly correcting to his desired choice (for an example see 'deprived/defied' at 15.11). But let us cast such stylistic aspersions aside and examine the substance of this cornerstone address for the Labour Party.

The first ten minutes were well-pitched and set a firm basis from which to embark. Call me sad but I thought the jokes were pretty decent, and his willingness to talk about his Jewish background stands in stark contrast to the last Jewish leader of one of the main parties, Michael Howard. But the heart of the speech was a mixed bag, part cocky, know-it-all, A-level politics student, part responsible new leader of progressive politics. Ed argued that New Labour had 'defied the conventional wisdom' but too often 'bought old, established ways of thinking', and after stating that he would not oppose every coalition cut, followed it up with a lengthy passage on the reasons to oppose the coalition's spending plans. The Times piercingly described it as (paywall) 'at times redolent of Vicky Pollard, the unintelligible schoolgirl from Little Britain, saying 'yeah, but no, but yeah, but no'. This was Ed's bad side.

But then things changed. He staked Labour's starting point for deficit reduction fairly near the centre ground, he talked frankly about immigration, and he issued a clear warning to the Unions about irresponsible strike action. I'm not convinced that his rhetoric on Iraq is genuine, and isn't just playing up to public opinion, but it was a refreshing viewpoint to hear from someone so high up in the Labour Party, as were his criticisms of Labour's record on civil liberties.

As the end came into view, his speech crescendoed with his talk of a new generation and optimism heading into the future. For people of my generation the future can appear like a stick in the hands of the baby-boom generation, comprised of student debts, a poor economic climate and a rapidly ageing population, ready to crush future hopes and dreams. Ed Miliband may not view the need for a new, empowered generation in quite the same way as I do, but to hear a politician talking of optimism going into the future and not simply writing off the young as over-indulged, lazy and work-shy, is a very positive signal to be sending out to young voters.

Labour Hearts Ruling Labour Heads

The kindness of others; Ghost of Labour past; No compromise with the electorate

It was Nick Robinson calling the election in his favour that proved the kiss of death for David Miliband. Sure, the teenage facial hair adorning his top lip can't have been good for karma, but when Robbo plumps for you you know you're done for. To be fair to the BBC's political editor, the facial expressions of the brothers had suggested the senior had been victorious, David sitting relaxed, grinning like a Cheshire cat, Ed ashen faced, like his cat had just been drowned. But as the rounds progressed, and the also-rans were eliminated, the affiliates shifted their weight decisively behind Mili-junior, giving him a final victory margin of just 1.3%. The brothers embraced, providing the papers with the photo they wanted, but more significantly, a genuinely poignant moment. Then Ed Miliband took to the stage to deliver his first speech as leader of the Labour Party.

---

On 24 May nominations opened for Gordon Brown's successor. 33 MPs (12.5% of the commons members of the Parliamentary Labour Party) was the threshold, what seems to me like a perfectly reasonable number. You would hope that the person who is going to be the face of your party going into the future is a face preferred by at least an eighth of your MPs, but this being the Labour Party, there were quickly calls that the number was unfair and discriminatory towards the less popular candidates (which is kind of the point of the threshold in the first place).

Both Miliband's secured the requisite amount, and more, with ease, whilst Andy Burnham and Ed Balls rounded up the numbers to secure their place on the ballot with 33 nominations each. This left just John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, both candidates of the left, scuffling to make it. Both had called for all candidates to be let on the ballot but the party had stood firm. If the left was to be represented, some kind of deal was to be done. Abbott held not one, but two trump cards, in that she was a woman and she was black, so McDonnell withdrew and threw his provisional support by Abbott. Yet still Andrew Neil's 'chocolate hobnob' was short of the required number, and it fell upon David Miliband to patronisingly nominate her himself. It was like an inept high jumper asking for the bar to removed, and when told this would defeat the point of the sport, simply asking the world record holder for a leg-up. Hustings season was embarked upon with five contenders in the running.

Even the most ardent Labour supported would have to agree that the summer's leadership campaign failed to spark the nation's interest. The media were quick to point how all the candidates were Oxbridge educated, which is no bad thing, and how Ed Balls and both the Milibands had studied PPE, which again, doesn't seem unreasonable for politicians. However, even throughout the fifty-plus husting events that the candidates attended there seemed little significant friction between each candidates platform- this excludes Diane Abbott who from henceforth shall be widely ignored- and the campaign remained tucked firmly on the inner pages of the newspapers.

Whilst the candidates broadly acknowledged the successes of New Labour whilst arguing it was time to move on, it took two of its architects to make Labour politics front-page news. At the start of July Peter Mandelson published The Third Man, a book released and written as you would expect from someone with an ego as large, as the ads for it were creepy. The memoirs were quickly condemned for both timing and content and the world moved on.

Then in September Tony Blair, know to some as the former Prime Minister, to others as an international war criminal, released his memoirs, A Journey. It is strange how someone who led Labour to power, and kept them in it for 13 years (for the Brown years were won by Blair in 2005), can now prove so divisive. But all five candidates were quick to declare, like kids on the playground, that they don't like him now, and never liked him that much in the first place. Blair himself made little secret of his preference for David Miliband, but the front page stories were all of tales of Labour's past, not of any vision for the future.

The only definitive view of Labour's future was that it would be in the hands of a Miliband. Diane Abbott never had a realistic chance, Andy Burnham was quite dull (the most interesting thing about his campaign being that Jamie Carragher had donated £10,000) to it, and Ed Balls, though slowly growing in stature, wasn't the right for for leader. Whilst their were similarities between the brothers platforms their was a key distinguishing feature. David was painted by many as the New Labour continuity candidate, much as he himself tried to shrug the the tag. He was clear though, that he believed Labour needed to reach out to the centre, and reconnect with the middle-class voters who were with them in 1997, but got lost in the following thirteen years. This appealed to the more centrist parts of the media and seemed like a logical analysis of Labour's recent failures. Ed, on the other hand, felt that Labour needed to reconnect with their tradition support, those that had been taken for granted by New Labour. Whilst this may also have been true, comparisons were quickly drawn, from those on the centre and the right, with Labour's folly that led them down an electoral cul-de-sac in the 1980s. Yet it would appeal to those on the left, those that in the end were the ones that needed to be wooed. It was upon these premises that the dividing lines were drawn.

Voting opened at the start of September and David Miliband was quickly installed as the bookies favourite. But as the result neared, opinion polls suggested that Ed would win it, including one for the Sunday Times that raised some interesting issues. Polling 1,011 Labour members, and using the same electoral system Labour uses, Ed Miliband came out winner in the final round by 52% to David's 48%. Yet of those same 1,011 members, 55% thought David most likely to lead Labour to victory in the next election, compared to 25% for Ed, and 45% thought David would make the best Prime Minister, compared to 28% for Ed. Whilst not exactly the same as the polling data misunderstanding illustrated in The West Wing clip, it was still puzzling. As John Rentoul put it: 'Vote Ed Miliband. No compromise with the electorate.'

And so it was. The MPs went for David in greater numbers than expected, but the second preferences turned things round for Ed, and the more junior brother in age, experience and reputation was declared the winner. Whilst David may be more likely to win a general election, Ed campaigned for the Labour Party electorate and reaped its rewards. His acceptance speech was warm and gracious in its acknowledgement of the other candidates and hinted that becoming leader would not lead to a change of tune towards a centrist approach as some had perhaps expected. It's early days, but much as I like Ed Miliband, and though I probably sit ideologically closer to him, I'd have felt a lot more confident in Labour's chances in the next election with David as leader. Like it or not, elections are fought on the centre ground, and though Ed may 'tickle Labour's tummy' and provide 'the warm feeling that all those deep Labour instincts were right all along', today could be a fateful day for the party. Here's hoping my early pessimism's unfounded.