This afternoon Channel 5 became the latest media outlet to fan the flames of publicity for Nadine Dorries’ 10 minute rule bill proposing that teaching young girls abstinence should be included in compulsory sex education. I have a maths exam tomorrow, so I won’t waste  the rest of my evening by explaining in detail the many levels on which this bill is a terrible idea, or highlight her totally out of character use of selective and downright dodgy facts.

Before I begin, I should probably state where it is I’m coming from. I went to a nice girl’s grammar school in Surrey. During my seven years there, I never once heard a rumour that so-and-so is pregnant, it was a school mostly filled with middle class girls, and incidents of teenage pregnancy were unheard of. In my immediate group of friends nobody was sexually active at least until sixth form. Maybe a handful of girls lost their virginity lower down in the school, but as far as I can remember the news didn’t travel beyond their immediate circle. I’m also a committed Christian, and for me part of that is choosing to remain a virgin until I’m married. During my time in school, and my time so far at university, I’ve never once been made to feel like I should be having sex or that I’m some sort of freak for choosing not to. I’ve never even been called frigid. Everybody who I knew at school accepted my decision, and a few even told me they respected me for it. We even had fun debates about it in RS! I accept that my experience isn’t universal, and that the pressure to lose your virginity may be much greater in other schools, but it makes me angry when people like Dorries claim that experience like mine don’t really happen to make their own ‘moral’ political point.

One of the problems with Dorries’ narrative is that she takes one experience, pretends it’s universal and then bases her entire argument on that dodgy premise. Her ten minute rule bill is positively littered with examples. I’m willing to bet my student loan that no school actually teaches 7 year olds how to put condoms on bananas. I’ve only just left school and I didn’t have the faintest idea what a condom was aged 7. I found out when I was ten, in one of those annoying playground games where you’re asked if you know what XYZ is, you feel stupid for not knowing and so you have a sneaky look in the dictionary when nobody’s looking. The only thing I remember learning about in primary sex education was the difference between boys and girls, puberty, periods and the cold hard facts of reproduction. It wasn’t until year 9 until I saw an actual condom, and even then it was a visual demonstration with a plastic penis, not even a banana, and we didn’t even get to have a go ourselves! Dorries has fallen for the age old tabloid trick of using an oversimplified headline and a withholding of several key facts to activate the moral panic setting in Conservatives and especially the Christian right.

Here’s a (made up, but tragically plausible) example. The headline is ‘Children as young as 5 to be told how to get condoms.’ Here’s the actual story: the government has produced new guidelines for sex education for children aged 5 to 16, providing age appropriate information at various stages in a child’s education, which eventually includes information on the availability of contraception. Remember when the Daily Mail ran that story about how ‘gayness’ is becoming mandatory in schools, and how kids as young as FOUR will be made to do maths problems about gay people? Classic example. Melanie Phillips practically has a degree in it. The story and Phillip’s comment on  it both somehow failed to include the rather crucial fact that far from being mandatory, these were suggestions on how schools could mark LGBT history month should they choose to do so, just as the organisers of Black History Month encourage schools to weave black history throughout the curriculum.

Asked on Vanessa Feltz’s chat show this afternoon if there’s not already a ‘don’t have sex until you’re ready’ element to sex education in school’s, Dorries’ response was “Absolutely not. No. It’s just the mechanics,” before claiming that teenagers are “never” told that they don’t have to have sex until they decide they are ready. That is a downright lie; that message was impressed upon us time and time again when I was in school, and it’s wrong of Dorries to airbrush this out. However, it is true that the only compulsory element of sex education, and I use the word compulsory lightly here, is the mechanics of sex. Everything else is discretionary.

So here’s where I agree with Dorries. That is wrong and needs to change. We need to have a sex education, compulsory in every school, which covers what good schools are already covering. Sex, relationships, healthy relationships, unhealthy relationships, sexual abuse, contraception, homosexuality, tolerance, self respect and self esteem, resisting peer pressure, emotions, and yes, not saying yes until you are ready. Sex education at my school was fantastic and covered nearly all of this, but other young people are denied this. It needs to be compulsory, we need to properly train teachers so they know how to teach sex education so that no child leaves school without a comprehensive sex education to a national standard.

Ironically, whenever this is proposed, it’s always the right that opposes it! Dorries and her kin are perfectly happy to have more compulsory sex education, but as long as it’s abstinence and only abstinence. The minute you try and make learning about homosexuality, say, compulsory, suddenly you’re an immoral proponent of the famous ‘gay agenda’. Just before the 2010 general election, Labour had a fantastic education bill on its passage through the Commons which would have expanded the compulsory sex education, including may of the things mentioned above. Facing opposition in the commons, it was shelved to get the bill through before parliament was dissolved. If I had my way I’d remove the parental opt-out altogether, not very liberal I know, but good sex education should be compulsory for every child at every school. Schools and parents wishing to teach religious sexual ethics, such as abstinence before marriage, may do so in addition if they wish, as was acknowledged by Labour’s education bill.

If you were in any doubt as to how dangerous Dorries’ ideology is, watch today’s episode of Vanessa. Dorries claimed that sex is so prevalent in our society that young girls (and boys) often don’t realise that they’ve been sexually abused, and that if we teach girls just to say no, there would less sexual abuse. There is only one word for this comment, and that is vile. In addition, Dorries’ bill is based on unfair gender stereotypes; the onerous is on the girl not to be so silly to have sex and get pregnant and they don’t really even like sex all that much, they simply have it because the boys ask for it and they feel obliged to deliver.  As for boys, there’s no point even bothering with them because their brains are in their penises, it’s natural for them to persistently ask for sex. Dorries’ bill is wrong and dangerous, but the principle of expanding compulsory sex education is a very good one.

Here’s a fun Sunday evening game for you: tweet me the most horrendous abuse you can possibly imagine. Please, make it really nasty. As long as you include somewhere one of the following phrases: yestoAV, notoAV, yes2AV, no2AV, yesinMay or Labouryes, I will have absolutely no idea what horrible things you have been saying about me.

As early as February this year I took the decision to employ Tweetdeck’s (extremely useful) global filter feature to remove tweets containing the phrases listed above from my timeline. The result was instantly gratifying, I suddenly found myself free from the most irritating political debate which I have ever lived through.

Except I didn’t really. Firstly because people have an extremely annoying habit of not using the official AV hashtags when tweeting about AV. I tried to rectify this by filtering out mentions to AV itself, but sadly this also removed tweets containing words like David, and anybody who knows the first thing about me would immediately see why that is an unacceptable price to pay. Secondly, while my Tweetdeck became a haven free from discussion of upcoming referenda, the twitter applications on my blackberry and iPod touch respectively (yes, I am a technophile) remained contaminated.

So here I am 2 months later; disillusioned, trying very hard not to resent episodes of direct democracy and reminding myself that I had good reason to follow these people on twitter before the AV debate ignited. It’s difficult to pinpoint why exactly I’m so resentful towards the entire  debate, but I can see two main contributing factors.

The first reason why I am so thoroughly fed up is the appallingly awful standard of argument radiating from both sides of the debate. I understand how AV works*. It was taught as part of my favourite topic [Elections] in AS politics. I spent a significant portion of my summer explaining its intricacies, both to fellow leadership canvassers and to the Labour members who we were canvassing. I even wrote a blog post attempting to clear up some of the misconceptions which were doing the rounds. Hence it makes me very angry when I see everything from unsupported wild speculation to deliberate half-truths spouted by both campaigns, which even the most conscientious voter would have difficulty sifting through. I have neither the time or patience to list every single crime (Stace has posted a very good list), but I will list those which have grated me the most.

1. Yes: Argument in title. If my mother ever thought that my younger self wouldn’t like what she had cooked, she’d reply “very nice X” when I asked what was for dinner in an attempt to shape my opinion of it. The yes camp are employing the same tactic, include ‘fairer’ in the title of their campaign and then skimp and save on explaining why exactly it is fairer. Ridiculous when you consider that the title ‘Yes to fairer votes’ applies equally to both camps, as both regard their system as the fairer of the two.
2. Yes & No: BNP scaremongering. Yes have a poster which encourages me to vote for AV simply because Nick Griffin is voting no. Sayeeda Warsi wants me to believe that the BNP will benefit from AV. Both can’t be right.
3. No: AV kills babies and soldiers. I’ve crudely paraphrased their campaign posters, but that is the essential point they intended to convey. Ignoring the glaring logical fallacy that is the assumption that the ‘cost of AV’ (which includes the cost of the referendum itself – which would be occurred regardless of the outcome – and electronic voting systems which the no campaign have falsely claimed are essential) would otherwise be spent on babies and soldiers, this is a disgracefully offensive low which every opponent of AV should be ashamed to be associated with.
4. Yes: AV would have prevented the expenses scandal. Yes claim that AV will make MPs work harder, and strongly imply that AV would have prevented or lessened the expenses scandal. If MPs who have to work harder to get re-elected are less likely to abuse their expenses, it would be reasonable to expect some correlation between majority and amount of expenses repaid. There isn’t any.
5. Yes & No: X would have happened/will happen under AV. If I learnt anything over the summer, it’s that you can’t second guess second preferences, let alone third and subsequent ones. People don’t always assign their preferences in a way which you or I would consider logical. Any claim that this or that would have happened under AV, or will happen in the future, is little more than weakly supported guesswork.

The second is that I simply don’t care. In the past, I’ve expressed my support for AV mainly because of it’s ability to radically reduce the need for tactical voting, something which you don’t fully appreciate until you live in a  Conservative-Liberal Democrat marginal constituency, where keeping the Tory out remains the distinct lesser of two evils. Under the Alternative Vote, I would be free to rank the candidates in order of preference; Labour then Lib Dem, and I wouldn’t have to sacrifice voting for the party which I am best ideologically aligned to in order to make my vote count.

I stand by this, and think that this is the overwhelmingly strongest reason for changing the voting system. But while Labour’s national share of the vote will obviously benefit from people like me being able to express my true preference, the main beneficiary is my own happiness. Given the series of events since the General Election, I am more reluctant to put a cross in the Lib Dem box than I was pre-May (I was still only 17 on polling day).  But the difference between voting for the Lib Dems under FPTP in Sutton and Cheam and voting Labour-Lid Dem under AV is almost entirely superficial. The main difference is that I get to leave the polling station feeling slightly better. The outcome of this referendum does not matter to me.

My own apathy irritates me, especially while I have plenty of contact with people who treat the referendum as the most important thing to happen in British politics ever. I promised myself back in February that if my apathy held out until May I would simply cast my vote based on who I disliked more out of David Cameron and Nick Clegg, since Clegg is the clear winner and Cameron the clear loser, should AV pass. That is  now easier said than done, and before you tell me that this is no way to make a political decision, it’s a damnsight better reason than the campaigns are offering.

*A Lib Dem who I am friends with on Facebook decided that my apathy must be due to not understanding, despite having debated the issue with me on several occasions. He posted me a link to a pro-AV video which explained the perceived flaws of FPTP in terms of animals vying to be King of the Jungle. “Don’t take it too literally,” he helpfully warned, “remember that animals can’t vote in real life.”

Update: As featured on the banned list!

Can we please have a general amnesty on replying ‘David lost, get over it’ to any Labour supporter who utters something less than 100% positive about decisions made by, or general performance of, Ed Miliband. Recent proposals, such as the severing of ‘big money’ ties with unions and giving the public a say in future leadership elections and the new join Labour for a penny initiative have divided the Labour twitterati, but not in the way you might expect; disagreeing with Ed is not something that only we former David Miliband supporters partake in.

When a former Ed Miliband volunteer gets accused of ‘not being over it‘ for blogging about why she disagrees with Ed, you know that the one-size-fits-all ‘oh but they would say that, they’re bitter Blairites who haven’t come to terms with losing an election’ response has gone too far.

There have been and will be disagreements, and there’s a good chance that those ideologically further from Ed will disagree with him more frequently than those who enthusiastically supported him over the summer. But I, as does everybody else in my position, reserve the right to speak my mind without being immediately dismissed as a sore loser. Yes, there will sadly always be some who won’t give Ed a fair chance, and will resentfully disagree with everything he says or does just because he’s the one saying or doing it. In 3 months, I’ve encountered no more than 2 of these people. I will behave as Labour should be behaving in opposition, supporting policies and proposals with which I agree and debating those with which I do not. Even if I had supported Ed during the leadership election, my behaviour now would be no different.

I am over it. Whereas in early October I may have felt pangs of regret every time I heard the phrase ‘Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband’ and dared to dream, just for a second, that the result had been different when Ed is referred to by his surname alone, that was then and this is now. Do I still wish that the result had been different? Yes. Does that mean that I have made it my personal mission to be as obstructive as possible and to disagree purely for the sake of disagreeing? No.

Maybe the ‘get over it Blairite’ brigade need to get over the fact that not everybody will agree with Ed all of the time.

N.B. The above also applies to when people suggest reforming the way we elect Labour leaders. Changing the system now won’t change the result, we’re not that stupid…

Image credit: Spilt Milk by slinkachu

I made a deliberate decision not to include the now rather infamous picture of Nick Clegg proudly holding his pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees as the opening picture of this post. Why? Well, I must confess that I’m getting a little bored of seeing it. Imagine how he must feel. In it’s place is a rather nice picture of Mr Clegg tying his shiny gold tie in front of a rather fetching yellow backdrop. Probably the only two yellow things about him.

In the last few weeks of student protest after student protest we’ve seen a  lot of anger directed at Mr Clegg and his 56 Liberal Democrat colleagues in Parliament. Righteous anger, might I add. For somebody who spent the entirety of the General Election with a smug holier-than-thou expression on his face bemoaning how people have lost their trust in politics, how this was the exclusive fault of ‘the other two parties’ and how politicians should be held to account over expenses (fair enough, but your party wasn’t exactly squeaky clean Nick…) and how simply awful it is that politicians don’t keep their promises, his 540° turn on tuition fees leaves an extraordinarily nasty taste in the mouth.

The spectacular nature of the Great Liberal Democrat Climbdown is actually part of the problem. Clegg and the Lib Dems are natural targets, whereas Cameron, Osborne and co. seem to have come out of the whole fiasco relatively unscathed. There’s something of a paradox about this: we all enjoy a bit of Lib Dem mocking and take every opportunity to point out just how little they’ve got out of the coalition agreement, short of a referendum on AV which they will likely lose and a couple of ministerial cars. Yet we leave it at that. What we should be thinking is this: “Ha, look how little Clegg sold the Lib Dems down the river for. Hang on, if very few of their policies are being adopted, who is it that is driving the government ideologically? Ah yes, the Tories. Let’s go and scrutinise them for a bit.”

On many coalition policies this has already happened; but just not on tuition fees. Labour, students and the NUS are lining up to point out just how much of a hypocrite Nick Clegg is, and the Conservatives are being spared most of the criticism. No matter how blue the current Lib Dem leadership is at the moment, a free market in education with a two-tier system whereby those who are better off are more likely to benefit from the best educational institutions in the country smacks of Tory ideology, not Liberal Democrat. They way in which the Lib Dems are preparing to break a pledge which they paraded around university town after university town is disgraceful, and they deserve to pay a heavy political price. But let’s remember who’s policy this really is.

A friend of mine from back home came to stay with me in Durham last Friday. She, and a group of her friends had been looking round the university and we had arranged to meet after my lectures finished on Friday afternoon, just opposite Durham Cathedral on Palace Green. I noticed that one of her friends was sporting  a brilliant ‘Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote ConDem,’ badge. I admired it and inquired after where it was from. He told me that his dad had given it to him.

Turns out that his dad is current Shadow Immigration minister Phil Woolas, found guilty today on two counts of breaching the Representation of the People Act. Obviously, ‘oh, the one who’s in court charged with lying to get himself elected’ was not an appropriate response to the revelation, so I kept schtum. My friend later privately confessed that her only knowledge of the court case had come from him, and it’s unsurprising that he thinks his dad is totally innocent.

I’ve just been looking through Woolas’ election leaflets; and while some of them are pretty standard Labour leaflets while others others easily slanderous, it’s striking that the ones which seemingly remain within the law on campaign literature are the most disgraceful.

I’m talking mainly about these leaflets [(1) (2)]. They don’t appear to be particularly slanderous; after all an amnesty on illegal immigrants was a Liberal Democrat policy at the time of the general election, but to equate illegal immigrants with Islamic extremists is utterly despicable and totally indefensible. Consider also that this came from the then immigration minister representing a constituency with a history of racial tension and race riots, and suddenly telling a few porkies about his political opponents (although still very wrong) becomes the least of Woolas’ crimes. If it wasn’t for the Labour rose, those leaflets could have easily been produced by the BNP. It’s textbook scaremongering, it plays on people’s fears on immigration and it polarises a community already marred by racial tension; all for the sake of electoral gain. The Labour party should have done something about this at the time, deselction perhaps,  but it seems that the relevant authorities turned a blind eye for the sake of winning the seat.

That Woolas was re-appointed to shadow the immigration brief is, in my eyes, a very poor judgement by Ed Miliband.

I’m not sure how the logistics of the appeal and by-election/rerun (what even is the difference between the two?) will work together, but it will certainly be a very interesting one. It is thoroughly inconceivable that  Woolas will be allowed, either by the NEC or indeed by the law, to stand as Labour’s candidate, but Labour’s reputation will still  take a kicking for this. The election in May saw only 103 votes between Woolas and his Lib Dem opponent; it remains to be seen whether the current national Lib Dem unpopularity will be a bigger effect on the outcome than today’s ruling, or whether we might even see something of an electoral pact between coalition partners encouraging tactical voting to keep Labour’s candidate out.

I reached the conclusion that I reach in this blogpost on Sunday evening. If I had not been such a fail of a blogger, this might have surfaced before all the chatter started saying the same thing.

Allow me first to get the most subjective part of this blogpost out of the way:

I think it’s an absolute tragedy for the Labour party that collectively they, their MPs and their affiliated societies chose in the end to not elect David Miliband as their leader, and I think that by choosing not to do so, the Labour movement have passed over a fantastically talented, uniquely qualified and altogether brilliant leader who would be able to immediately deliver not just an strong opposition, but a determined and principled alternative government, and who represents Labour’s best chance to consign the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition to the library of one-term governments.  Please excuse me if I haven’t won you over with my short endorsement of him; the election is over and I have already stated why I believe David Miliband should have won. While we’re on the topic of endorsements, I suggest you look at my next post (coming soon) if you’re looking for a more 5-sided opinion.

The big question now is of course what on earth does David Miliband do now? As devastated I am at the prospect: David Miliband will never be leader of the Labour party and he will never be Prime Minister. Since the result was announced, I’ve seen a handful of David supporters consoling themselves with the thought that David will surely get the top job next time. He won’t, and he wouldn’t even consider putting himself forward for it.

Although the current governing parties are often portrayed as divided, the ideological closeness (or indeed near-uniformity) of David Cameron and Nick Clegg give the impression that the coalition will see it through until May 2015, by which time an election will have had to have been called. I’m no seasoned political commentator, so don’t take my word for it (same applies for the entire blogpost, come to think of it), but unless the Lib Dems dispose of Clegg in spectacular fashion, breaking the coalition strings as they go, it seems to be a good bet that their contingency is assured for the next 4 and a half years. Should Labour lose the next election, and should Ed resign as party leader (and I sincerely hope that neither happen), 2015 is the next conceivable date for a Labour party leadership election.

Ed Miliband spoke both in his keynote address today and his short speech Saturday about being a member of the new generation of politics. I think that David is very much a member of that generation, but I highly doubt he still will be 5 years down the road. Five years is the time it took his brother to rise from fresh-faced, newly elected MP to party leader and there are several shining stars in the new intake of Labour MPs, who are already being tipped for great things. Come 2015 there is a good chance that they will be the new Ed Milibands: fresh, untainted by the mistakes of the past and campaigning on a mantra of change. David sadly failed to match his brother on these characteristics, especially the second. By 2015, he would undoubtedly be seen as the old guard, even by those who wish he had won in 2010. Even without these considerations, I simply cannot see Labour replacing one Miliband with another.

So what next for David? Obviously we will not know his intentions until he publicly declares them, but there doesn’t seem to be an easy option for him.

If David does decided to stand for Shadow Cabinet, the pundits are entirely correct when they suggest there are only really two positions he could take: return to his old position as shadow Foreign Secretary or serve as Ed’s shadow Chancellor. Neither option is entirely satisfactory. To be given his old job back (especially by his younger brother) seems little reward for a someone who has come so close to being elected the new leader of the Labour party. Indeed, the four leadership contenders who served in the last government have barely had time to get accustomed to their new shadow jobs, such was the immediate and exhausting nature of the leadership contest. David (and any of the other candidates) would be forgiven for feeling that staying in the same shadow position feels almost like a demotion from the actual cabinet.

I don’t know about you, but David doesn’t immediately strike me as a potential shadow chancellor. A move to this position would be a promotion for David, but only slightly and the same problem is faced: David came very close to winning the leadership contest. And what to do with Ed Balls, who has arguably been pitching for this job since sometime during August. Ed Balls would probably find it difficult to complain since it was David who came second, but Ed Balls is one person who is much better on your side than not on it. The issue of who to award the shadow chancellorship to is an especially difficult one  since it will be widely interpreted as Ed Miliband hinting heavily at his economic plans. David has defended Alistair Darling’s ‘half the deficit within 4 years’ plan, citing the need for economic credibility. Ed Balls however has notably expressed his concern that this is much too quick a time-scale and that growth should be prioritised above all else. When I started this post, I was certain that it should and would be Balls who becomes shadow chancellor, but having listened to Ed Miliband’s keynote today, especially his emphasis on the inevitability of painful spending cut had Labour remained in government, it would seem that he has other ideas.

Shadow foreign secretary is still by far the most obvious place for him, especially considering how utterly fantastic his foreign affairs speech to conference was. Foreign affairs will always be the policy area in which David’s skills and statesman-ness are best utilised, and it’s an area in which he has, and still can, shine.

David has a very difficult decision to make (and/or announce). He may well feel that it would be better for his brother if he did not stand, and there’s a strong argument behind this. The media, not to mention the Conservatives, will feast on any snippet of sibling disunity they can lay their hands on, and this pressure will serve only to increase any tension which may be between them. Not serving in the shadow cabinet will be the best way for David to give his brother a chance to prove himself and to allow Brother Ed his own man, having resided in David’s political shadow for many years.

It’s a tragic waste of talent, of course it is. Should David choose to not stand, he will pay a heavy personal price: many of his supporters will be bitterly disappointed, many in the party will view his decision as simply throwing his toys out of the pram, and sections of the media will do their utmost to portray him as a sulk who could not bear being beaten by or serving under his own brother and perhaps who walked away just to spite his chances of a successful leadership. Love or loath the unions, the fact of the matter is that David led on first preferences amongst Labour party members and MPs. A large proportion of David supporters in this area gave Ed their second preferences and so I can’t imagine there being an angry backlash, but Labour will have lost a figure popular with not just the PLP and the rank-and-file party membership, but also the general public (as David’s campaign were keen to point out during the contest).

If David does walk, and I very much hope he doesn’t, he needs to be extremely open and honest about the challenges that would face both  he and Ed were David to serve, in order to minimise the personal damage to his reputation. From my perspective, David’s choice boils down to this: loyally serve his brother, but potentially (and unintentionally) harm him or do what he believes to be the best for Ed, even if his own reputation never recovers. If he chooses the latter, he most likely will never return to the front-line of British politics. But if he stays his career certainly won’t progress much further.

I hope I’m wrong, but I think he won’t stand. Unless he truly is undecided, he would have announced his intention to stand and serve under his brother as soon as possible. Sadly, David’s refusal to spell out his plans for the future has become a story, a story which was beginning to slightly overshadowed Ed’s victory. David will be devastated by this, but announcing his retirement from front-line politics before Ed’s first speech as Labour leader would have made matters several hundred times worse than simply refusing to be drawn either way.

David Miliband’s call for unity and pledge of no more cliques, factions and soap opera certainly didn’t sound like the language of a man preparing to walk away from the shadow cabinet. Yet, so far, he refuses to say whether he’ll stay or go.

After his speech this morning, and the warm reception for it, his wife Louise was in tears behind the stage. Her brother-in-law Ed hovered awkwardly, I’m told, as David consoled her. Then the two brothers went into the green room for a tete-a-tete which lasted nine minutes. Aware that the cameras were waiting for him, David returned to the hall to watch Alistair Darling’s speech. When he emerges he will be asked why he won’t make his future clear.

Today was. Emotional.

Firstly, a massive, heartfelt congratulations to Ed. There’s no denying that he has run a fantastic campaign and I have said throughout that if David doesn’t win, I want the next leader to still be a Miliband. That’s not saying I’m not devastated that David didn’t win, and I still have disagreements with and worries about Ed, but that makes my congratulations no less heartfelt, and my promise to unite behind him as leader of the Labour party no less sincere.

Please feel free to skip my verbose description of the nervousness of my day to see the actual political point of this article.

My politics teacher laughed on results day when I told him that I am more nervous about the Leadership election than I am about my own A levels. David laughed when I repeated this conversation to him during our campaign picnic pub trip. Last night I felt sick with nerves, I woke up this morning feeling surprisingly much less nervous and much more confident (misplaced confidence, I can now say with the benefit of hindsight). I knew that I couldn’ bear sitting by myself watching the result, so it was off to Westminster (possibly my last time before going to university) to meet two fellow DMili supporters for what was the most tense 40 minutes of my life.

The wait for the result in the Westminster Arms was absolutely agonising to say the very least. We got there just before 4 to catch the BBC coverage, the same time that the candidates themselves found out who had won; something I tried not to think about as I drank my first drink with unusual, and possibly unwise, haste. The political commentary before the result was announced was by and large pointless drivel (no offence to the BBC journalists and Labour politicians involved) and I would have much rather have heard Ray Colin’s speech than David Blunkett’s musings (again, no offence to the latter). As much as I love both Gordon Brown and Harriet Harman, I’ve never wanted anybody to stop talking as much in a long time. I was biting on my scarf to try and suppress the nerves.

As a lot of people did, I scoured the candidates’ faces for any hint of a clue. Many people seem to have thought that David’s series of quite visible smiles was an indication of a good result for him: I thought precisely the opposite. It was lovely seeing him happy, but if he had won he surely would have done a better job of concealing his emotion. Some have suggested that the smile was forced; it certainly didn’t look that way to me. By contrast, Ed looked sullen. Again with the ‘looks like he’s lost’ reaction; I wondered whether he was bluffing. The really noticeable reaction was that of Ed Balls, who did look remarkably unhappy. Obviously, everybody was focused on the Milibrothers so there was much less pressure on Ed to adopt a poker face, but I did initially think that he must have come last in order to explain the look on his face. Diane and Andy looked perfectly cheerful though.

I had absolutely no idea how the result would be announced, but thought the format of ploughing through the statistics was probably the only satisfactory way of revealing the result in sufficient detail. It must be said, I was pleased at the order in which the candidates were eliminated: Diane Abbott, Andy Burnham and then Ed Balls. Ed Balls has run the most remarkable campaign and coming any lower than third would have been an absolute tragedy. Andy Burnham is absolutely lovely and has some very sensible ideas, but his campaign has failed to really get off the ground. I disagree with Diane Abbott on… a lot of things (best not go down that road again).

By this time, I think I was positively shaking and was in no state to do any mental arithmetic whatsoever to tot up who was ahead. (After an absurdly useless interruption/prediction/AV for beginners  by Nick Robinson which the BBC decided was momentarily more interesting than the actual figures), the fourth round of figures was released. It was close, but I thought (as Nick Robinson did) that David would win. Just. Then the fourth and final round figures came. This time I did the maths, while the delegates saw it graphically on the screen. David hadn’t reached 50%. Cue very audible gasp, followed by Ed’s results, followed by an eruption of cheers from supporters of the younger brother  as his bar chart edged over the 50% line.

The next proceedings were, I admit, a bit of a blur. Applause, hugs, more applause, a bit of brotherly hair stroking if I remember correctly. We missed most of Ed’s speech and the political commentary due to us discussing the result amongst ourselves, and the sheer annoyance of vaguely hearing what was being said but having to wait for the subtitles to actually make sense of it.  It was sometime around then that I got a call from a fellow volunteer to tell me information which had passed me by: David won the members, David won the MPs, Ed won the unions.

I did watch Ed’s speech when I got home (via a meal out with some non-campaign friends – a novelty which I am enjoying since the poll closed), and I was very impressed. His victory hasn’t extinguished my reservations of him, nor has it in any way dulled my preference for his brother. I’m devastated personally and politically that David didn’t win, but I feel I could grow to like Ed more than I do currently and am looking forward to uniting with the whole party in support of Ed now that the leadership saga is done and dusted.

I was disappointed by More4′s Miliband of Brothers last night. That’s probably due to my overly high expectations, but I was noticeably underwhelmed. There were some fantastic bits though; Oona King’s fantastic Mili-threesome innuendo and The Miliboys playing left wing intellectual top trumps (“You always get Karl Marx”)

I felt sick with nerves last night. Some of that was about tomorrow’s result, but to my surprise most of my nervousness was about what happens next. Specifically what happens next between David and Ed. With two brothers running against each other, it was always going to be an absurdly unusual leadership contest, and it’s been heartening that it has by and large remained a fraternal contest. I’m not going to spout the usual Daily Mail leadership headline by claiming that the contest between the siblings has ‘turned ugly,’ but the last few weeks of the contest has reflected the increased urgency of what is at stake, and supporters of both brothers have reacted in kind.

The media have massively overplayed the differences between the brothers, and it’s doing nobody any favours (which is why papers like the Daily Mail have salivated at the opportunity). Every policy difference, not that there are that many of them, have been greeted with a creaming ‘BROTHERS AT WAR’ headline by the tabloids. I can understand why they do it; the contest hasn’t been all that exciting* and so adding a human spin to it is an almost natural thing to do. What it has done however is unfairly emphasised the two-horse-race status of this contest prematurely. Ed Balls has spoken a lot of sense during this campaign, but he was right on the money when he criticised the daily updates of the ‘Miliband soap opera’. It’s neither of their faults, but that is what has become.

Whatever happens today, and I’m obviously desperately hoping for a win for David, Labour needs to avoid another psychodrama more than anything, simply because the last one did so much damage. I think a large cause of the Blair-Brown problems was due to the utter lack of a fairly fought leadership contest, instead focussing on the back room deals which in the end caused so much resentment and mistrust. Hopefully, after a gruelling and well fought contest, history will not repeat itself. That doesn’t stop me worrying about them though. Imagine how their mum must feel.

* Well I found it exciting…

I took 3 days off work the other week (because my boss has asked me to work 3 days *after* my finishing date) and I obviously jumped on the chance to spend even more time than usual helping David’s campaign. I clearly choose a good 3 days, because I was asked if I would like to go to Exeter on Thursday 9th September as the campaign were sending down a team to attend (and leaflet) the local CLP hustings and then help the candidates and the local members campaign in the Exeter-wide series of by-elections.

Not since I left school have I had to get out of the house this early, but I was Paddington bound by half 7. Between the four of us from the campaign, it took us until we reached Reading to notice that Diane Abbott was sitting a few rows back from us in our train carriage. Subsequent trips to the food carriage included the challenge of trying not to read Diane’s hustings preparation on the way back to our seats. She has quite big handwriting. It was inadvertent.

As hustings go, the Exeter CLP ones were pretty small, but there was a good turnout all the same. The first applause of the day went to Ed Balls who arrived noticeably late, punctuation one of Other Ed’s answers. While the other 4 candidates caught the train (no battle bus, Andy?) Ed’s team drove up the night before, spent the morning in Plymouth and arrived late for the hustings. The hustings was a short affair, since everybody in the room was keen to get out and campaign on the doorstep; but the candidates were definitely in a relaxed and friendly mood. While there was nothing new said, a definite downside of watching too many hustings, the banter between the candidates was noteworthy. During an answer about Afghanistan, Diane mentioned that “this is the topic which excited David into a long speech.” Quick as a flash, Burnham quipped in response, “well your answer hasn’t exactly been short Diane,” which was greeted with considerable applause and laughter. When it was his turn to answer the same set of 3 questions, Balls started out by commenting how he’s heard the candidates’ answers so many times that he could give them himself. David grinned and stretched backwards: “5 points if you can mention breakfast clubs in this answer.” Inevitably, Ed did mention breakfast clubs, acknowledging David with a grin as he did so. Andy definitely had the best line of the afternoon: “David Cameron promised during the election that he would look after the ‘great ignored’. Credit where credit’s due, he is doing a good job of looking after Nick Clegg.”

Hustings over, we headed out onto the Labour doorstep with David, Ben Bradshaw (looking not unlike a movie star with his pronounced post-holiday tan, complete with aviators) and young members from the local CLP campaigning for Rachel Sutton in the Exwick by-election. After a brief stop on a garden wall to record an audioboo*, the process of knocking on doors and encouraging residents to go out and vote began. I definitely need to do more door to door campaigning, I imagine that the experience is quite different when you’re not with someone quite as recognisable as the former Foreign Secretary!

David, along with the other candidates, had to leave mid-afternoon to get to Bristol for *another* hustings and a Newsnight recordings, but the four of us stayed for a bit longer – eventually leaving to get the train back to London just after 6. Talking to the would-be-councillors, party activists and local residents was fantastic, but we left with a definite sense of guilt; the real work was starting just as we left, since the most fruitful door canvassing time is obviously after people have come home from work. The results started trickling through on twitter just after midnight, and we were delighted with the results; that Rachel Sutton is the new Labour councillor for Exwick ward, and the Labour have taken control of Exeter council.

(it’s now 05:56, firefox just crashed just after I finished this entry, and wordpress’ latest auto-draft file is totally blank *goes to rewrite*)

Half way up one of Exeter’s many hills, David asked after the office, and we were delighted to tell him of the fantastic responses we’re receiving on the phones, both in terms of 1st and 2nd preferences. When I mentioned how much we are looking forward to his visit with his wife Louise on Saturday, he confirmed what I’d very much been hoping. 2 little Milibands would be in attendance. “Aw,” I responded in typical girly fashion. “I’ve heard they are adorable.”
“They are quite cute, yes,” David replied with a smile. “But they can be little attention seakers!”

David’s visit to the phonebank, accompanied by Louise, Isaac, Jacob and a photographer from the Mirror, was very exciting. David immediately got stuck in on the phones with Louise, but took the time to chat to all the volunteers, play office football with the boys while Louise gave an interview and agreeing to pose for photographs, both of the professional and amateur variety, before addressing a packed room of volunteers. David went beyond the predictable ‘I want to thank you all so much for the incredible work you have done over the summer’, although obviously that was said. He reminded us that the leadership election is only the very beginning, that the real fight starts on September 25th, regardless of who wins and challenged us to give the same amount of time, effort and dedication to help Labour oppose the coalition where opposition was necessary. It was at precisely this moment where 2 year old Jacob decided that he was not content sitting on Mum’s lap; he wanted attention. From Dad. Now.

The resulting exchange was nothing short of adorable. Toddler in arms, David continued with his address, pausing occasionally to kiss and cuddle Jacob who was wriggling slightly during the address. By far the best moment was when David mentioned the number of undecided voters who can still be convinced. Jacob chose this exact moment to blow a loud raspberry. A bemused father informed the laughing audience that this is one of Jacob’s new skills, along with saying ‘I love you, Daddy’ (a phrase which was heard several times throughout the morning, bless).

There is a video of David visit, but sadly footage of the little Milibands is very deliberately kept as close to zero as possible. A shame in a sense, because the bests parts of David’s address were given with the little one in arms. Don’t ask for pictures because you know I can’t post them.

As if two adorable little kiddies wasn’t enough for one day in Westminster, I had the privilege of meeting Sally Bercow and her little ones who are *every* bit as adorable as the picture suggests. Assuming that you’ve reached this blog from my own twitter page, Sally will need absolutely no introduction, but for those of you who haven’t quite sold your souls to the latest social media trend, Sally is a Labour party activist, a prolific tweeter and Daily Mail baiter-in-chief. She’s also married to the equally awesome Speaker of the House of Commons. Kirstin and I had the pleasure of chatting to her on the Bercow’s section of the Commons terrace  (did you know that you can see the mini Bercow’s Wendy house from the London eye?) before being shown round the Speaker’s state rooms and ending up with a cup of tea and a gingerbread man in the Speaker’s apartment.