David to be offered shadow chancellor
I'm told by a source in the Ed Miliband team that the brothers held several secret meetings this week, once it became clear that Ed would win.
David was "unhelpful and very upset", my source says.
David will be offered the job of shadow chancellor, though the Ed team are not very confident that he will accept it.
One reason why the brothers were talking on the assumption of an Ed win is because Ed Miliband and his team expected a much more decisive victory.
An MP in the Ed Miliband campaign tells me they had predicted exactly the PLP section vote, and quite closely the Union and Affiliates section vote, but they were disappointed with the Members section vote, as their figures had shown them winning more among ordinary party members.
This might explain why several senior Ed Miliband supporters I've bumped into this evening have been looking pretty glum.
Not to have a majority of your MPs or party members - and to depend on union votes - leaves Ed Miliband in a very exposed position.
Ironically, he'll have to spend much of the next few weeks distancing himself from the unions and showing he's not in their pocket.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 25th Sep 2010, stevie wrote:this is becoming a very one sided argument...a lot of trade union votes went to David, it just fits the usual knock the unions agenda to slag off Ed with his leftward stance, a vote for David would have been a return to Blairism, comfortable with the filthy rich, easy on unwinnable wars, listening to lectures by bankers and the CBI so anything that is NOT that has to be a plus besides we have to see what Ed is going to do, in my experience once the policy wonks get at him he will probably emerge to trhe right of David. Harold Wilson got the union votes and did not return the favour when in office so it is madness to assume that this result today will give us a foaming, ranting creature from the left...we don't do that anymore, we leave all that pallaver to the French...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 25th Sep 2010, Rosie Robertson wrote:Considering the carping about the union vote began by the media less than 5 minutes after the man was announced as Labour's leader, - is there any wonder his support group were upset? (if they were - the ones I've spoken to were more angry at the insistent, lazy journalists desperate for a scandal to throw Labour's way!)
The coverage today from both Channels, ´óÏó´«Ã½ and Sky News began well. We all settled down to watch and listen, vaguely shell-shocked that for once it seemed we were to be treated to a balanced and impartial representation and discussion of what was happening. Didn't last long, however. Laura K, N. Robinson and the two Sky presenters reached for their prepared agenda and off they all went!
Do you *all* now work for Murdoch?
Could we please have democracy restored? Truthfulness, accuracy and information were once the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s watchwords. What happened?
How can our nation choose freely when the information to allow this is skewed in favour of one side?
Sincerely and with a great deal of frustration,
Rosie Robertson.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 26th Sep 2010, HampsteadOwl wrote:@ Rosie Robertson
The fact that Ed Miliband did not secure a majority among party MPs or members is neither inaccurate nor untruthful. Just because it may be an inconvenient piece of information for Labour supporters who want Mr Miliband's reliance on the union vote to be forgotten is not a reason for the ´óÏó´«Ã½, or any other media outlet, to suppress it. This is entirely legitimate political debate and if that causes you "a great deal of frustration" I'm sorry, but there it is.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)