The big question, that no one is asking, is how did David manage to run such a lackluster and uninspiring campaign. I say that as someone who voted for him.

What's he going to do now, disappear into the world of academia?

Maybe a silent partner of his bawd Ed?

I am sure he will depart.

Disagree entirely with your comment. If Ed Miliband had believed strongly that the Iraq war was wrong he should have resigned his party membership which many did. He would have voted for enquiries as a Minister - he did n ot do so.

People like you have driven him out. The media have had a field day enjoying and hyping up brotherly division. Whatever you say he has been loyal to the
party and he knows that by remaining the media circus will continue.

David Miliband is twice the politician of his brother and much more appealing to people like me. Ed may appeal to the young idealists (I was once one) but elections are won by appealing to a wider age and social group than those whom he is targetting. David successfully did this and his campaign was principled throughout. I cannot say that the successful candidate did the same - he did not.

I supported the Iraq war - my husband is a retired senior military officer. I have also supported the labour party since before your birth. I totally accept that as each decade passes policies must change to meet new challenges. However, I resent the leader challenging Tony Blair's successful premiership. Ed Miliband is not half the man Tony Blair is.

And so as Neil kinnock said today "we" have got our party back. Jolly good but the leader leaves me totally uninspired. I will not vote for him.....I feel alienated as do many of my friends.

This is a disgusting, disrespectful, shameless, attention seeking pile of crap article.

To quote:

"On a side note, those of you who criticize journalists/columnists/bloggers for being ultra-cynical and suspicious about politicians...."

and

"
But, the truth is, if he does decide to stay on, the media will spend the next five years looking for splits/divisions/rows between the two brothers"

Maybe, if he does leave front line politics, the reason would be because of the media trying make up stories, and twisting everything to try and spin a story of "brothers at war"

Indeed, politicans tend to act the way they do because of media cynicism and the media attempting to make up stories, rather than the other way around.

There's only one word to describe this article, Mehdi. Sour.

"Had David Miliband disowned the Iraq war during the summer-long Labour leadership campaign, he would now be leader of the Labour Party."

You've chanced upon one of the reasons why I strongly support David. He's a clever man and an excellent politician. He exactly knew what buttons he could press in order to secure a leadership victory, but he stuck by his principles, refused to re-write history and showed the kind of consistency which Ed can only dream of regarding Iraq.

Yes, the war was wrong. Every single MP who voted for for aginst it did so after an agonising decision, and David has clearly stated (unlike Andy Burnham who by contrast has avoided any criticism over this) that in retrospect, with the information available now, he would have not voted as he did in 2003.

Ed may well have been against the war. But using his opposition to his political advantage, especially knowing that it's David's achilles heel was, in my view, a ruthless and disgraceful tactic. Had he been a vocal opponent, like Diane Abbott for example, he would be justified to use it as a unique selling point. The fact will always remian that we must take Ed's word for it that he opposed the war at the time, as there is no evidence to support his claim.

Indeed, the nearest there has been to evidence came from this very blog (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/09/anti-war-miliband-...) Where you start:

"As an outspoken opponent of the catastrophic and criminal invasion of Iraq, yet a supporter of Ed Miliband's candidacy for the Labour leadership, I am delighted to offer this snippet from my column in the latest issue of the New Statesman, which hits the news-stands tomorrow:"

The first sentence screams vested interest, and the best defence you can offer comes from an anonymous source close to EdM who repeats Ed's line. Hardly doubt-eradicating.

If Ed did oppose the Iraq war, then I'm dissapointed with him for not saying so earlier. Shout about collective cabinet responsibility all you like, but if he was as opposed to it as he now suggests, i question the wisdom of joining the cabinet and as a result having to publically defend it.

As was shown at the TUC hustings where David recieved an awful reception for refusing to committ to the TUC march, David has shown that he's not willing just to tell the audience what it is they want to here. I wonder now whether Ed actaully will attend that march. Especially considering the nature of the election result, it will give further ammunition to Cameron and the right wing press.

Lastly, I agree with you that David has no option but to leave the front bench. Given that, why your opinion, the last few snide comments you made about the Politics Show were unnecessarily bitchy.

@ Alys

"He exactly knew what buttons he could press in order to secure a leadership victory, but he stuck by his principles"

Absolutely agree. And I see the exchange with Harman in the that light. It wasn't remotely ludicrous.

As someone who opposed the war, I have a great deal more respect for DM over Iraq than I do for Ed (who opposed the war but didn't say so in public) or Harriet Harman who bends with the wind.

Ed pressed all the buttons, as you put it. He doesn't have the heft or the judgment or the intellect to lead his party. The best we can say is: "Let's wait and see - he might grow into it".

Jane writes: 'I supported the Iraq war - my husband is a retired senior military officer. I have also supported the Labour Party since before your birth.'
To which the only response in both cases is "so what?". My father was a soldier but my mother is not well disposed to militaristic adventurism in consequence. And the second comment merely goes to show that age does not bring wisdom. Mind you, you're right - Ed Miliband is not the man Tony Blair is. He is not directly implicated in the unlawful killing of over one million people.

And people going on about how Ed should have resigned his membership over Iraq...all I can say is that there are many thousands of Labour members who probably went on the anti-War marches in London and who were probably sick of the decision, who still stayed with Labour so why single out Ed only?? The Labour party is more than just our foreign policy, Ed may have disagreed with it but agreed on all the other positions such as Health, education etc so why should he quit his membership? Perhaps these DM supporters should stop being so bitter!

Considering the fact that DM was the media establishment candidate, I don't think they will be 'out to get' him as some suggest but perhaps they will dig into Ed even more and it doesn't help when so-called Labour members help them with the media's agenda!

And Mehdi's article is very reasonabale - it seems that DM is not enjoying that Ed got the leadership and to be in the cabinet will cause cliques and support bases to form and solidify especially amongst the dinosaurs of the party such as the Alan Johnsons, Jack Straws of the world, which will only delay the new generation shining - such cliques will only be toxic. Furthermore what does it say about DM when he was going from interview to interview claiming he would not walk away from the Shadow Cabinet or South Shields if Ed won and now Ed has won, it is being suggested that he might very well do what he said he won't do....however I also feel that it isn't nice to kick a man when he is down so perhaps we shouldn't criticise him

I've got a lot of time for your views Mehdi but not in this case. DM's view on the war were spot on; Hussain was a nutter who was playing th entire internetional community. It wasn't a mistake that we went to war but going to war on WMD wasn't joined up in reality and for that we should have enusured that we went the extra mile or two and told Bush to wait or go it alone - nevertheless all of the Ed clones who haven't had a single thought in years it seems just mutter about WMDs as if it was the only issue - and it wasn't - and you know it wasn't.

Interesting. Commenting on Harman's hypocrisy is seen as a "stupid thing". A Labour cabinet voting to support an attack on Iraq based on trumped-up evidence isn't.

So when David loses, he throws his toys out of his pram, and goes off in a sulk and a huff. Its quite pathetic, isnt it ?