There was praise on Daily Politics this lunchtime for Patrick Wintour's magisterial six-thousand-word analysis in the Guardian today of the decline and fall of Ed Miliband and his coterie: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election
"Greg Beales, the campaign’s director of strategy – and the keeper of the party’s polling – was convinced that, above all, the party needed to address the distrust of Labour’s legacy on the economy and immigration" - the Labour party is addicted to immigration and they are still in denial on what ordinary people think about the issue.
"Stewart Wood, a former politics tutor at Magdalen College Oxford, pressed Miliband to make an ideological break with New Labour, and concentrate the campaign on a promise to make society more equal, through reforms to banking, markets, and post-crash capitalism" - the need for a break with the past is fundamental, but needs to be more far-reaching than just reform the banks, moderate the markets and offer a few restraints on the big predators.
"the Tories had successfully established the deficit as the most important issue of the day" - not sure they did (the Tories were bloody lucky during the last election).
"the consensus was for Balls – although, as a compromise, Miliband was asked to approach his brother one more time. Sitting on the backbenches, a bruised David said no once again" - my goodness, did David Miliband contribute to the Labour defeat due to his bruised ego?
"Unless Miliband could present the public with a bigger and more inspiring message, Axelrod told him, it would be impossible to regain the support of the white working-class voters who were deserting the Labour party" - well that was advice worth paying for - Mr Axelrod earned his fee for this insight alone.
“The agenda would have been about a second Tory term” – and what that might mean for the NHS, Europe, tax credits and Scotland. Instead, it turned into a referendum on the risks of a minority Labour government - but in many ways the general election was the English response to the Scottish referendum of the previous September (and we can paraphrase this as: you Scots hate us therefore we are going to hate you).
"After the election, the party drew up two plans for its disposal: one was simply to smash the stone up and throw the rubble onto a scrap heap. The second was to break it up and sell chunks" - if it is not destroyed that stone is going to haunt Labour - I certainly suggest UKIP buys the bit of the stone that refers to immigration.
"the party’s wariness to discuss identity or Englishness" - this is a statement of the bleedin' obvious.