The wrong brother

Ed Miliband has been leader of the Labour party for four years and people still call him David.

Ed Miliband has terrible approval ratings but this has been true for most of his leadership. Opinium (on which I'm a reasonable authority) has had him on as low as -31% net approval before, but that was back in 2012.

The reason why there are public grumbles now is because the overall Labour lead previously insulated him from criticism but that lead has now evaporated (or at least shrunk to statistical insignificance).

The conventional wisdom is that the job is Alan Johnson's if he wants it, despite the structural protections that Labour leaders enjoy, but it's hard to see how any of the factors afflicting Labour would have been significantly different under a different leader, particularly if that leader had been the 'right' Miliband brother.

I completely agree with this piece by Mike Smithson and the Fraser Nelson piece he references that Labour chose the better Miliband in 2010. The things that have given Labour boosts under Miliband have been his opposition to Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking and the energy price freeze policy, neither of which would have happened under his brother. Most important of all has been the defection of 2010 Lib Dems to the red column. That has reduced quite a bit in recent months but I remember polling showing that the group most supportive of Ed were these left-leaning Lib Dem defectors. If Blairite brother David had been elected would this group have come over in such numbers in the first place or would they have moved straight to the Green party as many seem to be doing now?

Labour's problems are structural. The continuing fragmentation of British politics, the challenge of immigration to a pro-European Labour party, the widespread (if unfair) perception that Labour crashed the car the last time they were at the wheel and the fact that most Labour policies involve spending money that is in short supply.

The one thing that makes me think that David Miliband's Labour party might be in a better position now than Ed's is the 'looks like a prime minister' question. Embarrassing banana photos aside, David Miliband was foreign secretary for three years and there are photos of him with Hilary Clinton and other world leaders whereas Ed has this. Regardless of what you think of David Cameron's actual performance as prime minister, there's never been any doubt that he looks the part.

Also, although they would be going after any Labour leader, it's possible David would have had an easier time from the press. There wouldn't have been the complaints about him being the candidate of the unions imposed on Labour, no "red Ed" and no confusion with his brother. Hostile media coverage has been a constant of Ed's tenure as Labour leader and one of the reasons why his team are so keen on TV leaders debates is the opportunity to talk to voters unfiltered. Maybe David wouldn't have had such an issue.

Of course the Miliband brother who would have made the biggest impact is this one