Oh, actually... I think I know what Ed's doing, and it isn't moronic at all - though it's probably not wise.
The problem is, if Labour isn't the largest party, he'll be forced out anyway; but Labour will still have to do a deal with the SNP in order to govern. So he's basically tied the "no deal with the SNP" policy to himself. Which means that on May 8, he can resign, taking the no-SNP policy with him and letting the leadership election play out while the Tories are proving they can't get anything done over the summer. After the summer recess, Labour will be back with a new leader elected on the basis that they will lead a progressive coalition into an anyone-but-Dave government - or a new election. And then Dave's got a problem, because he'll be going into an election as the man who lost twice, against a shiny new Labour leader with the full backing of the party and a tabula-rasa public profile.
Whereas if he does lead the largest party on May 8, he gets to dare the SNP to sack him, and of course they won't, particularly if he promises something approaching full Smith implementation.
It's a last-ditch gamble, and he really does seem to be putting the interests of Labour above his own desire for power. Unfortunately, I don't think that's how the press are going to read it - and he can scarcely spell it out.
On the other hand... I've been completely wrong before when attributing courage and nobility to Ed Miliband; I expect I'll be proven wrong again. It's just that this is the only thing I can think of that makes any sense.
no subject
The problem is, if Labour isn't the largest party, he'll be forced out anyway; but Labour will still have to do a deal with the SNP in order to govern. So he's basically tied the "no deal with the SNP" policy to himself. Which means that on May 8, he can resign, taking the no-SNP policy with him and letting the leadership election play out while the Tories are proving they can't get anything done over the summer. After the summer recess, Labour will be back with a new leader elected on the basis that they will lead a progressive coalition into an anyone-but-Dave government - or a new election. And then Dave's got a problem, because he'll be going into an election as the man who lost twice, against a shiny new Labour leader with the full backing of the party and a tabula-rasa public profile.
Whereas if he does lead the largest party on May 8, he gets to dare the SNP to sack him, and of course they won't, particularly if he promises something approaching full Smith implementation.
It's a last-ditch gamble, and he really does seem to be putting the interests of Labour above his own desire for power. Unfortunately, I don't think that's how the press are going to read it - and he can scarcely spell it out.
On the other hand... I've been completely wrong before when attributing courage and nobility to Ed Miliband; I expect I'll be proven wrong again. It's just that this is the only thing I can think of that makes any sense.