Elections, quitting and crazy headlines.

I tried to keep the political stuff away for a while because it was overpowering everything else, but allow me this small indulgence at the end of the conference just to get me through the cold, hard winter.

There's been two major things happen at the conference which people outside Labour might actually care about. Obviously, the first is that Ed Miliband is the new leader, as I've already talked about. Second, is that a few days later David decided the best thing for him and the party would be to leave front line politics.

For all you Daily Mail readers (not that I think anyone who reads it is capable of logging onto a computer and pressing the right keys to get here) the scandal of the week is that Ed Miliband is living with his partner and their child... out of wedlock! Shock and horror should follow this startling revelation, if you live in the 1800's that is. If that's the best they've got (other than the fact he's not signed the birth certificate yet.. again, shock and horror) then I'd say he's done a decent job so far.

On the whole David issue, clearly I'm disappointed he's leaving seeing as I voted for him as leader, but I think he probably made the right decision out of two bad options. If he'd of stayed we'd have spent the entirety of Ed's leadership with the media scanning every word he and David muttered looking for any sign of a none existent split and it would have become Brown and Blair Mark II. This way he can give his brother the room he needs to take on the government and become the next Prime Minister.

As for Ed himself, whilst my view on who would be the best leader hasn't changed in the last two days, I think he will be more than competent to lead Labour back into power. He's closer to me on policy than David, so if he can get his presentation skills up to the mark then he could be very good indeed. For those who don't think he'll be able to cut it in an election with the others, look at how he overturned the massive gap between him and his brother who was the  clear favourite at the start. He knows how to win people over, and that will come in handy.

I thought I'd take a look at some of the ways the right wing press have tried to define him over the last few days:

• The Sun decided that whilst it couldn't criticise the contents of his speech, they disliked the order. “But how will putting gender equality before thanking Our Heroes bring him closer to voters?” Its the first time I've ever seen anyone claim the order of a speech shows your true feelings, I'll bear that one in mind.
• The Telegraph decided they'd completely ignore the results and imagine what they want. “Miliband E and his supporters in the parliamentary party are aware of how exposed he is because of the mark of the unions upon him, and his lack of support in the old shadow cabinet and scarcity of support in the Commons.” I wouldn't say 47% showed a lack of support, especially considering he got most of his brothers second preferences. Would they claim David had a lack of support because he only got 53% of MP's?
• Again at the Telegraph they decided to stoop to lying in order to make their point more valid. “It’s hard to occupy the moral high ground when you’ve been pushed across the finishing line by trade union bosses.” Of course, anyone with any nous will have checked and realised that the union bosses got one vote each, hardly enough to push him over the line. Seeing as block voting was abolished, the union leaders can't decide who their members voted for, meaning those who voted for Ed were mostly those most communist, left wing of beasts, ordinary working people.

The 'Red Ed' tag is so hilariously wide of the mark it's not even worth going over again. The idea that Ed is much more left wing than any of the other candidates is just plain wrong.