Ed Miliband has won the Labour leadership contest on just over 50% of the final vote. His brother David got just under 50% of the vote. So some folk are spinning that and saying it shows the Labour Party will be split. What? Talk about havering! How on earth can a close run thing between two individuals who have no fundamental political differences be seen as an indicator of a split? They were both part of the government that took us into the Iraq war, that lead us into the current financial mess and that tried to introduce ID cards. Neither of them spoke out at the time - when it might have made a difference.
The only difference I can see between them is in their campaigning tactics in this leadership contest. Ed talked a good game about regaining the trust of the working classes. He also criticised the decision to go to war with Iraq. David didn't. Apart from that I'm thinking it makes no difference which of the brothers leads the party. And to call it a split in Labour is just a bit daft.
Now if Diane Abbot (of whom I am not a fan but who at least has fundamentally different views and the courage to express them whether she's standing for election or not), had got 49% to Ed's 51%, then we'd have had a bit of excitement and a definite split. As it is we'll have the same old, same old in new Labour.