Who should be Labour leader at the next election?

naturally gordon - the david brent of politics - should stay on account of his accidental comedy value. a change of leadership and another labour leader without an electoral mandate would precipitate a general election anyway and a simple change of face is of no practical benefit to labour, so profound are its difficulties.

personally i like alan johnson; he's witty, intellectually agile and has a bit of that bluff, blokey charisma that has long worked so well for ken clarke.

james 'photoshop' purnell should just fess up, be done with it and cross the floor to join the conservatives. ed balls needs to get his unsettlingly bulbous eyes, slap-me face and dysfunctional brain sorted out, so no chance for him. charles clarke? not with those ears mr potato head. miliband d? sorry, still in shorts, often paralysed when asked a direct question, casually offends indian dignatories. miliband e? sorry, still in shorts, over-excited puppy who wets himself when wind turbines are mentioned. yvette 'choirboy' cooper? nope, married to ed 'section me' balls. 'wee' dougie alexander? sorry, still in shorts, too squeaky, too priggish, looks like a student. jacboot smith? don't even go there unless you have sky+. 'buff' hoon? don't be silly, he's like a breezeblock looking for a train to derail. straw? no, can't count and too reminiscent of frank pickle from the vicar of dibley. darling? too miserable, too put-upon and his eyebrows don't match his hair.

then there's harriet harman (aka michaela foot) - ie undercover tory agent, gentrified loony, mad as a hattie, utterly unelectable, comedic gold mine. she'd be good.

You gotta see this!

I think this poll is somewhat premature.

My advice would be to wait and see who walks out of Labour's smoking ruin of sleaze and economic mismanagement.

The list of 'possibles' may be very short indeed.

On a lighter note... last night's election broadcast was top notch, pure comedy, a real sign of desperation - campaigning on personalities instead of issues and advocating violence. A real Hardwedge Production. If he was dead, Viscount Stansgate would be spinning in the family mausoleum.

As a true blue Conservative voter I'd love to see that smirking little jackanapes James Purnell as New Labour's next leader. It would be nice to see a bona fide Tory-boy leading the Labour Party and would guarantee the passing of all Conservative Bills speedily through the House with complete co-operative cross-party support. If Purnell isn't elected he has an open invitation to cross the floor and join the political party he really is spiritually akin to.

As a high Tory I think Purnell is great!

It looks as if Davuid Miliband is making a play for the top job, according to today's London Evening Standard:

" David Miliband today called on Labour to “raise its game”.

The Foreign Secretary urged a “new, can-do, confident spirit” to rescue Labour. While Mr Miliband made clear he expects the Prime Minister to remain leader until the next general election, his comments were seen as a clear indication that he will run for the top job after the election."

As I recall, it was Ed who didn't abuse the expenses system, not David, who has filled his boots somewhat. Does Labour really want to revert to "New Labour" and appoint a Blair wannabe with a banana?

How about Michael Martin, he’s quite popular at the moment.

Its very simple guys draw up a checklist of attributes a new leader must have. Vision, determination, vitality, proven ability to win, gravitas. There is only one person who fills all of these, Harriet Harman.

Please don’t joke around with Miliband, he is a wet fish. Alan Johnson has less charisma than my shoe. Harriet Harman is an engaging personable lady and head and shoulders above the grey cabinet we have now. Say what you like about her, but she has a real spark, and that’s what is need to light a fire under our collective arses!

Its got to be Gordon, because no one else should have to take responsibility for the inevitable hammering that Labour are going to get at the next election. Have the grace to say that the Labour Party has no chance of winning the next election and spend the next 5 years getting it's house in order.

With a little bit of luck the Tories will be blamed for the inevitable harsh policies required to put public spending in order and will be unpopular by then....

I can't see Vince Cable on that list.

Who ever takes over from Brown needs to learn how to DO politics again, I see now that the speaker has put his little trotter in his mouth and all the PLP have had an email telling them they have done nothing wrong! You know you've lost when an insincere apology from a millionaire sleazeball like Cameron makes him look more honest and ordinary than a politician from the worker's party. Blair, for all his faults, would have sorted this by now. Where's Brown? Head down in the bunker not noticing a thing.

Harriet Harman can be our Thatcher. Besides, she is the only viable candidate being neither a Brownite or a Blairite.If you pick anyone else and the party will pull itself apart.

Harriet Harman as Labour's Thatcher? The mind boggles.

They are total opposites: the one a great leader of historic magnitude; the other not.

The only thing they have in common is their reproductive system.

Harriet would be good for the party, but would be bad in the county. She is probably too left-wing and just think of all those "Harperson" jokes that the Tories would get out into the media, not openly of course, but you know they'd get the anti-bloke feminism stuff running which will be very difficult to counter.

I have never understood why so many people are so anti-Harriet. She is a personable woman, and at least she hasn't been up to the tricks of jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears to name but two. A lot of what she says is plain common sense. The "Harperson" jokes show just how [prejudiced and small-minded some of her critics are.

As for being Left-wing, after 12 years of a right wiing "Labour" government and the state Blair/Brown has got us into, we NEED a more traditional Labour team

Don't you see - what we have is what 'left-wing' governments/states inevitably become.

Socialism doesn't work -- it is based on a false premise -- it is not sustainable -- marx knew this which is why he called for perpetual revolution -- as soon as you create a socialist environment it begins to decay and needs a revolution to renew it and rebase it.

Capitalism has boom/bust - it is a good system and it works (as long as boom is not artificially extended).

Socialism tries to set every thing in stone, eventually it *will* break -- and the longer it lasts the worse the break will be.

Socialism works for and ants and bees because their society is the same to day as when it first evolved.

Socialism has no mechanism (other than catastrophic revolution and new year zeros) to cope with progress and development.

Socialism and capitalism have nothing to do with the real market. They're just labels. People often see their worst faults in others. Go figure.

I agree, Charles (for once!) Our main political parties all occupy the centre ground. Labour is not socialist and Tory is not capitalist. Labour is more right-wing on state surveillance and war-mongering than the Tories, but is more left wing on hunting and paternity rights. Quite frankly, the society you end up with in the long run will not be significantly different whichever of the main parties you vote for.

Despite the rantings of the extremists, the Tories will not get rid of the NHS or do away with child protection or put vagrants in the gas chamber, just as Labour have not made the rich pay more than 18% tax on their capital gains and have allowed private enterprise to make huge profits out of buying and asset-stripping British companies.

True socialism (i.e. communism) can never work for the reasons so lucidly postulated in Animal Farm. As shown by the revelations over expenses, in any large-scale socialist model you need leaders, and as soon as leaders get a few expenses and power and priviledges, natural human greed and competitiveness come out, and the role and rewards of leadership become more important than the well-being of the led.

Perhaps the only socialist society which seems to work is the kibbutz system in Israel, but kibbutz are very self-contained and seem to have little impact on the political approach of Israel to the rest of the world.

"the society you end up with in the long run will not be significantly different whichever of the main parties you vote for."

That's what drives the cynicism towards politicians. The reason the two parties have become so similar is that the ability of any British administration to affect life in the UK has been steadily diminished over decades by the transfer of powers to the EU.

Countless issues face the imperfect lives of people in Britain today. But increasingly the democratic means to express concrete action on any of them has been reduced to our representatives in Parliament debating what "message" the relevant Minister to communicate to Brussels, where unelected bureaucrats tackle the substance and detail of policy. Merely electing MP's and MEP's isn't enough, that's just the form of democracy. Form isn't enough - we need substance. Democracy is only meaningful when the substance is democratic and this means electing representatives who do the actual work that goes into drafting legislation.

Powers must be returned from Brussels to our democratically elected representatives. Anything less will result in more of the same: MP's with nothing much to do wasting tax payers money on their trivial lives, major political parties tending toward style over substance (after all, when 80 per cent of laws are made elsewhere, why bother with substance?) and voters becoming increasingly angry at the petty rules hampering their daily lives compounded by the inability to affect anything through the ballot box.

We need our democracy back and with the car crash that is Gordon Brown's handling of the economy we need it back soon otherwise I fear violence and extremism is inevitable.

The 'tricks' she has been up to Alan, were to try and block the FOI request for the troughing. She is too much of a yes-person to have ever stood out for anything and when I see this at TWFY I know they're a baddun:

# Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.

# Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.

# Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.

I don't like pushy women and am fed up with this left-right lurch nonsense but I agree, that "Harperson" thing is just typical right-wing attack dog stuff. If Cameron et al measured up to their claims they wouldn't say things like that or bask in its glow. But, hey. Anything to get people off real policy and consensus.

God. This harperson thing is political incorrectness gone mad! I think that anyone who uses the term is automatically cast back, like Life on Mars, to the 1970s.

Tedious stuff. So last millennium.

Highlighting Harpersons anti-male position would be 'difficult to counter' because it would be true.

Being a left wing woman does not give her the right to be sexist and racist.

I wonder if the BNP will take up her ideas on 'positive discrimination' maybe to allow companies to 'reinforce the native culture' of firms or some such. All nonsense - but no different to her proposals.

btw: this refers to her mad 'equality bill'.

The advantage of Ms Harman is that she represents a clear statement of what we stand for: a good metropolitan/middle-class background able to crack head-on all the chauvinism and prejudice institutionalised in Britain today.

The analogy with Thatcher that would be apt is how her Party's Policy platform under her leadership improved in popularity sufficiently for '79 even though her own did not. The disillusioned ex-Labour voter you meet on the doorstep has seen all the presidential stuff. Now they want Red meat. Ms Harman can deliver REAL change by facing head-on the White Male Dominance that stretches from City Boardrooms through shop-stewarts and even down to my local Labour Club (where I thank God that progressive metropolitan policies mean I no longer have to die of smoke inhalation!).

Are you being ironic?

I hope so!

But no-one likes her/most people have never heard of her. She's obsessed with discriminating against people and has done very little else for 12 years. She was there for all the great disasters like Iraq and looks like a frightened rabbit whenever she appears on telly, she would be more of the same old same old, Labour needs a clear out and its not Harman. Anyway, I thought she was a staunch Brownite.

And I have just been to Wiki to refresh my memory about Harman, I had forgotten about the speeding fines/comedy stab jacket/efforts to stop the expenses FOI request and the bungs. She's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Maybe that's what her equalities bill is all about, equally terrible candidates - go with the woman!

I can pretty much agree with that. Brown is too busy dicking around to physically get off his ass to measure up and let thickie Cameron slide in to pick up a freebie. He's definately not kicking ass and chewing bubblegum.

Brown needs to stop falling back on his rigid habits and hoping for a miracle and start swinging punches, and getting a clue about releating to other people. The more he waffles and dithers the more I want to see physical action right this minute. If I had any choice in the matter you'd see my boot print on his ass and a pale faced Gordon Brown pushing out blinking into the daylight.

He needs to get himself some self confidence and buy himself a dog, or something. Nobody can do it for him and that's the bit he's not getting. His glorious self-image and hoping mummy will come to the rescue might have washed at school but we're not at school now. The guy has to grow up. Now, please.

This is a difficult question. It depends on whether you just want to win the next general election or to implement a more 'old Labour' policy platform. I don't think you can do both. The public are not in any mood to think of more public spending when they could do with as much for their hard earned cash as possible.

To win the election I would go for Alan Johnson, he's relatively untainted by the expenses scandal which rightly or wrongly seems to have hit Labour harder so far. For the platform I think Harriet Harman is the ticket, as galling as that seems to anyone who dissagrees with discrimination no matter how well intentioned. She is also tainted by the expenses story.

Unfortunately though I think this is the wrong question, the question should be 'who wants to lead the Labour party?'. The perverse thing is if the June elections are bad but not diabolical this may increase the chances of a leadership change. Who in their right mind would want to lead a party into annihilation? Another thing to look for is who is safe to retain their seat. How embarrassing would it be for the leader of the party to lose their seat. This rules out Straw, Blears, Smith and others that escape me right now.

The state the party is in now though leads me to believe nothing will happen, the party will drift into defeat and then the debate will start properly.

That's a pretty good comment.

People don't want "Old Labour" they want effective.

I'm not convinced Alan Johnson is THE MAN but he's a good front end if the backend can get its policy, unity, and popularity machine in gear.

Labour (like Labour List) seem to be acting like they're a monopoly with an eternity but reality has no space for this ego.

Whether Brown goes or not the basic problem of ego remains, as it does for Labour List with or without Draper.

WHO, ALAN jOHNSON OF COURSE,he came up the hard way, a working man made good, common sense experience of the outside world he would bring a worldly approach to the issues,he is a conviction politician who is not afraid to say it as it is.

johnson probably the best of an extremely bad bunch but even he is so politically correct it is difficult to believe that what he says is what he is really thinking
as for the note below, "GB is essentially a decent bloke", there were people who used to say peter sutcliffe was a decent bloke

As much as I think GB is essentially a decent bloke, he's made too many mistakes that were avoidable and I see no way of him turning it around.

In an ideal world I'd suggest if the recent 25% rise in the markets is any sort of indicator, there may be economic improvements getting on for the end of the year. If this happened I'd like the PM to choose that point to go, saying that he'd made the right decisions to get the economy through but that it was up to someone else to take the party and the country forward.

Given there is no stand out figure, Alan Johnson would be my choice as someone who would be able to lead a team rather than seek to dominate. Also, and I know this is purely political, he is one of I think two (Purnell being the other) that the Tories would worry about.

Timing wise, a leadership contest with all participants stepping down from their government positions would take us into next year and the winner (hopefully Johnson) would set an election for March. I'd expect Gordon Brown to not stand as an MP and perhaps Jim Murphy could apply for his seat, given that his own is possibly in trouble. Always liked Murphy when I've seen him on Question Time and the Lisbon debates in the Commons.

Finally, all this talk about leadership glosses over the policy aspect. We need threads on policy debates as much as on leadership ones.

They labour party is a busted flush - but your MPs do have a unique opportunity.

I have always credited blair with starting out sincerely (the freedom of information act is one of the most public empowering bits of legislation ever... and look where it has led!).

Maybe some labour backbenchers could, just before they go, make an attempt to recreate some of those good things about blairs first years? You never know, it might turn things around. Cameron has been no better than Brown on condemning toughing MPs expenses.

Your one chance to beat the tories is for your untainted MPs to create a clean, accountable party (but time is short). If the tories response is to compete for the clean image, then everyone wins.

I voted for a clean, accountable party in 1997 and look where that got me.

Shuffling the crooks at the top about and then claiming everything's changed and you're now whiter than white will only win the votes of the gullible and stupid.

I really don't trust any of the big New Labour names - they just haul too much baggage behind them. They might keep their individual seats, but collectively, they're what's going to lose the election for Labour.

You have to remove the need for trust - the Freedom of Information Act was a good step in that direction.

Careful the moderation policy doesn't allow you to say busted flush. The management would probably prefer "best positioned to lead the country out of the worldwide economic tsunami".... and it started in America.

If you have got something interesting to say, I guess you can be critical too.

Your message probably got -5 for criticising the moderation policy, but +3 for each of 'best positioned to lead' and 'started in America' - overall you score +1 and get published :-)

"If you have got something interesting to say, I guess you can be critical too."

Not if its factual and derides the PLP.

While having the latest Canon EOS is nice photographers have a saying that the best camera is the one you have on you. This may be worth thinking about before you're no longer allowed to post here.

I post here for everyone elses benefit - not my own - I am that Cannon EOS.

You're a hero in your own mind. After I've cut past 90% of your posts, and chopped the waffle from the rmaining 10%, there's about 1% of content worth paying attention to. That's not a good hit rate.

Someone like David Bailey can take better photos with a homemade pinhole camera than the richest fool can with an EOS. You might want to practice a bit more. Acing the occasional shot isn't skill, it's blind luck.

But, hey. You know best Comic Book Guy.

There is some truth in what you're saying but you're still a little behind on that debate thing. My comments on the koan of Nansen's cat provide a big clue. Death and change are synmonymous, and nobody has a lock on enlightenment. When people get this anything better is certainly possible.

I'd go for one of the few not tainted by the sleaze of expenses:

Hilary Benn

Alan Johnson

Ed Miliband


*(in alphabetical order to show no favouritism)

As for the ghosts list, Pat McFadden is tainted by association with Mandy's folly -the "part" privatisation of Royal Mail - not a favourite policy with the electorate and Chris Bryant had a rather unfortuante encounter involving a website and a photograph which would come back to haunt him, Patricia Hewit is so condescending even her own people don't like her, Charlie Clarke is a traitor, Alan Milburn is tainted both by Blairism and running away from being health secretary to become a "consultant" with one of the companies he had been dealing with, Blunkett would drag us further to the right. he is also a first rate hypocrite, Alan Michael was a Blair sycoiphant and one of yesterdays men, Hilary Armstrong ditto Peter hain I like very much but he would have those deputy leadership donations thrown in his face.

I don't do polls or surveys.

Gordon Brown is looking like another George Broussard. At some point hype and blaming other people isn't enough. Unless you're just going to burn capital until the whole show implodes you need to ship product. Brown is not shipping product.

I've commented on Brown's character, policy focus, and PR to the point where I'm bored of saying it. There's also been plenty of use media and public comment that's been really on the button. Brown could address that in minutes but he's frozen and the world is moving on.

I like the idea of a Cruddas-Purnell ticket. Both get focus, "invest in loss", and the need for unification. In the absense of a strong performance from Brown at PMQ's this week he should be removed and replaced by Friday.

Bad CEO's, like Brown or Cameron, can sink the best and most resourced of companies. I know, I've seen it happen and at a personal level I've seen people die. Instead of picking up the pieces afterwards can someone get ahead of the curve. Tah.

I'm not pro or anti anyone. What I want to see is better delivery. That's more important than the ego of one man, party organisation, or core vote. It's more important than the ego of opposition parties or vested interests.

I'd like to see someone delivering the keynote I want to hear on Friday at 12pm when the survey closes. I don't care who that is but dithering until after the Euro elections looks more and more like putting of the inevitable. Make it happen.

Peter,

I'd agree that Labour is far from being bereft of talent, but I would say that it's talented members tend to be under-promoted and a lot is left languishing, whilst the top of the party (ie the Cabinet) is packed with people of dubious quality. Can anyone seriously argue that Ed Balls is more worthy of Cabinet rank than, say, Pat McFadden?

The Junior Ministers I'd look out for:
Beverley Hughes
Pat McFadden
Liam Byrne
Angela Eagle
Stephen Timms
Caroline Flint
Mike O'Brien
Chris Bryant

Not to mention there's a few big hitters from yesteryear still knocking about:

Charles Clarke
David Blunkett
Peter Hain
Hilary Armstrong
Patricia Hewitt
Alan Milburn
Alun Michael

If they've sense (or bottle) the Cabinet will force Brown out by the summer. He is past his sell buy date. Gerald Howarth's question on Wednesday about how the PM was getting on with articulating his political vision should worry Labour - there is still no vision, and no idea what to do.

For that reason I'd advise you to jump for Harriet Harman - she's clearly a break from Blair/Brown, and appears to have something to say and something to do (as shown with her Equality Bill). Harman may be loathed by the Tories and the Lib Dems, but then Thatcher was loathed by Labour and the Lib Dems and she managed to win 3 General Elections: being loathed by your opponents isn't always a problem, especially if they loath you so much it drives them to madness.

Aside from Harman, Jack Straw or Alan Johnson would be adequate caretakers. In those circumstances I'd suggest Straw is a better bet than Johnson - he's proved himself at the Great Offices of State (Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary in his time) whereas Johnson achieves popularity by avoiding trouble and keeping his head down. It's just that on the rare occasions he does surface he is charming and affable - he's like a charismatic Alistair Darling.

If you think that the electorate will stand for another unelected leader in the current climate then I must tell you that you are hopelessly wrong.I still do not think that politicians realise how angry the voters are.If Gordon Brown can not carry on then an election must be called.

After the very sleazy report about Jack Straw claiming full Council Tax on his second home and only paying the reduced amount for occasional occupancy, surely even by Labour Party standards he has disqualified himself from being leader.

Oops sorry; he paid it back - but only after it became clear that the details would be published!

I found some of the questions in the poll limiting. As a left leaning non party member, I really want there to be a viable Labour party, but I am so disillusioned with the current PLP that what I believe I find to be heretical to my own sense of politics. Frankly, we need a serious clearout, and 10 years in opposition to find our place again. So I voted for the wall-eye'd Scots poltroon to remain as Leader as the only viable way to guarantee a massive defeat and therefore the chance to rebuild from nothing. Very sad.

I find myself in the same position as Jaime except that I voted for Benn as the best of a bad bunch.

See my comments on the piece below for my thoughts on how things should progress:

http://www.labourlist.org/charlie-jones-cameron-conservatives-message-labour-list

Erm.....Erm.....Erm......

Next question!

No

Harriet

I voted for Hilary Benn, partly because he's been spotless on the expenses thing, and also because we'll probably need a Hague-like holding leader while the ideology of the next generation sorts itself out.

No comment on your specific selection, but your reasoning is what I have been saying all along.

But who is 'the next generation'? Who has Cuckoo Brown missed from his purges?

Brown maybe rubbish for everyone else, but he has been first class in looking after himself - I find it hard to believe he has left any decent material anywhere. Labour has no 'clever young thing' movement - just various groups of rabble.

I don't like socialism (as you may have noticed) because it is fundamentally flawed - it would be massively in my interest to see clever young socialist encouraged, so when they finally come around to agreeing with me, they can explain their reasons to the rest of you, and who knows, you may actually listen to them.

I don't at all agree that Labour looks bereft of talent BTW. I was very active in the eighties, and by Blair's landslide in 1997 there were only two members of the shadow cabinet who'd held any kind of (minor) government job.

Not so now. For the first time in Labour's history it has had three successive election wins. Probably two generations are in the wings, and once they've learned the lessons of where New Labour went wrong, I believe they will be back in power much sooner than you think.

Opposition, like failure, is a great teacher. Whatever you think about the result, New Labour turned itself into a formidable electoral machine during the early 90s. I think the same happened with the Tories in the mid 70s, but because of unsolved party divisions (on social issues and Europe) I don't think the Tory party is anything much more than loose alliance of opportunism which will implode at the slightest whiff of a real hard decision.

So please Tory Troll, continue with your patronising complacency. It gives me heart. You lean so far backwards in your smug assumptions, some time very soon you'll fall right over.

Peter, re the talent. I can see people who have decent presentational skills - Burnham, Benn, Johnson for example - but I don't know where the ideas and serious thought are coming from. In retrospect the Third Way doesn't seem as meaningful as it did mid-90s, but it was at least An Idea.

I'm interested in what Conservatives are actually thinking about beyond "sorting out Labour's mess" etc etc etc. In party terms look at Osborne, Letwin, Duncan and others and it seems to me that if that's the best a party can come up with after 12 years in opposition, British politics really is in trouble.

British politics certainly is in trouble but nothing that can't be fixed. Mostly, it's down to too much competitive behaviour with people clogging their minds up with irrationality, greed, disrespect, and unfairness. This is why Zen advocates letting go.

Change can only happen when people let go to allow something new in. Personally, I'd prefer that happened before the economy collapsed or we were embroiled in civil war.

If anybody understands this, please can you explain it?

Agreed Charles. It seems interesting at the moment that the electorate has grasped that fact more quickly than the mainstream parties, and none of the said parties have much of clue about how to catch up.

I've made every mistake in the book. I know, I've read 'em. It's always easier when you don't have a big stake in the outcome or you're looking from the outside in. If these guys could grasp that they might find it easier to get a clue. I guess, we'll find out soon enough.

OK but conceding that Labour looks bereft of talent, can I ask if you see much to get excited about in the Tories? I know you'll feel that anybody would be better than Labour, but do you see anybody with interesting ideas on the right? Only David Davis stands out for me. Otherwise the shadow cabinet doesn't exactly have many Thatchers, Tebbits, Josephs or even a Whitelaw..

Labour MPs are complaining that there is no government programme, so nothing for them to do!

Why would the opposition announce polices - and so give labour MPs a purpose in life (to attack tory policies). Let them sit around looking useless till the GE campaign kicks off.

NuLabour - especailly under brown - is an abberation in that they are entirely locked into their own ideas with a 100% rejection of anything 'not invented here'. A return to normality/rationality will mean a governemnt who are more responsive to public input.

NuLabour take perverse delight in knowing the public view and then doing the exact opposite...

Also remember, with labour being destroyed the tories will have a huge pool of new talent to call upon (no 22 year old rich kids, one hopes).

I just hope cameron isn't going to be as 'heir to blair' as it seems he will be.

Wow. It's clear this place is under new management- polls like this were one of the things Derek Draper tore into Labourhome about.

It's good that you're also asking whether someone is a Labour supporter or not. Although I still wonder to what extent trolls will just lie and tick the Labour supporter box, just to give their attacks more perceived weight.

For the record, I voted for Gordon to stay, and for Alan Johnson as the best replacement.

Richard I agree

Gordon Brown to stay as Leader

Excellent choice. The longer Brown is Leader, the longer Labour's opposition.

Alan Johnson could probably do it, but Jon Cruddas is the only one that sends a strong enough signal that Labour is back on course ... most of the others are too tarred with the nuLabour brush to have any credibility. It isn't about "Brownites" versus "Blairites" - it's about saying a *very* loud "no" to the common ground both share - of self-advancement by any means necessary, and sod the rest of us.

Charles Clarke - all day of the week.

Charlie might be your darling, but he is not much different policywise to Blair/Brown: he just kicks off because he is still in a strop about being sacked from the cabinet. He suffers from a condition called "Fielditis", which is named after the "great" Frank Field. It is a terminal condition, in which the sufferer thinks he was totally right and everyone else totally wrong, with faux-moral indignation towards policies that in reality he supports and a tendency in the later stages to become extremely right-wing.

Well there you go. In one posting you've criticised two of the best PLP politicians you have.

As for Fielditis, isn't that something that the guy who saved the world is suffering from? Wasn't that a condition Brown had when he freestyled on expenses reform only to get lambasted by all and sundry?

Freedom of speech doesn't all have to be on one website bb. Freedom of speech also implies allowing others to have their say as well.

The problem with moderation here is that you don't know that your response has been 'lost', and losing one or two comments halfway through a thread can leave a false impression of the moderated.

.... absolutely say your piece, say what you like, it's not my business to stop you. If you make points that I don't agree with and miss state facts, surely I should be allowed to point out what I don't agree with or to correct your facts? Its just a stinking shame that whenever I make a point that "Das Ubber gruppen Management" don't like I get moderated - which is nice.

If that becomes the policy then they'll quickly discover it actually stifles debate and doesn't allow the mainstream users to prove that the offenders are incorrect

Freedom of Speech means debating with those that you don't want to, in order that you prove their values don't hold water

Got to agree with Stephen below. Freedom of speech in toto is well served by plenty of right wing/libertarian blogs. I guess BBJ was moderated because s/he wrote something abusive or libellous.

Invective and insult (though not illegal) can actually restrict freedom of speech because its nastiness deters others from posting.

I'm sure we're all happy to debate policies, issues, stories. But if there's one thing I've notice it's this: most of those who whine they have been censored here are the ones who do not debate ideas - just call names and attack other commenters.

If people want to make unreasoned yah-boo comments, there are plenty of other places where they can go.

Well they've published the moderation policy, I wonder why?

“Comment Moderation Policy: We believe that all comments should seek to add value to the original post. So in order to encourage discussion in an environment environment that is welcoming and inclusive for the Labour-minded, we will remove consistently off-topic remarks and personal or routinely negative attacks on the Party or other readers. We will immediately remove comments that are deemed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, gratuitous or threatening.”

Well here it is the moderation policy. Says it all really - post if you agree with us.

Is this a mutual back slapping site?

What abject whining! Since you and Tory Troll are the two most frequented regulars to this site (for the 'Labour Minded') I hardly think you can complain your voice isn't being heard. In fact it's been heard far too frequently about this site. You missed the qualifier routinely negative attacks on the party.

Since some people are here with no intention of debating, merely of flaming the Labour party without respite or rationale, often admitting they have never been Labour minded, and then, since they have few ideas to debate, they then turn to personal attacks on anyone who disagrees.

Such comments and commenters, should be moderated more heavily, more often. Learn to debate reasonably BBJ, and I'm sure you won't have a problem.

It's not whining. You only call it whining to dismiss the argument. In my world the objective is to talk round those who are in my opinion misguided. In Labourlists world it is to promote their view only. In a free society discussing both sides "is the right thing to do". In Jacquie Smiths world we only talk about and think along the lines of the PLP.

What I object to is propaganda sites as they affect the vulnerable. Some may come here and buy the ridiculous rants and I'm here to balance that. some of the debate here is good and some is very bad. Without people like me and TT, only a one sided view is presented - that's VERY BAD.

Without balance people become indoctrinated, only see one side and actually see things in the way that they want to see them, sometimes making things up along the way.

Thats right - I am here to educate.

However, the lefties free trial subscription to my wisdom is coming to an end. And following a bit of a lull caused by some clients collapsing under the burden of browns big bust, my pipeline is picking up, so I'll soon be spending more time creating more wealth for brown to steal and destroy (by giving it to people refuse to create their own).

"Thats right - I am here to educate.

However, the lefties free trial subscription to my wisdom is coming to an end. "


Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

"Please shut the door on your way out - there is a decided draft in here"*



(*From "The Specaled Band" by Arthur Conan Doyle)

Alan, are you looking for a Peter & Alan love in so that you can all agree on all things red?

Same boat me old fruit.

At time's I wonder if being here is worth the effort. There are only 10 - 20 regular posters and they are pretty sure of their views - very circular.

Did it ever strike you both that your comments were neither informed, polite or well-reasoned enough to persuade anyone?

Just a thought.

No not for a second. I present facts - 1+1=2 - however it is dressed up it is the truth, if you choose not to believe it then that is up to you.

Many here are of the "from Tory lips = lies" old school of thought. If David Cameron were to say the sun sets in the evening it would be a Tory lie and conspiracy against Brown.

Balance? You think your comments contribute to balance? In fact I'd say both you and TT do the Tory party no favours, as you often revert to the kind of condescending Little Englandism I thought your party tried to escape post Thatcher.

Balance is never provided by one site only, just as it isn't provided by one newspaper only. The freedom of speech should apply to the whole blogosphere. A few weeks ago the constant negative posts by non Labour minded was deterring everyone else, and attempting to destroy this site. The demise of one of the few big left of centre blogs would have been bad for freedom of speech.

But sweet of you to put all this energy into preventing us being indoctrinated and to protect the vulnerable - two phrases that combine condescension and fatuousness quite brilliantly. I'm actually a huge fan of dissent and debate along the lines J. S. Mill outlined in On Liberty. But the dissent has to be reasoned, with some content, and not just a series of playground cries like "gruppenfuhrer".

I suspect we missed a few of those comedy sub-routines in your moderated comments. What a loss to the world.

Nice to see I'm annoying you. Tell you what lets agree to differ - I'll take the moral high ground and you can find another path.
As for the rest of your assertions:
Constant negative posts by non Labour minded was deterring everyone else - why should people be afraid to express themselves? perhaps the downturn in posting reflects a change in the support of the party?
Attempting to destroy the site - what by expressing an opinion?
The demise of one of the few big left of centre blogs No interest in destroying the site, that would be churlish. Look at the number of people commenting and the viewing stats and big is not a word you would be using. If free speech were allowed more; yes you lefties might take a pasting but the only way to fightback is by arguing your corner. If you are so right, why is it that more people on the tinterweb are arguing against you. If you are so right, surely you should be arguing your corner with vigour?

All that you missed in my posts was correcting of silly posting - but hey that would not be Labour minded. Labour minded people are allowed to post miss-information.

BBJ - I'm always happy to debate with you, and I find it consoling rather than annoying.

But you keep complaining that your comments are being moderated. I'm just trying to help you out here and explain why.

Discourse and debate is is destroyed by abusive content-free posts. If individuals are personally attacked for their opinions then they will be discouraged.

Personally, I feel the site has taken off because it is better moderated. But please feel free to disagree - without calling people Nazis.

"Discourse and debate is is destroyed by abusive content-free posts. If individuals are personally attacked for their opinions then they will be discouraged."

Oh really? I visit quite a few forums and would disagree.

You feel the site has taken off? The population is 60million, there are about 20 regular commentators here so lets agree to disagree on that.

Thanks,

Herr bb J-ackboot

To be fair to Alex, there has been a noticable change in this site, for the better in my opinion (though I liked Tom's time as well), its livelier and most if not all of my posts get published and I'm not exactly pro-labour, its a difficult job and I've seen it done a lot worse. But yes, dissent should be (and is) allowed.

Thank you, Charlie.

Don't take people propping you up for granted. Jus' saying in case you get too swell headed and think people's dislike of the Tories gives you a free pass. It doesn't.

Peter its not libellous or abusive. Das gruppenfuhrer doesn't like me because of my abrasive style. That doesn't detract from the content of my posts, which make some peoples opinions look baseless and silly and that really grates with them.

Your view of your posting style is a bit arrogant and self-centred. People aren't mind readers nor do they exist to kiss your ass. This implies the problem is less with other people and more with yourself which is really ironic coming from people claiming Gordon Brown has no authority or social skills.

While Cameron and the online wannabes make claims and try to pin the blame on Gordon Brown for everything this is really about covering up their own mistakes and greed for attention. Trolls, like Cameron and the likes of Guido are about as wrong-headed and hypocritical as it gets. "Get a grip" and "grow up" before reality bites you in the ass.

Well Charles the difference between me and you is that I am fully concious of my arrogance. I don't want people to kiss my ass, it serves no function. I have stated why I'm here and that is to counter the promotion of lies, nothing more.

Your posting style seems to show that you really are looking to look intellectually superior.

I make the best comment I can and am as agreeable with people as I can be. I've even been known to change my mind and go out of my way to give someone a feelgood boost. But, you've been spinning too much static and venting to notice. Maybe, if you let your mind still for a moment it would let some enlightenment in.

I recommend reading the first few chapters or so of the Diamond Sutra. It gives a good explanation of quality, context, and cause and effect. People often know what they know, which is mistaken, and there are people who know that they don't know, which is open to to correction. Getting this helps.

I've had big wows tell me I know nothing about policy and what's going on and then promptly crash and burn. This is why Zen Buddhism comments that learning is useless and you have to embrace unlearning. This is counter-intuitive but once you grasp it the whole things makes sense.

Before enlightenment: chop wood carry water.
After enlightenment: chop wood carry water.

This is quite simple and ordinary.

Calling someone a Nazi as you just did is borderline abusive. You're the one who looks like they haven't got an argument to stand on. It's not the cogency of your thinking that grates, it's the nastiness of your language.

Its all in the way you take it. I did not call "Da Mangle-ment" Nazi's; I believe the moderation style of this forum is akin to Nazi style management of thought - our way or the highway. That's not abusive, just a statement of my opinion. Suggest you ring ol' Jackboots herself and she locks me up for a decade or two.

You actually called the editor the 'Gruppenfuhrer'. That's a personal attack that somehow survived. To say this forum is "akin Nazi-style management" is slightly less offensive, though it's otiose and chronically ill-informed.

Personally, I'm quite happy for idiotic statements like this to stand for all to see. It shows exactly the bankruptcy of thought behind these self-pitying claims about 'censorship'.

Do I detect certain bodily fluids boiling? The literal translation of Gruppenfuhrer is Group Leader how is that a personal attack?

I'm awfully sorry if, limiting expression to pro-labour thinking and to not express negative thinking about the PLP, reminds me of Nazism: I fail to understand why is this otiose and ill informed. Did the Nazi's allow discussion that wasn't pro Reich? Did the Nazi's tolerate discussion that was anti Nazi Party?

I'm glad you think my posts should stand and if you think I'm intellectually bankrupt then that's also wunderbar. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, it exposes corrupt thinking and politicians.

The only boiling going on is your turbid prose. But please carry on with your edifying comparison with the Third Reich. According to Godwin's Law, anyone who invokes the Nazis in an argument has already lost it. You did that a long time ago.

Auf weidersehen, pet.

Debate very rarely "proves" anything at all. Surely Freedom of Speech means that you don't have to debate with anyone that you don't want to.

Indeed, debate is merely two competing sides wasting time over this right versus that right. Pushing it usually results in competitive behaviour squeezing out any insight or consensus. Thesis, or discussion, is more likely to proce something closer to the real truth.

Well they've published the moderation policy, I wonder why? “Comment Moderation Policy: We believe that all comments should seek to add value to the original post. So in order to encourage discussion in an environment environment that is welcoming and inclusive for the Labour-minded, we will remove consistently off-topic remarks and personal or routinely negative attacks on the Party or other readers. We will immediately remove comments that are deemed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, gratuitous or threatening.” Well here it is the moderation policy. Says it all really - post if you agree with us. Is this a mutual back slapping site?

You're missing the point in your selective emphases

routinely negative attacks on the Party

.... and that is wrong.

No it's not. It's fair. You've just changed your handle to note the dominance of Tories on the blogosphere. There are many reasons to explain that, mainly due to the nature of being in opposition, but that ratio doesn't reflect public opinion (which at worst should be 2:1). On a Tory blog, someone calling himself 'Labour Troll' or calling the hosts of Conservative Home 'Nazis' would have been banned long ago.

Oh come on Peter, I give you a simple opportunity to score a point and you fail miserably. It's got nothing to do with being in opposition but the social make-up of the Tory party and its support base. That group in society are just far more likely to post.

As for "On a Tory blog, someone calling himself 'Labour Troll' or calling the hosts of Conservative Home 'Nazis' would have been banned long ago." That's complete rubbish. The lefties that rock up get fed up with posting factless twaddle and eventually leave of their own volition with their tales in between their legs after a solid posting from the cognoscenti to refute their twaddle.

Have a look at Maguire's blog on mirror.co.uk, oh boy does he and his friends take a kicking every time they post. It must be so embarrassing for the Pseudo Journo's and the management. They have no support whatsoever. Its similar on the Grauniad, but to a far, far lesser degree. Labour have practically no representation on the blogosphere or internet because the policies do not bear scrutiny.

It's got everything to do with being in opposition. Left-leaning newspapers' sales rise under right-wing governments and vice-versa, mainly because the opposition allows them more scope for anger, outrage, fear and antipathy, allm of which are great for sales.

Score points? Not everyone posts to "score points". It's just juvenile and petty. Been there, done that. And I can tell you from experience that life is too short for that.

Well, I won this argument long ago, but in order to educate the ill informed:

You seem to have some snooty and misplaced idea that the 'social make up' of the Tory party makes them more likely to blog. The simple answer to that is b*****ks. Labour won majorities in the professional and managerial class (i.e. those most likely to blog) in the last three elections, and always score highly there anyway.

If your snooty dismissals were somehow right (i.e. people who vote on the left can't use the internet) it would completely fail to describe the rise of the left blogosphere in the states, itself party instrumental for Obama's phenomenal fund raising and success.

What's the explanation? The democrats were in opposition during this time just like the tories.

Once again, I'm delighted to see both your social prejudices and complete lack of understanding exposed in this public forum. I just wish you had the guts to put your real underneath these posts so that you can be discredited by them in real life.

"Labour won majorities in the professional and managerial class (i.e. those most likely to blog) in the last three elections, and always score highly there anyway."

Great use of the past tense. I'm waiting for the GE when you will be consigned to the weeds. Seeya.

So you don't deny your original assertion was wrong. More bizarre bulls**t from BBJ.

I'm fast hitting my threshold of boredom, indulge me and remind me of my original assertion.

Oh and have a read of this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/11/labour-gordon-brown

bbj etc etc Ms Toynbee is not my favourite journalist, nor is she the most consistent one. But few could disagree with the garavamen of her argument in the article you cite.

I was against a leadership chanmge last summer, since the most likely outcome would have been a win for David Miliband, and a return to a Blairite agenda. Photograped with a banana and the most bizarre grin, DMs schemeing turned to nought. But October came, and Brown made the greatest mistake of his career, in reintroducing Peter Mandelson to his cabinet - not through having this former, disgraced minister fight an election, but by the simple expedient of enobling him. This was not only a calculated insult to Labour, but the real indication that Brown would do or say anything to hold on to his job. In the event Mandleson's return has done nothing to unite Labour, indeed, his fetish of "part" privatising Royal Mail has led to even greater discord. I think from the moment this arch-plotter returned Brown's fate was sealed. It is noticeable how friendly Mandleson has become with Purnell, who is really a Tory disporting himself as a "radical" Labour man - just as Blair did 15 years ago. I daresay even now Mandy is plotting his election campaign for Purnell, and that would be the end of the Labour party.

Ms Toynbee is quite right: Brown should go (I'd say this week rather than June 5th) and Alan Johnson, whom she suggests, would make a far better job of being leader - almost anyone would, for that matter, but many are far too tarnished now.

Alan,

I cant understand why Clarke is not getting support, he is an intellectual heavyweight. I watched him debate Prescott last year and he was brilliant. JP was as usual blaming the Toreez for everything.

Very much looking forward to someone putting toynbees columns over time.

"Gordon is Great", "Gordon is Rubbish", Gordon is Great again", "Gordon is Rubbish again", "This time Gordon really is Great", "Gordon is Rubbish", "Gordon is Great, Only a Fool would say he is rubbisn", "Gordon is Rubbish, and I am no fool" etc...

If it's so important to present the true comments, and not moderate them, I wonder why some people feel the need to hide behind pseudonyms ?

"If it's so important to present the true comments, and not moderate them, I wonder why some people feel the need to hide behind pseudonyms?"

Genius of the week.

"I wonder why some people feel the need to hide behind pseudonyms" because I work for a large multinational in a partner relations capacity, my firm just wouldn't allow it.

So, your posting here is a fraudulent use of your employers resources? Given the Tory fashion for politically motivated reporting of crime to the police tell me, sweet prince, why I shouldn't just fill in an online crime report form and click send? The chances you'd lose your job are pretty high.

Diddums. And given the levels of prejudice, arrogance and general ignorance you purvey here it's no wonder you hide your real name.

If any of your bosses saw this apologetic bluster and drivel, you'd be sacked immediately.

On the other hand, that might be good for the British economy....

So come on... what's your real name. Are the initials BB J a clue? What's the company you work for? Lehmann Brothers?

Peter,

So when you disagree with someone you would seek to threaten their livelihood.

I can see that you are truly a socialist - congratulations.

TT, this is classic New lab spin, he is the one busy spinning for an inept gubberment.

He is the one apologising for a country wrecking gubberment.

He talks of my ignorance and yet I post links to support my arguments and try to build my arguments using substantiated facts.

It doesn't help that "Da Management" don't allow me a full say.

Still proving your wrong even under uber moderation is an easy task - Keep on aplogising.

I love the reference to "spin" from someone who describes a job as "working for a large multinational in a partner relations capacity."

The large multinational's disallowing of expression of political opinion is presumably an example of the freedom of speech that capitalism is so famed for ensuring.

Capitalism is entirely about control and ownership. Not saying control and ownership are a bad thing but the way some people are so blockheaded and greedy about things is kinda stupid.

And I see that Tories have no sense of humour. Oh dear.

Do you think that will be labours parting words when they are thrown out of power, leaving us to clear up their mess over the next few decades?

"We were only joking, can't you take a joke?".