Statement from Derek Draper

How *dare* you talk in such sanctimonious tones about how you'll be 'judged'. You've been nothing but poison from the word go and I refer you to your own repellent perormance on 'Living With The Enemy' in 1998 to the present.

Like everything about you completely (and astonishingly transparently) fake.

Something the whole world could see with the exception of the totally disconnected elite who thought appointing and maintaining you was a good idea - as you whirled round the old and new media exposing what a ghastly creep you are; and how shockingly poor is the judgment of anyone associated with you.

Even though your succesors article is by some distance the best ever to appear on this often embarassing travesty it just wont wash. The party has no plausible political position on anything and is facing extinction.

Now you've had to accept the inevitable (I bet it was a fight); it only remains for your former deputy to do the decent and politically wise thing and shovel this steaming pile out of everybodies path.

No wonder Dale is keen to play along...

You obviously missed the smiley bit Peter :)

I will confess I'm not convinced that Charles and Derek aren't the same, and thought it was strange you both seem to post very close together.

If it offended you then I apologise.

About time you updated your blog then Derek...otherwise people will be tying themselves in knots trying to spot the lie..


'I am a psychotherapist in private practice in Marylebone, London. I am also the editor of www.LabourList.org'....

Neither appears to be entirely accurate any more?


It would be churlish to say it took you too long to do the right thing....but it did.

"Is that an admission of hacking emails?"

Smells like a smear. Nah... not possible: McBride is in hiding, Dolly's departed, an righteous Peter Jukes would not stoop to such tactics.

It must have been an attempt at humour.

'Foul language'? Letters, pixels, words, bits - nothing to be afraid of.

Making people afraid of words is a great way of controlling them if you are into that kind of thing.

Persuade vulnerable people that they need you to 'protect' them from such things and you are an instant evil genius with acolytes.

Personally I think it demeans people to be in that position, they should be educated to a level that allows them to function in all common situations...

Lucy Beresford is my favourite shrink, this is her take on gordon (on the BBC daily politics).


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/7663563.stm

She has proved to be very accurate...

It's on this page. Press Ctrl+F and type "8:18" (without quotes) into the box.

I don't claim to be a woman, I merely argue that complaining about naughty words is akin to ad hominem attack. We're all grown-ups here.

Just because the emails were sent in January does not mean that they would never have been used. I am sure there was a chance that they could have beenheld back for, let's say, the opportune moment. That moment when the most damage could be done.

Well, when you pull the pin on a hand grenade, don't be surprised when it goes bang. It went bang in the red faces of some Labourites because they pulled the pin and forgot that it was live. I am upset that my tax pounds were paying for people to do such things. Can I have those pounds back please? Thought not. Only Gordon knows how best to spend my money. And look what a complete mess he made of that (and, please, don't tell me that he didn't - I work in a school that's falling apart, with 10% MENA students, have a brother who became redundant because of Icelandic banks, lost my mother last year in a hospital that was unable to put her in a proper room but a converted treatment room barely big enough for the bed and with no working bell [she had a little hand bell to raise the alarm, at 78 and just out of intensive care]...I could go on but I might just be sick at the thought that my tax money pays for the scum of the earth who do these things. Not only should Dolly have gone straight away, but Gordon should have followed him down the same rat hole.)

By the way, MB5000 on the latest comments board a little while ago, you seemed to question my assertion that women do not use foul langauge on this site,. By the time I went to read it, it seems to have been deleted.

I suppose you are going to try to prove me wrong by saying you are a woman and then using unseemly langauge. Or something. I really don't care. Gutter langauge isn't necessary on a board like this whomever uses it.

"The fact that you think Persaud is worse suggest that you have never held a professional qualification or a position with a "duty of care"."


Well, as a matter of fact.... I have. Sorry to disappoint you (also without respect). I think Persaud managed to squeeze about 4 books out of his borrowings. As for Mr Draper's qualifications it seems to me the term "councellor" is as nebulous as it is fluffy. It seems almost anyone can become one. In my email programme I quite often get invitations to "buy" a doctorate from some American "educational" establishment. I am not so insecure I feel I need to boost my ego.

Until it is proven that Draper does not have any qualification in "councelling" I don' think it is for us to speculate.

I am a little bored with this discussion of how nasty the man is - he is not my favourite human being, but you would think he was the only man in the political world or political life ever to smear his opponents: he learned from Mandelson, one of the most poisonous men in the business, remember. And despite their protestations the Conservatives would do the same sort of thing - if they thought they could get away with it.

"...what is your view about the "denial of service" that happened..."

Do you no the difference between a denial of service attack and running a website on an underpowered server/connection?

The former is a service for which people will pay, the latter is just a bit embarrassing.

"and if you read the other women here it is notieable they do not use swear words or lavatory langauge, which rather suggests they do not like that sort of talk."

So the "women here" don't like it? Maybe the lack of swearing and the belief that women need special treatment is what's keeping them away.

As my mother (a women) always said: Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.

"It shows a rather poor vocabulary to be reduced to using coarse, vulgar langauge."

Grow up. Complaining about the language used to present the argument instead of attacking the actual arguments themselves is a hair's breadth away from ad hominem.

Loquaciousness does not automatically imply veracity.

QUOTE "were never published by me or anyone else involved in the Labour party and they would never have seen the light of day were it not for someone hacking into my emails"

Yes, that's right. In their spare time Derek and his chums play a game where they pretend to be setting up a "website of innuendo", and make up some fun stories and send them to each other.

I heard the game is great fun - they even invited a chum from the a union to come and play. His "act" was to discuss fronting money for the whole thing.

But none of it is serious. Despite plans and progress, they were gonna stop the train just before it arrived at the platform - after all - it's just a game.

I certainly didn't mean to be patronising or sexist, MB5000. I certainly don't think Celia who posts hear a lot would appreciate the sort of langauge we got this morning, and if you read the other women here it is notieable they do not use swear words or lavatory langauge, which rather suggests they do not like that sort of talk. ASnd of course, a lot of men don't want to see it either. It shows a rather poor vocabulary to be reduced to using coarse, vulgar langauge.

But still, you may be right - after all I am not a not a psychotherapist, - you, apparently, are. However if I upset anyone then of course I apologize.

"Something more than nothing would be a good start. " haha that made me laugh.

"In other threads people have wondered why not many women post: well, a lot of women would be offended by seeing obscenities littering a board."

Congratulations, that's possibly the most sexist and patronising thing that I've ever heard.

No connection other than the fact that it was advertised on this very site.

And the fact that his "professional life" has been one long lie. Given that he has received money from this, it is clear that he is a professional liar.

"I am not defending Mr Draper's profession, but others have done far worse - Dr Raj Persaud, for example - "consultant psychiatrist" who spent more time on BBC radio and fluffy lightweight TV "sofa" shows, than in his consulting room, plaugerised the work of other authors in some of his "highly successful" books. At least Mr Draper didn't do anything like that."

Alan, without respect, Dr Persaud may be a plagiarist, but he is a qualified plagiarist who plagiarised other qualified professionals. Derek Draper is simply a man who lied his way into a position of trust with his patients/clients. In doing so, he puts people at risk of harm. The fact that you think Persaud is worse suggest that you have never held a professional qualification or a position with a "duty of care".

Draper has been passing himself of as a qualified psychotherapist and he had a link on this website that took people to his site. He was using this site to drive more traffic to his own site as people are not going to wind up here when looking for Derek Draper the "psychotherapist" using a search engine. People end up here because they are looking for left-leaning political commentary.

Also, the efficacy of CBT is irrelevant to the fact that he has lied about his qualifications (besides, my degrees are in physics so I'm not in any position to comment on CBT).

So we have a man who has lied about who and what he is throughout his "career". A man who was quite happy to engage in slander and defamation for political and monetary gains. A man who had close links to the Labour leadership and you don't see how this is in any way related to politics?

Ok - you read too much in to the line

"his greedy useless self-satisfied MPs,"

That doesn't exclude anyone - it just happens highlights the group I was referring to.

The rules are irrelevant - anyone who needs rules to tell right from wrong is not fit to be an MP.

A while back I read that Obama has personally paid for some of the living quarters of the white house to be redecorated. The other day I also read that Maggie had personally paid for redecoration at number 10.

I wonder if either of them thought to check the rules?

Meanwhile we have a labour party running the country that knows the rules by heart and does all but actually cross the letter of them.

New Rules = New Loopholes - MPs should be trusted (transparency helps), if yours is not trustworthy then get rid of him/her.

Oh - of course this is labour list, all your MPs are due to be got rid of...

"It is a Labour govenment who presided over the HoC while this was going on, it was a Labour government who could have acted, it was a Labour government who set the tone."


Yes - and as I have told you before it was a Conservative minister called John Moore who introduced the current rules in the early 80s.

It is absurd to suggest I in some way condone the goings on of McNulty, Smith et al - I have written about it often enough and I want them sacked. If, as seems possible, somebody else actually commited fraud, I want to see them charged. I couldn't be clearer on that point.

It is you, TT who are making this party political because you seem to be implying that Conservative MPs have not been exploiting the expenses system. We don't know yet, which is why I asked you to wait till July when ALL the full facts will be released into the public domain: according to you, it is only Labour MPs guilty - they have just been found out, the Tories (with the exception of Mrs Spellman) are yet to be found out. I doubt if she was the only one "at it"

No, it makes them as important as men's issues, but less important than those which affect us all.

well...I run windows XP Tim.


almost everytime I shut my PC down, it wants to "update". Highly unusual. It did not use to happen before I started commenting on this website.

a pure co-incidence. a "bug" in the system?


who knows. I am technical enough to know what is possible....



so this is the Max Mosley issue. If one makes too much fuss then one can look foolish. in any case....this area of hacking is so grey that unless one is a "corporate" or a government organisation, one has no defence.


Bit like the rocket scientists working in the city creating more and more complex financial products.... until came a time that no one could understand them, and hence police them.


The whole world of hacking outside the "big ticket" crimes, is the wild west and is not policed.


...
incidently what is your view about the "denial of service" that happened at the launch of the Labourlist on CH4 News ....

Why would anyone be calling Derek Draper a (rhymes with hoon)?

:-) Things can only get better.

I think you were looking a little too hard to find something racist to be offended by.

I get your point Alan.

I suppose what keeps/kept the issue alive is Dolly, but now he's going/gone there's a chance of "moving "on" (what a horrible phrase).

Though he can't help throwing fuel on the fire when he apologises for "receiving" emails. Spinning to the end.

'Nuff said from me!

Something more than nothing would be a good start.

Yes, Celia, but in all honesty what more can be said?. They shouldn't have been written, but as you point out the two men at the heart of it have now gone (I also agree Derek should have resigned immediately - you can't expect to coem back from that sort of knockout blow). It won't have made Alex's job any easier, but I still think it would be otiose to suggest that dirty tricks are only ever imagined by one party - the Tories would do the same sort of thing. It is not a question of right and wrong, it is what you can get away with - that is the approach of most politicians. I don't think the Tories would have bred paragons in the few years since Osborne called Brown "autistic".

I just think there is nothing left to say about it. I am more disgusted by the mutinous dogs tearing Labour apart: from the point of view of an ex-Labour voter (now a Green Party supporter) I am delighted to see the end of New Labour a.k.a. as "Blairism" I just wish the real Labour section of the party would get their act together. Within months - possibly weeks, there will be a leadership election and my part of the party doesn't really have a candidate - they are prepared to see in all likliehood a young Old Blairite lead the party to several defeats. You know the likes of Field, Milburn and Byers say the things they do out of malice and spite - they can't face the fact they are now has-beens - yesterday's men.

Dolly, nothing became your coming to Labour politics, less than your leaving. Now bugger off.

Jack

.
.
interesting points Tim.

with regards to hacking, what is a "suitable" evidence.

Alan, if the emails were between private individuals - or Labour people writing in their spare time - you might have a point.

However, they came from No 10 Downing Street, written by a civil servant employed by the Prime Minister, on government time using government computers that you and I pay for. They were sent to a (then) official Labour Party consultant/advisor and editor of LABOUR List, a position that carried at least a quasi-official party position.

Be angry with lots of things, but be angry at the emails too; they happened, and were serious enough for sackings and resignations. In purely political terms, I cannot think of an equal scandal in recent years.

You were a fool, Draper. You copied Dale and Staines (blog cheats both), handed them the advantage before you even set up shop, and then allowed them to claim the moral high ground on a national stage. It's hard to imagine a greater failure.

Note - You CCed a series of fellow 'professionals' when you meant to BCC them on our correspondence after I complained about the appalling way you conducted yourself:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/01/labour_list.asp

I think it's far more likely that you did something similar with the McBride email, but if you have evidence of 'hacking' then let's see it.

Similarly, if Iain Dale and Paul Staines have evidence of a Downing Street conspiracy against them specifically (as they have claimed many times in past weeks), then let's see evidence of that, too:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/04/the_downing_str_2.asp

Ladies and gentlemen - or as Poirot would say "madame et monsieuers" When I first saw those disgusting emails displayed in a newspaper, I too, was shocked and disgusted. And said so. After that, when I had calmed down, I began to see that Nadine Dorries actually rather enjoyed backing into the limelight - to tell us how angry she was and how it might damage her "career". She must have meant it because she said it on the BBC, then on LBC in london. the next day she was saying it again to the BBC...and LBC AND all the newspapers. She was still saying it to anyone who might be listening solidly for about ten days. Osborne's supporters were upset, understandably, about the portrayal of him "wearing stockings, knickers and suspenders". It is, indeed, a very gruesome mind picture (but I could think of one or two New Labour figures who might well disport themselves in this way). I would genuinely agree, given the recent bereavement of Mr & Mrs Cameron, it was unforgiveable to make public the reference they did to Mr Cameron. But the email had been written in J anuary many weeks before Ivan's death, and it was the newspapers who were wrong to add to their distress by printing the unpublished emails.


All that said,with all due respect, I do think you have now all gone on too long about it. You cannot be in a permanent never-ending state of anger, yet some of you appear to be. It is unnatural. We had it at the time, now we have it all over again. Some people have even been driven to write in obscene, graphic langauge to demonstrate their anger.

If you are a Conservative supporter, no end of apologies or expressions of regret will suffice. If Gordon brown had arranged for Derek Draper to be marched off to Transport House, and then hanged in public a la Mussolini, I am sure somebody in the audience would have emptied a revolver into the corpse.

You will;, no doubt continue with your expressions of outraged innocence, but quite frankly, you are being very jejune if you seriously believe only "dirty tricks" are played by Labour. Your party quite often gives as good as it gets.

If you are a Labour supporter, I think there is far more things to be angry about than these puerile emails: we have Geoffrey Hoon, Jacqui Smith, James Purnell, Tony McNulty, Baroness Uddin bringing Labour into disrepute with their "expenses" jiggery-pokery. We have disloyal and malcontent ex-ministers (Field, Blunkett, Clarke, Byers and Milburn) trying to stir up trouble for the Brown camp, we have one current minister (Blears) who seems to be trying to be on both sides at the same time, running off to the newspapers to give their little opinions. Milburn is plastered all over the front of today's "Independent". What a good job it has such a small circulation. We also have the "senior MPs" (in age, that is, as opposed to position or gravitas) crawling out of the woodwork.

Disunited parties do not win elections. There are local and EU elections in 3 weeks time. You should be angry about THAT and forget about some daft though deeply unpleasant emails, which were written five months ago and never published by anyone connected with Labour.

What a disgraceful (apparent) apology, what are you trying to say? - "It wasn't my fault, honest gov, but look aren't I the Brutus-type hero falling on my sword". Laughable...

Well goodbye Dolly, you loathsome disingenuous reptile, slither off into your gutter of spin and lies. We don't need your sort.

Console yourself. You & McPoison will earn a footnote in some future History of Nu Labour! Probably written by someone from Peterhouse.

The real scandal is that Labour are saying that Beardy and Fatty were working alone and that "right thinking politicians are disgusted by the smears". As if.

Yeah Derek, it was terrible that you were a victim of email hacking and none of it was your fault and you're the real victim in all of this. Can I donate, do you have a Paypal account? I can send money to to get you over this distressing time what with you being the victim here and everything.

Good riddance Dolly, they are far better off without you. This mealy-mouthed, spun quasi-apology is a perfect example of why politics is far better off without you. You still seem to think that this was only wrong because it was discovered.

Still angling for a job?

"I am passing on the editorship"

I am still in control and no one else (such as Ray Collins, the party general secretary, who banned me from attending any more meetings of the party's ruling National Executive Committee or Tony Lloyd, the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, who called on me to resign as editor) can tell me when I should stand down.

One wonders if Mr Draper were to be cut in half (an action I would condemn of course) we would be able to read "Arrogance" ingrained like a stick of Berkeley, er sorry I mean Brighton Rock?

Women are not prohibited from engaging in politics.

It takes a feeble party bereft of ideas to think that discrimination can be used to end discrimination.

I can't wait until 2010, hopefully they'll get rid of all these pathetic racist organisations like the Black Police Officers' Association too.

Oh dear, you never learn.

It's not about getting your "message" across. You've had twelve years to do that, and all we're left with is a pathetic rump of a country, flooded with foreigners clogging our public services, and a broken, bust economy thanks to the unbelievable arrogance of a man who thought he'd ended boom and bust.

We've heard your message, we don't like it and want a different one.

One where hard-working people are rewarded for their efforts, and the bone idle are not.

Roll on 2010, because Courage Brown sure won't call an election beforehand - he thinks of only one thing: his personal ambition. And when the nurturing of that ambition takes a front seat to the wellbeing of our nation, it is time to go.

just suppose the Archbishop of Canterbury heard about Labour List and came on here and saw.............

Would he bring his invisible friend?

He was being sarcastic not ironic (like I am being a pedant not interesting :-)

Charles, that's quite a turnaround from your post below that goes "If you're looking for a fight you'll probably find one. I'd advise against it."

Some of us have been spoiled by the American tradition of blogging, though personally I prefer the Japanese model.

But, praise where praise is due, I think you're finally getting this blogging thing. Keep it up.

With expenses you still don't get it - you see it as party political.

Go look at order-order and even conservative home and see what the view is on abuse of expenses *regardless* of party.

The public sector is relatively unaccountable and not subject to competition, it will breed corruption, it needs to be as small - not ever expanded.

It is a Labour govenment who presided over the HoC while this was going on, it was a Labour government who could have acted, it was a Labour government who set the tone.

Worse than the corrupt MPs, is actually the MPs who did not participate, but knew what was going on, and kept quiet - we trusted them all to protect our interests, and while the corrupt MPs made the occasional massively corrupt claim, the others betrayed us every second of every day that they kept quiet.

As someone who was a life long Labour voter until the antics of Mr Draper, I want to say good riddance to utter rubbish. I grew up in love with Labour, and while he was not alone, Brown is too incompetent for that, he was a big part in convincing me that we need a Tory government, and to change my vote.

I just hope in my lifetime the party is reborn to what it used to be, and odious cretins like Draper have nothing more to do with it. I hope you realize how badly you damaged our party!!

I actually find myself in agreement.

Chris, I don';t want to start a personal argument with you. It may well be true that DD used that langauge - but not on here he didn't.

I am of a generation when it was considered to be right to be circumspect in the langauge you used - especially in print. I really don't think, given the extent of the English langauge why anybody (not just you by any means) have to resort to offensive, obscene or scatalogical langauge to express their dislike or displeasure.

In other threads people have wondered why not many women post: well, a lot of women would be offended by seeing obscenities littering a board. The BBC and newspaper message boards would not allow it.

All you need is a l;ittle self-restraint.

Apart from which, just suppose the Archbishop of Canterbury heard about Labour List and came on here and saw.............

Well, I doubt he'd stay around long!


I do agree with you, totally, DD should have seen the jig was up weeks ago, and gone and he is wrong to insist that his email account was hacked when it is highly probable a Blairite plotter did the deed.

Alan has been a bit angry in the past and clung on to things but he's developed some maturity and his advice is sound. Blowing off may get attention and make people feel good but it can also create more problems and unecessarily upset other people. There's enough ego in parliament and online without people adding to it.

I'm not saying people snap to attention when I post or the world's media waits with baited breath but I've found being more calm, coherent, and sociable tends to get somewhere. People don't respond to a battering or make deals with people they don't like. Online is no different. Indeed, it's more important online that people be more reasonable because of the impact, reach, and lasting nature of the medium.

It's entirely up to you Alan how you react. And it's entirely up to me how I react. You are not the boss of me. The language is entirely appropriate. Derek Draper's every second word. Call it homage. I'm trying to communicate directly in the way DD may understand. It doesn't have to be like that. I choose for it to be. I am responsible for it. Sorry if you don't like it.

Derek Draper has dragged out the story by not leaving the scene of the crime immediately. How dare you blame me for dragging it out? And the emails ARE NOT YET PUBLISHED nor the worst of them even trailed. Hopefully they never will be.

You're right about Brown's troubles of course. But credit where credit is due. Derek is not only the author of smeargate which is a monumental blot on the landscape and arguably where a particular set of rot set in, but he has also nobbled the press handling. Because for all his sins McBride had some skills in that area.

Sorry Dolly, but I don't believe the "hacked emails" defence for this reason: you said yourself you had emails going back seven years in your account, and it is simply impossible to imagine that the only one worth 'leaking' was the one to McBride.

It simply doesn't wash.

As in other "professional" life i.e. therapist, which has no connection with politics, left right or centre.

Personally I think anyone who consults a psycotherapist needs his head examined :)_

Just a minor factual point Derek. That apology was almost FOUR WEEKS ago. So as you open this post with "two weeks ago" are we to assume that (a) it was written two weeks ago and you have been too careless to change it or (b) that the weeks fly by when you're having fun?

Sorry Chris, but does your post have to be so interlarded with abusive and obscene langauge?.

derek Draper has apologised in a way, and surely it is time we stopped dragging out the story. we all know about the "outrage" of Mrs Dorries and her fears of might it might do for her wretched "career".

The email scandal goes back to January. LL or Labour never published the emails. Two Sunday newspapers did. Long after the event, which suggests Labour or LL would never had used them. I really don't see the point of pouring petrol on the fire again - there is quite enough fighting going on between Blairites and Brownites, and that is what needs to be fixed.

Whatever your view TT there is no need to describe people who hold opposite opinions to yourself as "brain dead". Some MPs and ministers, I for one have admitted are terrible, but you make the mistake of tarring everyone in the same brush.

I'd just ask you to wait till July, when the full list on expenses, for example, are published. I am sure you will find there are an equal number of Tory MPs who are just as "greedy and useless"

Alan

There is nothing in my power to be as nasty a piece of work as Gordon Brown, his disastrous government, his greedy useless self-satisfied MPs, his devious party, its apologists, supporters and all others who are not actively trying to rid this country of him.

"I’d like to think one day I’ll be judged on all of that rather than just one, admittedly awful, email."

You won't be judged on one single email, Derek. Along with the other New Labour thugs you will be judged on more than a decade of similar emails and briefings, an endless stream of abusive nasty personal attacks.

Soon, Brown will be consigned to history and no one will remember the content of New Labour's spin and lies, only the fact of it. And that you made a mess of things.

You and your colleagues have proven that you need no talent to make it as PM, just a sufficiently spiteful team of thugs. Congratulations.

You regret "receiving the email"? What a spineless little worm you are. Grow a set and take your smacks like a man.

Peter you must surely know that it is impossible to tell whether Derek shows remorse simple because he has expressed a few words of regret on line. His track record reveals him as a not altogether reliable and straightforward individual. From the old access scandal, thought the serious doubts raised about his professional qualifications to this last demeaning episode he has shown a capacity for morally questionable behaviour. Your 'if you can bear it' is touching but misplaced, there are rhinos that would sell their tusk for a skin as thick as his.
You are right to credit him for setting up the site, which was a worthy achievement.

methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. again. like the recently embarrassed GATSO official caught speeding at over 100mph who professed to being unaware how fast he was travelling (oh really?), may I politely suggest you're only sorry because you were found out. as to whatever comes next, that will likely be a double electoral bloodbath in June and then obliteration for a political generation at the hands of a justifiably dismayed nation come the general election. your role as an extra (sorry, background performer) in this just dessert is to be applauded - by the millions of UK citizens who want this dangerously hopeless, Stalinist and invasive government out of their lives.

R.P Of course, the Tories have never used "smear tactics" have they?. Well, yes actually they ahve: old Etonian George Osborne suggested a few years ago that Gordon Brown was "autistic". And I always thought old Etonians were gentlemen! Silly me.

BOTH main parties smear - years and years ago (1997)we had the "devil eyes" Blair poster... (well, perhaps not the best example) but both parties do it.

I think Ollie was being ironic, as a shufti at the Red Rag will reveal. e

Derek

Thanks for all your hard work. Good luck in your next venture.

Well goodbye draper, you did more damage to the cause in one fell swoop than anyone, you are in the cambell/mandelson group[ unpleasant people].you wanted to slur a couple who had just lost their child and so on , gutter, gutter, gutter,no place in decent political rhetoric.Keep to your shrink job,there again i woudnt want to be a client of youres.

qualifications in his other life

Progressively, particularly on-line, no-one with any profile has an 'other' life. This is a very *good* thing we can base our trust in people based on knowledge rather than blind faith. The opportunity to fake your sincerity is coming to an end - Mandelson take note, the Yacht will out.

"That women don't feel able to expose their gender.." Ah the thirteen year old humourist inside me, but leaving childish innuendo aside I simply can not believe that women feel intimidated to the extent that they will not comment on this site or that they have to hide their sex.

You can not be saying that women lack sufficient confidence in their own political beliefs not to be able to stand up to the critisicm within these comments?

I've never made a comment that said men or women where more or less important or relevant than the other, or the issues and interactions that flow from that. Again, it's the old Zen classic of dualism. People can bring so much baggage and attitude to things it gets in the way, people start squabbling, and before you know it they're throwing rocks at each other.

Men and women are built differently but share a lot of overlap. The same is true of many religions, and religions and science, or this heavy industry versus that service company. You get the same ding dong between management and workers or between, say, management, engineering, and marketing. This isn't down to how things are but how we perceive them.

I'm not going to second guess the editorial policy but there's issues of quality, frequency, and tone that apply to everything. Getting this right so it appeals to a general audience is hard. Personally, I think, too many of the womens articles were reactionary cliche but most the the mostly male trolling around here is no better. A little insight and rebalancing can be a win-win.

I read an insightful article published online by one magazine written by a leading female expert on women's issues. I wrote an essay to address that which I plonked on an anonymous blog I did a few years ago. It discussed men versus women, history, and where we might go from here. She said it was rather good but she might have just have been nice about it.

In some ways you can see similar issues echoed in the current industry, finance, and market issues that are puzzling equally eminent authorities. Really, they should shut up, read the Tao, and just get on with it. It's all rather simple and everyday. This challenges Phds and the movers and shakers because it's so simple and everyday.

Being reasonable solves a lot of problems. No magic required.

Charles I suspect you are in a minority of one again.

While I don't think gender requires special treatment regarding representation - I fully support equality of opportunity/access so people can make their own choices for themselves.

Flagging 'strong' comments is fine by me if people would find it useful; posts on wimmins issues is also fine (how else will I have an excuse to say what nonsense they are?).

I agree Jessica, womens' issues have the same right to be covered as mens' issues and have equal relevance, but I think the fear is that LL will turn into a cross between OK! and Woman's Own.

As the person that coined the phrase "The Legacy of Misogyny" I think I can speak with some authority on this, and sadly, to Charles and his fellow misogynists, womens' issues include (and I quote) "nekid chix playing ping pong". Pathetic.

Charles, as women make up 50% of the population, women's issues are as important as any others, surely?

MonkeyBot5000 With respect, I hardly think that LLv2 is th place to discuss Derek Draper's qualifications in his other life - surely that is a matter to take up with him on his own blog or with BACP. If I may be forgiven for saying so, I have always thought "counselling", whomever performs it is something of, at best a wildely inaccurate science or, at worst, a psychological confidence trick - which is why I deplore CBT and people like Alan Johnson who has been conned into believing it has great value. As I understand it, CBT is not succesful in all cases, and sometimes people who are "cured" relapse. Oliver james has spoken and written about it at greater depth - and in case anyone wonders, yes, I have endured it - and it certainly didn't work for me.

But i digress, and I am as guilty as you of raising a non-political matter!.

I am not defending Mr Draper's profession, but others have done far worse - Dr Raj Persaud, for example - "consultant psychiatrist" who spent more time on BBC radio and fluffy lightweight TV "sofa" shows, than in his consulting room, plaugerised the work of other authors in some of his "highly successful" books. At least Mr Draper didn't do anything like that.

I am more concerned that LL concentrates on immediate issues, not least of which is the number of Blairite traitors the party seems to be nursing within the cabinet and the higher reaches of government. Old has-been Alan Milburn came out of the woodwork again in one of the newspapers today - not a urprise - Tweedledum Byers did it last week, and it was a given that Tweedledee Milburn would follow suit. They are like two old ladies - they go everywhere together - sit next to each other on the coach outing to Bournemouth, watch each others card at bingo, and enjoy a good old sing-song at the Darby & Joan Club.

The Blairites, so busy counting their money, failed to understand the mistakes the Thatcherites made - sniping at her replacement because he wasn't Thatcher. People like Clarke, Field, Blunkett and the duplicitous Blears are doing EXACTLY the same thing now. All they will do is to tear their party apart. |They have said their piece - now they should shut up (and in Blears case, resign)Surely even this little group of has-beens can see they are handing a gift to the Tories? Internal squabbling drives people to another party.

If men and women are as equal as you believe, why would having more women here make any difference to the tone or content.

Your assumption that women posting under pseudonyms suggests that they are scared to reveal their gender is just absurd. Obviously I wasn't christened MonkeyBot, but that doesn't mean that I'm worried you'll know whether I'm a man or a women.

The reason that he mentions "women's issues" is because that's what normally follows when a woman demands that "we need more women" for no other reason than the number of men involved isn't equal to the number of women.

I have to be honest, I rarely look at the author's name at all. Your gender is irrelevant, I'm only interested in whether your ideas are rational and coherent.

All the best in your new (ad)ventures. Do some growing up and learn some manners while you're at it.

Obfuscating, twisting, and weaseling to the very end.
No shame, no honest contrition. Despicable.

OK, so your only substantive point is that you think women are too delicate for the cut and thrust of politics, so need some protection.

Wasn't that the argument used for not wanting to give women the vote? Funny old world that you still want to characterise women in same way eh?

When you choose to promote a particular group (women) I think it is important to explain exactly who that group is and why they need special treatment. If you explain your position on transexuals it would clarify your position - do women need protection from their nature or their nurture?

Recently, it was concluded here that the left view was that 'black' people are a self defining group (i.e. you are black if you think you are), which I think is a totally bizarre idea...

I would like to know what the left mean when they speak about women.

I don't think the contents of ones underwear is anyones business but their own, but am interested in why others think it is their business.

Derek

This revisionism does not wash, from day one you were out of your depth, your use of the expression "windowlicker" was the first indication of how stupid you are. That someone forwarded you plans to smear senior politicians was a act of decency on their part. No one hacked you email account, get over yourself, you were exposed for the total heal that you are. Now the world can wait for you to be expelled from what ever professional body oversees you claims of being a psychotherapist.

Take this thought with you, by your actions and the actions of the others you have handed the Tories another 20 seats come the next election, its you and your kind that make the rest of the country sick of politicians of all kinds, the reason people are no longer voting, the reason the voters think politicians are rather like you one up from pondlife, goodbye.

That's all well and good, Dolly, but when are you going to come clean about your alleged psychotherapy qualifications?

Tell everyone how you claim to have studied "at Berkeley" to imply the prestigious University of California, Berkeley when you actually studied at The Wright Institute - a small private university in Berkeley - from which you were expelled before completing your course.

It seems that the BACP have also cottoned on to your little scam now that the complaints are coming in from genuine qualified psychotherapists instead of just political opponents.

It's an insult to everyone like me who put in years of hard work to get their degrees to see charlatans like you parading around.

I see all those involved in this venal and base act have been removed from editorial control... about time.

Looking through your mea culpa Derek, one word is missing.... sorry.

You whipped up a series of synthetic and petulant attacks Derek and got hoisted by your own 'standards' dragging your party and politics through some very smelly mud.

As a brand, LabourList is smeared with it and truth be told if the calibre and quality of articles since are anything to go by; redemption is going to be a very long time coming.

Labour has had a presence on the internet for a while now, it's called LabourHome and you even put pressure on them with some of your own brand of blue-on-blue; how nice.

I doubt anyone who wants strong and principled debate from both sides of the political spectrum is really going to miss you; I think they are just being nice.

Both men and women can have cliche perspectives and it's easy to fall into that trap as some of the recent womens articles and mostly male trolling have proven. I'm encouraging people to develop a better focus so jumping to conclusions and throwing attitude in my face is uncalled for. If you're looking for a fight you'll probably find one. I'd advise against it.

Jessica, one question and two points. Is there any just cause or impediment for women to turn on their PCs and
comment? Secondly Hoon started out as an Australian word describing boy racers, but in the context of insulting
someone, especially in politics, it is a substitute or a euphemisim for "c&*t." With regards to your patronising
"more women needed and fewer right-wing trolls..." shall we pass a law and proof is supplied via the national DNA
database?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoon

Explanation has been duly given and I recognise it is not racist. I reserve my right though to ask what words mean when I don't understand them given that I don't tend to spend my day slagging off former cabinet ministers on right-wing blogs. Also, if something does look like it might be posing as a racist comment on a left-wing website, I would want people to ask whether it was or not. I'm glad that in this case I was wrong. Just because Derek went too far, doesn't mean that those people who believe in fighting racist comments online should go hide under a stone.

Proof is 65 male contributors to 17 women. And actually even if all the pseudonyms on here were women, surely that suggests something? That women don't feel able to expose their gender in an online discussion, that they would rather adopt some kind of e-burkha than feel comfortable commenting as a woman. Where is your proof that women are not as interested 'in these sort of matters'? And which sort? The bully-boy, character-assassination in comment boxes sort of matters, or the future of our economy, schools and hospitals, and crime levels? I think you would be on very shaky ground to say that women aren't interested in the latter.

Why do you think having more women posting will mean that only 'women's issues' will be covered? And actually, what the hell are women's issues nowadays anyway? Do you think childcare, for example, only concerns men? And if you do, I think I'd say you were pretty out of date.

Why do people insist that the leak must have come from a 'disgruntled Blairite', or somebody who was 'outraged at the smear tactics'?

Given the level of fratricidal hatred in Labour circles, it's perfectly possible that the leak came from somebody who would have had no qualms at all about smearing the Tories, but who hated Derek and Damian so much that he/she couldn't resist the opportunity to stuff them. After all, about 90% of the Labour party probably fall into that bracket.

Just started to answer this with a very long comment which I accidently lost by pressing the back button. Quite glad I did, because I really think that it's pointless trying to have a basic argument about the importance of women's representation in political online debate with someone who quite clearly cannot and will not rationally engage with the issue. But just to say that a quick tally of the number of contributors on the left hand column suggests that around 65 men have posted as opposed to 17 women. Now I know LL is doing its best to try and find talented women to write for the site, but there is always more we can do to make this a space where women feel comfortable posting. (Most don't want to have to develop a thick skin simply to have their say).

The fact that you raise transexual representation and use the word 'wimmin' makes me think you're not seriously interested in equality. I don't have the time to spend hours debating with people who are only interested in point-scoring and petty posturing.

Thank you though for your explanation of the term 'hoon'. I am so very pleased I haven't mixed in your circles long enough to know these stupid in jokes.

Hi Derek,

Just one question on your way out the door, as this may be the last time we see you 'in public' so to speak.

On the subject of the smears, as late as 11th April (in "There is no doubt these were silly juvenile ideas...") you were still insisting: "I have to admit some were also brilliant and rather funny..."

Of the ones I have seen reported, some (like the Osborne one) were infantile, some (like the Dorries one) were of the standard of an adolescent scribbling on a toilet wall, and some (like the Cameron one) were profoundly distasteful.

As a psychotherapist you'll understand the importance of 'closure'. So could you just let us know which were the ones you thought were 'brilliant and rather funny'? I realise they may not have been leaked yet.

Good riddance. Let this be the small first step in grown-ups reclaiming politics in this country.

"That is why, after a couple of weeks of reflection, I am passing on the editorship to Alex Smith,"

So you have appointed Alex Smith. Do you control all Labourlist appointments? If Alex is no good can you sack him? Who profits from the adverts on the site?

I can't pretend to be your greatest fan, Derek (I sometimes feel that you learned too much from Mandelson, (in the same way Blair's biggest supporters in the government share his love of avarice and greed), Mandelson is a deeply unpleasant individual -nonetheless, you have to be given credit for starting up this site, which took a lot of hard work, and your obvious committment to it.

I really think you should stop claiming that your email account has been hacked into. As others have suggested I think kit was more likely you were "shopped" by a disgruntled Blairite. Like Mrs T's supporters, the Blairites will dislike anybody because they are not Blair, just as theirs never gave John Major a fair chance, and as LL were suopporting the government, and that government is led by Gordon Brown. Need one say more?

As I write I hear that yet another Blairite has crawled out from under his stone again to try to whip up more trouble, that is Milburn has "warned" Brown not to betray Blair. Like Blears, Blunkett, Clarke et al, they seem to have forgotten to learn from the Thatcherites mistakes.

"This will be your last chance to poke fun at labour and their brain dead supporters - their only credibility comes from happening to be in power - come the election they will be consigned to oblivion forever."

TT what a nasty little piece of work you are. Sorry there is no other way to express it - I am sure even the Conservative Party hierarchy would be embarrassed by the majority of your posts, with their bile and spite and arrogance.

But you should be warned: Harold said years ago that "a week is a long time in politics" and a year is an eternity. Be careful, by being to cocksure of their victory, Cameron and Osborne may yet trip themselves up. The British public tend to love the underdog and too much bragging and taking things for granted may well turn a lot of potential Tory voters off - that and the lack of any clear policies from the old Etonians.....


And congratulations and good luck, Alex

I agree with you Simon. This site smacks of some upper class cliquey club for uninformed labourites living behind their gated shrub infested 5 bedroom houses. The working class people of the UK deserve better than this from Labour.

I cannot believe the arraogance of you people. Unbelievable. You come across as entitled middle class snobs. Derek was in the wrong and not only could he not confess to such without blaming someone else for leaking the email but to even consider using smear campaigns smacks of some old age stalinist bulls.... Labour need to wake up, smell the roses and notice that the country is becoming disenfranchised with them and their hard line, fascists dictactorial rules that they are imposing on the UK. It would seem like labour want to tax everyone for all the hard work they do, yet all we hear about on here is how Derek was a badboy. Pathetic for Labour. Of course we all know that the tories will win the next election.

It is completely and utterly laughable that Dolly's decision took two week's of reflection.

It is to his shame - and the shame of whoever actually runs LabourList - that Draper was not removed immediately following the Smeargate scandal.

How on Earth this conclusion was only reached after a fortnight's thought is just incredible.

Draper's pathetic half-apology is just lamentable, I'm afraid.

The fact that the repulsive (or "absolutely brilliant" - depending on your perspective) smears were not published by Red Rag is neither here nor there.

The wild assertion that his email account was hacked just underscores the man's extraordinary level of self-delusion and self-importance.

Let us hope that Mr. Draper never again has any involvement in British politics and is finally - and permanently - prevented from any further association whatsoever with the Labour Party at any level. He has been an utterly poisonous influence.

Good luck to Alex with the immense task of rebuilding the tattered and thoroughly tarnished reputation of this site.

You've done the right thing by resigning Derek. I'm glad you've finally chosen to do the honourable thing.

I think your comments are a vivid illustration why women refrain from posting here: a combination of bombast, illogic and prejudice, wrapped up in patronising tone. If women are less interested in it, they're clearly smarter.

You say the web is a great leveller. Certainly anyone reading your comment might have lost several points off their IQ.

Your last two paras - obviously.

Chill Simon

it is sheer idiocy, pedantry and desire to read more into a figure of speech than the average reader would see.

I think that would apply to your reading of my comment too, I'm afraid.

It's notoriously difficult to detect 'tone' on comments, but Max is fond of laconic or parodic one-liners, and you can rest assured this was tongue-in-cheek. Of course I don't think he hacked any emails. But walk midway into an argument, and such misunderstandings can happen.

Max also acknowledged that his reason for posting on this site was merely to see Derek Draper resign, and promised to leave once that had happened. I was merely celebrating his promised departure.

One acts as things arise. Certainty and speculations are just so much mental wallpaper. It's all a dream then *blink* lights out. I wouldn't take any of it too seriously. Better just to hang loose and enjoy the show while it lasts.

Charles, you appear to be making the assumption that because I have not contributed frequently then therefore I do not know the characters. One can read without contributing.

Do you oft-mentioned Zen Buddhist tracts account for this possibility?*

*Proof, of a sort, that I do indeed know the characters ;)

Jukes is calling out a known and self-admitted troll. Your leaping on with interpretations without a sense of context is what Zen Buddhism calls "mind on mind". A little circumspection and self-scrutiny can help avoid this stupidity. Practice makes perfect.

* Irony is the fifth fundamental force.

You were an inspiration to me Derek.

I have posted my tribute to your work at The Red Rag

DD has repeated the hacking accusation time and again. I'd like to see him take it to court and prove it (criminal offence, after all). Otherwise, any rational person - especially given how leaks happen daily in such rarified circles where pole-climbing and back-stabbing rule the day - would be more inclined to take the view of Jonathan Cook.

Derek, if you were hacked then you CAN prove it. Show us the evidence, please. Recommended reading: "The Cuckoo's Egg".

Thanks - that setting had flipped to "classic" at my end, using Firefox. But having selected a threaded view I then also had to refresh the page as the dropdown is not dynamic.

Stupid mistake on my part. Not sure that things make a lot more sense, though!

Testosterone, ego, taking over the market - utter testicles! You can take this sort of thing (correctness) too far. I have experienced it in my own particular sphere of so-called "positive discrimination" (I have been profoundly deaf since birth).

If you want to get involved, do; if you do not want to get involved, don't. There are plenty of very successful female campaigners in all sort of fields, so the testosterone argument simply does not wash. And even if it did, then it would be self-defeating because the logical conclusion would be that unless women were to take consume testosterone (or men were to have it removed from their systems) then an equality of participation in a meaningful manner can NEVER be achieved. Altering a mindset is never going to alter nature when push comes to shove.

Explanation is lower down Jessica. You need to watch with the racist overtone though. I believe Mr Draper did the same...and look where that got him!

More women and fewer right-wing trolls would help but I wouldn't want to see more articles covering "women's issues" or "protect the children" moderation. That would just swap one hell for another. Getting the balance and tone right is a tough editorial call and it's going to take a while for comments and readership to catch up but we'll have to see how things develop. I'm generally optimistic.

Simon

There is a drop down box at the top of the comments section.

Use it to select one of the 'threaded views' and things may make more sense!

And that campaign was being funded from 10 Downing Street at the expense of the taxpayer.

You have only gone because you were found out!

Its a shame that someone who's done so much for the movement, in the form of this wonderful site, has to go for such an idiotic mistake. But without Derek at least we wont have the suspicion of dirty tricks hanging over our heads and we can get on with the hard graft of getting our message across.

Well, it has gone wrong now, hasn't it? Replies to comments are not being threaded as replies but as new comments - makes it almost impossible to make sense of what is going on.

I note also that Messagespace adverts have suddenly started appearing - presumably reflects the change of Editor as DD was adamant that LL would not get involved with that outfit.

Most regular folks get driven out by trolling, and women get driven out even quicker. It's just the way unregulated testosterone driven ego takes things over and crashes the market. The psychology is the same whether you're talking about a nation state or something as hum drum as an online forum. In fact, the norms and standards that apply in the real world can be more easily gamed online so the web can be a far worse place than anywhere else. Better and more relevant articles help but this needs to be balanced with self-control and moderation. Successful television shows like Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles achieve this interest and balance quite well. The producers have written an essay on this and it's well worth studying.

Yes, Gordon Brown should resign for not acting sooner & acting like a buffoon later on youtube.

But think of the fun leading up to the general election!

This will be your last chance to poke fun at labour and their brain dead supporters - their only credibility comes from happening to be in power - come the election they will be consigned to oblivion forever.

LibDems maxed out long ago, so the second party (to oppose the tory government) will be something new.

Cuckoo Brown destroyed any talent that might ever challenge him, so there is nothing left in the labour party worth saving.

So why would labours 'bright young things' waste 20 years cleaning up the discredited labour brand to make it electable when they can start something new?

The clever young left wing brains will soon be doing something interesting, exciting and new (although almost certainly wrong) - stay here to watch the train crash, the recriminations, the divisions and the founding of something decent to replace the shoddy mess that is labour.

"Absolutely brilliant"! Goodbye David Brent aka Dolly!

"I'm Peter Mandelson and Jukes is Alistair Darling. We're posting incognito. Pssst. Don't tell anyone Let's just keep this between ourselves, eh?"

fair enough Charles, but you do realise it took Alistair a mere 8 minutes to follow you up!! lol

"Rarely can a comment have combined obnoxiousness and idiocy so succinctly."

And this was aimed at?

??, Jessica. What exactly does what mean? I've got "see trash" turned on here and even with that can make no sense of whatever it is you are objecting to. Perchance the wording to which you took offence has been removed but your own response has not?

Or is your point too subtle for me? It's possible!

What an absolutely ridiculous assumption, even allowing for the carefully inserted "perhaps". It is comments such as this that give rise to to sort of ridicule to which LL has been exposed.

It is paranoid sniping with no basis in fact and adds nothing to any debate. Indeed, it is precisely the sort of thing which I fear is turning people away from the party in droves. Aside from current headline issues, of course.

Add a smiley , ;) or something similar and it becomes light-hearted, but as it stands it is sheer idiocy, pedantry and desire to read more into a figure of speech than the average reader would see.

Jessica why do you think the contents of ones underpants is relevant?

When you say 'more women needed' do you include transexuals in that, or do only 'real' women count, or does it depend on which direction the trans was in?

I look forward to your explanation.

As a genuine believer in equality I find 'wimmin' very offensive. Also, believing in freedom of speech I don't call for things to be banned for being offensive, however I do expect a rational explanation of the offenders behaviour.

Particularly from someone whos automatic reaction to the word 'hoon' was to assume racism.

Geoff Hoon is a labour MP who was a hopeless defence minister (commonly nicknamed 'buff') - in some circles his surname has become a label of contempt. Hence 'what a hoon'.

On the latter two points you couldn't be more on the mark.

Jessica, why are the women not here? You make the suggestion that they are not but I would love to see your proof. And if you can prove it, allowing for the pseudonyms etc in the section where the "debate" really happens, then does this show the paucity of true connection between LL and the electorate or, indeed, between the party and the electorate - a big jump, I know, but intended to demonstrate the vacuous nature of your point. I'm all for people getting involved but the web really is a better leveller than many other means of engaging in debate and at some point perhaps, if you are right (which I doubt), you have to address the fundamental issue. Eg: perhaps women generally are not as interested in these sort of matters.

Touch paper lit, I'll stand well away

I think my work here is done.

Is that an admission of hacking emails?

Perhaps not. But good news all the same.

Rarely can a comment have combined obnoxiousness and idiocy so succinctly. I have no opinions about Derek Draper other than those I've expressed. I would show the same spirit even to a Tory opponent caught in this position. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in things called decency and manners, and those qualities have to be shown in victory more than defeat, but as you've revealed these concepts are way over your head.

A pathetic statement. Derek, you have one at least as much harm as good and I am still waiting to see any of the many legal actions which you have threatened see the light of day.

Hardwidge seems to be an Emperor's New Clothes sort of contributor (as does Ash Cash, who has not yet posted but probably will).

I wish Alex well but if anyone really wants this site to make an impact then they have to address the appalling design and also make it snappy. Essays are for Guardian readers, not Mirror readers. And the more you write, the more you entangle yourself. If anything, whilst the personal DD content has been gone for a while now - proof of a "sacking" (confirmed by an absence of the big names)? - the site has become even more geared towards wordy philosophising more suited to a Fabians site than to what was apparently intended to be a rapid rebuttal unit. Some might say that LL has evolved; I would suggest that it has lost its way.

That's about the shape of it. Funny, government is held to some exacting standard on performance and privacy but business gets away with much more and it passes almost without notice. If any of these glass jawed heroes where held to the same standard they'd fold like a cheap blanket. Oh, wait. They do.

I'm Peter Mandelson and Jukes is Alistair Darling. We're posting incognito. Pssst. Don't tell anyone Let's just keep this between ourselves, eh?

I've written more fully on the Labourwomen blog
http://labourwomen.blogspot.com/2009/05/derek-draper-resigns-from-labourlist.html

But just to say that I think this could be a really positive moment for LabourList and let's rally in support of Alex Smith to get over this episode and continue to build LL as a space for decent Labour debate. Obviously... more women needed and fewer right-wing trolls.

I think it was only a matter of time before this happened and I'd have to say it's not before time. The problem is that Draper had such a close (and personal) tie in with LabourList, any damage to him would reflect on the site.

My own personal opinion is that Draper woould have been better making a short "it's been fun but thanks" post, but again it comes across as "it's not my fault, I was hacked".

Everyone has their opinion and mine is that someone dished the dirt, after all the emails weren't just on Draper's computer.

I'd like to wish Alex all the best and say that I've noticed an improvement on the site recently with better articles and more of them. Still more to do but it's getting there.

I wasn't going to do this, but I am seriously wondering if Peter Jukes and Charlie Hardwidge are one and the same person. Both Draper supporters, both supporting each other and both posting within 3 minutes of each other...

...or maybe "they" are Dezza!! Just a thought ;-)

I have as much interest in Draper's email hacking as Christian Bale's outburst being recorded. Clearly, some people thought they could stick it to the man and get some attention by being scummy but the whole affair says more about these creeps than anything else.

From the start Derek got advice and tried to get attention by mixing with the established big blogs. His big mistake was that he lost sight of great content and latent market demand. What can I say? Life gives the test first and the lesson afterwards. More positively, Derek made these mistakes so Alex won't have to.

I agree, Labour List is an achievement. It's here. It's now. And that's something the Tories et al will have to get over. Labour List can only get better and take more market share from the Tories and their by the coattails pals. That's got to hurt and every day that Labour List continues to succeed must cut them a little deeper.

Success is the best revenge.

Derek,

Your departure is the correct decision, however, I suspect you were leaked against rather than hacked.

It will be interesting to see if Labourlist survives given that funding will continue to be provided by Unite. Personally I prefer blogs to be run by independent ndividuals.

Given the Charlie Whelan Unite / Gordon Brown links....... Labourlist will do well if it is ever perceived as more than a government propoganda web-site.

what exactly does that mean? If it's meant to rhyme with a racist word I hope that LL takes it down.

Long overdue. I'd like to say "thanks for making the honourable decision", but the inordinate delay before Draper's resignation tends to lend the appearance (rightly or wrongly) that it only happened when it was clear it was a case of "jump or be pushed".

Like Blair and Brown, Draper started something worthwhile, but became intoxicated by his own enthusiasm. Unlike nuLabour, LabourList is not an irredeemably tarnished brand (yet) in the public perception, and I look forward to participating in positive discussions about the various directions we feel the Labour Party should now take.

We at the Paintbrush aren't gloating. LabourList is a real achievement.

http://frankowenspaintbrush.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/derek-draper-steps-down-from-labour-list/

Labour List has many flaws and I'm sad to see Derek leave but Alex Smith's brain is pointing in the right direction and he can take Labour List to the next level. While Labour was doing an impression of a dinosaur and almost invisible on the net Derek helped create a space where people could speak their mind and discover other people who had similar perspectives. This is a good thing.

Alex Smith struck me as being the best candidate for taking over the reins as editor. I think, he might have a lot to learn and there's a few things that need done around here that haven't been happening but I'm sure he's both keen and aware enough to have a grip on that. While I'd like to see better quality and more consistent articles, a better and more capable publishing platform, and some of the moderation and PR issues sorted out I don't want to see any rash moves but nor am I going to pressure the guy. It's his gig.

So, congratulations Alex. Hugs and kisses, Derek. The show must go on!

It's easy for others, especially anonymous posters, to be cruel at a moment like this. Let them paste their obloquies. The irony is that most of them have accused you of exactly the kind of activities they indulge in: rumour mongering, unattributed smears, and the politics of personal destruction. The hypocrisy and nastiness is rampant and unlike you they show no contrition or remorse.

So kudos for that. And for going with good grace. If you can bear it, I hope you'll still post here.

Big thanks for all your hard work setting up this site. I hope all that hard work will pay off in the meantime, and Alex has been a great acting editor.

So the proprietor of Labourlist didn't actually sack Derek Draper he resigned after 2 weeks. Who is in charge here - shouldn't they resign for not acting sooner?

What a hoon.

Even in your departure you still claim to be the injured party ("...someone hacking into my emails and placing them into the public domain")

The best thing that can happen to Labour is for you to fade into oblivion.

I think my work here is done.

"I urge everyone who wants Labour to have a vibrant, active space on the internet to ... get involved in whatever comes next."

Derek - this is the most important message in your post, and is welcome encouragement to those who want LabourList to grow and succeed.

The comments following the article posted here by Steve Race and me on Tuesday shows that there is no a shortage of ideas and suggestions on how to develop LabourList to make it an effective forum for debate and exchange for Labour minded people.

So your position could be summed up as: "sorry, but it really isn't my fault". What rot. Revealed or not, the very fact that you and McBride were even thinking about trying to tear families, marriages and reputations apart was corrosive and damaging to your own cause. No-one doubts that you'd have gone right on ahead and launched Red Rag anyway. If you rail against Guido, why emulate him?

Good riddance. LabourList will be a far better vehicle for debate without your inept presence.

Would have been great if you had managed to spend the last two weeks looking for that e-mail you must have sent Damian at some later stage where you said "Actually, this isn't going to work, let's not do it" - you know, the one that would lend credibility to your claim that ultimately the smears were destined for the trash can. You must have deleted it. Bummer.

Goodbye Derek, congratulations Alex.

its contents were never published by me or anyone else involved in the Labour party and they would never have seen the light of day were it not for someone hacking into my emails

It was not the detailed content that disgusted people, it was the principal that you and your buddies were prepared to consider smears as part of a wider campaign.

You know that and we know that - drop the fig leaf, it doesn't cover anything worth hiding.

Bye Dolly!