´óÏó´«Ã½

As a budding journalist myself I have been following the antics of the Labour party for some months now and find it farcical that Gordon Brown is the only 'real' contender for the top job.

We all know that politics is a dirty business - no doubt that when Blair announces his date for leaving, many more skeletons from the backbenches will rise up from their graves and have a stab at the leadership contest.

John Reid is playing a cool game - not ruling himself in and not ruling himself out!

Alan Johnson is equally cunning knowing that Brown may not actually win a general election next time around, not with a youthful Cameron

The Labour party have a serious problem that the Tories were having a few years ago -

Politics goes in cycles - its now Labour's turn to have problems with leadership and personality!

Johnson, Reid etc. are playing a clever game. The New Labour project is finished. A beating at the local elections and a beating at the next General Election will allow a new leader to depose Brown and renew the party again to take them back to power.

The public just don't get it yet but they will as soon as Brown takes over the leadership. He is a giant in politics who will then be centre stage. I honestly believe that he will blow both Cameron and his party away.

What you comment on is always interesting - but what you don't comment on seems more revealing. Are you seeking a peerage? World politics was turned upside down in the past couple of days - but you keep waffling on about Brown.

Iraq - Republicans - have you heard of these terms.

I normally distrust politicians, but there is definetly something fishy going on at the moment.

I strongly suspect that this country is in one hell of a mess. So much of a mess that nobody wants the job of sorting it out.

I get the feeling that even the politicians are playing for a hung parliament next time because they seem to be playing the polls both up and down to achieve this.

As soon as I find one group that I think might be slightly better than the others they come up with a really bad policy and vice versa.

This may be paranoia, but I think that they are colluding to achieve a hung parliament so that when the country goes banrupt they can all blame each other.

It is either that or they are far more out of touch with reality than I ever thought possible.

"Alan Johnson is equally cunning knowing that Brown may not actually win a general election next time around, not with a youthful Cameron"

I've been thinking about this recently. Personally, I wouldn't stand for election now if I was any of them, not if I was planning to stay in politics for another 8 years or so. If Labour win the next General Election, they're probably not going to win the one after that, and losing that election would be critical for the new leader.

So yes, I think the potential competitors are perhaps playing it smart and holding on until a better chance arrives.

The problem is that nobody is taking the only declared candidate seriously. Why not!
John McDonnell is setting out his stall on his website and has been credited with articles in the Guardian and other publications. But when it comes to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and ITV politicos etc where are the references to his campaign. The link to your blog from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News web is a prime example. The 'postie' Johnson doesn't want the job, Reid (oh I tried defence and NHS) doesn't want the job, need I say more? Why not be honest and say that John McDonell is a threat to the establishment and therefore we (the ´óÏó´«Ã½ et al) have been briefed against reporting his campaign.

Nick Robinson writes that Alan Johnson has "what Americans call a good back story and a good sense of humour." As a life-time American,familiar with a sense of "humor", I am completely baffled by the expression "good back story" I have never heard it in my life and have no idea what it might mean. And I am a political junkie. Ben Adams, Albuquerque New Mexico,USA

Nick,

Am I being too cynical?

Are all of these 'contenders' waiting for Gordon to resign, after losing the next election, at which point they'll be able to put their names forward for leader, without having upset either side of thier party by standing against Gordon's coronation?

I agree with most of your current respondants. Brown has an impossible job. How can he hope to follow Blair? The country is tired of New Labour irrespective of who is the leader. They may give Brown a chance but events are conspiring against him, higher interest rates, higher fuel prices, the NHS needing more serious money or a big reorganisation or 'privatisation', Iraq & Afghanistan are unlikely to present Brown with clean solutions in the next few years and are costing a lot of money, education needs sorting out in particular FE and HE and again it's all money related.

The only way Brown can hope to solve a lot of these problems is higher taxes and the country won't like that. He would be much better off to forget becoming PM and get himself a nice job as President of the World Bank or a UN or EU job. That way he will not have to suffer as he undoubtedly will if he moves in to number 10.

And I haven't even factored in the fact that he's Scottish so he would be PM to a country of people he doesn't even represent on some major issues; I'll leave that for the Tories to milk when he gets in...

Jake Long,interesting comment,i'am sure Blair would have joined with the lib dems but not sure who would like to unite with the tories and their tax cuts.Jake if you are looking for a good reason to support G.Brown then look no further than his total commitment to raise the cost per head of every single state educated child to that of a private educated child.

"But you know, but a week would do". Not entirely sure that makes sense, does it?

Nick, surely the problem is that the Blairites can't agree on a credible candidate of the stature to give Brown a run for his money from a standing start. If they could, I'm sure they would.

Anyone in the Labour Party facing the prospect of Brown as leader with a two year run toward the polls in 2009 would surely want to find an alternative. Brown comes across as fixated with politics and power to an unhealthy degree, of limited ability to 'connect' with the average Briton, and is closely associated with some of New labour's biggest policy gaffes. You'd expect SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE to come forward - unless the assumption is that there is too short a time to put Labour in a winning position. So while he might be PM from, say, May 2007 (at the earliest) to May 2009, he'll be Leader of the Opposition for a lot, lot longer thereafter.

Alan Johnson seems to be a pretty good bloke (for a politician) and is cunning as a fox. I suspect his strategy is the right one.

But John Taylor is right (post #4) - there are more important political issues than this going on - Gaza, Iraq, impeaching Blair, the future of the UN. Isn't this navel gazing getting a bit tiresome?

A leadership contest wouldn't really help. I think John Reid, whom is an exemplary character, knows he wouldn't get a majority vote and would be a lot of effort for relatively little gain.

A bloodbath is as unneccessary as it is unwanted.

Gordon is a clear winner before any contest took place.He wanted the job and he is certain to get it.The Labour membership is often seen as being taken for a ride. The enrollment of Gordon upon the throne is most certainly not one of those examples.

Gary

Am I right in thinking that the post of deputy PM was created by Margaret Thatcher so that she could benefit from the input of Mr. Whitelaw? How have we progressed to the point where the current incumbent is entitled to a country mansion?

i look forward to a brown lead labour party, he is a towering political figure who's time has come

I have one question given John Prescott's recent comments on the job of Deputy Leader. Can the post of Deputy Prime Minister, which is in the gift of the Prime Minister be given to someone who is not the new successful Deputy Leader of the Labour Party ?

I don't believe for a second anyone would actually vote for Brown, so he may become prime minister when TB steps down but he will be the last nail in the coffin for the labour party in the next general election.

- he has no charisma
- one of the reasons people are so fed up with TB is becuase of taxes and in reality it was Brown who influnced the level of taxation and of course the wasteful spending.
- most of all he's scottish.

Just how stupid do the labour party think the people of England are? I think there in for a wakeup call.

"There may well be a candidate from the left of the Labour Party".
Can we not even mention the man's name?

Rewrind to 1997 - Britain has had enough of Major and the Tories and is enamoured with a charismatic Tony Blair: Labour get voted in.

200X - Blair has already handed the mantle of Labour leadership and the office of Prime Minister to Gordon Brown. Despite initial attempts at trying to break with the past (and some efforts at trying to make bold gestures like he did with giving independence to the Bank of England), he is perceived as personally underwhelming, while the perception of the government as a whole is that things remain unchanged. Cameron is still derided for his 'innovative' means of communicating with the public, yet his personality is still considered more appropriate to occupy the PM role. At the election, Cameron wins by just a margin - the loss for Labour was not put squarely at Brown's door - the 'boredom' factor in the public's regard for Labour was widely acknoweledged to be a main factor, however the 'boredom' factor with Brown personally and the fact that he could not shake off the lingering shadow of Blair's time in office (Iraq) meant that Labour had overstayed their welcome.

--> This is not the way I want it to be - Cameron is leading the same old nasty Tories. But Labour are going to be in trouble if Brown is leader - the public don't dislike him as such (at worst they think he's boring or frosty), but the public don't like him in a positive sense. Cameron will get in through the back door as Labour do not have any suitable candidates to field against Cameron as an alternative to Britain's Al Gore.

It looks increasingly certain that the English will be ruled by a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency, at least for a couple of years.
I'm looking forward to being lectured as to how we should run our Education and Health Service by a PM who has no influence on the same in his own constituency.
Is that the meaning of democracy?

Sam why does the fact he is Scottish come into it? He will be the leader of the Labour Party who are the ruling party of Great Britain.He will be judged on how well he deals with all aspects of his job not on his nationality. It really bugs me when people bring this into a debate. You can't talk about policies or anything else constructive you just have to resort to pure racism. I don't particularly like the man but the fact that you think the main reason he won't succed is because he is scottish is just damn right ignorant.

@ Gary #25

I don't really see how anyone is resorting to, "pure racism."

If that's todays definition of racism, the liberal do-gooders really do have too much influence, and it is about time people straightened the country out (they can start by taking playstations and drugs from prison cells and making prison a punishment).

To follow up on Phil, 9th of November, I agree that McDonnell could well pose an interesting threat, especially if he ends up as the only opponent of Gordon Brown. If he does moderately well, say 20-30 per cent of the vote, the political world would be forced to sit up and pay attention to him and his flavour of politics, and that would be of enormous significance not only for the party, but for British politics in general.

With the Labour Party having relaxed the rules regarding how long new members have to wait before they can take place in the election, things could actually be looking quite good for him if his campaign to get lapsed members to rejoin gains some momentum. I doubt he'll win, but he could certainly start something here.

Gary, may I answer for Sam as I feel the same. It isn't that Gordon Brown is Scottish, many MP's representing English constituencies are Scottish. It's that he is a Member of Parliament for a Scottish Constituency where his powers and responsibilities have been vastly diminished by devolution. He should have thought of that before he voted in favour of devolution.
As it is the Labour party received less votes in England in the last election so hardly have an overwhelming mandate on Education and Health in England.

OHMIGOD - Lauren Booth just let the cat out of the bag on I'm a Celebrity. "Blair will be gone in January" she said!! Does she really know something? Or is it a guess? Cherie and Lauren must discuss this sort of thing.

The more I think about it, the more I am in full support of David Miliband.

He is young, resourceful and dynamic.

I am worried as a Labour party supporter about Gordon Brown vs David Cameron.

I think if Gordon wins he will have to call a general election within 8 months, otherwise David Cameron will build up such a momentum that the Tories will be back in power within 2-3 years.

So, its David Miliband for me!

The overriding thought which occurs to me when reading 'Readers Comments' is 'let me off' - I do not want to be associalted with these people !