I don't really understand Labour's present difficulties . . .

[LewPaper]

because I'm not a political animal but I don't think it matters who leads the Labour Party at this stage. When they won the last election it was the first time Labour had won a third successive term so the chances of winning a fourth must be seriously doubted. To have one party in power for too long isn't healthy, no matter which political persuation so although I don't particularly welcome a Tory win, it can't be a bad thing overall. Any election which produces a change in government is greeted with optimism but in time this usually falls back to scepticism and a general distrust - that's the name of the game. Let a new broom emerge and see how it cleans - there's always next time.

[andy-hughes]

Labour's problems centre around the twin issues of the downturn in the world ecconomy, which labour quite rightly claim they cannot alter, and the suitability of Gordon Brown as leader - which they can alter, and it looks like they will.

GB was an excellent Chancellor, but in the way of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, a good second-in-command doesn't always step up to the top job in the way people hope they will.

[LewPaper]

Yes, from what little I know I tend to agree with you. Shame really as he'll now be remembered for his few months of, well, shall we say lack of success, and not for his successful stewardship of the economy.

[Quinlad]

It does seem very panto. Everything is thrown into black and white.

Remember when New Labour first came in? People were lining the streets and dancing. Actually dancing with joy. God knows what they were expecting - free sweets and beer on tap or something. And now 10 years later, now that we don't all own second homes in Spain and have a utterly perfect health service and sunshine every day, people are upset and crushingly disappointed.

When Labour get the boot, there will jubilation again and people will be looking forward to blissful utopia under the Tories. And then in a few years, there'll be widespread gloom again, because we still have to pay money for goods and we've not been given the secret of eternal life.

It's like following politics through the eyes of a manic depressive. We lurch from whoop-cheer to boo-hiss and back again and again and again.

That's not to say people shouldn't be harsh critics or have an opinion or swing their vote. Just maybe add a dose of realism so you don't endure the bizarre highs and lows.

[Gromit]

When Brown became PM he promised a change from the Spin, hype and PR manipulation that Blair was so adept at. Unfortunately, we had become so used to the spin, that when it went away and we were presented with the truth, it appeared like the government had come off the rails.

With Blair dragging his feet about leaving, a war of the Blairites and Brownites broke out in the Labour Party. Brown inherited a fractured party, and the cracks have just got bigger.

There is nothing he could have gone about the world economic situation, and the voters know that, but his failure (if it ever was possible) to re-unite the Party, and a Party apparently in a mood to self-destruct, is not appealing to the voters.

Can he survive? I don't think there is a better candidate at the moment. The Cabinet is populated with non entities, but it wouldn't be the first time a Labour Government has descended into a mess.

[Lonnie]

The present difficulties are really down to the past policies of both Brown and Blair coming home to roost, but only Brown is left to carry the can.

There are too many to detail here, (time), but just take a close look at the past eleven years, and what is happening now, to see what I mean.

[rov1200]

It's quite simple! If you look back a number of years everything in the garden was rosy even though it wasn't. The brain seems capable of erasing bad memories or at least diminishing their impact.

Therefore if you look back to when the Tories last held power the damage was immense. We now overlook the failings but live in hope for a better start.

'Better the devil we know' should sum up the situation!

[LewPaper]

Yep, thanks messrs Quinlad, Gromit and Lonnie.I know this'll sound a bit like ingratiation, but I agree with all of you, except for the possible point that Gordon Brown doesn't make a good PM. Not because he's not good enough, not because he's not astute; he has all the intellectual qualities necessary, it's just he lacks the killer instinct which in any other walk of life would be a good thing. But who's there to replace him? This may demonstrate my ignorance but how about Jack Straw?

[LewPaper]

This is getting a bit embarrassing. Yep, I'm with you as well rov.

[WoWo]

I'm sorry but Brown is directly to blame for the current problems with the economy. He was Chancellor in the good times and should (and could) have take steps to protect the economy during the bad times, which I might add were bound to come. Instead he and the government took decision (or didn't) which should have been taken 2-3 years ago to protect the wider economy.

This countries economy has been sick for some considerable time, we should have taken the medicine back in 2005, got it back to health and carried on, we didn't and we are now going to suffer far worse as a result.

I'm not saying it's easy, just that Labour/Brown should carry the can.

Basically I would equate it to a car crash, if a car hits you there is nothing you can do about it, however if you are not wearing a seat belt your going to get hurt.

[ludwig]

What I find annoying, is that having deposed a serving Prime Minister and forced another one onto the public without consulting them, the Labour party now wants to repeat the process, for no other reason than a desparate attempt to save their own sorry @sses at the next election.

They should take some of Quinlad's advice about lurching from whoop-cheer to boo-hiss, show some loyalty and get behind the loser they foisted on us in the first place.

[sp1814]

LewPaper

Whilst I am a Labour supporter, I absolutely agree with you when you write To have one party in power for too long isn't healthy.

It's not healthy for a democracy for one party to be in power for too long, and it's not good for the party itself.

Whether or not Labour can whether its current difficulties remains to be seen. I remember thinking that the Tories didn't have a hope in hell of getting back in after the change-over from Thatcher to Major, but they managed.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics /article1654931.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448 /Brown's-raid-on-pensions-costs-Britain-andpou nd100-billion.html

GB was an excellent Chancellor,

I feel I must disagree with this statement, it was all down to 'New Labour' spin that led to some of the electorate believing in this.

Under Brown's Chancellorship we saw more stealth taxes imposed on us than under any other Chancellor, plus the fact that he also sold off our gold reserves, not to mention his raid on pensions.

[Lonnie]

Gordon Brown, in my humble opinion, was the worst post war Chancellor this country has had.

As far as a party being in power too long, so long as they are performing well, and the electorate are happy with them, it doesn't matter how long they've been in, so long as they put themselves up for re-election under the democratic process.

[LewPaper]

Can't agree with that Lonnie. I s'pose in theory that's following the democratic process, but were it to ever happen, continually voting in the one party, I think it'd lead to a democracy in name only. By definition parties run out of steam, become apathetic and become more distant from those they represent. To be elected again with those principles demonstrates they can treat the electorate with contempt and actually get away with it. I think we're more intelligent than that.

[Postdog]

Slightly rose tinted view perhaps, but the combo of Blair and Brown worked, and Brown was good at what he did (up to a point) possibly because he did not have the pressure of leadership.

I think Brown was just unlucky to take over as things started to decline globally, and quite frankly whether it is him, someone else in the labour party, or another party entirely, I don't think ANYONE can have a magic formula when it is an international chain of events calling the shots.

[WoWo]

As I said previously Brown is in part responsible for the current economic climate, however economies are cyclical there isn't much that can be done to stop that. Brown promised no more boom and bust but all he did was to prolong the boom a little bit longer than usual and therefore create a bigger bust now the time has come.

Unfortunately politics is all about keeping yourself in power, making actual decisions for the country long term go against that.

[kev1]

Andy, Brown may not be the brightest star in the sky but to mention him in the same sentence as Nixon and Lyndon Johnson two of Americas most famous lifelong career criminals is pure slander