±«Óãtv

Whilst the country stagnates even Blair's potential successors seem to be waiting for Yates of the Yard to come to a conclusion.

I'd prefer Clarke and Milburn to throw their hats in the ring, but if they are too scared for that then at least they are trying to provoke something.

Labour need a huge wake up call. They have wasted 10 years in government and Brown is as much to blame as Blair. The Conservatives have created a nice new image, but we don't really know what they stand for. Let's hope that either civil war within a single party or genuine fast paced debate between the parties stirs the country back to life soon.

All interesting stuff which just highlights the mess the party is in.

One thought that occurs is why did none of the assembled media ask the question "why doesn't one of you run for the leadership"?

Why is there so much fuss about what appears to be a smooth handover of responsibility for the running of this fine country?

We are privileged and should be grateful that we have enjoyed 10 of the best years that this small country of ours has ever known.

We can now, with immense pride and reassurance, look forward to another 10 years of governance under the direction of our singularly outstanding Chancellor.

Now, can we leave the matter there please and just move on.

How can NuLab have new ideas after 10 years in office, when all policy (foreign affairs excluded) was effectively led or vetoed by Gordon Brown. NuLab will not have anything new to offer until they have a new, unbleimished leader, Milliband or Johnson perhaps.
Nick, how you or anyone can thing that two has-been, failed politicians in the form of Milburn and Clarke can offer anything new is a mystery?

Ken is nearly right - we don't need a debate, but we do need a General Election, with Tony Blair (yes, Tony Blair !) leading the Labour Party into it. Then, instead of "cutting and running", he can "stay the course" and be "held to account" by the British voters. (The quoted phrases have been spoken by either Tony Blair himself or members of his Cabinet.)

No, they don't need a debate, they need 10 years in opposition, and a chance for quiet reflection on what the democratic process is for.

Gordon Brown needs a debate even more than the rest of the PLP.

His pronouncement today about 'Britishness' just emphasised again that he is a Scotsman and on shaky ground when it comes to the English electorate.

Since very few consider themselves British these days it makes him look out of touch.

He was also talking about immigration.

Immigration and Asylum are massively important issues to people because they are about the soul of the country.

If he is going to 'get tough' on this I suggest he do so because what he said today sounds muddled and is little more than window dressing.

Some real competition for the leadership would be a very good thing for Gordon. He needs galvanising into action and the opportunity to show some real conviction.

The first thing he should do is be Scottish. Talk of Britishness does him no favours. It sounds ingratiating and voters hate phonies.

'Get on the front foot Gordon or your chance may slip away. Buck up man. You look terrified.'

Ken Hall. One can only presume you do not consider the tory party (the only other potential government) to also share the traits you describe. In which case you are not as skeptical as one should be.

Neither Clarke nor Milburn represent leadership material. Clarke has a good mind but an unfortunate appearance. Milburn on the other hand comes across as sinister. I wish there were stronger female candidates that could stand.

Brown, Clarke, Milburn, no difference between all these New Labour clones. There's a real debate over the future of the Labour party already happening and thousands have got involved already, though you wouldn't know it from the lack of media coverage.

See www.john4leader.org.uk for details!

If Brown has such good ideas for the future direction of this country then let's have them.

Otherwise isn't he merely acting in his own personal political interests by delaying? Is that really what we want in a PM?

Milburn, Clarke, and Brown don't give a damn for this country. This is all about their own personal ambitions.

The Labour need more than a debate. They need to work out exactly what they want. Do they really want Gordon Brown as leader? Does he really have what it takes to be a good P.M.? Are the wider electorate going to vote back into power?

The party stands for nothing at present. Blairism is an empty phrase that contains none of the party's core beliefs. It has proven that democracy is not what it really represents. It does not listen to the people when they voice their disagreements.

If we have another 10 years of Labour conceit and dictatorial government to anticipate then this country will be heading down the toilet very quickly.

The Labour party don't need to debate they need to DO...

Ignoring Ken Hall's cliched tabloid diatribe, I think there is a genuine story here.

This move by Milburn and Clarke is the latest development in a story that has been quietly unfolding over the last few weeks - there are shifting sands in the Labour Party at the moment. As the moment draws nearer, the longterm assumption that Gordon Brown will be the next leader is being challenged.

At the moment, none of those who have started speculating that maybe its better to skip a generation, or consider a heavyweight challenge, have been people who have anything to lose. Milburn, Clarke and Frank Field are not going to serve in any Brown cabinet anyway, so they can lob these grenades at him quite safely.

My own reading of whats going on here is that they are all seeking to create a climate of doubt around what Team Brown have for so long been trying to paint as the inevitability and racing certainty that their man will win. Behind the scenes, I have a feeling that David Milliband is being coaxed into standing. The media have up to now been generally quite servile in toeing Team Brown's line, but even that now seems to be gradually breaking down. I think the media would also like a genuine tussle for the top job.

I have always felt that Gordon Brown will never be PM. The actions of Clarke and Milburn don't make that inevitable, but it does add to my confidence in repeating that belief.

Well done Nick - you've beaten Guido Fawkes on this story.

It's simple. In a democracy, all positions of leadership and power should be determined through election. No-one should become a leader "on the nod". Let there be a contest - a genuine contest of personality and policy.

My concern is that the current Labour leadership seems to show little enthusiasm for democracy. Look at the question of reform of the House of Lords. There, they want to keep a system controlled by a small clique, with patronage firmly in the hands of the Prime Minister.

They need a sharp reminder that they serve us the people - and that they need to convince us that they deserve to be in power in the first place.

Ken Hall is wrong for two reasons. One is that the Labour Party has a good chance of being the next government. The other is that it is the party in power for the next few years and so its policies are important to all of us.
What we don't want is another period of stagnation where the governing party has no ideas of its own, has forgotten what it is in power for and cannot trust its own party members, never mind the electorate at large, to debate its aims and objectives. Quite apart from policies which have alienated the party membership, the war in Iran, university fees, id cards and 'privatising'schools to mention but a few, treating loyal and long standing party members merely as ways of getting out the vote with no say in policy has done a lot to halve membership over the years.

Seems to me that David Cameron is already defining the the direction for New Labour to take. Whenever he gives some vague indication of future Tory policy direction, out trot the NL heavies saying words to the effect that "we will outdo you".

Its a bit sad really, especially when you look back 10 years and remember all the hope that Labour's election victory brought. Alas the huge political capital that was gained at the time has been squandered in the sands of Iraq.

Whatever happened to "The Big Conversation"?

Anyone less remember THAT?

I'd suggest you are showing your concern at the wrong level, here. In the context of the modern political process Brown, Milburn and Clarke are not doing anything that can be criticised. They are behaving in the only way that allows them to rise to the top, and that is to accept that ideology, the substance of politics, no longer has any part to play in political debate. That is not to say that they have no principles, only that it is political suicide to disclose what they are.

What we have is "display" politics, where what is being promoted is a dishonest image of quality. We are asked to believe that the best substance is automatically contained within the best window-dressing, and it's a testament to the power of commercial advertising that so many people today actually believe this to be true.

Not, in my view, the direction in which politics should be going.

Two things.

First - you picked the wrong title for this entry. "Waiting for Gordo" would have made a nice pun!

Second - the real question here is "Why are senior Labour people so spineless?". Like Godot (or McCavity) when the excrement hits the fan, Gordon's nowhere to be seen. Clarke et al have this "roundabout" way of saying "we don't want Gordon but want to say that".

Have none of these people the courage of their own convictions?

Spineless - the whole darned bunch of them. I'm looking forward to casting my vote in May's elections and it won't be for Labour!

Gordon Brown must be absolutely furious with Tony Blair for announcing that he's be standing down. If he hadn't done that, Brown would have been able to gather his pack of wolves, savage his next door neighbour and force him out (like the Conservatives did with poor old Maggie). Instead he has to sit on the side and wait his turn - after all, Tony has said he is on his last 10p and his lives are running out. Gordon would been deemed to be a bully if he made a push - and Tony, of course, knows it. Hence the constant grin.

And it makes me laugh as well...

Once again we get the ±«Óãtv Political Editor 'saying' what the Anyone but Gordon camp want to 'hear'

Was this a quid pro quo for his exclusive interview with Blair last week ?

Nick, I'm not at all sure that this has not been a strategy all along - because as you rightly point out, policy seems to be 'on hold' at the moment. The only exceptions seem to be of the 'knee-jerk' 'Ban It; Tax It; or Tax It More' variety. No, I think that the 'Of course Gordon will take over' public statements from No 10 disguise a more devious plan, with the intention of giving the impression of dynamic activity in the upper echelons of government. Do you really think John Prescott has been sitting in a corner minding his own business..? Watch out for a flurry of activity any time soon..

Debate or not, until we have a more representative democratic system, minority governments will be able to get away with pursuing self interest at our expense, just as New Labour ("Labor?") has done under Blair.

Miliband standing would be no real contest - Brown gains by having an election he can win easily, and Miliband gains by raising his profile in the hope of building up a bit of "gravitass" which he currently sorely lacks. The losers? The Labour party and the country, who end up getting Brown as their leader on a shoo-in, with little substantial debate or choice.

Miliband is currently being talked up by the Labour leadership but in reality he may be smart and young but he is inexperienced and has none of the charm which Cameron displays in abundance. He should seriously question whether it's a good idea to be lining himself up for the William Hague/rebuilding role which he would inherit as new leader after Brown loses the 2009 election.

As a Labour Party member I would like to see a proper contest and debate BUT unless someone other than Gordon is nominated there can't be an election.

Din't the same apply when Michael Howard became Tory leader - he was the only nominee so no election.

For there to be a proper debate there needs to be a 'big hitter'. I'm afraid that Michael Meacher, for all his admirable qualities, is not in this league.

So, after President Tony, we will have King Gordon. Surely to goodness the Labour Party - for all its faults - cannot be so spineless as to allow succession with no contest ?
Perhaps the Labour MPs are all so brainwashed by their own spin that they think they are not allowed to have a say.

Whatever happened to "The Big Conversation"?

Anyone less remember THAT?

Everybody is afraid of putting themself forward for a contest they know they will lose because by doing so they would be unlikely to retain a cabinet post and hence lose their high salary.
Sad but probably true of the 'New Labour' me, me, me politicians. Whatever happened to MPs who would stand up for their own principals like Tony Benn and Margaret Thatcher? You don't have to like them but you must admire the fact that they had beliefs and were prepared to fight for them.

Re comment 5, do you live in this country? "It has been the best 10 years of this country", I think not, council tax up, national insurance up, any other tax up, social services declining or near to bankruptcy. Brown is keeping quite because he does not want to let his cat out the bag until its too late, then we are stuck with him for a few years. All I have to say is that if you think its bad now (which it is) just give it a while under Brown, we will all be asking for Blair back.

The debate in the Labour Party has already begun. With the growth of Compass and the candidacies of Meacher and McDonnell for the leadership, the party as a whole has long been discussing the future.

It is time that the Blair/Brown New Labour sections of the PLP caught up to the rest of the party.

Just out of interest does anyone else agree that clarke would be in a very strong position if he hadn't messed up so badly in the homeoffice i think it would have been a brilliant two horse race with two of the cleverest and refreshingly less obsessed with image politicians.

New Labour needs a miracle not a leadership contest. All a leadership contest will do is to highlight how shallow the party is. I cannot think of one aspect of British life that has improved under Blair. I can think of many key aspects which are worse.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'original and thought-provoking ideas', Nick. I've heard very few. I've heard a LOT of Blairite policy invention (prison ships instead of prisons; extending bribes for home return for failed asylum seekers etc.) but little that could provoke a thought for more than 2 seconds.

I'm concerned that all political debate in Britain has become a policy innovation race. The assumption is that policy has to be spankingly novel and shiny - and that the competition is around novelty, not utility.

Mr Brown is, you'll remember, a fan of policy novelty (many examples of which, such as ILRs, University for Industry, eUUK...the list goes on quite a long way....have failed comprehensively) and he remains wedded to the 'novelty over utility' School of thought.

If it seeks to retain power Labour needs to bite the bullet on competence. It should stop striving for the new, the flashy announcement, the 'innovative' and settle instead for what actually works - and apply it successfully. As Mr Blair once said, on return to power for the third time, the focus must be on delivery. That focus is fast drifting away in a blizzard of bad news about prison absconding, overcrowding, e-passport failures and the like. It's time for the policy innovation to stop - and for efficient, effective and purposeful government to take over - if Mr Brown wants to retain power beyond the next election.

That should be what Messrs. Clarke and Milburn say to him.

[Oh, and on the idea of David Miliband for PM, does my Prime Minister have to look like a twelve year-old?]

The problem Labour has now is defining their core vote. In 97 everyone from the left who supported them through the previous 20 years or so, accepted that in order to achieve power unpalatable policies and decisions had to be made. They had been too long in opposition that an almost unconditional acceptance of Labour adopting tory policies was approved. Look at the 97 manifesto: there's either little substance in it, or it stresses the need not to rock the boat once in power. It certainly wasn’t radical, so for anyone to suggest that a Labour victory held out the 'hope' for a nation after years of the Tories, is simply naive. What has happened however, is within the Labour heartlands support has literally dried up. In my city - Sheffield has seen Labour party ward meeting failing to achieve a quorum due to the lack of members and/or interest. Prescott’s vision of membership of one million never materialised and its down to half that of 97. In essence anyone under 40 does not hold any allegiance to the Labour party, as it does not represent anyone. One could say the same about the Tory’s new direction, but the fundamental thing about UK politics, is the right have always been loyal. Like the republicans in the USA, they remain confident that the party who protect their own self interest, whatever ‘social’ spin the leadership put on the public face. And like the democrats in the US, the Labour vote is essentially unreliable, lazy, complacent and disloyal, and will ultimately leave the labour party impotent and out of power.

Yes, of course we need a leadership contest. An automatic succession smacks of dictatorship. I would go as far as saying that if a Prime Minister steps down, there should be a general election, as the whole structure/direction of the encumbent majority party will change.

The idea of the coronation of 'King' Gordon is, frankly, horrific - but the names of those into the hat so far ans less than appealing (can anyone imagine the horrors that might be inflicted by Michael Meacher PM?).

This debate is therefore welcome - but the big hitters are going to have put themselves forward if it is actually going to mean anything.

Should Brown stand virtually unopposed by a serious contenders then he must call an general election - to let the public have their say.

Strange that the people who want a contest are from the same ideological wing of the party as Gordon Brown. Perhaps they have a personal axe to grind?

Or perhaps they'd like to support John McDonnell?

Milliband has already ruled out standing as he knows he would lose. I guess this is why Clarke and Millburn aren't standing either!

Either way, the sooner the "smooth transition" is over, the sooner Nick can think about covering policy, rather than personal vendettas which don't affect licence-payers one jot.

What the Labour party fail to appreciate is that gratitude for three election victories should not have been allowed to become fear of ousting a leader who has done nothing for the country since the 2005 election.

Blair has been allowed to cling on to power. Had he not announced his intention not to seek a fourth term, and had he resigned, say, a year after the 2005 election win, the Labour Party could have been reinvigorated with four years to an election, and allowed Brown the chance to stunt Cameron before he built the momentum.

A policy debate or leadership contest will not renew Labour - because the time to convince voters that Labour had the appetite to renew itself and catch its second wind has passed. The electorate tend to vote with their gut and at the moment Cameron's reinvigorated Conservatives seem the only fresh thing on the table.

10 years for Blair is a milestone. But for the voters, 10 years has become a symbol: a decade of power and nothing to show for it except the NHS in debt, gun crime rampant, less social cohesion than ever before and, of course, Iraq. What may be a milestone for Blair will be a albatross around Brown's neck.

What the Labour party fail to appreciate is that gratitude for three election victories should not have been allowed to become fear of ousting a leader who has done nothing for the country since the 2005 election.

Blair has been allowed to cling on to power. Had he not announced his intention not to seek a fourth term, and had he resigned, say, a year after the 2005 election win, the Labour Party could have been reinvigorated with four years to an election, and allowed Brown the chance to stunt Cameron before he built the momentum.

A policy debate or leadership contest will not renew Labour - because the time to convince voters that Labour had the appetite to renew itself and catch its second wind has passed. The electorate tend to vote with their gut and at the moment Cameron's reinvigorated Conservatives seem the only fresh thing on the table.

10 years for Blair is a milestone. But for the voters, 10 years has become a symbol: a decade of power and nothing to show for it except the NHS in debt, gun crime rampant, less social cohesion than ever before and, of course, Iraq. What may be a milestone for Blair will be a albatross around Brown's neck.

Asking for policy from Gordon Brown is unneccessary and like asking "who won Big Brother? "

Everyone knows th answer already.

It's spnd lots of money, fail, re-organise so we can claim efficiency savings, then 2 years later when the trumpted savings have not occurred we hope evryone forgets the original issues.

Reorganise the NHS every two years...and throw money at it.

That's the policy. Judging by the electorate's reaction, most of them have been deceived enough to accpet it. It takes a war where spin can't hide unfortunate facts like deaths to put it all in black and white.

Policy is : no change. More spin.

This has to be just about the funniest thing I've read on ±«Óãtv, a public debate on the internet about where a major political party should go next by the party itself, especially one that's been in power for ten years. Hogwash, what's needed is a war, a war of ideas, of positions, and of directions. A war between different potential leaders and leaderships. Speaking of ships, the Labour party and British politics in general seems right now like a ship without a rudder drifting aimlessly. Remind you of anything? The Democrats in America don't have a clue about what they want to do as long as they beat the Republicans. They've got Congress by a hairline margin after the midterm elections, a referendum on the war in Iraq, now they want the Presidency and will do anything they have to to get it...except agree on a policy or a candidate. Anyone remember that famous quote I think by the first President Bush "It's the vision thing?" Is there no leadership, are there no leaders? Britain seems to me to have a culture which dislikes leaders, it's more a nation of muddlers just as Japan is a nation of committees. Britain only resigns itself to a leader when it must have one like Churchill, Thatcher, or Blair. When the immediate crisis is over, it throws them out like so much garbage at the first opportunity and goes back to its usual ways. All of the likely prospects for PM in all three parties look like muddlers to me.

I've often wondered why British politics is so gray and boring especially when compared to American politics which seems like a roller coaster ride with a thrill a minute. Then it hit me, most British politicians are dead. Poor John Major, they forgot to bury him which was his main qualification for holding office and becoming PM. I don't think you'll ever see anything in British politics like the way Howard Dean threw the Democratic nomination for president away in one memorable moment of public insanity or a Gary Hart who told the press to watch what he did and then had an extramarital affair right under their noses. Nor will you see anything like the American political conventions. I've never seen anyone happier at doing a job than ±«Óãtv's Katty Kay reporting the 2004 American conventions. To bad she wasn't around when we had some really exciting ones like the 1964 Republican Convention where liberal Nelson Rockerfeller one of the richest men in America went to war against ultraconservative Barry Goldwater and lost. Goldwater's campaign against Johnson was one to remember also. It featured the famous TV ad with the little girl picking daisies in a field, a countdown to zero, followed by a nuclear explosion, an allusion to Goldwater as a war mongering maniac who'd start World War III. And who could forget the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago where Mayor Daley, his henchmen inside the convention hall, and his police department outside went to war against thousands of Vietnam war protestors in the streets. Who among those who saw it on TV could forget the street fighting with the police wielding their batons and tear gas, the protestors throwing bags of urine at them or that one memorable moment when Mayor Daley drew his index finger across his throat singaling the convention managers to cut off a speech by someone accusing the Presidential candidate Senator Humphrey over the war. Those images may be the reason Richard Nixon was elected, just as the image of Elian Gonzalez being forcibly taken by an armed menacing American soldier from one of his relatives in Florida cost Al Gore the 2000 Pesidential election. Kay would have been in her element. By comparison, British politics is as drab and gray as a November day in London. A debate on the internet over the direction of the Labour party? We all might just as well go back to sleep.

Fair play to both Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn, I think this is a excellent idea it seems that Gordon Brown is unwilling to lead the policy debate in the Labour party so somebody has to. The Financial Time's had a interesting article saying that the Prime Minister had told the Chancellor not to refrain from the policy issues facing Labour on his account.

'Blair tells Brown he can speak out on policy':

Traditionally Brown and his supporters hide behind the fact that he is not PM so as not to answer policy questions outside the Treasury brief. Notice we have idea what Brown's views are on NHS reform, or Lords reform, or Law & Order etc. The fact is Brown is a rather cowardly figure who is reluctant to go on shows such as Question Time or give long interviews to Paxman on Newsnight. What's stopping the Chancellor from setting his vision out for Labour and the country? The only counter argument is the so-called 100 days that Brown has planned which seems a rather weak argument because there is no way that they will live upto expectation.

I've taken the trouble to read some of Charles Clarke's speeches and I have to agree with Nick Robinson's they are thought provoking. His recent speech to the LSE on economic/tax policy made the case for hypothecation of taxes and charging.

ECONOMIC POLICY AND TAXATION AFTER BLAIR

What exactly have we heard from Brown? We seem to get the same speech on Britishness rehashed every few months. The Deputy Leadership contest is pretty laughable.

Let's hope there is a serious challenger to Brown, whether it is Miliband, Clarke, Reid or Milburn. But there is no point any of them declaring this week or next as we all know how the Brown propaganda machine works. Far better for them wait for the opinion polls to continue to get worse for Brown, the media to build up a head of steam for a contest and then declare when Blair resigns as the so-called 'saviour of the party/country'.

I have to say as a Scotsman living in England that I am rather tired of this whole "But Brown is Scottish" nonsense. It should be absolutely irrelevant. He's British. Get over it. As it happens, I think he has absolutely no policy other than tax, fine, abolish and spend. And curiously enough Tony Blair was actually born in Edinburgh so we've had a Scottish Prime Minister for almost 10 years now!

I believe Messrs Milburn and Clarke are absolutely correct to instigate serious discussion on the future path of New Labour politics. Over the past few years, there has been a torrent of new legislation much of which, although well intended, has either backfired through poor draughting or has hit unforeseen problems through lack of foresight and experience. The lessons need to be learned that wise governance comes from experience and not youthful exuberance. There also appears to be a growing grass-root backlash against interventionist legislation such as the current proposals for ID cards and personal medical information whizzing around unspecified quarters of government departments. These topics should have been debated at length before any statements of intent were voiced as it clearly effects everyone's privacy yet no convincing argument has been put forward so far that justifies the effectiveness of the proposals nor the cost to the exchequer(the tax payer).

They don't need a contest to get new ideas - they need a spell in opposition.

Too much sleaze - even a Majoresque surprise win would be a disaster, barring their way to government for 3-4 terms thereafter.

I am currently reading Gordon Brown by Tom Bower published by Harper Perennial. If a fraction of what has been written in this book can be attributed to the real Gordon Brown then labour MPs should be seriously looking for someone other than Mr Brown to take over from Mr Blair. I "left" Britain two years ago, nowhere is perfect but really the mind boggles at where politicians are taking the UK..I get the impression Mr Brown is well out of his depth in such a responsible job.

Keith:

How can a Scottish MP become 'first among equals' when due to the West Lothian question they are more equal than all the others?

I suggest a new policy which would many frineds.

No new laws until all old ones are fully implemented with a 90% conviction rate.

I would remind readers that conviction rates for burglary are currently under 40% (30%?).

So instead of inventing new illegailties, lets prosecute those who break current laws.

Current spate of legalese is bringing the law and the Westminster lawyers into greater disrepute .

No more "HEROES" anymore,what ever happened to the 35 hour week,what ever happened to the right of dignity in retirement,what ever happened to the reason, that those who have least are those who need most,"THE POLITICAL FIELD IS BARE AND THERE ARE NO CHAMPIONS TO BELIEVE IN" Clarke,Milburn,Milliband,Ried,engage this quote,"if you add it all up the last ten years have been drenched in fear and constant fear has ripped the heart out of the politics of hope;dont be the victim of fear, inspire,enlighten and give us hope and most of all except new labour has been a disaster for the social movement of togetherness.

The real reason for all this is that everyone is afraid of the vindictiveness Brown is likely to show when PM to anyone who has criticised him. Milliband et. al. want to be senior cabinet ministers under Brown so will not do anything to enrage the elephant. Instead they will talk in Nu-Labour code and get others to do their dirty work.

The more interesting question to ask is why Brown hasn't stood up and said......."bring 'em on!" It is in his longer term interest to encourage a contest that (were it to happen) he must surely be very confident of winning. A coronation will provide no mandate to govern.
The whole situation is bemusing to the outside observer.

With a bit of luck this will have the rather obviously intended effect of drawing Brown into a debate about policy, whether he likes it or not. It does seem arogantly out of touch to assume that the leadership is his to have before he even declares what he will do with it, just as it was of Blair to assume that he could hand it on without a fight. If Brown does not wake up he will go the way of Major and the British voters will make it very clear what they think of such undemocratic processes.

Being as it were politically neutral, the only thing in this debate that sticks out a country mile is the issue of sour grapes. In the not so distant past, both Milburn and Clarke have in one way or another been dumped by their own party. This is their way of stoking up the fire. IMHO both of them should look in the mirror first, then ask themselves what they see. J.B.

Is not the name "2020 vision" just a cheap dig at Gordon Brown's sight impairment?

I like many other ordinary people like me can give them some advice. Stop running an economy based only on private debt and speculation in the housing market. Private debt and loss of real jobs are going to be the biggest challenges in the short, medium and long term. Headlines like 'two out of five children in Britain live in Toverty' or 'thousands of British families have social benefits as their main source of income'. The country is crying out loud for good governance and all they get is higher taxes, higher fares and higher bills.

It is very likley that Alan Milburn and Charles Clark would prefer to see Gordon Brown not passed the battern from Tony Blair without making sure that those with slightest ambition to be PM are given a chance now than later.