anti the Iraq war; anti Bush; sensible, down to earth, not flashy and made more sense in 2 minutes than Blair and Brown have made in 2 years.
Come on Labour - do the unthinkable!

Didn't see the piece but I do take issue with Blair "giving" the premiership to Brown anyway. Firstly, it isn't is to give. Secondly, doesn't the Labour party have a long tradition of democracy? There MUST be a contest, surely?
However I am somewhat miffed that a mole leaked the plans for Blair's Grand Exit Tour to the Mirror. What fun we could have all had watching this hilarious spectacle unfold. What was it? "Always leave them wanting more..." You really couldn't make this up.

From what I understand, he has alot of Union support - and the Unions are utterly fed-up with the smoke and mirrors of "new Labour" (hence the comment by Blair yesterday that the next TUC Conference will be his last - but that he didn't they would lose any sleep over that !)

Own Up - had anyone actually ever heard of David Cameron before the recent Tory leadership election?

confused wrote:
There MUST be a contest, surely?

One reason for the sudden pre-conference fracas is that the rules do involve conference. But it works like this... If there's a vacancy between conferences, the NEC can appoint a successor supported by (I think) 44 MPs. This caretaker must then be endorsed by the next conf.

That's roughly how it works. Otherwise, there can be a contest and there are different rules for that.

Of course, the other big factor in the Blair camp is that MPs who are firmly wedged in that particular crevice can see their reign drawing to a close. I don't think a Brown Cabinet would have much use for the vacuous spinsters. Hence the anti-Brown briefing by Big Ears.

There are some grounds to fear of a Major-style Regime Change too. He was the candidate nobody hated, but without a real power base to control the waring factions. It might turn out to be an impossible handover.

Oooppss should have posted in the William Hague thread