I understand that point but I do think it's an issue to some, obviously not to everyone but still quite a large number of people.



It's not the best that I can come up with.  It might be worse but voters elect parties not the other way around.  So if a voter perceives someone to be a public school educated career politician and they have an aversion to that class of politician, then that's a disadvantage.



I think having leader after leader after leader pooled from a narrow social band is bad.  Others don't and I understand why they don't but I think Britain is a quite a class conscious country. Sometimes people have to walk in those shoes to really know what it's like to be in those shoes.  If parliament is full of people who've done nothing other than followed a sure thing career into politics then voters (particularly Labour voters) may ask where those people's true principles lie - if they really have any.

That's the problem with Dianne Abbot. She's not genuine and I don't like the way she tries to talk down to people on 'This Week' as if she's the only person who knows what's what. I also can't stand the way she closes her eyes when she makes one of her 'oh so important' points.

I would tend to agree with that but ................who to vote for? Still undecided TBH.

John Mcdonnell.........never wavered 

Mt problem is that I don't know him at all.

They all appear to be distancing themselves from the 'Iraq' issue *slurps coffee*

Yes they are.  The problem for most of them (Milbands, Balls) is that they all voted for it and would still be voting for it if Labour had won the election.

Out of that bunch? John Mac. However I think that in the Labour party we have more fundamental issues than the next leader. A root and branch change in philosophy is  required. At the moment the Tories appear more radical than our good selves however we need to offer the GBP something more than unfettered GBP (see what I did there?)  I would  rather they spent a long time without power than try to ape the other side. It didn't do Blair and Brown any good in the long run, did it?

I am not sure yet Diane Abbott has not got leadership qualities IMO I never know what to make of her TBH..

Yep. At least Ed Miliband has the excuse of not being an MP during the start of it. It's not looking good for Blair's reputation (and Brown to an extent) as the saviour of the Western World.

It doesn't seem to have done the Tories any harm. They supported it too.

What else could they do GJ? They were all presented with the same information....

That's a poor back-pedaling argument on their part. We also received the same information and we knew it was all spurious bolleaux did we not?

Well I did...but for a while I thought I was alone 

Indeed they did, more so than Labour, but in mind of public opinion it's Labour's that 'took us in' and it's Labour's Tony Blair and Gordon Brown 'who lied about WMDs'.  It's also Labour who voted against an inquiry into the war.  By not being the government of the day, the Tories are partially absolved and can use the excuse that Tony Blair lied to them. 



I'd also imagine that the Iraq war would go down better with an average Tory voter than it would with the average Labour voter.

Hold on! In mind of public opinion....that's what happened....just coz you may be second guessing the view of the Opposition (at the time) doesn't negate the fact that it was a LABOUR government that took us in to that conflict.