I note that despite the high profile nature of the subject of the Labour Party's new leader, none of us have been keen to start a discussion about it.

What are your views?

I can't help admitting that I'm a little disppointed.

I feel that David would have been a more inspiring leader than Ed, and in addition, I am disappointed that the MP's, MEP's and Party members didn't get who they chose.

I respect the reasons for Labours association with the unions, but in this instance it seems that it has backfired.

Then I think to myself - perhaps it is good that the Unions were there to ensure a victory of substance over style ...

Would David have been a continuation of the blair years - and his mistakes?

Does Ed have enough experience - should his more seasoned brother have had his knowledge of government and foreign affairs recognized?



My gut fears that David would have had a better chance of winning the next election ...


What say you folks?