A more serious point about this coverage is the fact that David Cameron has been disengenuous about his public posturing. Yes we perhaps know this but not enough has been done to expose this position.

It is great politics to shield your own vulnerability by expousing a leader above the fray posture, but vulnerability to the charge of the same old greedy tories is still the truth. That is not to repudiate, that Labour and other parties have not had their equal share of this, but the opportuntiy to attack the disengenuousness in the DC brand should still be in the offing.

What Labour in power must sort is the ambiguity and inconsistency that they have applied to particular cases,where the policy is principled set on addressing all wrong doing wherever it comes. The difference in treatment with backbenchers and government ministers is a case in point. That is the work we have not done which we cannot blame anybody else for. It is within our gift to do this and the prize is in exposing DC and his media gift for charm smokescreen, which so far is working out their in the voting public.

Initiative. Communication. Initiative.

Policy makers and handlers on the left should focus on these concepts now.

How about my usage of terms such as “right” and “left” in a political context. You say that I’ve dug up the myth about New Labour being right wing. Your definition of right wing is that it should “constitute a significantly different stance or ideology that results in a divide between one view and another.”

Evidently you are unfamiliar with very basic labour history. Within Labour there are multiple stances and ideologies, some of which are irrevocably opposed to one another. The impulse of many members is towards anti-capitalism, wealth redistribution and grassroots democracy. There is another tradition opposed to these things.

This second tradition is more “right wing” than the former. It is so, regardless of where I stand in relation to either or any tradition within the Labour Party. Right wing and Left wing are nothing more than convenient short hand to group together similar ideas; on the one hand, capitalism. On the other hand, anti-capitalism. This is not, after all, the French National Assembly – and even then, there were numerous members who set on the Left, on the Right or in the Centre who disagreed violently with those beside whom they were seated.

This renders your idea of how to distinguish between “Right” and “Left” completely nonsensical – not to mention that you’ve failed to outline what you believe to be the actual political differences one must exhibit in order to qualify for either set.

The remainder of your reply is laughable. The Conservative Party have never shown the desire to be “conservative”? Well, first of all, who are you to decide what “conservative” is or isn’t? Whatever cultural epiphenomena surrounds the Tories, their prime objective has always been the security of the marketplace from the demands of the people whose work sustains it.

From Peel to Cameron, despite changes in social and economic context, that is the objective of the Conservative Party and is ultimately the root of conservatism, the now-naked, now-masked class interest which sustains it. There are plenty of smaller things to quibble about – which is why among the Tories of history are to be found not a few radicals, just as in the arms of the Old Liberals are to be found not a few high Tories. New Labour also – just look at how many Tories crossed the floor, and how many New Labourites will cross next parliament.

Moreover, if I take you seriously for a moment (inadvisable, bearing in mind the unmitigated and unsubstantiated guff you talk on your website, particularly about education) your idea that the Conservative Party has no desire to be “conservative” is nothing more than an extremely superficial answer as to why the Tories are just as illiberal as the current New Labour government. Why is this so?

If you are suggesting for a moment that the Conservative Party prefers office to power, thus leading them to sell out their principles, I would say that this is contradictory since it is precisely the purpose of such laws as have been passed to increase the power wielded by the politicians who stand at the top of the State.

The Conservative Party wields even more power than New Labour when in such a position because it more often than not will also enjoy the unqualified support of Capital and the media. None of which is explained away by not only dismissing the Conservative Party as seekers after office, but in establishing an opposition between this quality and the ability to wield power.

In part this convergence has been because the Conservative Party have never had any real desire to be truly conservative, instead favouring the pursuit of office rather than power at all costs. We are seeing exactly the same thing happening to the Conservative Party under the leadership of David Cameron, with significant concessions to the ideological Left on a wide range of policy issues.

Furthermore, I see that you have dug up that rather bizarre (and for some convenient) myth about New Labour being ‘right wing’. Being ‘right wing’ is not simply a matter of a person taking up an ideological or political position to the ‘right’ of one’s own ideological position, but should in fact constitute a significantly different stance or ideology that results in a divide between one view and another. Neither is ‘right wing’ simply a label for everything that is ‘bad’ or perceivably so. I suppose it is arguable that the labels of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ in some respects do not really apply any more.

As for Gordon Brown, I think he deserves no credit at all. He has acted simply because his hand was forced; the dribs and drabs have been coming out now since the deputy leadership campaign. At which point Brown had the opportunity to act and sat on his fat ass.

We’re not monstrous, incompotent perhaps but not monstrous.