If there's one argument that's tired and worn-out it's the commonly wheeled-out view in this site that a.) going in the McDonnell policy direction will save us b.) going back to the Blairite policy direction will save us.

The sum of all changes in voter choice in limited local government elections, plus a much closer run thing in London, is clearly a swing from Labour to the Tories. But this simple sum hides a multitude of calculations.

According to the Guardian, policy documents are winging their way to CLPs and union branches immediately after the elections, and we will be given full opportunities to submit as many amendments as we wish.  I'm not 100% sure what happens then (NPF members care to enlighten us?) but it sounds like a positive step.

On the eve of the launch of the London Mayoral campaign this might not be seen by the powers that be as the most appropriate time for a spot of navel gazing. Having blogged vigorously for a general secretary majoring in financial planning skills and an eye on rebuilding membership, there is no better moment than now to highlight the harsh realities. After all if it took ten years from 1987 to 1997 to put on between 125,000 and 150,000 members; how long is it going to take just to put on the 200,000 plus we have lost since regaining power?

<h1 class="heading">Brown backs Cruddas revolution of Labour party From the 'Times' today.
</h1>

The party cannot stand divided against itself. Only our opponents gain from the dismaying spectacle of a Labour Party dominated by briefing, counter-briefing and darkly looking in on itself.