If you, as you seem to imply, you believe that the current unpopularity of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party is merely the result of his unpopularity within media circles, you are painfully out of touch. The electorate is leading the media, not the other way around.

It wasn't the media that invented the idea of an Autumn election - it was the likes of Dougie Alexander and his mates whispering to the lobby correspondents.

It is unwise to belittle those that "have never won an election in their lives" when one is praising Gordon Brown. He has consistently chickened out of elections, whether general elections or for Labour leader.

Let's put Gordon Brown's elections up against David Boycott's, Martin Kettle's, Polly Toynbee's, Iain Dale's and Fraser Nelson's combined and see who has fought more, or who has chickened out of doing so but thinks they know best.

How do you know the public were calling for an early General Election in the Autumn of 2007, other than being told so by these half-wits? How do you know Alexander was briefing other than what you read from the chatterati?

Try thinking for yourself a bit David, it's quite liberating.

Thank you! You have written what I have been thinking, but in a wittier and more articulate way than I would have managed.
The increasing hysteria of the pundits, commentators, Tory bloggers and the chattering classes has been fun to watch this week. So much puffed up self importance, so much hot air and drivel.
And still they were wrong. No wonder they're so annoyed with Gordon Brown. Ah! But of course. The backbenchers are just waiting until the results of the European elections. Then they'll move.
Or after the bye election. Or at the party conference. Or at Christmas. Or next June.
But they will. Because the pundits, commentators, Tory bloggers and the chattering classes say so!
Sigh.

With respect Mr. Piper Labour is not unpopular because Gordon Brown did not follow the media narrative.

Gordon Brown is personally unpopular because he lies ("I would not have called an election even if I would have won a 100-seat majority", "I never intended to sack Alastair Darling") and he makes constantly bad decisions and appears to be out for himself and not the country. He is embarrasing in the media (the "Lapdog" to Obama earlier this year, and the "If the Queen wants to go to the D-Day Memorial they have to get in touch with me - followed by Obama trying his best to get her there!).

Labour is deeply unpopular for various reasons:

1. 12 years of Government
2. 10p tax, which was deeply deeply unpopular and your leader refused to acknowledge for months.
3. Iraq war. Wasting the lives of brave brave servicement for a lie.
4. MPs Expenses - David Cameron has at least taken a lead, admitted mistakes and done something about it. The Labour Party dithered and have people like Alastair Darling in post despite his dodgine of Cap. Gains Tax and flipping of homes.
5. ECONOMY. Yes it is a world disaster. But it is SO much worse here because of the decisions made by Gordon Brown and Labour over the last 12 years. We had massive deficits when the economy was growing which is crazy. That is Labours biggest crime.
6. Lack of policy direction - all Labour is seemingly interested in is civil liberties taking through more and more security and blustering about parliamentary reform when actually achieving nothing.

The fact that Labour is unpopular and is getting destroyed in the elections is because you are split, you are governing in the interests of the Labour Party and not the country and people want a change.

I didn't suggest the public were calling for an election in Autum 2007.

"How do you know Alexander was briefing other than what you read from the chatterati?"

Er, because Gordon's mates subsequently blamed him for the story...

So, either Gordon is surrounded by liars or it was Alexander that was pushing the idea of an Autumn election.

Can't believe you wrote this article.

So let the media control our democracy? Time for a mediacracy? Let Rupert Murdoch control the policies?

jethro, you are in danger of being even less able to understand irony than Davy Boycott.

Talking of whom....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6974814.stm

There’s a ray of sunshine in the gloom this weekend. Polly Toynbee is predicting a near-Labourless landscape with MPs facing liquidation.

Judging by the accuracy of her political predictions and the wisdom of her advice over the decades, we should be in for a landslide next year!

She, along with most chattering, blogging & media folk, seem to have overlooked that the previous couple of times most of the seats lost on Thursday were contested coincided with general elections with turnouts around double this week’s. So these dismal results tell us the square root of diddly squat about what might occur at a general election.

I for one wanted a General Election in October 2007, not because the media told me I did but for three ditinct reasons:
1. I felt distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of having an unelected Labour Prime Minister. It's the sort of thing I expect from the Tories but not from the party of the people. (Not so bad with Callaghan because Wilson was physically incapable of carrying on).
2. I thought he would win and keep the Tories and that empty shirt who leads them out for another 4/5 years.
3. I didn't realise that despite being a decent, honest bloke with his heart in the right place, Brown has all the decisiveness of a dead sheep. (copyright D. Healey)

By hanging on and leading Labour to inevitable electoral slaughter in May, Brown is condemning us over 60s to having to live the rest of our lives under a Tory Government.

Apart from the words "dead" and "sheep" Mick, your reference to Healey's quote is irrelevant because Healey wasn't referring to decisiveness.

Also, comrade, you have never elected the Prime Minister. You may have had a vote for the Leader of the Labour Party (if you are a member or part of an affiliated organisation) but that would depend on there being an election for that position. Theoretically, Tony Blair could have been subjected to an election under the Party rules if he had been challenged. That would have made anyone who successfully stood against him the Prime Minister. That's the way it works. If we get rid of HRH and have a President, then you might have a chance to vote directly for the President, until then, the Leader of the Party that can command a majority in the House of Commons is that person. I never squealed when Major became PM... they were the rules, that was the precedent, and he was entitled to do the job.

Finally, whether you believed the cobblers the journalists wrote, doesn't actually mean it was true. For instance, if they told you Miliband was plotting against Brown, despite the fact Miliband said he wasn't, it doesn't become true just because you fell for what they wrote or because you want it to be true.

Bob, a very amusing article, but you are quite wrong.

According to Politicalbetting.com the Polls indicate that whilst Labour is unpopular with voters, it is Brown in particular that they really dislike/distrust. Labour's popularity would indeed improve if he were to be defenestrated

Mazza, that may or may not be true, but Political Betting has used the polls over the last couple of years to tell us the Lib Dems are sunk... and that the Lib Dems are poised to become the majority opposition. Take with pinch of salt.

The reality is that when there was an opportunity for candidates to put their name forward, not a single one of those now being touted by the media as the messiah, did so.

Even with Labour at its lowest point the figures from Thursday... actual votes, not polling organisations, show that after three and a half years the Tories would only just form a Government.

I suppose the only real way to find out one way or the other is to call a General Election.

And no doubt we will, when we think the time is right and suits us the best. That's the way it works Mazza.... unless you are David Cameron, who wants fixed term elections, but then demands one all the while.

Bob,

I know exactly how the constitution works, thanks all the same, but you seem to be missing the point, (deliberately?).

If it doesn't matter who the Labour leader is because it's the Labour Party that we vote for, then why force Blair out only to replace him with someone who agreed with him on all major policy issues, such as the Iraq war?

Ok, so DH wasn't on about decisiveness, so I'll do it in my own words. Gordon Brown does not recognise when the public (as opposed to the media) are gripped by an issue and need him to make a crucial intervention. Blair did.

But all that's irrelevant now.

The point is that there is no way that Brown can win the next General Election, thus condemning all the old, sick and poor to endure at least two terms of Tory rule. If (and it's a big if), the Labour Party can find somebody to lead them who is fresh, dynamic and ready to sweep away some of the authoritarian legislation of the last two years, then there is a chance, just a chance of winning the election, or at least getting a hung parliament and saving us from Cameron.

It still might not work but are you really prepared to sacrifice the weak in society on the altar of your otherwise admirable loyalty to Brown when he has absolutely no chance of saving them?

And if you honestly think that the present problems that Labour has are just whipped up by the media, then you have seriously lost the plot.

Best Regards

Mick

P.S. I honestly have no idea what your Milliband reference was about. Personally, I prefer the old imperial politicians like Foot to these knew Metric ones.

Perhaps you should also blame another of your fellow MP's Paul Flynn who has this to say The likely outcome is that a delusion of optimism will rule. That's how Michael Foot avoided being replaced by Dennis Healey in 1983. Although all rational evidence is that Labour is heading towards an electoral abyss, manic optimism will persuade some that a bridge across it will magically appear. In its fragile mental state the PLP will seize a comforting delusions and the Labour sect may opt to advance towards political suicide.
That’s the way it’s going.
It's you who needs to get real and see what is happening.

David Miliband's not entirely southern - he went to the same junior school as me in Leeds.

...and he is a season ticket at the Emirates Stadium.

I have wanted to say something for a while, but just did not have the words.

But our man on planet earth http://ourmanonplanetearth.com/

"If UK politics is broken and people want change then who do we trust to lead us?

The papers with their deals (and here ), their hypocrisy and their dubious owners?

If we’re taking sides, while not disputing the importance of any of the expenses reporting, does their ability to publicise this situation make the media the right people to guide our next steps?

If we’re talking social media power do blogs only become relevant when main stream media recognises them? In which case how do we ensure that they filter them as we would?

How do we know that our user generated content is not being, well, used?

As for traditional media, ask yourselves why there are no Reuters stories, ever, about Bilderberg? It’s frightening and when it comes to keeping rich people in-check, so far the papers haven’t shown much interest. Even less when the finger is pointing at them.

Without wanting to get too far into David Icke territory – there is always the question, just whose bidding are the papers doing?

So what of social media? Can social media ever have a lobbying presence strong enough to ensure newspapers reflect the needs and wants of the population rather than imposing their own agendas?

Is this just the point where we pull back the curtain and see how the machine works? Perhaps everything didn’t just get worse – it got better. At least now we know the size of the problem.

The media IS democracy for good or bad. They are arguably a more important cog than the politicians themselves. Ideas are filtered to appease the media. The media then sells the ideas to us. It’s a system that is now creaking badly.

Because, if it’s as bad right now as we are told it is, then who let it get this bad? While the media has been collectively whinging about dole scroungers and migrants the mega rich and the mega powerful have been making merry unchecked.

Wasn’t someone supposed to keep an eye on these people? Just how much privilege can you buy?

We have to hope that the number of people with democratic power, beyond simply voting based on skewed information, grows exponentially.

What is for sure, is that we are closer to “revolution”, whatever that might look like, than in any point during my life time.

It won’t take blood and it probably doesn’t even require taking to the streets.

It just needs us to take back democratic power – not from the politicians but from the media.

No one voted for the media."

SAID IT ALL FOR ME.

and I have never voted for the media either.

Yes, Mrs K, top man is ourman.

Blimey Bob, you don't half pull 'em in :)

OK, you were the Prime Minister, and you made the decisions about a reshuffle, and you hadn't actually told them what your intentions were... but this is their area of expertise.

I think the problem was that he (or rather his advisors) had told them all what his intentions were. You presumably didn't hear the gasps that greeted his assertion that he had never considered removing Darling from no 11?

And did a single one of them come up with a single source? Of course they didn't. So what does that tell me? That they are either too spineless... or they are making it up.

I suppose you believe in brave journalists, in true Watergate fashion, protecting their sources? If you do, I repeat the question I asked before... what colour is the sky on fantasy island? God, you're sooooo gullible.

Um... it tells me that lobby journalists and the various parties use unattributable briefings. This is news?

It's neither news... nor evidence!

It's something that allows journalists to lie to fools who believe they are on the inside track.