³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

As a war pensioner who now speaks out about the continuing uncontrolled immigration into this country, I find I am being targeted as a racist just to shut me up. It would appear that serious political debate about this serious problem is to be shut down by political party hacks. Until now I was always under the impression, especially at the cenotaph, that I fought for Freedom of speach and democracy.
No wonder the BNP is taking Labour votes?

We spend over £90 billion on the NHS, and yet there is a substantial minority of dissatisfied citizens. Can the panel explain why Labour has squandered enormous goodwill and trust of the people it enjoyed in 1997?

New New Labour, according Gordon Brown, wants to regain public trust and involve the public in politics again. Which of the panelists supports removing the ban on protesting within 1 km of Parliament?

The question I want answered is what mandate does Gordon Brown have to dictate policy in England, when his own electorate in Scotland stripped him, and other Scottish MP's, of a mandate to legislate on matters like education, health, transport etc when they placed the mandate with the Scottish Parliament?

But as to these hopeful losers, the only question I would have for them is, what does it feel like being in the largest group in history whose only career ambition is to be a loser and come second?

Over 70% of our new laws originate in EU directives but we rarely hear this. Will you make the involvement of Brussels in our governance more transparent?.

Over 70% of our new laws originate in EU directives but we rarely hear this. Will you make the involvement of Brussels in our governance more transparent?.

I am sick and tired with people complaining that we can't debate immigration when every day newspapers and broadcast media are full of alarmist nonsense about immigration. When are people going to wake up to the fact that the Government are delighted that you are falling for this con - while people blame immigrants they let the Govt off the hook for their multiple failings i.e. failure to build any social housing for 10 years (Prescott's legacy), failure to sort out the financial mess of the NHS (Reid, Hewitt) and billions of tax payers money spent and consultants (Brown is the biggest spender on consultants in the Treasury). If the Govt were serious about illegal immigration they would a) raid known employers who are breaking the law by paying illegal workers below the minimum wage and b) prosecute some employers. To date no employer has been prosecuted despite everyone you meet telling stories about wages being undercut by illegal workers. The Govt are never going to clamp down on illegal working as it does not want to upset the business sector who are making a financial killing and secondly it keeps the trade unions under manners by keeping wages low.

David, London

I am sick and tired with people complaining that we can't debate immigration when every day newspapers and broadcast media are full of alarmist nonsense about immigration. When are people going to wake up to the fact that the Government are delighted that you are falling for this con - while people blame immigrants they let the Govt off the hook for their multiple failings i.e. failure to build any social housing for 10 years (Prescott's legacy), failure to sort out the financial mess of the NHS (Reid, Hewitt) and billions of tax payers money spent and consultants (Brown is the biggest spender on consultants in the Treasury). If the Govt were serious about illegal immigration they would a) raid known employers who are breaking the law by paying illegal workers below the minimum wage and b) prosecute some employers. To date no employer has been prosecuted despite everyone you meet telling stories about wages being undercut by illegal workers. The Govt are never going to clamp down on illegal working as it does not want to upset the business sector who are making a financial killing and secondly it keeps the trade unions under manners by keeping wages low.

David, London

I am sick and tired with people complaining that we can't debate immigration when every day newspapers and broadcast media are full of alarmist nonsense about immigration. When are people going to wake up to the fact that the Government are delighted that you are falling for this con - while people blame immigrants they let the Govt off the hook for their multiple failings i.e. failure to build any social housing for 10 years (Prescott's legacy), failure to sort out the financial mess of the NHS (Reid, Hewitt) and billions of tax payers money spent and consultants (Brown is the biggest spender on consultants in the Treasury). If the Govt were serious about illegal immigration they would a) raid known employers who are breaking the law by paying illegal workers below the minimum wage and b) prosecute some employers. To date no employer has been prosecuted despite everyone you meet telling stories about wages being undercut by illegal workers. The Govt are never going to clamp down on illegal working as it does not want to upset the business sector who are making a financial killing and secondly it keeps the trade unions under manners by keeping wages low.

David, London

All of these candidates and the new prime minister himself are all championing thier new found 'We are listening to you' phrase.

As 2500 post Offices are still to close despite massive public protest Despite continuing with road pricing schemes despite a massive email campaign against them. Despite almost universal public desire for a plan and a timetable to leave Iraq, no such undertaking has been heard.
despite campaigns around the country to save local hospitals many are due for closure...
My question is .. Exactly who is the government listening too?

Too late for any of them, all guilty of lying and cheating and international criminal activity. The only thing I want to see that is about New Labour is their trial for war crimes at the Hague, and their very long jail sentences.

Why is Newsnight giving this contest such major coverage? Its not President of the UK debate? Its an internal matter for the Labour Party and its only for the Deputy Leader. Why? What a waste of time.

Do any of the candidates recognise the lack of national pride amongst the British Public. If so, what do they think is the cause and how would they address this?

I would like to ask the candidates what do they think of labour MPs who choose to send their children to selective schools instead of "bog" standard comprehensives/city academies?

Why does Hazel Blears believe she would make a good deputy Prime Minister when as a cabinet minister she supported closure of maternity units rather than resign and then 'put on' her MP hat and went on the street to protest against those very same closures in her own ward?

Why are they all talking about rebuilding the Party and winning the next election - they are about to be the second most important person running the country for at least the next couple of years. I want to hear how they plan to act now not later.

It was absurd to see them discussing Iraq.

All indications are that Iraq will have a full-scale civil war after the West has withdrawn (which will happen soon). The infiltrated and sectarian Iraqi Police and Army will simply be unable to take on security, and the patience of the people of the USA for improvement in Iraq will have run out by the 2008 Presidential election, where a anti-war President will be elected.

The panel should admit Iraq has been an utter mistake and follow the wishes of the majority of the British people and withdraw.

since i am not a serving labour mp, a paid up member of the labour party or a trade union i will have no say in who is to become the next deputy leader of the labour party. why then does the bbc think i would be interested in a debate between the prospective candidates? Surely it would be better to tell us what they are going to do when he/she is elected and use this time to discuss more pressing news items!

When will the majority of the candidates understand that the Govt policy in Iraq has appalled committed labour voters. Until the Party acknowledges its disgraceful behaviour many voters such as me will never vote Labour. The spin and deceit that characterises the current Labour Govt will not work. Harriett Harman seems repentent. But is she?

All but Jon Cruddas are part of the government cabinet and yet we are seeing senior members attacking their very own government and administration. This tells me that non of these people are fit to govern this country. They are a bunch of back biting vipers in a basket of desperation and it shows!!!

Gordon Brown broke my heart when he abolished without any notice the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Computing Initiative scheme which was designed to increase literacy and promote education in the UK. I Lost my Business, lost my home, suffered the threat of bankcrupty. I still dont trust the labour party and I think all the candidates have rehearsed there soundbites very well. WRT Iraq the general democratic voice was ignored infavour of a united party agenda..All this candidate no something and they are saying nothing..spin..spin..spin i tell you spin.

It was not long ago that they were all singing Blair's praises,they are all more concerned about their jobs now,the only ones who did give the impression that they maybe intested in what is best for this country and its people,one is Harriet Harman the other John Cruddas. The others were
reciting their own CV's

Please ask the candidates "How do you maintain passion in politics with popular pluralism?"

What are all these well-rehearsed cliche-mouthing politicians doing on your show???!!!

I can't believe what I am watching! Peter Hain, Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears all suddenly finding deep rooted principles that they have failed to display before this deputy leadership contest - now openly criticising a government they are a member of.
Cruddas is believable, but if he becomes DL what happens if something happens to Brown? Cruddas is not a serious politician, although he deserves a role to help the Party renew.
Benn is polished but I fear just too nice and I doubt if he could stand up to Gordon - he would be a weak and ineffective leader.
Johnson is affable but he also demonstrates a seriousness and comes across as having the gravitas and experience to be an effective theatre.

Did anyone else notice in Jerremys three question, yes or no, 'quick fire round', not one of the contestants answered with either a 'yes' or 'no'. Paxman is top dog and its a shame that none listened. Think i'll see what else is on ...

It was not long ago that they were all singing Blair's praises,they are all more concerned about their jobs now,the only ones who did give the impression that they maybe intested in what is best for this country and its people,one is Harriet Harman the other John Cruddas. The others were
reciting their own CV's

I have listened with great interest to this debate. Just one question. Where have they all been for the past ten years? Certainly not speaking out on the issues they now profess to hold dear. Hypocrites maybe or perhaps cowards?

Iraq War: All the candidates argued that this was now in the past and that we should now move forward.
Would this be an acceptable plea for a person brought before a judge and court, that the (alleged) crime was "in the past" and therefore we should leave this "crime" in the past, and "move forward"?
Well?

Why did Jeremy Paxman not put it to the panel that they all, when voting for the war, disregarded the UN? The war was illegal. Not only should they consider now, whether they should reconsider their position voting yes to war when they thought there were WMD, now it is clear there were no WMD. They decided to go ahead with an illegal war with no UN mandate. They had no legal basis to say yes to an illegal war, there was no sanction by the UN.

Iraq War: All the candidates argued that this was now in the past and that we should now move forward.
Would this be an acceptable plea for a person brought before a judge and court, that the (alleged) crime was "in the past" and therefore we should leave this "crime" in the past, and "move forward"?
Well?

Hi,

I feel that the online debate is 'not fit for purpose'.
After hearing the opening of the debate I posted a comment on the first question.

I just recieved the folowing message after I posted my comment:

In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience.

I looked at the blog comments and found that many comments were repeats of earlier comments (a waste of space), were questions that should have gone via the Newsnight inbox and plenty of malicious comment.

Does anybody really THINK about the comments before accepting them?

Also, how do you think this kind of debate works online when people aren't allowed o commnt in real time?

For the record my post was:

I thought that the answers about the Iraq war were pretty pathetic.

Only two (Harman and Johnston) were prepared to admit that they might change their vote if they'd known different facts (ie the lack of WMD). the others fell into the old line of 'I won't answer hypotheticals' (not there actual words, just a paraphrase of their talk - so don't complain that I misquoted them).

Granted it was a pretty stupid question (only a fool would say they'd still do something that clearly didn't work), but it was depressing that all the rest of them fell back on the line that they wouldn't answer the question because those weren't the facts they had been presented with.

Mind you I thought Hazel Blears was the worst of the candidates.

PS I didn't support the war since I didn't think that Saddam was a 'clear and present danger' as the UN arms inspectors found. Like them I assumed he had some WMD but either not much/ or not very effective. I thought he was a nasty, brutal dictator who posed a general threat to the middle east but not a spefcific threat to the UK at that time. Therefore action by the UK was not justified at that time.

Iraq War: All the candidates argued that this was now in the past and that we should now move forward.
Would this be an acceptable plea for a person brought before a judge and court, that the (alleged) crime was "in the past" and therefore we should leave this "crime" in the past, and "move forward"?
Well?

Why do the Labour deputy leadership elections anything more than academic interest to the general public? With an electorate drawn from New Labour members, choosing from a list decided by Labour MP's, it seems to me that giving over most of a Newsnight programme to a live debate between the candidates has little or no resonance with the voting public. Who's hearts and minds are the candidates publicly pleading for anyway? I'm sure the Newsnight team can come up with some convincing justification for such falderal but perhaps the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ news editors have been suckered into helping New Labour canvass its membership, at taxpayers expense, on the guess that the event itself will generate its enough information to fill its own 24hour news outlets with headlines, sound-bites and irrelevant analysis for the next few days. I hate to think that in the interest of independence and political balance some future edition of Newsnight may feature a 30minute head-to-head between BNP leadership candidates or other monster raving loony party. Am I being too harsh?

Hain was by far the most impressive tonight, and hadn't been in the (New Labour/new cameron-tory-hypespin environment) previously,,,,,,,,,,
the rest actually were far worse in person than Milbank's spin-world has ever suggested before. Longlive Newsnight, or its historical predessor for debate, (Cromwell's Republican) truly Soveregien state.
thankyou and goodnight (viva la republique!) andy c.

Amazing that any of these people (aside from Cruddas) can say with pride that work for a 'socialist democratic' party.

What a damning indictment of the last ten years,the Blair lies over Iraq and the sleeze of this current government.
What a put down for Prescott.
The deputy party leadership contest was the best advert for kicking them all out.

Iraq will be with us for some time to come, let them be judged by the issue that will prove the measure of their ability.

How are we to trust people who clearly display no empathy for the horrifying circumstances of the people in Iraq.

It is difficult to imagine a more perfect lineup of talking heads - "move on", "we are where we are", "this is about international cooperation", blah blah blah.

These people have failed and failed miserably. Why are they still in such responsible and well paid jobs ?

War in the Middle East; what did they expect ? Lets have leaders who are at least capable of understanding what most of us experience on a day to day basis - consequences.

Oops!
When I said in my previous post "at taxpayers expense" I did, of course, mean "At licence payers expense"

These people have no idea of the british citizens struggle in this country. My partner and I have worked hard to just maintain 'our heads above water', I haven't had children as we feel we can't afford to and we see many minorities living in an area we have really stretched to buy and living with several children on benefits. As a british citizen, I feel marginalised.

They all seem more interested in reciting their own CV's,most did not give a direct answer to the questions asked,we have had enough of that in this government.
It was not long ago they were all singing Blair's praises the only ones who appear to have the interests of this country and its people in mind was Hariette Hyman and John Cruddas.

Tonight was quite a useful insight of who people within the Party may vote for. Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears seemed to outdo the other candidates with their policies and views most people will agree with. A rather silent Alan Johnson and a rather inexperienced Jon Cruddas were highly dissapointing.

Oh Dear- Old Labour is Alive and Kicking

It would seem that most of this bunch wants to tax the hard working to the hilt and "re-distribute" our earnings to the lazy and the down right work shy

There are reasons why there are haves and have nots- and a great deal of it is down to the refusal of many to get off their backsides and work for a living instead of expecting,as now,the hard working citizens to pay for their laziness.

We should not be looking ways to further penalise the hard work of others but,instead of the mollycoddling the bone idle, we should be looking for ways for the bone idle to be separated from the genuine needy and force one of those sectors to take more resposibility for their own upkeep instead of nanny state taking care of a lot more than basic needs

and tomorrows programme i suppose you'll give over to 'Tom and Jerry' ..

Well that was disappointing and Blears seems to have pushed the woman card to the extreme -I mean she is no Maggie.
Based on the performance put on this evening, I don't feel in the least bit inclined to vote!!

Anybody but Harman.
Her ex co-minister Frank Field describes her as "thick".
As a career woman who is also an open man hating 'political correctness' fascist, Harman is the most obviously unrepresentative person who could ever hold a position of high political office.

Thankyou Newsnight for providing another 6 reasons to vote Conservative in the next General Election.

Five politicians (including, rather shamefully, Hilary Benn) used Blairite spintalk to make it sound like they were saying something whilst actually only making soothing noise. John Crudas was the only one who said anything of substance. Whether you like his politics or not, he is the sort of politian that people can respect; the sort of politician that people can vote for with hope in their heart, that he can stand for something rather than bob about in a moodtide.

In the introductory remarks of the candidates,the need to rebuild the party to win the next election dominated their concern over national policy matters. That said it all to me.

I was going to vote for Hilary Benn, but he is not a patch on his father. A very poor lot we have to choose from I must say.

To my mind (as a tory!) the only one to come across as non evaisive and very straight forward was John Crudas, I actually found myself liking him and what he had to say, the rest just came across as a bunch of typical self serving politicans!

Jon Cruddas will be getting my vote.

what a load of nonsense, encourage the whole world to stop obsene 'fat cat' payments.bonuses those at the 'top' award themselves is totally unacceptable, there is no reason or excuse for such extreme wealth or such relative poverty.

I think, Eric Dillon, it 'cause we didn't have a leadership contest.

And I'm amazed that Crudas came out on top in the opinion of the Newsnight viewers. He seemed so far out of touch with the labour party's views (or New Labour at least). Surely he would represent a backward step. Not to mention the fact that him and GB would be complete a odds with each other.

I thought tonight's debate was facinating for two main reasons:
1) there is not enough live political debate on television about substantive issues; and,
2) it gives an equal voice to all the candidates. I thought Jon Cruddas was excellent and untill tonight I had never heard of him and I thought Alan Johnson aquitted himself well and looked like the only serious contender.
So well done Newsnight!

A very refreshing debate - much less stilted than usual.
And nice and short.

I thought Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears, and Jon Cruddas were short, to the point, and plain speaking.

The other three: they seemed to think they were on a "normal newsnight", and spent much too long trying to say "the right thing".
Such as banging on about "you can't re-invent the past" in response to "would you vote for the Iraq war now?" That's just one example.

Answer the questions guys, it's that simple.

My overall vote winner: Harman, the first time I've seen her in action, she won me over despite all the stick I've seen her get in the press.

p.s. Is this the first comment relevant to the debate?

It's good to see time being given to political debate, what a pity that we aren't being given the opportunity for a leadership contest. I've just rejoined the party after quitting 9 years ago...Jon Cruddas and Harriet Harman give me some hope for the future of the party.

l wish hariet Haman should be cosidered as the next labour Deputy PM

Well I watched and listened to most of it. It seems to me that the socialist ethic is somewhat missing here.
We are repeatedly presented with opportunists who cannot answer simple questions.. why? I believe they are riding a gravy train who's fuel we pay for... We are the cash cow they feed on.
It's despicable, they look for our succor whilst feathering their own nests.

As a simple man I find them all worthless. Let them feed another, it would make an interesting banal TV show.

As for the ill educated dwarf. Theres a wake up call! Regardless of of leanings.

This debate is being telivised because of the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖs commitment to public service broadcasting. The Deputy Leadership of this nations ruling political party is very important. Please understand that. The Labour Party is a national party therefore this issue is a national issue.

The only convincing candidate in tonight's team of Labour deputy leader candidates was John Cruddas. He was honest, but he hasn't a chance of winning. Hilary Benn disappointed me because he had higher principles than most of the Labour leadership. Allan Johnson and Peter Hain seemed the most intelligent, but Peter Hain infuriated me by saying, as he has done before, that everyone thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 2003. I watched Hans Blix addressing the Security Council in 2003 and it was clear he was not certain and wanted more time for inspections- which George Bush and Tony Blair would not give him. And my gut feeling that there were no WMD proved correct. My friends all had the same feeling. So please Peter Hain don't assume that the whole nation was as easily taken in by Blair's spin as you were.

****I think Jon Cruddas or Harriet Harman should be elected because they have admitted the mistakes of the Iraq war. They seem the most honest and straight to the point. Hilary Benn and Hazel Blears should not even be considered because they are not likely to listen to the views of the people, they just want to push their own agenda and don't have any remorse over the mistakes, illegality and lies spread to conjure up the support for the Iraq war. Hazel and Hilary seem to avoid the questions and put spin on the topic they will be the just like Blair. We need Harriet Harmon or Jon Cruddas they have admitted the Iraq war was a mistake. They are the most likely to listen to the people.

The line up was straight out of Monty Python... Imagine standing Hazel Blears beside Hilary Benn!They were like Mutt and Jeff!!(whoever they were!) HB could hardly see over her podium! Seriously, give them a seat next time and at least some sense of equality!!

I would like to know is why they feel we have any democracy in this country. Our civil liberities are being removed every day to the cause of terrorism. If this was real and the government was serious there would not be a single drug or illegal immigrant in this country. Not one of them is worth a vote. If there was an option of none of the above and the UK was able to vote, then the winner would be none of the above by a large margin.

If I was to vote Jon Cruddas is the only untainted candidate, and when Oh when are any of these people going to address the real injustice in this country and that is the majority of taxpayers who have no self governence, thanks to the mess that blairs devolvment has meant for the English and we are now to have a PM that is a MP in Scotland but has NO say on domestic issues in that country, it is invidious and the time has come for this to be rectified and England to have parity with the rest of the UK and have its own Parliament.

The only convincing candidate in tonight's team of Labour deputy leader candidates was John Cruddas. He was honest, but he hasn't a chance of winning. Hilary Benn disappointed me because he had higher principles than most of the Labour leadership. Allan Johnson and Peter Hain seemed the most intelligent, but Peter Hain infuriated me by saying, as he has done before, that everyone thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 2003. I watched Hans Blix addressing the Security Council in 2003 and it was clear he was not certain and wanted more time for inspections- which George Bush and Tony Blair would not give him. And my gut feeling that there were no WMD proved correct. My friends all had the same feeling. So please Peter Hain don't assume that the whole nation was as easily taken in by Blair's spin as you were.

I get annoyed by candidates saying that they should win because they are women. Gender should never be a deciding factor when selecting the best person for the job. If women's views can only be properly represented by women and men's views by men, why don't we have completely separate ballot papers.
It also annoys me when they say they will focus on the difficulties women face having to work and bring up children. Do men not have to work and bring up children? The government never has men in mind when it looks at work/family legislation and is still stuck in the past assuming that the woman should always be the primary carer and the secondary earner of the family. This only serves to enforce the gender divide.

Jon Cruddas, Benn or Harman NEED to be elected as deputy leader if I am to vote Labour again.

Jon Cruddas is obviously TRUE labour not 'new' labour: Refreshingly so.

Let's hope spin is 'out' and politics is 'in'. People living in Britain have had enough of Americanised-style politics.

Thanks to Harriet Harman and Cruddas for their supreme honesty, a quality which means you might never be chosen.

Hazel B as usual too busy espousing Blairs spin doctoring lies deceit and duplicity to listen, and I wish she would stop talking about what the people want, when clearly she never has time to let them get a word in edgeways. An empty vessel, and I'm more working class than she is:-)
Also Hazel, why should the public know about the new agency before the rest of the government? is it because you knew the rest of the government would oppose it? Where are you principles? On tour with Blair? Northern honesty corrupted.

Peter Hain, not sure Peter, though clearly a man of substance and exerience, and I thought your responses were definitely borne of maturity and insight. Would have had more respect if you had answered the question about the hindsight on war decision from the heart instead of from a conscienable public relations head. Honesty is what we need not obfuscating diplomacy.

Alan Johnson, need to hear more of his view really, not sure again, and feel he needs to take a broader look at how to fund changes in education, but frankly I'm tired of successive governments interfering with what goes on in schools when so few politicians have ever taught in one, or could have a proper understanding of how to deliver GOOD education. Personally I believe grammar schools are fine, so are good comprehensives, what matters is how you enable access across systems to the right level of education appropriate to the aspirations and needs of the learner.

Mr Benn, your father is an honest and decent politician, and I kept thinking of him as you spoke. Again I wish you hadn't ducked the question about the war in Iraq.

Cruddas should be labour party leader as he said all the right things about what needs to be done before all union members withdraw their subscriptions once and for all.
Finally I doubt any of you will ever achieve a good standing due to the damage done over the Iraq war and the assault on the freedoms, sensibilities of good hard working British citizens.

I would also point out that you didn't get voted in at the 1997 elections, (though clearly Blair acted as though he had won a popularity contest) the electorate voted the Conservatives out. Once you understand this was the case, and work from that understanding you might have a more solid insight into what to achieve for the coutry next. I also think party politics should be a thing of the past so that more people like Cruddas and Harriet can speak truthfully, with honesty and decency.

They all seem more interested in reciting their own CV's,most did not give a direct answer to the questions asked,we have had enough of that in this government.
It was not long ago they were all singing Blair's praises the only ones who appear to have the interests of this country and its people in mind was Hariette Hyman and John Cruddas.

For me I have just seen a future Labour leader in the shape of Jon Cruddas.
His open honest erudite replies convinced me that there is intelligent life in politics. Well refreshing.
It wasn't a wasted programme at all. I thought it was brilliant.

They all seem more interested in reciting their own CV's,most did not give a direct answer to the questions asked,we have had enough of that in this government.
It was not long ago they were all singing Blair's praises the only ones who appear to have the interests of this country and its people in mind was Hariette Hyman and John Cruddas.

I have never seen such a lack of political imagination in all my life. It was like watching lettuce; faintly green, utterly bland and with the intellectual content you'd normally associate with certain other green leafy vegetables.

I'm reminded of watching people on exercise bikes. Pedalling very fast to go nowhere.

The one subject that no one wants to discuss at the moment is Pensions!
Can the question be put to the soon to be elected deputy Prime minister why this is the case and what do the labour party intend to do about the vast number of pensioners who are going to live a life of misery & poverty unless this problem is adressed.

While I can appreciate some viewers' doubts as to the relevance of a 50 minute hustings, the indications it provided of the Labour Party's plans for renewal are surely of some significance.

I'm confident that Jon Cruddas is the man for the job. He struck me as refreshingly honest and principled, with some excellent ideas for the reinvigoration of the Labour Party, a huge task which is of critical importance given the renewal of the Conservative Party under David Cameron.

With the exception of Alan Johnson and Mr Cruddas, none of the candidates presented a paricularly coherant or rational set of proposals that would entitle them to a clear mandate as Deputy Leader.

Cruddas clearly understands the perceptions of the electorate in respect of politics today. While his position on taxation may well undermine his bid, Cruddas was the only candidate to appreciate that an equal society does not come cheap.

There can be little doubt that he offers Gordon Brown the ear of the Party, a necessary component of understanding the frustrations of the electorate.

They all seem more interested in reciting their own CV's,most did not give a direct answer to the questions asked,we have had enough of that in this government.
It was not long ago they were all singing Blair's praises.

Well I watched and listened to most of it. It seems to me that the socialist ethic is somewhat missing here.
We are repeatedly presented with opportunists who cannot answer simple questions.. why? I believe they are riding a gravy train who's fuel we pay for... We are the cash cow they feed on.
It's despicable, they look for our succor whilst feathering their own nests.

As a simple man I find them all worthless. Let them feed another, it would make an interesting banal TV show.

As for the ill educated dwarf. Theres a wake up call! Regardless of of leanings.

Freedom of Information Act???
A highly illuminating exercise and has gone some way in clarifying viable contenders in my mind (not that this 17 year old can vote...).
However, I felt Paxman omitted the latest highly controversial issue, which has outraged the nation. Was not the fact that MPs backed the bid to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act a sufficiently pressing issue to challenge the candidates with, especially since transparency is so desperately needed in government after the long and damaging Blair years?

Freedom of Information Act???
A highly illuminating exercise and has gone some way in clarifying viable contenders in my mind (not that this 17 year old can vote...).
However, I felt Paxman omitted the latest highly controversial issue, which has outraged the nation. Was not the fact that MPs backed the bid to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act a sufficiently pressing issue to challenge the candidates with, especially since transparency is so desperately needed in government after the long and damaging Blair years?

Pity NN couldn't afford a soap box for Hazel Blears she looked lost down there inspite of her virulent red clothes, or perhaps the others could have stood in shallow graves to even up the eyeline.

John Crudass, whoever he is, clearly won the debate, but isn't it bizarre that there is a fight to be No 2 when No 1 has a walk-over and like in Saddam's last election will presumably get 100%. Perhaps right now some country somewhere is plotting to impose democracy on us by force, so that we can have real elections with more than one dictator standing.............

"The question I want answered is what mandate does Gordon Brown have to dictate policy in England, when his own electorate in Scotland stripped him, and other Scottish MP's, of a mandate to legislate on matters like education, health, transport etc when they placed the mandate with the Scottish Parliament?"

Gordon Brown is a Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom - he was elected by people that voted for him in his constituency within this kingdom, and despite all the furore after the local elections, the act of union between England and Scotland IS still intact, and I find it doubtful the said act will be dissolved anytime in the near future. Gordon Brown is a strong, honest and morally sound man who will go on to become a great leader and re-unite the labour party with those members we have lost, and I don't think it especially matters whether he's Welsh, English, Scottish, Northern Irish or Vulcan; as long as he's doing what is right for the people, he shouldn't be criticised on issues of birth.

Regarding the NHS, I remember the crippled state that the service was in in pre 1997, and whilst I think that progress should have been made more quickly over the past ten years, it is important not to ignore the facts: 1 million more operations now take place than in 1997, 99.6% of cancer patients are treated within a month of diagnosis, 85,000 more nurses, 32,000 more doctors, the health budget has trebled! TREBLED! Ten years is a short space of time to come into power and reform a system that had been utterly crippled by limitless Tory neglect, but I do think that we need to ensure the finances are all in order and the service is sustainable. If the substantial minority of people are really as dissatisfied as one above comment suggests, perhaps they should compare the level of service they receive now with what they would have received a decade ago.

The deputy leadership overall is very important to the party, and we will hopefully see the position carrying more duties clearly visible to the public eye. Because of the fact that Labour are currently the party in power I think this Newsnight was an excellent chance to hear the views of the candidates. Personally, I'll be voting for Alan Johnson but I think Hazel Blears and John Cruddas definitely have the correct idea in that the dep. leader should be a tirelessly active campaigner and ambassador for the party to the British people.

I thought the look on Harriet Harman's face the camera zoomed in on while Peter Hain was talking was priceless!

Re: Newsnight, Tuesday 29.05.07. Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party.

I think that we should have a Female Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, equal opps, fair chances, etc. But to be quite honest, I don't think that we should have Gordon Brown at the helm of Government automatically, when Tony Blair goes. I think there should be a General Election. We are supposed to be a Democracy, not a Dictatorship. I take a recent example of this : The President of Syria, recently called a referendum on his leadership, presumably so that people could vote for, or against it - even for a new leader. He was the only candidate on the ballot paper.... Point made? I think so. Neil, Birkenhead, Wirral.

The problem is that people don't like Hazel Blears because she is so ruthless and patronising but she is terribly clever and good at what she does - but she is likely to put off more people than she attracts in the long run and labour can't afford that; Jon Cruddas hasn't thought about what he wants enough and sounds like a recruiting sergeant for Old Labour; what the hell would Harriet Harman stand for if she wasn't a woman? Is the only lens through which she looks at the world? Peter Hain is good but hasn't got the bite necessary it seems to me and Alan Johnson acts like the Prime Minister already so he's already lost my vote. But Hilary Benn, he would get my vote - a real gentleman who showed integrity, intelligence and honour.

Hazel Blears constantly talks about restoring the electorate's trust in politicians and the democratic process. Her performance tonight illustrates yet again why many people in this country cannot be bothered to vote. She did tonight what she always does, that is answer a different question to the one she was asked. Her views on immigration, law and order, taxation policy are indistinguishable from many members sitting opposite her on the Tory benches. Her attitude to the rule of law, civil liberties and the general policy pursued by the Blair government in relation to our freedoms in a democracy make her a disgrace to the legal profession. Perhaps the best that can be said for her is that it seems she genuinely still believes in the Blair agenda and shares his contempt for basic freedoms, civil liberties and populist attitudes to immigration, and his wllingness to carry out the foreign policy of the US administration rather than act more in the interests of this country.

Harriet Harman at least had the honesty to admit that given the chance again she would have voted against going to war in Iraq. The late Robin Cooke had the courage to vote according to his conscience. I suspect many members of the government knew he was right but were not prepared to follow his lead as that would have meant resigning from the government and possibly never holding high office again. Thus for the sake of their careers they led this country into the most catastrophic foreign policy disaster since Munich in 1938. The consequences for the people of Iraq is something we witness everyday in the news reports. The consequences for the people of this country are that we watch as our elected government removes our liberties and freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism; something any terrorist movement now and in the past has failed to do. But why should they worry? This administration backed up by most of the Tory party is doing their job for them.

It may be too late to change the attitude of this administration but perhaps if Jon Cruddas or Harriet Harman were to be elected deputy Labour leader, all may not be lost.

But I may be "grasping at straws". It is, after all, only since the prime minister announced his resignation that any of these candidates, (Jon Cruddas excepted), have found their voices again and started publicly to question, and sometimes criticise many of the views, attitudes and policies which were the trademark of the Blair years and his administration. What this country needs now are politicians with courage to say what they really think rather than hide their views in the hope of attaining high office.

Freedom of Information Act???
A highly illuminating exercise and has gone some way in clarifying viable contenders in my mind (not that this 17 year old can vote…).
However, I felt Paxman omitted the latest highly controversial issue, which has outraged the nation: was not the fact that MPs backed the bid to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act a sufficiently pressing issue to challenge the candidates with, especially since transparency is so desperately needed in government after the long and damaging Blair years?

Jon Cruddas is the only candidate who best represents the true values of the Labour Party. The others' attitudes are the reasons why the Labour Party has lost popular support. If it was patently obvious to me, as a member of the public, that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, their claims that they 'believed what they were told' destroy any credibility they may ever have had as politicians. Labour is privatising education through the setting up of city academies, and in such a manner that local democratic consultation on the issues is bypassed. The political and religious views of the funders can now be imposed on such schools, with no local democratic accountability. For Hazel Blears to talk about 'local democracy' makes her look absurd. Five of the candidates give the impression they will behave in future just as they did over Iraq and other fundamental issues.

I agree with aw tanner, we are not allowed to talk about immigration and asylum seekers,the government want us to believe that everything is blooming lovely - pity though, that it is not a fairy tale. Well this is a far away land and lots of people do want to live here, shame is its only a small island.
So I do not think an amnesty should ever be considered, anyway have we not done that been there and wrote the postcards.

before watching the debate i was supporting Harriet Harmann. She was to quick to say she'd vote against Iraq. I'd still vote for it, she was also to quick to attack Mr Blair, she is clearly just endulging in a vote grabbing exercise. Jon Cruddas seems to be the only one of them that has a policy and some principles. Peter Hain just comes accross as a Michael Portillo (before may 1st 1997) impersonator, slimmy and totally insincere. the other three just aren't worth mentioning.

Jon Cruddas was the only convincing candidate for the Deputy Leaderhship because he was honest. Hazel Blairs is totally unaappealing - short and ugly and with a GHASTLY voice. Peter Hain and Allan Johnson seemed the most intelligent but Hain annoyed me by his remarks on Iraq. "We were all sure" he said on this and previous occasions "that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction". I watched Hans Blix reporting to the Security Council in March 2003 and he was not sure if Saddam had WMD and wanted the inspectors to be given more time. Blair and Bush would not give him more time. I strongly shared Blix's doubts - as did most of my friends - and we were proved right. I stopped voting Labour after the Iraq war and will probably never vote for them again.
Margaret Durant

Well done John Cruddas for giving a straight answer to the final question "If you were not standing which of the candidates would you vote for?"

This was a clear litmus test separating honest plain-speakers from disingenuous careerists on the make. All Cruddas' opponents failed it. I may not agree with all of Mr Cruddas' policies but he at least appeared human.

Jon Cruddas was the only convincing candidate for the Deputy Leaderhship because he was honest. Hazel Blairs is totally unaappealing - short and ugly and with a GHASTLY voice. Peter Hain and Allan Johnson seemed the most intelligent but Hain annoyed me by his remarks on Iraq. "We were all sure" he said on this and previous occasions "that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction". I watched Hans Blix reporting to the Security Council in March 2003 and he was not sure if Saddam had WMD and wanted the inspectors to be given more time. Blair and Bush would not give him more time. I strongly shared Blix's doubts - as did most of my friends - and we were proved right. I stopped voting Labour after the Iraq war and will probably never vote for them again.
Margaret Durant

A lively debate well chaired by Jeremy as usual. I think we all take politicians' statements with the proverbial 'pinch of salt', whatever the political party. It could be that the public are not so much disillusioned with politics, as with political parties. Could it be that we need political reform ? We certainly need a place on the voting form to express a view which indicates our discontent with the present system. The result might be an eye-opener for all politicians.

I just watched the 'debate' of potential deputy leaders.

Whilst it was probably the easiest scenario Mr Paxman has had with politicians for a while, I felt he was both efficient and professional but then I would expect no less - that's me being political :)

Unfortunately the candidates were less admirable, the words which repeatedly entered my mind were 'sycophant' and 'hypocrit'.

Sadly, questions on FOI did not feature, but maybe I am the only one who sees FOI as fundamental to democracy. If anyone else is worried about our democracy and think it is reasonable that we, the public, should be allowed to know how OUR MPs spend OUR money then please sign the petition at

www.ourcampaign.org.uk/foi

you don't have to be a lib-dem, I'm not. But as with Iraq, they are the only ones objecting to FOI exclusions and have provided the opportunity for you to have your say.

I was left with the impression that all of tonight's participants were playing to the potential voters rather than being honest. No surprise there then!
Maybe, just maybe, Mr Cruddas came closest to honesty.

Not much of a choice there, but then Mr Cameron could easily have been a seventh candidate ...

So now its down to Lib-dem, Independent, BNP, SNP or Plaid-Cymru ... getting easier :)

Digressing totally, is it a coincidence that GB can refer to either Mr Brown or Mr Bush?

as GB says to Iraqis everywhere,

have a nice day

Douglas

Any particular reason why about 50 votes (seemingly mainly for Benn and Hain) were deleted from your online poll about ten minutes ago?

What a depressing bunch of political toadies the Labour deputy leader candidates appear to be. Harri Harman had brief patches of honest controversy before disappearing into tokenism and meaningless flannel. Jon Cruddas seemed the most lively and had lots of spirited criticism of the Blairite "Presidency" and showed a determination to connect with working people.This will obviously scupper his chances of winning the deputyship of the centrist, pro american, pro nuclear energy, pro polaris, warmongering market economy spreading globalisation purporting new new labour party. Hilary Benn must be a big disappoinment to his dad. The short fiesty flaming haired one made an excellent caricature as she punched out banalities as though they were meaningful.Passion without point or purpose.Al the postman delivered his message but left the gate open and Peter Hain reminded us that he was once a rebel with principles but would not be digging up any pitches now that he had become dull. Vote Cruddas I say but he is too good to win.

It's unfortunate for Hazel Blears that the candidates were required to stand.

Jon Cruddas won the debate by miles.

His answers to the questions were unequivocal, and he was refreshingly direct in expressing his views. He came across as honest and trustworthy - both qualities desperately needed at the higher levels of New Labour. He sees the failings in the present New Labour approach to government and democracy, and wants to bring government back to serving the interests of the people.

If I was still a member of the Labour Party I would certainly vote for him to be deputy leader. I hope all three groups - MPs, unions and party members - vote for him. It is the best chance for New Labour to regain the trust of the electorate.

The other candidates were typically shifty and slippery in answering questions. Jon Cruddas was the only one who was forthright enough to answer the question, "Who would you vote for if you were not standing?" The others were typical politicians, too scared to give any credit to someone else. Jon Cruddas chose Harriet Harman. She was the next best candidate to him in clarity of answers and admission of what needed changing. But even she could not say who she would support if she were not standing.

It was very disappointing that there was no question on the erosion of human rights by the government, on ID Cards, on the national identity register, or where the candidates stood on John Reid's defence of Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition. Possibly, these were removed from the agenda on the insistence of the government or some of the candidates or someone else. That itself says enough about the state of our democracy.

Jon Cruddas was far and away the best. He was not Old Labour, he was Labour and if building social housing and opposing a pointless and expensive nuclear missile is somehow outdated then New Labour really have shifted this country to the right. These should be serious Labour issues.
Harriet Harman was very good also, Hilary Benn is a lovely man, Hain isn't bad but he was the same tonight as he was when I met him at my school in October and didn't answer the questions properly. Alan Johnson is a bit right-wing for an ex-Union man don't you think? Blears.. ugh.. sounds like a New Labour dictaphone.

The debate was so interested and I believ it was useful. The candidates tried to avoid ansowering directly the questions, which weren't sound good for the audiances. We need more open and ohnest politicians. Among the candidate I found Ms Harriet Harman reletavely open, determin and ohnest. In addition, to keep gender balance, I think Ms Harman is deserve of Deputy Leadership post.

The debate was so interested and I believ it was useful. The candidates tried to avoid ansowering directly the questions, which weren't sound good for the audiances. We need more open and ohnest politicians. Among the candidate I found Ms Harriet Harman reletavely open, determin and ohnest. In addition, to keep gender balance, I think Ms Harman is deserve of Deputy Leadership post.

The pantomime that is the Labour Deputy leadership race is frankly becoming cringeworthy I think. All of them are, I'm afraid to say, lightweights. Why can't the labour party just scrap the role of deputy leader- or can't Gordon Brown ask John McDonnell to his deputy- After all, HE'S a lot more deserving than any of these six.

I voted for Crudass, why i don't know, the method of 'ennie meenie miny mo' can work when you are struggling to making a choice;
and what a choice. All i will say is that Crudass spoke more from the traditional hymebook of socialist labour and the rest were like desperate job applicants who trotted out what the interviewer wanted to hear or ducked and weaved, these are our parlimentary represensitves, well practised in the art of prevarication. This newsnight special was a bit like the 'Apprentice' with paxo as Sir Alan sugar. Jeremy (that knighthood must come soon) asked some killer questions, some of which were fielded by newsnight viewers; democracy in action, something these hacks are unfamiliar with; The only thing i got from this was( other than the confirmation that we are short of quality parlimentary represensitives within our democracy )the reminder that Paxman is still the king of the political hard questions, there is still no one comparable around, and for some time really, not since Sir Robin Day at least..

Alan was not on form and hilary really only confirmed to me that he is a well meaning chap, with an international world view of helping everyone, a mission to bringing western democracy to the world, a deluded man if ever there was one. Hazel blears is a nice pleasant woman but totally unfit for high office, but would not surprise me if she won this deputy leadership bout, the less said about peter the better, and harriet, well she has got a bit of a hill to climb. Crudass has made some headway, but at times he seemed to already admit he won't finish the race, could still be a good outside bet, but still needs to get his face about a bit more, i thought he seemed the most genuine but like peter said to him, he is 'inexperienced', a snide comment i thought though.

I can not predict who will be the winner, but my crystal ball is showing me an image of a small woman, who can that be i wonder? oh err

would suggesting that Paxo was overdue his Knighthood, a brown nose comment? do i qualify for a newsnight mug or something?

Just seen the debate and Jon Cruddas is the right man for the job, of course he has no chance of winning, He has nothing to lose and can honestly speak his mind. Much like tony benn does now, hilary is a bad joke, blears is a puppet, hain aint got it, johnson cant doit so that leaves harman !!!

A Muppet Show of mediocrity.Harman and Benn are the least worst options but if you want real integrity and principles in the Labour Party, unfortunately we lost the only candidate we had two weeks ago.
Leadership candidate John McDonnell took on Gordon Brown in a TV debate and gave a brilliant performance. His reward was to be frozen out by the Parliamentary Labour Party - who also took away the votes ofthousands of Party members and trade unionists.I don't really care who wins the Deputy Leadership -

Jon Cruddas won by a mile. He sounded totally out of place amongst the rest of the political rabble.
Alan Jonson i'm sure would have sat quite happily in a Thatcher cabinet. Hazle Blears, the bizzare love child of Himmler and R2D2, words fail me.
Peter Hain oozing insincerity.
Hillary Benn, no doubt heading to the board of a private equity company that will buy the national health service. He'll be amongst friends.
Harriet Harman,didn't do too bad

It was interesting wathing this debate and I found it refreshing that a politician in this day and age has the balls to say what they beleive in. I am talking about Jon Cruddas of course. The rest of them continued to prevaricate and waffle on as they have done for years, and then say they want to bring back public interest in politics! They could start by telling the truth and in a direct and succinct way without dumbing down any patronising answer they manage to give. Mind you Labour deserve to lose the next election however we need someone to take over. Anyone fancy starting a common sense party?!!

Jon Cruddas was the one that impressed me the most - a politician with beliefs not spin and presentation.
Harriet Harman and Peter Hain were also good. I thought that they had been converted to the New Labour cuuse. It was good to hear Harmon say she would vote differently on Iraq.
I was disappointed with Benn and Johnson who did not want to aknowledge New Labour mistakes. The only thing impressive about Benn is his surname. His father said he was very proud of him, I can't see why.
Hazel Blairs is all presentation, it would be a shame if she wins because it would mean more of the same.

I was astonished to find that after I voted for Peter Hain that he is coming last! I admit that I have never liked him - he comes over as too pushy. But last night I thought that perhaps it's just enthusiasm.

To summarise: I was very impressed with Hilary Benn's opening statement: boy he must have put some work in on that. But he went steadily downwards during the interview. Alas poor Hilary. Should do something about his academic appearance too. Hazel. What can one say about her? Never answers a question would be a good start. And got verbal diarohea. But more importantly nothing at all interesting to say. Jon Crudas certainly went up in my estimation - pity he's got no chance though. The postman? 'Fraid he's out of his depth. And then we get to Harriet. She continued to go up in my assessment and was way out ahead - particularly after being the first to admit errors over Iraq - but started to slide when she banged on about women's issues again. Then I recalled how when she was Minister for the Today programme - sorry Secretary of State for Social Services - she was always banging on about 'lone parents'. Very PC. No wonder Tony sacked her. So alas she dropped to second place. Shame that. But Peter. Although I have never liked him I have to acknowledge he was best on the night. But could Gordon control him? I very much doubt it - particularly as he would be elected and not appointed by Gordon. So I conclude Harriet will get the job for reasons of balance; contacts with the trade unions (her husband (was/is?) a big noise in the movement; and she will stay in line. Gordon will no doubt 'influence' the vote by the usual means.

Surely this is what the Labour Party have been needing for many years, an honest, socialist who isn't afraid to say what he thinks and gives an honest straightforward answer to a question. I refer of course to John Cruddas. He put all of the other seasoned politicians to shame and they should take note. Hilary Benn's father, the greatest politician we have ever had, must have been cowering with shame. Hazel Blears should be ashamed to show her face. I really don't know what alan Johnson was doing there and although Harriet Harman was fairly impressive, I'm sure she used to be heavily involved with CND and to hear her say we need WMD's such as Trident was a real shock. Oh yeah and shame on all of them for voting for the invasion of Iraq!!

We are not angels and people learn from mistakes. I think now new Labour Leadership willing to learn from previous mistakes and under Gordon Brown new Leadership Labour Party want to work on those issues which were any how missed out by Tony Blair and his cabinet. I think democracy mean we have to respect and regards wishes of all sections of the community and take advices from them, when we take a big decision we should consult grassroots as they are the majority in this country and in the rest of the world. Labour power is the biggest power in any country including in United Kingdom. I support Gordon Brown as he is willing to run new Government with advices of all sections of this diverse community.

All six candidates for Deputy Leadership are experienced politicians and have leadership qualities but I support Hazel Blears as what are my observations, she seems to me to commit to work with grassroots and want to bring voice of grassroots on top level. At least she mixes with all sections of the community and consults/ hears those belong to disadvantage groups including disables and Black Asian Ethnic Minority. She knows how to provide security to our nation from evil acts, acts from those criminal minded who wants to divide our community in sections. Hazel keep carry on your good affords and my and other grassroots full support with you. Please try your best to bring peace on earth. Another reason why I choose Hazel as she is in favour of inter-faith activities, so am I. In now days we really need to create atmosphere where all faiths/religions can understands each others needs so we can understands each others faiths/religions and after that we should respect each others faiths/religions.

I supporting Gordon Brown and hope he will listen to grassroots and keep in his mind poverty of disadvantage groups of this country including BAME. I support Hazel as she always talk about real big issues such as educational reform, NHS, Housing issues and about poverty in BAME community and steps, she wants to take to reduce poverty in this country.

Gordon Brown and his future cabinet seem to me committed to work for this multi-cultural community. I encouraged by Owais Rajput to send comments on this website. I am supporting Hazel Blears as she promised she going to listen grassroots.

Cruddas - the best by a mile! He gave direct answers to Paxman's questions. He was specific about his policy preferences, including the increased provision of council houses for rent- vital for the 1,600,000 on the waiting lists.He was not afraid to name Harman as his choice if he had to vote for someone else.Second to Cruddas, she performed well, showing courage and integrity. The other four candidates were outstanding for evasiveness and for their obvious desire to look well in the eyes of Brown when he will be handing out Cabinet posts.

I encouraged by Owais Rajput to watch news night and leave comments on this website. I think we have to give chance to Gordon Brown and his future cabinet as so far Gordon Brown willing to work hard for this country and for this multi-cultural community. Out of six candidates I am supporting Hazel Blears as she talks about multi-culturalism and about grassroots.

The whole debate reminded me why I'm not a member of the Labour Party. But at least it was a debate - with real issues discussed (I don't share the cynical responses of many of the posters). Of course Gordon Brown SHOULD have agreed to a debate with Cameron and Campbell - the fact that he refused tells us a great deal about what kind of leader he will be and why we shouldn't vote for him.

I supporting Hazel Blears as she is down to earth and knows how to talk with others.I want to endorse this also that because of Owais Rajput I seen first time in my life House of Parliament.

I want to know what the candidates believe about the most important challenge facing humanity - which is climate change. Paxman prevented me from finding much out by confining discussion to the single topic of nuclear power, and trying to force that into a one word answer. He stifled attempts to talk about renewables. So I am not much wiser. I learned that evidently Paxman knows too little about it to be aware that nuclear power is a contentious issue for too far into the future to meet the immediate short term need for CO2 reduction, but little about which candidate might make an intelligent appraisal if allowed.

No to Cruddas, Hain and Johnson whose recent attack on fellow MP Margaret Hodge stifled a much needed debate on immigration and housing allocations
No to Harriet Harman who appears weak and ineffective whenever she appears on ther panel of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Question Time.
That only leaves Hilary Benn and Hazel Blears. Blears was more direct and to the point last night. Generally speaking however I thought all the candidates were wooden and patronising in their approach. Uninspiring.

Feeble - that is the impression I have after watching this bunch of self serving scoundrels. Is this really the best that this country has to offer? Is the nation doomed to be governed, in the loosest possible sense, by these weasels and their ilk?

as an american liberal I have no gog in this fight. but I liked alan johnson- I like a little class worfare- the rich need to pat there fair share if you are to have a just socity. I have real problems with the blair- cliton kind of liberalism-I see alan johnson more to my test
defend the well fare state-

as an american liberal I have no dog in this fight. but I liked alan johnson- I like a little class worfare- the rich need to pat there fair share if you are to have a just socity. I have real problems with the blair- cliton kind of liberalism-I see alan johnson more to my test
defend the well fare state-

I found it very significant that arch-Blairite, Hazel Blears, was unable to explain why she was fit to be Deputy Leader without reading from notes.

Presumably her tax-payer funded aides had to come up with some deeply-felt convictions on her behalf.

What a bunch of snake oil salemen! I was not impressed. Cruddas clearly harbours a dangerously left wing agenda, which would be a disaster for Labour at the polls. Blears came over as a political lightweight and Hain and Johnson looked insincere and evasive. Benn was disappointing and failed to impress. Harman was good in parts but again showed rather disturbing ultra left wing tendancies. Why should we be convinced by a failed cabinet minister anyway? The collective impression was to achieve the near impossible and make John Prescott look credible!

Irrelevant.

A waste of time.

Someone once described the vice-presidency of the USA as "Not worth a bucket of spit".

What is the deputy leadership of the Labour Party worth?

If Blears and Hain really want the Labour Party to win the next election they should both resign from politics and go and join an advertising agency of PR firm where they both belong. No wonder people have turned their backs on politics and politicians when we have people like this in Government. Their evasiveness makes me sick. They are a disgrace. The only person worthy of gaining the deputy leadership of the party is John Cruddas. He put all the others to shame by giving straight answers and demonstrating his genuine Labour principles, something sadly lacking amongst New Labour politicians.

Harriet Harman gets my vote! She was excellent. John Cruddas was great too.It was refreshing to hear some different views. Hazel Blears spoke so fast i had to stop listening to her. Alan Johnson was very smug.

Cruddas - sounded honest, no spin, and with good Labour values. Would like to hear more from this man, and I hope he wins the Deputy Leadership. I doubt he will though. 7/10.

Harman - my second favourite, and, like Cruddas, I was impressed that she admitted the Iraq mistake. Harps on about women's issues too much for my liking. I think she will probably get the post though. 5/10.

Johnson - I can't quite decide about this man. Would have been nice if he'd have said he was against charitable status for private schools. 5/10.

Benn - The more I hear from Hillary, the more I realise he is not a patch on his father. I also don't think he's 'in touch with the people', as they say these days. 4/10.

Hain - Slimy toad - always avoiding questions. Spin just doesn't do it for me. In particular, I hate his line about 'the whole world believed Saddam had WMDs'. This is very insulting to those millions (inc the UN), who disagreed. 2/10.

Blears - Completely vacuous. Giggles along nervously when she realises she's too scared to answer a question; almost seems happy at the fact that politicians never give a straight answer (eg the 'who would you vote for' question). Patronising, both to other candidates and to the voters. Waffle and spin, NuLab thru and thru. 0/10.

PS. I'm a Lib-Dem voter currently, but am open to persuasion (just not by this lot!).

I voted for Crudass only candidate who answered questions honestly and clearly defined his policies. I hope the party take the chance to bring in someone untainted by the spin of New Labour.

Harman would be my second choice as again she answered questions put with the minimum of spin.

I rejected the others as all were evasive and couldn't admit mistakes had been made. Sorry does seem to be the hardest word.

I am supporting Hazel as she is friendly and knows how to talk with people and how to run a country. Owais Rajput encouraged me to leave comments on this website. I and Owais Rajput want to look Hazel Blears as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party so we work hard enough to win forth term elections for Labour Party.

last nights NN was like watching Z rate has been actors auditioning for a part in a C rated movie, how is that they have all found their voices now? where have they been for the last 10 years, had they been half as vociferous as they were last night, the disasterous foray into Iraq would not have occured and the NHS would not be in the mess it is now and countless acts of incompetance perpetrated by this lot would never have been allowed to happen.

I am supporting Hazel for Deputy Leadership.

I hope Alan Johnson or Hazel Blears win. Both rejected the idea of bringing those at the top down to close the 'wealth gap' (i.e. old fashioned re-distribution of wealth). There should be no limit on success. Its not the 'gap' that matters, but the standard of living of those at the bottom.

What came out of last night if nothing else, was it was blatently obvious that the new listening squad had not read the NN Forum of Questions!

Which is nothing knew - they said they would listen in 2001 and didn't they had the famous 'Conversation' period in 2005.
Not a chance, they listen to each other, con and lie to the peasants and that's it - end of story.

Self Serving Graspers of any Gravy Train that happens to be passing by.

I meet with Gordon Brown and all six candidates for Deputy Leadership and I want to support Hazel Blears for Deputy as she is the true voice of disadvantage groups including Black Asian Ethnic Minority.

The combined wise experience of heavy-weights Robin Cooke and Ken Clarke denouncing the validity of the evidence for attacking Iraq along with 2 million peace marchers was ignored. All the candidates for the Labour deputy leadership were persuaded by Blair's high octane rhetoric then and they should take the rap now. Worse, Jon Scarlett was promoted and Blair has been allowed to continue as Prime Minister. Outrageous!
I'm now ashamed to be British having a Parliament that hasn't brought to book those involved in such a disasterous and illegal campaign..

Simon has said almost exactly what i was going to say. Pleasant surprise when Harriet said that she now thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake. The others have no credibility when they continue to back this humiliating disaster.
Full marks to John Cruddas for saying that he only wants to be Deputy Leader of the Labour party and not Deputy Prime Minister.

I am BAME female and want to support Hazel as she is the one who knows how to tackle issues such as lack of education, housing needs in BAME community and she knows how to create atmosphere so all sections of the community can integrate in the society including Muslims.

I mostly agree with Simon above.

Cruddas was the best then Harman,

Johnson hasn't really got a clue at all and neither has Benn (but coming from the opposite side of the spectrum I think he's much better than his father because he's not a crazy socialist).

It may sound stupid but Hain's voice is his worst attribute and it leads him to sound completly boring and uninterested.

And as for Blears. This woman is the worst politician I have ever seen in my life. Every time she opens her mouth she just makes me hate her more, she is an absolute discrace to Politics and the "who would you vote for" question...she turned it into a farse.

Im a Tory anyway but I think if I did support Labour, Cruddas would get my vote and in the sprit of Democracy I think he would be the best to give the party some stability and actually stand a chance of doing decent against us Tories at the next election.

For us Tories however I think its best they choose Blears...becasue how can Cameron loose? With Blears as deputy I think even the Lib Dems will gain more seats than Labour.

Whoever gets the deputy leadership it is still the nasty, bigheaded, bossy, lying Labour Party running the country.

Never have I disliked my own country so much as I do these days.

We have entered a new dark age.

I am Old/New Labour suopporter.

I think, and hope, some of the six candidates for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party, are starting to believe. That It's not only people with childern in our society that need helping out of poverty.

With the divorce rate so high. Many people are finding out how hard life is as a single person living alone in Britain

Most single people under 60 years old, with no disabilities. Have no rights to decent afforable housing.

If they have no job, or in low paid employment. They are expected to find accomadation in the expensive private sector.
In my experience. In most cases people on 1 income. Cannot afford to pay a private landlord his extorsionate level of rent.

People over 45. Who have been able to better themselves. Still cannot afford to buy, or rent better accomadation anywhere in the UK

I know this is not what politician want to hear. The truth is always embarssing.

Decent, Affordable housing for everyone is the key. It's the key for them to becoming more prosperous. Or as the Labour Party, and its deputy PM candidates like to say. Social Mobility.

Thank you Mr Paxman

Ian Hunt.

P.S. I was the one, who emailed you my CV a couple of years ago. I still cannot get a Job.

Agree with Simon. Although other than Harman or Cruddas I would not touch any of the others. I mean did Blears actually answer a single question that was put to her, and the others were just too weak.

As a long term Tory voter, I was extremely impressed by Cruddas. He seems honest and believable. The only one with the guts to answer JP final question. Labour would be mad not to elect him.

Cruddas confirmed my suspicions that he is the right man to take the deputy leadership. I don't buy that he can't win. Labour Party members should still be able to recognise someone of inteligence and conviction and most importantly possessing good policies. After last nights performance he's got the upper hand on the rest.
Was going to go for Hain as a second choice but Harman may have changed my mind.
Blears just makes me laugh, don't exactly know why...

I would echo Simon's ratings above; just a couple of things to add:
PH: Extremely disappointing, was expecting much better, was inclined to support him before last night.
HH: Leaning towards her before, then she out of all of them stepped forward; especially liked her answer to the 'mischievous' question "I'm in it to win!"
HBen/AJ: Didn't really get what they were about, too anonymous for me.
HBle: Euurggh! The other week, I joked that if she doesn't get it, then the BNP will 'inherit' their first MP by her defection; the more she opens her mouth the closer that notion seems to be to reality: Only properly answered the immigrant amnesty question -surprise surprise! Seems to be the no.1 fan of the sus laws making a comeback too...
JC: Came across the best, and seems to actually "get it" on the areas where the govt. has lost it's way; probably a gallant loser though, for that reason alone, I can't support him.

For the first time I switched off a Newsnight programme. What do the programme planners recommend in order to redress political balance? Most supporters of any other political party would have been appalled at this programming sycophancy especially as the winner will not necessarily be the deputy prime minister (whatever that means).
but merely the second in command of a political party.

Hazel Blears made a complete fool of herself last night, she was evasive and bland whilst proffering the trademark New Labour rictus grin with which all criticism and/or questioning must be met. She simply took the party line and offered absolutely no insight into herself or her abilites and beliefs, quite frankly a waste of all our time to even listen to her.

I genuinely hope (and do believe) that she stands absolutely no chance of winning and I'm rooting for Harriet Harman or John Cruddas, it's about time we had someone who was willing to stand up and answer questions honestly and with some degree of dignity.

There is nothing in politics that comes close to the seriousness of the question of entrentched communities who are understandably communicating back to china, rumania,iran, serbia,somalia,mozambique, turkey, iraq, bosnia, beirut, russia,south africa, egypt, jordan,greece, jamacia,libya,angola, bulgaria, syria,zambia,nigeria,congo,etc,that if you make your way here a house an d income will be provided, put on a graph its one way up,the rescources for the houses for them such as water,gas,electric,rubbish,etc,on a graph is one way down,at some point the lines must meet,a liberal,law abiding,country will collapse, along with democracy itself,how can there be a more important question than this to ask and be addresed.

All of this stuff about Cruddas being the non-spin candidate is nonsense. He was a former adviser to Blair, and a pretty rightish one at that. By presenting himself as the left-wing candidate he is doing precisely what he claims to detest so much: spin.

Not convinced by Harman and Hain, especially the former who appears willing to say anything to get the job.

Benn and Johnson could both do the job perfectly well. I'd go for Benn as he doesn't want to be Deputy Primer Minister where as Johnson does.

All 6 candidates seemed to lack the ability to answer a straight question directly last night. The programme simply reinforced my belief that none of them are to be trusted. Hazel Blears was particularly good at missing the point and digressing. There was a lot of talk about 'what the public wants and the public believes' - really? No-one has consulted me. And with the exception of Alan Johnson, I found the mainly shared view of much higher taxation and 're-distribution of wealth' very disturbing. Don't we pay more than enough already? Too much political speak, WAY too much political correctness and Peter Hain should stop referring to the BNP at every given opportunity in an effort to try and scare us all. We're not stupid y'know Peter.

I want to support Hazel Blears and wishes her success in Deputy Leadership elections. Owais Rajput keep carry on your good work for the community.

I am British Mulsim with Kashmiri Heritage. I believes in socialism and going to support Hazel Blears for Deputy Leadership. I also impress from Owais Rajput's community work.

Like most other people that have commented I felt that John Cruddas was the only "honest" candidate but feel that he will get cast aside quickly by his fellow party members. It was refreshing to see a politician answer questions honestly, admit mistakes and seem free of "spin".

I would like the candidates to answer or give their opinions on a few questions:

a) Why does the government only seem to respond to "celebrity" causes and there has to be uproar from the general public regarding issues before anything is ever done.
Government should canvass on a regular basis the views/opinions and issues of the people it represents. I think politicians would be very surprised to discover what the general public is ACTUALLY concerned about.

b) Why, after all unprecendented investment in each of the major "election issues" ie NHS and Schools, do we seem to be in a worse state than ever with hospitals A&E's closing, in severe debt, not enough doctors/nurses/midwives etc, long waiting lists for vital operations and treatment? It appears that our services are now subject to even more red tape and over managed than ever, yet no one seems to have any responsibility and the buck gets passed through each and every department with all denying all knowledge. All the while it is the taxpayers that are suffering the burden and stress.

c) I appreciate that families are the main people to woo with policy talk, but please would the candidates also remember that there are single people, elderly, couples without children that also have a vote and these people need to be recognised and acknowledged that they have valid opinions and issues as well.

d) Why are private care homes not penalised for not meeting recognised standards and the basic care needs of their residents and why do local councils not have the power/authority to penalise? Is it because that there aren't enough care homes in the UK therefore they are allowed to neglect people under their care without any worry of action taken to prevent/penalise/fine/sack accordingly?

e) Why is it becoming more apparent that if you wish to live in the UK you might be better off living in Scotland or Wales with their evolved governments. Wales with their free prescriptions (England's prescription charges keep rising!) and Scotland with their subsidised university fees (England's university fees are not).

Jon Cruddas was the only one present who was prepared to give a "straight" answer to a straight question. The others appeared not to comprehend what a "yes" or "no" answer actually meant. Jon looked to be the only honest one there - he has my vote. Let's hope I'm not alone.

If Labour wants to lose the next election then having either Cruddas, Harman or Hain on the campaign trail will do the trick. As a member of the Labour party I agree with Johnson and Benn that we must encourage aspiration, risk taking and, yes, money making. Not dumbing down as suggested by the left wing candidates. The last 10 years has seen many more people succeed than fail in the UK. We are a strong economic power again, thanks to the Blair/Brown team. The Blair ideas for giving more choice and loosening the powers of Unions in the Public Service are being copied around the world.(Maybe the left would rather be in Opposition - remembering Foot and Callaghan, rather than celebrating our most successful leader, ever, and our most successful period in office, ever). Raising taxes, the only solution that the left has to any problem, will not work. Harman and Cruddas are apealing to the Union vote. Most people in the workplace are not even, or do not need to be, Union members. Let's not take a leap back, we need to continue with the reforms and give real choice and power back to people and their communities.

I thought Jon Cruddas spoke well (Does anybody else think he sounds like David Davis??) But I can't see any logic in voting for him if he doesn't want any ministerial portfolio.

Of the others Hazel Blears was by far the least impressive I thought. Content to come out with any Blairite soundbit that fitted, and without any seeming conviction of her own.

I think in a way people like Peter Hain and Hillary Benn are almost too good to win the deputy leadership in that they could fill decent ministerial portfolios. (Benn for Foreign Secretary??) Alan Johnson seemed the kind of candidate who couold connect to ordinary people the best to me. He would get my vote, with some sort of Labout Party job (Party chairman?? going to Jon Cruddas)

Johnson - Blairite spiv

Blears - midget Barbara Castle who bossily tells you what is good for you

the rest - mainly courting the dinner-party circuit.

Excellent debate last night. Jeremy fed in the questions with his usual excellent sense of timing and we sat back and watched "Nu-Labour" eat itself alive.

Jon Cruddas appeared to be the only "human" on the panel, but wants to reintroduce "distribution of wealth" legislation scrapped by Mrs T.

Peter Hain was...well....Peter Hain.

Alan Johnson seemed desperate to say anything to appeal to the popularist vote.

Harriet Harman seemed to only care about women's issues but stuck the knife into Blair's spin-obesessed regime nicely.

Hazel Blears....(come on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ you could have given her a box to stand on) was the only candidate to have to READ her own 90 second pitch. She continually splouted the same Blairite claptrap we've seen for 10 years. Easily the worst of all candidates.

Hilary Benn was concise but with a really unnerving underlying theme of "Eat the rich".

So what did this debate tell us?

It told us that Nu-Labour are going to implode rapidly and depite 10 years of Blairite spin and control, that ultimately, they want to shaft the rich.

I hope whoever wins enjoys their very short time left in power.

Well done Newsnight, well exposed Jeremy!

It was good to have a political debate involving the contenders for the Deputy leadership of the Labour Party, but am I the only one left feeling rather depressed by most of the performances. Before the programme I thought I had made up my mind but by the end felt I was making the choice from the best of a bad lot. Alan Johnson was smug and complacent. Hilary Benn saddened me by the lack of fire and guts his father always displayed.Peter Hain I feel wants the job to promote his own career. Hazel Blears was so arrogant and strident,that if elected would be a gift for the tories. John Cruddas impressed but wonder about his lack of experience. The only one to win me over was Hariet Harman, calm measured and putting forward the policies the Labour Party needs to win me over from the Lib-Dems.

After last night, I want Harriet Harman to be the new Prime Minister with John Cruddas as her Deputy. But as he's unafraid to use the word "socialism" and has credible policies, I doubt the "New Labourites" would tolerate him. As for Alan Johnson, he's clearly a class traitor who's forgotten where he came from, and now looks and talks like a Tory.

Cruddas and Harman were the only candidates that gave straight-ish answers to the questions asked: but more importantly, Cruddas is,himself posing issues that as a party we have to address ( falling membership etc) if we are to be re-elected.
Johnson and Blears appear to think that any critique of the the present government is completely beyond the pale. Hence Johnson's mundane: 'Forwards, not backwards.'(yawn.....)
Cruddas gets my vote.

john @130 ended his post with the comment:
"The collective impression was to achieve the near impossible and make John Prescott look credible!"

Your not wrong.

Harriet Harman and John Crudas were the only two to apologise for having voted for the war in Iraq. 60% of the population thought the war was wrong and the evidence supplied was not sufficient to confirm the presence of WMD, especially if you believed Hans Blix, and there was no rsasonto disbelieve him. Anyone with half a brain could see if even if there were weapons of WMD, this wasn't the way to tackle the problem.

How can anyone who voted for the war sleep at night, knowing of the horrors being perpetrated there?

I thought Hilary Benn came across as honest and sincere and thats what we need. His Dad must be very proud, despite their obvious political differences. Hazel Blears came across as smug and patronising and simply pumped out cliches and mantra. Cruddas has nothing to offer in real terms, a bit like the Lib Dems who offer the world in the knowledge that they will never be in a position to produce the goods.....he even said so himself that he does not think he is really in the running for the job! Harriet was a let down. Peter was irritating and as for Alan sadly I have forgotten everything he said!!

Hazel Blears she's a typical short person absolutly full of her own importance no substance whatsoever out of a very unimpressive bunch Peter Hain would be my choice at least he looks the part. Let's face it anyone is going to be better than Prescott

Hazel Blears she's a typical short person absolutly full of her own importance no substance whatsoever out of a very unimpressive bunch Peter Hain would be my choice at least he looks the part. Let's face it anyone is going to be better than Prescott

excellent debate with Jeremy in my opion he would be a great Deputy to Gordon I think I know who would be in charge!! the candidate I would support is Peter Hain as for Hazel Blears she makes me sick so full of herself never stops for a breath tonight's debate taught me not to waste my vote on labour.

excellent debate with Jeremy in my opion he would be a great Deputy to Gordon I think I know who would be in charge!! the candidate I would support is Peter Hain as for Hazel Blears she makes me sick so full of herself never stops for a breath tonight's debate taught me not to waste my vote on labour.

"Cruddas and Harman were the only candidates that gave straight-ish answers to the questions asked"
I couldn't agree more.
Despite Blair's promise in '97 that he would clean up Westminster and to be "whiter than white", my trust and belief in anything that MPs say will take some reviving. Harriet Harman and John Cruddas appear to be the principled and (dare I say it) honest members that we so urgently need in Government. They were willing to speak from the heart, and did not simply reel off the party line like the rest of the candidates.

Jon Cruddas was by far the most impressive - straightforward, engaging,and actually seeming to understand how to lift the party from the doldrums.

And as for the Tory contributors here complaining about Newsnight broadcasting this hustings, it's not exactly unique! See here for example

The candidates' plea to move on from Iraq does not square with their constant bleating about the poll tax, Black Wednesday and Cameron's school days. Strange set of priorities when they deem where Mr & Mrs C sent little David to school as more important than hundreds of thousands of people killed.

Jon Cruddas was by far the most impressive - straightforward, engaging,and actually seeming to understand how to lift the party from the doldrums.

And as for the Tory contributors here complaining about Newsnight broadcasting this hustings, it's not exactly unique! See here for example

John Cruddas was (by comparison) direct, open, sincere, had a clear and meaningful idea of what the deputy's role might be and was refreshingly distant from the status jockeying and evasiveness of the other five.

At a push, Harman and Benn had some substance.

The remaining three were nothing more than politicians, and not very good ones at that.

Wee Jimmy Stalin worries me. I think she would do anything for a vote.

VERY impressed with Jon Cruddas. Not polished, haulting and clearly not media savvy... but very likeable and actually appears honest.

Alan Johnson also came across as a decent sort, happily playing by Jeremy's rules but allowing himself to be swamped by his opponants whom didn't.

The others spectacularly failed to impress... Blears and Harman (for different reasons) made me cringe everytime they spoke. Benn was all but invisible and Hain was just plain creepy.

Give Cruddas the job and do away with the Deputy PM position (do we really need that anyway?).

I am absolutely appalled by the way this government is stealing money from hardworking people on the grounds of safety. The culprits are from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Take the Driver CPC initiative to force Qualified Drivers to take a course every 5 years of, not driving proficiency but, first aid, how a truck works, how to treat customers etc. For this Drivers will have to pay £200 and training organisations who deliver the training have to pay £1300 + per year in levies. The same with Electrician,plumbers etc. Plain and simple Stealth Tax The incentive is to create a sense of importance in Drivers when many are already sick of the restrictions and treatment in place as it is and leave the Industry because the rewards are poor.

Given that she prides herself on "plain speaking" I thought Hazel Blears's contributions were given in her normal sycophantic style and were perfect examples of typical politician's prevarication on every question. And that went for virtually the lot of them, apart from Harriet Harman (to some extent) and the notable and conspicuous exception of John Cruddas. They did not even have the guts to state their preferred candidate. It's going to be more of the same in spades. How disappointing! The only hope of change seems to lie in John Cruddas

And the winner is......Harriet Harman!would like to say well done the others but i'd be lying.

I was appalled at the comments regarding taxation. Cruddas, Harman and to a far, far, lesser extent Benn talked about the disparity between those on high and low incomes.

Apparently we don't want to discourage aspiration, so we can't possibly look at taxation, according to Blears, Johnson and Hain. So its ok for people on low incomes to pay 20% tax, but not to make people on higher incomes pay more!!! A disgrace. I think a teacher on £25,000 a year contributes far more than a footballer on £50,000 a week. Blears sounded like Margaret Thatcher!

Having seen Hazel Blears previous " automatic pilot" appearances on Newsnight ( always admired Jerome for at least trying to make her say anything intelligible) she might have been perfect Blair material, but I can see her driving Gordon wild... Harriet I remember best for her gaffe at Question Time a few years ago when she mistakenly called "Prime Minister Gordon Brown" , causing rapturous excitement! My choice: either Peter or Alan ! Peter has tackled civil rights problems all his life. There is much to be done in the post Blair years! He is almost too good/valuable for the Deputee job. Alan is the right man at the right time. More than anybody else he is his own man and somehow not too closely associated with Tony Blair... He speaks the language people understand and deserves the job to top a wonderful career sofar. Paulus

Cruddas was far and away the best - clear, honest, refreshing. Why can't more politicians be like him? What is it about politics that mitigates against normal human beings?

Hain and Johnsone will seemingly say anything they think is the popular opinion of the day, no change there then. Unfortunately they both oozed smarm not charm.

Harman and Blears, why do they persist in using the rather annoying "I'm female" soundbite at any given opportunity, I personally would never use a persons gender as a consideration for any kid of vote. Harman mentioned she was "close to Gordon Brown" so her appointment would be pointless. Blears stumbled to give any real answer to anything, apart from the "I'm female" of course.

Cruddas did impress but seemed a bit too desperate to be the "only true socialist" at the New Labour tea party.

Benn had my vote before the debate, Benn still has my vote.

Here are my views on the candidates

Jon Cruddas seemed the only one not plagued by scandal.

Hilary Benn failed to give a good perfomrance

Hazel Blears is a hopeless Party Chair and is unable to control her own party

Harriet Harman failed to give a straight answer to anything

Peter Hain was too incapable and fell to pressure.

Alan Johnson was too confident that he would win since he only has a 1 in 6 chance of winning.

As it is refreshing to see a politician apearing to be franck,honest,and answer the question the consencous for Cruddas is understandable,but Arthur Scargill had these Qualities in abundance and Cruddas is somewhere to the left of him.

It is absolutely amazing that the contenders for deputy leadership, and this so called Labour Government think that it is right to continue with charitable status for private schools. It is wrong that these very rich establishments pay less council tax and general taxation because of it.
In Canterbury the King's School now owns every old building that has become vacant, there is not one building for us to have as a community centre because they own all of these wonderful old properties.
They have also bought most of the small family houses within the centre of the city for the independent living of their older students, besides having a multi million sports centre and swimming pool on a prime site next to their acres of green land.
Will ordinary kids ever have a chance of a state school with these advantages?
It is so grossly inequal that it beggars belief in a modern country.

John Cruddas was the only one who seemed to be able to give a straight answer. He gets my vote. Hopefully the dreadful Blears woman will quietly disappear after this contest is over. Mr Benn is an honest guy, but does not have that 'killer' instinct which the winner will need to survive once Buggins Brown gets the top job.

I think this person has a very poor recollection of Arthur Scargill. Arthur wanted a proleterian state on a fully planned economy. Jon Cruddas wants to see the worst excesses between rich and poor diminished so that those from the poorest families can have aspiration and those from the richest families don't have their future so settled it robs them of their ambition. The greatest predictor of your life chances is still your parents income. For equality to work we all need to pay into it in proportion with our income and that is what Jon Cruddas seems to be saying.

Well done to him for being honest and wanting to move away from redistribution by stealth to honest straightforward economic policy where people know what their taxes pay for and feel they may be helping those in societry who need their help most

having watched this debate i definetly changed my mind i'm actually backing Harriet Harman she is the only one for this post. i uswed to support Hilary Benn but based on last night he came out whit nothing but using old labour's language very very poor performance.
this how i marked this test

having watched this debate i definetly changed my mind i'm actually backing Harriet Harman she is the only one for this post. i uswed to support Hilary Benn but based on last night he came out whit nothing but using old labour's language very very poor performance.

Just after midnight I expressed my support for Jon Cruddas. Many say he can't win, but remember that we Labour Party members elected Walter Wolfgang and other CND supporters to the National Executive last year, so a vote for Jon is not a wasted vote!
On a pedantic note, I was astonished that 'Education' Minister Alan Johnson used the word 'insurgent' as though it refers to attackers entering a country from a neighbouring territory. The dictionary definition of 'insurgent' is simply 'rebel'. It seems that the use of the unnecessarily long word 'insurgent' was deliberately used by government, and therefore the media, in order to give a false impression of who exactly was attacking allied forces in Iraq. This 'spin' has clearly worked on Alan Johnson!
It is astounding to note people suggesting 'left-wing' policies (which relate to creating a peaceful world, and the elimination of world poverty, for example) would lose Labour the next election. In 1995, I predicted what a disaster Tony Blair would be for the Labour Party - since he had no philosophy. Local and European election results were very soon disastrous. Only the antiquated first-past-the-post system in General Elections enabled him to maintain national power. The damage he has done may put the Labour Party in the wilderness for decades. The Labour Party was founded (in 1900) in order to abolish wars, not to start them!

Just after midnight I expressed my support for Jon Cruddas. Many say he can't win, but remember that we Labour Party members elected Walter Wolfgang and other CND supporters to the National Executive last year, so a vote for Jon is not a wasted vote!
On a pedantic note, I was astonished that 'Education' Minister Alan Johnson used the word 'insurgent' as though it refers to attackers entering a country from a neighbouring territory. The dictionary definition of 'insurgent' is simply 'rebel'. It seems that the use of the unnecessarily long word 'insurgent' was deliberately used by government, and therefore the media, in order to give a false impression of who exactly was attacking allied forces in Iraq. This 'spin' has clearly worked on Alan Johnson!
It is astounding to note people suggesting 'left-wing' policies (which relate to creating a peaceful world, and the elimination of world poverty, for example) would lose Labour the next election. In 1995, I predicted what a disaster Tony Blair would be for the Labour Party - since he had no philosophy. Local and European election results were very soon disastrous. Only the antiquated first-past-the-post system in General Elections enabled him to maintain national power. The damage he has done may put the Labour Party in the wilderness for decades. The Labour Party was founded (in 1900) in order to abolish wars, not to start them!

I liked Peter Hain and Hilary Benn and thought Peter Hain was the most credible by a bit of a distance,unlike Cruddas and Harman Hain and Benn seemed to be saying what they believed and not just want they thought we the public wanted to hear.

John Cruddas showed his inexperience in the debate and is too far left to be credible.

The rest were o.k

Vote for Hilary Benn. He came across as honest, spoke with compassion and consideration, did not rant or backtrack, he did not shout or interrupt. He did not criticise his opponents or turn his back on Labour. I believe he would be excellent in the post. He came tops in my estimations last night, the other 5 ranged from predictable, to irritating, to patronising. Hilary Benn for Deputy!
Mike

Having watched last night's programme, based on the views expressed so far, I feel that David Cameron is the ideal candidate for Deputy Prime Minister in sucession to John Prescott.

James #60 "I thought Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears, and Jon Cruddas were short, to the point, and plain speaking."

Was that irony? Hazel Blears was certainly short (I didn't appreciate just how short), and as to any of them being plain speaking, I just couldn't believe what I was hearing when they sold themselves at the podium. It was so awful I thought it might be a commedy sketch. Paxman's question to Hain about him being well equipped to be an 'umbilical cord 'summed up why people are so cynical about politicians these days. Can it get any worse I ask?

I reckon something has clearly gone very wrong with the level of ability in our population if people like this can go on TV and speak the way they did at those podiums, expecting to be taken seriously.

This was Newsnight! Who do they think watches Newsnight?

PS Pity that this one didn't make more progress in the leadership contest, but given what he said here, I guess he didn't stand a chance given the party backers?:

(Speaking of which, how's that investigation going?)

Having watched last night's programme, based on the views expressed so far, I feel that David Cameron is the ideal candidate for Deputy Prime Minister in sucession to John Prescott.

For me, Jon Cruddas was the most credible and most in tune with the core of Labour voters. I was disappointed to hear him say that if he won he would not accept the post anyway!
Until the Newsnight special, I had never heard of him, but I suppose he is one of the silent majority of Labour MPs who have remained mere grumblers in the background.
It is funny reading through the comments here, even non Labour supporters were impressed, so maybe he actually is the right person for the job as maybe, just maybe, he's a politician who actually listens to the people who elected him!

Hazel Blears stood next to Hilary Benn made me laugh. It was obviously a setup, there is no way Hazel is that tall! she must have been standing on a soap box.

Er, Ben #203, this contest is for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party, a post Jon Cruddas would definitely accept. It is NOT for the post of Deputy Prime Minister. John Prescott happened to be both, but the latter post might not even exist in a Brown government.
Cruddas thinks the job of reconnecting the party leadership with current and lost members is one that needs full time effort. He also seems to think that the post needs to be independent of a government post to do that effectively. How can you discuss issues freely with party members if you are bound by cabinet collective responsibility on issues such as Britain's nuclear weapons or Iraq?
Personally I thought he won hands down, though Harman also did quite well.
Most disappointed with Benn & Hain. Johnson & Blears were much as expected.

I enjoyed watching the debate. It saddened me however that only Cruddas and Harman stepped away from official part line. The others appeared so institutionalised that they could only spout blairisms i really could not vote for labour again if hazel blears got the job - no substannce at all.

Michael from West Mids

As I said before the programme last night we would get politicians answers except perhaps for Cruddas who thinks we need to go back to the 60's with tax the rich etc.,and as for Public Schools oops everybody except Johnson lurched to the left.Is it possible that they do not realise how they have won 3 elections and do they really want the right wing behind Cameron elected?
This lots far from perfect (as an OAP without any benefits, not poor enough and far from rich) but have they forgotten the 80's.No money for NHS or any investment at all in the Railways.Mortage rates and interest rates at central American heights!!
I haven't a vote but if I had it would be Johnson.

What's happening with this online poll? 10 members of my family have voted for a candidate in last half hour and the percentage has gone down?

I'm a Tory and I have to say that the most articulate and the candidate with the most appeal is Hilary Benn. Pragmatic, moderate and grounded. He strikes me as someone who is genuine, principled and really straight with people. You get the sense you could count on him in a hard situation.

I think the members will vote for him but he'll lose on the union and MP vote. Seems to me that if the candidate with the most ordinary member support ended up losing the election, the result would be a blow to the leadership.

I'm a Tory and I have to say that the most articulate and the candidate with the most appeal is Hilary Benn. Pragmatic, moderate and grounded. He strikes me as someone who is genuine, principled and really straight with people. You get the sense you could count on him in a hard situation.

I think the members will vote for him but he'll lose on the union and MP vote. Seems to me that if the candidate with the most ordinary member support ended up losing the election, the result would be a blow to the leadership.

Re- the online poll

Who actually won...

personally I think Harriet came out of it well...and unfortunately Hilary has a lot to live up to, with his dad....and he does fall short!....

How come most people seem to think that Jon Cruddas is the best candidate- and yet nobody thinks he has a hope of winning.
If he doesn't there's clearly been some electoral fraud going on!

I met Hazel Blears at Scottish Labour's conference last year, and liked her enormously. She was warm, enthusiastic, knowlegable and fun off the platform, and inspiring on it. But her answers on the show on Iraq, taxation, education,Trident, redistribution of wealth - just about everything that matters - mean I can't possibly vote for her.

I would like a woman as deputy leader, because gender balance is important to me, and it's not just about 50/50 on the back benches, but throughout the hierarchy. So Harriet Harman became the focus of my attention. But I can't vote for her - Trident!!!

So to my surprise, it'll be John Cruddas,sound on Trident, sound on education, sound on the redistributive agenda, and keen to restore policy making to the membership. One flaw - not one candidate responded, to any question, "I have my own views, of course, but I'd like to consult the membership on that one........."

There is a fault with your voting system for Newsnight. I voted after the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party programme and the number of votes cast never changed and at one point all of Benn's and Hain's voted disappeared and when they returned their percentages had been slashed.......had theirs been reallocated to the others I wonder? I don't think we can rely on the outcome from this poll at all.
Mike

It has taken me a couple of days to get over the Newsnight Special, where the 6 candidates for the Deputy PM job pitched out their stalls.

I find it incredible that this is the best Neo Labour has to offer.

I find it incredible that our country cannot muster great leaders, or even potentially great leaders.

A bunch of recycled Communists, a recycled "nearly" Lord who now is out of the closet where his socialism is concerned, & the rest a more motley crew of talentless wannabe's could not be mustered on the lowest common denominator reality TV programme.

How bleak & dismal they all are, & how bereft of any patriotism or even a hint of actually being "proud" of Britain between them.

Jon Cruddas is the only candidate who talks facts and figures. He's not afraid to admit mistakes either. The other 5 talk all around various subjects - but get a straight answer from them? No way. Jon must be the people's choice!
If you are in a position to vote in the Deputy Leader contest please vote for Jon. Just mark the ballot paper for Jon Cruddas as your first choice. Don't put any other votes down. If the ballot goes to 2nd or 3rd choices then any other name you mark up will count against Jon. You don't HAVE to vote for more than one person on the ballot paper.

Is it just me, or are we only paying attention to this deputy leadership because there isn’t a proper one? It's as though because we’re not having a proper one, we're pretending to have a real one using people who don’t matter - deputies. When the candidates introduced themselves they were speaking as though they were going to be the next PM, as though they actually had the political influence to change things and make a difference. This deputy leadership is a token post. That someone of Prescott's intellect was given the job, made a hash of it, but still managed to keep it, reflects how little it matters.

I've just turned 18 and I'm really interested in politics. Listening to those deputies however is slightly depressing. They talk in semantics and seem detached from reality. I also don’t like the way the point of being in politics is to 'get elected'. They were all talking about how to get elected next time, as though being elected for being elected's sake is the goal. Its not, you focus on making a difference and making good policy, and elections should take care of themselves (when complemented with a good campaign team). They all helped reinforce the opinion among some people that politics is more about politicians wanting to stay in power rather than them wanting to make a difference.

It seemed most of the deputies were all pretty left wing, which is a shame. The only thing that has made Labour plausible is Blair being more right wing and capitalist than the rest of his party. Brown looks like he loves to meddle and his potential deputies all look like reds too. Big government doesn’t work long term. We’ve had a decade of growth, but that’s because the public sector has expanded massively and provided jobs. Private sector growth has actually been quite sluggish despite a lot of inward investment. Brown could only do this because he had a rather large budget surplus in 97. Now there’s a big budget deficit from the expense of maintaining a bloated, clumsy government, he’s having to cut back salaries and jobs in the Public sector. All of this means I’m voting Tory next election. If only my dad (a Ford’s shop steward) knew…

The suggestion that Private Schools are excessively subsidised by the 'Charity Status' Tax breaks is a nonsense and the candidate(s) putting this forward should be asked if he (they) are member(s) of the 25% of state school leavers who are arithmetically illiterate.

It is reported by the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ that 502,000 children were in private school last year and the charity subsidy is £100m per annum.
A simple calculation shows that this amounts to approximately £200 per pupil per year. Peanuts compared to the £2bn or more it would cost the state to educate them every year let alone the contribution their parents make to taxes that pay for the other 93% of children to go to school.

In August 2005 Blears, while standing in for ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Secretary Charles Clarke (who was on holiday), suggested the 'rebranding' of ethnic minorities in favour of adopting US-style hyphenated titles such as Asian-British-Canadian. This proposal was quickly withdrawn by the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Office, as the government moved to distance itself from the idea.
Nevertheless this inspired Private Eye magazine to 'rebrand' Blears as 'That stupid woman who Charles Clarke left in charge while he was sunning himself on holiday'.

The Labour Party is in trouble when not a single candidate was able to tell that the "evidence" of WMD was false, when Newsnight had demonstrated that. If the country were to depend upon someone that incapable being the one responsible for telling the party leader and PM unpalatable truths, ensuring the he is in touch with reality, as some candidates suggested, it could lead to yet more disaster.

Terrible to see Peter Hain is still blinded by ambition. He thinks "no one" disbelieved the WMD "evidence"? How could he he not understand that desiring to be an umbilical cord was ridiculous, and that JP was gently pointing that out?

Hilary Benn came over excellently, as long as the role is not that of a link to the grassroots, but I kept wondering if he will turn as obsessed as Tony Benn.

Both women came over at terribly damaged by the sexism they have experienced - I don't know whether mostly in the Labour Party, or in government too - and far too reliant upon calling for support on the basis of their sex. Where are the quality women candidates?

Of the bunch, John Cruddas came over best to me.

I was surprised to note that ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Newsnight thought it fit to debate the forthcoming election of the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.How long has the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ become the official propaganda cite for the Labour Party ? Are we going to have fair play so that election for other party leaders will be debated on TV, a waste of the Licence Fee. Looks like Mr.Paxman is leaning towards the Labour Party, airing their issues
when there are other important matters to be debated or discussed. We get enough politics in our life without having to spend our evenings listening to self interested politicians blowing there own trumpets in public hosted by Jeremy to give them credability.Time to pack up Mr Paxman while you are on top.May be you are waiting for Honours before Labour go out of power?one of the elcted Deputy Leader is sure to put your name forward.

interesting that the two individuals who came out on top were the two who were prepared to admit they were wrong about Iraq, would have voted differently if they knew the real situation and that an apology should be offered to the British people

Jon Cruddas is best equiped with new quantum energy to make that leap happen in politics and triger a change..
I applaude him, he has shown maturity, courage, and he's spin-free
unlike the rest of the condidates.
I foresee a bright future for him.
A spin-free and straightforward politics starts by getting Jon Cruddas in .
Congratulations Jon.
Keep up the good work.
julia

Owais Rajput told me about this website and it is interesting. I want to support Hazel Blears as she is the true voice of disadvantage groups. Owais you choose the right candidate.

Owais Rajput Well done and keep carry on your hard work for the community. I want to see Hazel Blears as a Deputy Leader as she know how to target real big issues in the community. Hazel this is the time when we have to learn from out mistakes and I am sure Hazel, you going to bring innovative changes in near future as a Labour Party Deputy Leader.

I want to support Hazel Blears for Deputy Leadership as she talks about equalities and Owais Rajput because of you I get chance to meet these Ministers.

Interesting that the Newsnight website is hiding the breakdown of the results - Jon Cruddas won by a landslide, I wonder if that is the reason?

As for Hilary Benn being the 'favourite' to win, I wonder if that is just pure spin from the Benn camp? After all, according to over 3000 people who voted on this poll, he is the second most unpopular candidate.

Blears won't get my vote not just because she is irritating, smug and full of her own self-importance but because she has Tony's cronies backing her namely Reid, Byers, Milburn, Clarke, Mandelson, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,