Right, conference has come and gone and we are left wondering what is really going on behind the scenes...

 

First, the speeches:

 

I didn't see Gordon Brown's speech, although I am told not to expect too much. It was apparently flat, which doesn't surprise me. Gordon Brown fails to motivate people unless he is speaking about something he really feels passionate about. I heard him speak in Manchester a year ago on third world poverty and he was fantastic. He lacks the 'actor-presenter' (I hate Clare Short) characteristic that Tony Blair has.

 

Blair's speech was classic Blair. Like him or loathe him you cannot deny that he has no equal in British politics when it comes to speech making. The way he helds conference in the palm of his hands was so symptomatic of what has happened over the past 12 years.

 

John Prescott was typically John Prescott. That is what we expect from him, not croquet at some luxury government owned country house. He seemed genuine about his apology.

 

John Reid has presence, but I must question the content sometimes. He can be too extreme on the wrong side. I must question this stance put forward by him, Blair and indeed George Bush about the foreign policy not being the cause of aggression towards Britain and America, which is obviously wrong. Why these people - supposedly intellectuals, although Bush - cannot see the consequences of their actions amazes me...

 

The cloud of the leadership hung over conference like a bad smell and whilst I accept that it is important, more so than an election of an opposition leader, but there are serious policy debates that needed greater attention. I was delighted the leadership were defeated over private sector involvement in public sector, particularly the NHS.

 

The party may seem united, but as soon as the MPs are back in Westminster the troubles will most likely continue.