Mark Oaten was pro- Iraq War. On “Question Time” he said to Bernard Jenkin: “They (the French) will come round.” But he kept his trap obediently shut when he saw which way the wind was blowing.

I would have preferred the Party’s position to be that we would oppose Cheney’s war even if the UN Security Council sanctioned it. The billions of dollars in bribes offered by the US government could have tipped the balance – it was touch and go right up to the wire.

Thank goodness CK did at least go the length he did.

The next leader MUST, MUST, MUST, oppose war with Iran.

Both candidates have said they will, so let’s hold them to it.

No ifs, no buts, no support for war.

James and Simon have it right. All the hangers-on who exist around the leader (one of whom even seemed to get his girlfriend a peerage) crave the status, the access and all of that. Yet the advice they gave Kennedy on Iraq was supremely duff. (Though I’m only aware of one – named in Liberator – who was pro-the Iraq war – the rest was timidity.)

There is an important separation though with staff – most of whom genuinely do care to get this right though they may not have the networks with the activists etc – they are not there for a gong, hardly any of them have ever been offered or taken one.

Simon is on the money in his analysis of the decisions leading up to the leader going on the anti-war march, and I type this as the person who moved the motion in the FE which got the whole thing rolling. We spent a month with members of Kennedy’s inner-circle doing everything they could to thwart us and stop Kennedy from going on the march; ultimately, he only went on it because Donnachadh McCarthy started raising it in the press, David Frost subsequently asked him a pointed question on his Sunday programme and Kennedy panicked and said he’d go on it.

With all that said, I’m not at all convinced that stopping people in a leaders’ inner circle from receiving an honour will even remotely sort out the problem, or even that you can do very much about it at all. My reading is that people like to be in positions of influence for its own sake. If you want a gong, earn big money in the city and pay a political party a donation – it will save you a lot of time and frustration. I’m sure I could come up with loads of “insiders” who either have not received an Honour or already had their Honour before they began.

Groupthink is a problem we all need to deal with, not just party leaders. I would be mightily impressed with a leader who pro-actively worked to ensure that he listened to as broad a range of views as possible. But it’s a high stress job and we have to recognise that “bunkering” will happen to the best of leaders.

Paddy was an interesting case in this respect. During his early days we went out of his way to extend his circle of contacts. When the World Wide Web was in its infancy, Paddy embraced Cix and used it as a way of communicating with the grassroots. But eventually he lost patience with a party which seemed not to appreciate all he’d done for them and slowly withdrew until he had given up on Cix altogether.

So if anything I’d be disappointed if either of the candidates took the “bunker pledge”. But I would like to hear how they envisage avoiding the problems that Simon highlights.

Two points; I think we should cut the leader some slack and secondly, we should all make an effort to have a Party President from outside the Bubble who can frankly advise leaders when they feel they are becoming detached from their colleagues or from the general mood of the party.

Some of us, who really care and who are personally affected, just aren’t able to do that I’m afraid

Occasionally, however, it is necessary to post so that things that are just so off beam don’t go unchallenged or gain currency

[continues paranoia sweep-screening of all internet postings]

Investigates the bunker mentality of the US Government during the Vietnam war.

Who out of Kennedy’s ‘bunker’ was enobled by his leadership?

Who from Campbell’s ‘bunker’ was enobled by his leadership?

he hasn’t got a clue what actually goes on in a leader’s office, how different advisers advise, who has the ear and who doesn’t, how peerages are handed down or not.

This is just utter speculation.

The two examples he uses are rot – of course there were people around kennedy saying support Iraq – some people believed that was the right course – there were also loads of people saying no chance – the whole point is that the Leader gets a range of advice – hawks and doves

Using the lack of publicity on the Environment as an example is just piffle – what people like Titley only see is what is reported, not how much work and effort goes unreported.

The insinuation that anybody who goes to work for a leader is after a peerage is frankly insulting.

This is a classic case of ‘We activists are pure of heart, you in the parliamentary party only care about yourself’

rubbish – I’ve seen the hours these people work, the blood, the sweat and the many, many tears. The passion, the desperation to do well, to get it right, to stick to principle, to impress the public as well as the party.

How dare you, how dare you say its all about peerages, shame on you.

Really? (she said innocently) How utterly dreadful.

The suggestion seems harmless enough, though I think to imagine that it would actually make a difference is getting a little too caught up into the outsider’s imagination of how the insiders are run.