Sorry, but its got to be Alan...

That is actually quite painful for me to say as well.

From the start I had backed Alan as my favoured candidate but during the campaign he had been so lacklustre I had wandered. Somewhat like a war refugee, unable to go home but finding nowhere which welcomed or suited me.

He was a strong candidate for valid reasons but was also a weak one for similar reasons. He was English, woriking class, Trade Unionist who had a competant ministerial background and was good on TV and on the doorstep. However the problem was due to his strengths he would definitely get a big ministerial job and he knew it; he hadn't appeared too interested in sorting the mess that is the Party out and had no proper ideas about it; his ministerial background had been abit too much 'talk left, act right' about it too. But the others were worse. Peter Hain had impressed me during the campaign with what he said but he used to be a Liberal so he was gone; Harriet Harmen said all the right things but it was so false it was laughable, and all her staff hate her guts - not a good indicator; John Cruddas had some great ideas about the Party but presented them in a truly appaling way - like a rapper who had swallowed an economics textbook; Hilary Benn was just doing it to position himself for 'after Gordon' and was far too vacuous and polished; Hazel Blears had performed well but is politically evil.

So then where does that leave us? I approached the EPLP meeting with Alan Johnson on Tuesday night like a cuckolded old man approaches his sexy young wife: I knew I was being cheated and would continue to be but damn it, give me a reason to stay and I will! In this state I listened with detachment, sometimes amusement and growing apprehension.

It was just like the rest of the campaign, he said alot of good things (Councils should be allowed to build Council houses - thats a novel one hey?) he spoke alot of common sense and he cracked a few decent jokes, but he never quite sold it to me. He was good but great, I was impressed in a detached, professional sort of way but not impressed in a Moses to the masses kinda way. I walked out in exactly the same way as I walked in, edgy, dispassionate and unconvinced.

So there you go. I've now seen four of the six candidates speak to the EPLP and ge grilled by them too. The best performance was Blears but as I said, shes evil. After that Benn pissed me off, Cruddas drove me nuts and Johnson missed bis chance. Harman cancelled and Hain never even bothered that much. Maybe I should abstain? Or maybe a spoilt ballot? But thats not my way, not voting is not an option and as at every count I've ever witnessed I've always thought 'tosser' everytime I see a spoilt ballot thats not going to happen either.

So I guess its Johnson.

Oh well, I guess this is the problem when the election is solely between the good guys, I mean its like asking someone which one of the Three Musketeers should avoid getting skewered by Cardianal Richelieu's henchmen - how do you pick? You start having to pick holes in the heros. Porthos is a lovable rogue but does that mean he deserves the chop cause he's a drunken letch? Who could make that choice?!?!? Picking holes in them just leaves you feeling dispirited with their world and depressed about the result. And so it is with this election for me. Blears might be evil but I prefer it when I can see the Salford-girl-done-good batter a tory on Question Time; Benn might be vacuous but I prefer it when I see him enthusing about helping the world's poor and Porthos might be a drunken letch with more sti's than a Bangkok ladyboy but damn it hes good fun and he's handy with both of his swords!

Besides to complete my Three Musketeers analogy, everything is better when its 'One for all, and all for one'!