So, on my ballot paper my rankings were. (And it was a virtual ballot: I voted online.)

1 David Miliband
2 Ed Miliband
3 Andy Burnham
4 Ed Balls
5 Diane Abbott

Why? I’m one of the “heart says Ed, head says David” brigade. I am personally not convinced that the coalition will last for the full five years and we need to start preparing a plausible programme for government (and maybe a minority government). Either way, we need to be a serious possible party of government at the next general election. Labour has drifted since May and whilst Ed M’s politics are closer to mine (his living wage campaign is exactly right) we don’t have a gap year available for him to find his feet. David will hopefully hit the ground running and has more gravitas. That’s why I voted for him as my first preference. We must win next time. He’s the best choice for that. I don’t really buy all this “red Ed” nonsense.

But I think the election campaign for leader has been useful. It’s good to reflect on what went wrong and what we need to do. That’s why I hope that Balls and Burnham are big hitters at the top table in the new shadow cabinet. It’s been good to learn a lot more about both men. Balls is a bruiser and noone else is doing more to attack the coalition government, in my opinion. I have been very impressed with him. Burnham is a thinker and a tremendous champion of the NHS who I want to hear much more from. I hope that we were essentially backing and solidifying a top team, not just a leader.

Which takes me to Diane. Is she a showbiz personality or a politician? I hope she makes up her mind because I think she’s got a lot to give. It’s time for her to get off the sofa with Michael Portillo and head to the front bench and start knocking some heads together. She’s a good communicator and we need her. Party first please, Diane. Just this once. We indulged your challenge and I think there’s a quid pro quo.

So what happens now? We’ll find out in a few hours. The next leader of the Labour Party will be a Miliband. But will the next Prime Minister?

It can't work.
Even if the UK, EU, US and others cook up a scheme there will be still be an unregulated paradise somewhere that won't sign up. (Quite right too.) My own site, for instance, would be branded (12) for occasional adult language and moderate violence and yet all the filth will be still be freely available. Mission not accomplished.

It won't work
Even if they come up with a cleverer scheme, it won't work. A horny 13 year old boy (like a billionaire looking for a tax loophole or a crack addict looking or money for their next hit) will find a way to access the porn. No government can legislate for that. And if Andy Burnham thinks otherwise he isn't the wanker lots of people are saying he is.

It shouldn't have to work.
Aren't people responsible for their own behaviour? Aren't parents in some way in charge of their own children? There are plenty of ways of keeping children away from adult content. An act of parliament really isn't one of them.

I'm sure that the announcement is a bit of weekend policy aimed at grabbing a few headlines and reassure the readers of the Daily Mail (especially those who fear that every night the Channel Tunnel resembles the start of the London Marathon with hordes of 'forriners' dashing headlong towards these islands with dreams of a superstar life on impossibly generous benefits that aren't available to honest, native, heterosexual, white folk. You think I jest?)

I'm not overly troubled by the suggestion until it becomes more solid and a proper policy proposal. But we should have our barricades ready. The real issue here is that government doesn't understand the internet and that's a problem. For those of us who make our living from it, it's potentially even more troubling than the forecast recession. We need to be ready to make our case.