TO LISTEN to the British electorate criticise Tony Blair is like standing at the customer service counter at Harrods just after Christmas. Lots of excuses, but everyone wanting to return what they have in favour of something better.

Last Friday night The Times and BBC2’s Newsnight programme asked me to gather 30 voters selected to represent the audience that will determine Labour’s future. One third were loyal Labourites. One third were Labour-leaners. And one third were floating voters who cast ballots for the Tories or the Liberal Democrats but would consider switching to Labour if it choose the right leader.

I presented them with biographies, speeches and interviews of five potential candidates for the leadership: the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, the obvious frontrunner; John Reid, Home Secretary; Alan Johnson, Education Secretary; Alan Milburn, former Health Secretary; and David Miliband, Environment Secretary. Some of these candidates won’t run, while others may yet declare their candidacy.

So who did our participants choose? Not Gordon Brown. In fact, Mr Brown didn’t even finish second.

Our Labour faithful, leaners and floaters all found Mr Brown intelligent and almost none had anything negative to say about his performance as Chancellor. On substance, he does well. But on style, the people who should be his strongest supporters instead see him as dour, dull and deceitful: an electoral disaster.

There are three reasons. First, there is the sense of “been there, done that, not again” about Mr Brown. When asked to give the first word or phrase that came to mind to describe him, half of the participants mentioned either age or years of service — and always negatively. To some, he looks and sounds just like every other politician in pre-Blair Britain: a canned stump speech and insincere sincerity. To others, he is Tony Blair redux. When one participant accidentally called him “Tony Brown” nobody laughed because everyone agreed.

Then there is the perception that Mr Brown knifed his own leader. We tested his interview with Andrew Marr where he denied involvement in a political “coup”. No one believed him. None. It was the single most poorly received moment of the entire evening. In fact, it was the worst received interview I have ever tested in Britain.

Thirdly, Mr Brown is Scottish. To my surprise, almost half the group opposed being led by a Scotsman. I pushed them hard — and they pushed back. “It’s not racist. I want someone who is English running England.”

Before you dismiss these results, consider this. A year ago Newsnight hired me to collect 30 Conservative-leaning voters hours before the party conference. Their conclusion: the so-far unknown David Cameron was the ideal candidate against several more recognisable opponents. The same dynamic is at work here.

So if Mr Brown is not the first choice, who is? If these voters have their way, John Reid will be the next Labour leader — perhaps. He was the clear winner in our session, but he has a way to go. Only a fraction of our participants could name Mr Reid just from his photograph. But two words immediately came to mind as their familiarity grew: “strong” and “tough”. In the on-air battle between Mr Reid and Jeremy Paxman, half thought Paxman won, but the other half saw in Reid’s refusal to back down a demonstration of backbone and the determination they want in their next leader.

The single most well received language of the evening was Mr Reid’s declaration that “a court judgment that put the human rights of foreign prisoners ahead of the right to safety of UK citizens is wrong. Full stop. No qualifications”. His anti-criminal, pro-victim rhetoric communicated an essential personal attribute that the rest of the Labour leadership is missing — genuine listening. “He’s listening to the people on the streets.”

Mr Reid has two characteristics the voters did not like in Gordon Brown: age and a Scottish ancestry. But they didn’t seem to mind. To them, he is “action, not talk”. To them, “he is such a strong man, he’s actually going to do something”. In this era of personality over politics, Mr Reid’s unwavering intensity is the perfect antidote to Tony Blair’s spin and Mr Brown’s duplicity.

Alan Johnson has the perfect biography. Participants felt he had the right life-experience. And when he cracked a joke at David Cameron's expense (“I was coming on these (TV) programmes without a tie when David Cameron was having a fag behind the bike shed at Eton”) he hit the right note.

But for almost everyone, his presentation is, in a word, boring. They didn’t disagree with a word he said. His stated objective that “never again in this country will people have to chose between heating and eating” was certainly pleasing to the ear. But most participants felt his résumé spoke better than . . . well . . . his speaking.

Alan Milburn suffered the same fate. His repeated references to “the public” and “the people” in his speeches were not well-received by the public and the people. The potential Labour electorate are not interested in a political discourse about Britain. They want to know what the next Labour leader is going to do for them.

David Miliband earned exactly the opposite reaction. His official photograph drew laughter from the audience (several participants said he looked like a Tory Boy), and the initial reaction to his unbending defence of Mr Blair was poorly received. But Mr Miliband’s articulate defence of Labour policies surprised participants and changed a few minds. He will be a leading candidate . . . though not in the upcoming election.

The lessons for Labour, and for Mr Brown, are clear. It is not a question of New Labour versus old Labour. It’s not even an issue of young versus old. It’s about the future versus the past. And to the potential Labour electorate, Gordon Brown is history.

Frank Luntz is a leading US pollster. His interviews will be broadcast on Newsnight tonight

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden