Any Labour members care to start a discussion regarding the leadership election?

longfingernails, I hope you're right that "often people don't vote for policies, they vote for values". At least that would be better than the current Americanised-trend of treating General Elections like Presidential contests where in effect everything is boiled down to "which of these two (or three at a push) men do you think would make the best Prime Minister?".

claig There are authoritarians and libertarians in both Labour and the Tories.

Michael Howard and Anne Widdecombe would definitely not be taking the same stances on these issues as David Cameron and Theresa May.

but longfingernails it is very sad but true that the socialists have always deceived the public on civil liberties. Their top leadership has never been for them, they have always been authoritarian. They are far more similar to more extreme socialists and communists such as the Stasi, than Thatcher ever was. Many of their top people like Mandelson, Reid, Darling, Clarke, Straw were very sympathetic to communism in their youth.

Anyway the best place to follow the race seems to be the Labour Uncut blog

labour-uncut.co.uk/

which has this very useful timetable

labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/06/07/timetable-for-the-election-of-the-leader-of-the-labour-party/

Also the New Statesman has good commentary from the left

www.newstatesman.com/

The Guardian seems to be quite rubbish in comparison.

Maybe one of you Labour members can explain the process because I am feeling stupid - why does the official website here have endorsements from consitutency Labour parties, trade unions, and MEPs listed? Do these endorsements play a formal role, or are they just for information?

I thought that now the formal process just involves the voting, which is transferrable votes but in three blocks - MPs/MEPs, Trade Unions, and Labour Members.

longfingernails, agree with you that the coalition are a godsend compared to Labour on civil liberties. They will free us far more. If Labour's reign had continued it would have been a very dark day indeed for the people of the country. There are Labour individuals who are pro civil liberties, but unfortunately they don't have much power, just as they didn't have much power to stop the war. The people in charge of the Labour party, such as Blair et al., run it as their own personal fiefdom, they have their own kitchen cabinet stuffed full of unelected pals like Lord Falconer.

The Tories are repealing pay as you throw, but are still allowing bin chips. They will not be perfect on civil liberties, because they are still bound by EU directives. However, they will be far better than Labour were.

That's my point. Civil liberties, especially under Thatcher, weren't associated with the Tories.

The very fact that despite having people like Diane Abbott in Labour, the coalition has completely outflanked them on civil liberties, must be very galling. Now you know how Tories felt to have "their" political territory stolen from them by Blair!

Just yesterday in PMQs Harriet Harman was arguing against regulation of CCTV. This is the former legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties!!

Prolesworth Yes, I automatically distrust anything coming out of ACPO. They misuse their position badly and are completely unregulated.

However, in general I am hopeful though realistic about civil liberties. There will be lots of individual scandals and hypocrisy, but in the big picture, we will be more free than under Labour.

Whilst I would have preferred a Tory majority to a coalition, civil liberties are the one area where hopefully the coalition will do better than any one party individually. The libertarian wings of both parties will hopefully reinforce one another.

Prolesworth Oh, the new government certainly doesn't go far enough with civil liberties for my liking - but come on. If you had to answer which of Labour and the coalition cared more about civil liberties, I think it would be completely obvious! Those on the libertarian left should read Section 10 of the Coalition document and weep at what Labour has become:

10. Civil liberties

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:

• A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

• The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.

• Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.

• The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

• Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.

• The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

• The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.

• The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.

• Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

• Further regulation of CCTV.

• Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.

• A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

Brilliant cartoon!

I'm a little bit distracted by how attractive I find Ed M to be

But I promise I will read and digest all their stuff and - if I'm entitled to - will vote impartially.

I, too, worry about David M being Tony Blair incarnate.

noyoucant

Actually often people don't vote for policies, they vote for values.

So many people will have voted Labour simply thinking, for example, "Labour are the party of the NHS" (whatever the various policy proposals on the NHS were). People will vote Tory because "the Tories will sort out the economy" (whatever the various policy proposals).

And by ditching values you lose the reason for political parties to exist.

Of course values must be tempered with realism - what could realistically be achieved and how fast - but they are still very important.

Unfortunately I think people confuse values and ideology. Tony Blair was very ideological about being non-ideological, but had no values. David Cameron is similarly non-ideological, but from my perspective, hopefully has traditional Tory "gut instincts" when it comes to making decisions. Time will tell.

'land', not 'mand'

longfingernails I take you point to a degree. In fact the truly cyncial approach would be to now elect the best candidate in terms of winning an election and then dumping them post-election for the person best suited to leading the country, or to take Prolesworth's point, the best person to implement the core beliefs and values of the party.

I'm not suggesting that the best "election-winning" candidate would necessarily make the best PM candidate. But I just hope the Labour party learns from its past mistakes and does try to repeat the logic of the Tony Blair approach rather than the 'Longest Suicide Note in History' days of the '80s that helped mand the UK with 11 years of Thatcherism.

Ed Balls would finish off Clegg and Cameron in debate. He is a fighter, he argues a case, he doesn't just make bland statements. He has years of experience in government, so he knows what he is talking about. Clegg is an empty bag of hot air, who can only repeat the mantras that his spin doctors have taught him, "fairness and new politics". Cameron is too polite, we saw in the TV debates that he couldn't even finish Brown off, which should have been a piece of cake given Labour's record. Ed Balls is far better than clumsy bumbling Brown. Ed Balls would be just as well briefed as Brown but he would be able to fight his corner.

Andrew Neil tried to make it look bad that Balls was a plotter against Blair. Frankly that endears him to me. Neil tried to make it look bad that Balls was a "thug" for Brown. But that is politics and shows that Balls is no pushover. Neil said that Blair came away from discussions with Balls feeling that he had been abused. But that shows that Balls argues his corner and didn't grovel to Blair. Neil tried to get Balls on the war, but Balls said that he was wrong in hindsight. Neil agreed with Balls on the graduate tax which sounds like a better policy than what happens now. He was adamant about negotiating about EU labour movement and sounded convincing. He argued for the independence of the Bank of England when many of his colleagues like Bliar were against it. He has his own convictions and the fact that Blairites like Campbell are not too keen on him is a plus point in my book.

Andrew Neil was exasperated by him, because Neil didn't managed to get him on any issue.

As one Labour commentator said, "it is better to be feared than liked". Balls will be feared because he is competent and as he said himself, he is capable of taking it to the Tories. Diane Abbott is liked and is amusing on the couch with Portillo, but she is not feared, because she doesn't pose any real threst. Clegg is universally liked by the media, but the public will soon tire of that empty bag of wind.

I would have thought that Labour voters are now looking for someone to fight the Tories. They don't need any more nice but dim leaders who will serve up another defeat. Gordon Brown was not liked, but he also lacked real fighting qualities. Balls is the only one of the candidates who has the qualities to pose a threat to the Tories, and will single-handedly dismantle the LibDems and calamity Clegg.

However, I still think that Labour will make the mistake of voting in the media's darling, David Miliband.

Diane Abbot is great for diversity - she's the only one of the five who sends her child to private school

Beliefs and values are worthless in perpetual opposition. Just ask Michael Foot. Which of his polices, quite a few of which I was sympathetic to, was he able to implement? What's the point in sincerely believing in something, and thinking that it will benefit society, if you don't do your best to try and put yourself in a position to actually be able to do something about it?

Politics is about the exercise of power. If you aren't in power then everything you do and say should be designed with getting back into power in mind.

noyoucant I think the answer to that is probably David Miliband - but that is, with respect, not the end.

There is of course policy. I am not sure Labour members are ready for another dose of Blairism taking their party. There is the whole civil liberties agenda, which was often championed by Labour in the past but has now been completely wrested away by the coalition.

But most importantly you also have to ask whether the candidate would make a good Prime Minister. Whether they have a history of being decisive. Whether their temperament is suited to the pressure. I don't think David Miliband fits the bill here.

These things are independent of party and political persuasion. Tony Blair was definitely Prime Ministerial. Gordon Brown was not. Attlee was definitely Prime Ministerial. So was Thatcher. So was Callaghan. Major was not.

Which candidate gives Labour the best chance of winning the next election? The end.

Pretty much no-one who watches Newsnight or This Week, or listens to the Today programme, is going to be a floating voter.

Connecting with ordinary people is much more important than beating Paxman or even winning at PMQs. Hague thrashed Blair regularly at the dispatch box but was rubbish in the election.

Glad you like it. Have you noticed where Diane's right hand is? What's that meant to signify?