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

[MarionCole]

Firstly, the email from Ray Collins which says "we have to make sure that those who share our values and beliefs are invited to have their say. That?s why we?ll shortly be taking out an advert in a national newspaper to invite them to join and to play their part." Does that mean they have changed the rules so that new members can vote?

I had a dream about Ed Miliband last night, I think it may be clouding my judgment.

'land', not 'mand'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?".

noyoucant Sorry but further Americanisation of our politics is inevitable. There is no escape.

And in a society where there are fewer "natural" communities than ever before, values are less relevant though still crucial.

Media skills will become much, much more important - even more so than now. That alone is why Ed Balls will never get close.

Prolesworth, I think it's a fair point about the "homogeneity of the main parties" but I'm not sure that the lengths that had to in effect be 'artificially' gone to in order to ensure a female candidate got onto the ballot paper were healthy. Ideally the best candidates should emerge - and should include people of both sexes - without having to effectively patronise Diane Abbott. But the barriers to more female involvement in politics at a high level is a different debate for another day.

As for "the assumption that only a very narrow set of centre-right policies appeal to the electorate" I'd hope that a party standing on a centre-left platform could realistically achieve power, but past election results do suggest to me that anything further to the left has pretty much no chance, rightly or wrongly. And standing on that basis might be ideologically sound to those involved, but it's a complete waste of time in terms of any kind of pragmatic or practical politics and wanting seriously to improve people's lives.

longfingernails, the Americanisation of our entire culture is seemingly inevitable, I fear.

I agree with your analysis but it almost makes me nostalgic for Thatcher's era - at least you had conviction politicians who actually believed what they espoused. I find few things as disspiriting politically as the realisation that very few politicans seem keen to actually believe in anything or to tell is as it is, for fear of scaring the electorate. And worse, I think a large part of that is the electorate's fault, for not wanting to hear the unpalatable truth. Ultimately we really do get the politicians we deserve.

I think that Ed Balls will be seen as tainted by Brown. Diane Abbot is seen as a media tart. It will be a Miliband, most probably David.

I thought Diane Abbott was dreadful last night on Newsnight. I always liked her on that Anderew Neil programme but she looked very uncomfortable and unsure last night with Paxman taking it very easy on her.

I wonder whether we are going to get many opportunities to see proper debate between them all. I know Newsnight are doing something next week but I can't imagine there's much interest from the general populus so I don't expect the media will give much coverage to the hustings.

I thought this was for labour party members to discuss?

It does appear to have turned into a wider ideological debate!

"the socialists have always deceived the public on civil liberties. Their top leadership has never been for them, they have always been authoritarian."

Totally agree.

George Pascoe-Watson, former political editor of the Sun, and champion of Tony Blair, who now works for a PR agency set up by one of Blair's spin doctors, was on Any Questions and said that he would prefer Blair, but otherwise the best of the Labour leadership candidates is David Miliband. It is interesting that the right and the media are on the side of David Miliband.