Labour: The debate....

I've heard countless Labour commentators and politicians talking about how they wish Labour could have a real debate about why they lost before embarking upon a leadership contest.

I'm interested to know how such a debate could take place. Would there be a meeting? Would it be through endless articles in the press? Would it be through focus groups? Who says when the debate ends? Who says what the results of the debate are? Is this the point at which a leadership election happens? What happens if the results of the leadership election is at odds with the results of the 'debate'.

I think it's all fatuous. These 'let's have a debate' ideas don't really add up to much.

The good idea of a leadership election is for the contenders to put their cases forward. If they cannot persuade their colleagues, then how are they expected to convince the voters? The party has to be able to believe in the leader and their position and direction. In essence the leadership vote is the debate. The MPs have to work out whether they want to keep to ideological positions or whether they want to win, and the result of the leadership vote indicates where the party is.

It was only when the Tories elected David Cameron that we knew they were serious about being a party of the centre and ready to win. His election was the manifestation of the debate within the Tory party.

Now where I do agree with the commentators is for the delay before embarking on the leadership vote. Harriet Harman should have put the leadership contenders in significant positions on the front bench to challenge the Tories. This is what Michael Howard did after he lost in 2005. It would be even useful to let them all have a go at PMQs. That's not what happened, and Liz Kendall is still Andy Burnham's number two at Shadow Health.

I think Labour are like the Tories circa 2003 rather than 2005 and I think they will need another attempt to get it right.

Squiffy.