abbot is in it for herself. she has the worst staff turnover of mps and is incredibly pleased with herself. choose someone who cares about others

I agree with Tom! I promise I am a different Tom!

P.S. On a content note, why have you linked to a video of Diane being interviewed by Channel 4 News with absolutely nothing in the background to emphasise that Ed's supporters were "making tits of themselves" in the background?

Doesn't exactly cement your claim a great deal, Mehdi!

Actually my point is I didn't find this a very positive show of support. It came across as aggressive and out of place at a political debate. THAT was my point. Furthermore Tom a comment about the behaviour of someones supporters is not making a judgement on the character of the candidate. My original comment was a warning against a real risk and sadly from some of the comments on this thread that risk seems no less real.

I would agree that Ed Miliband, like all the other candidates, started the evening off in a good spirit during the debate. As the debate went on he came accross as the angriest and most petulent. This can be, and has been, interpreted as 'passion' but as someone who came thinking highly of him it really put me off. Examples that stuck for me were when he portrayed david as not decisive but obstinate, played up the 'too weedy to fight', and directly criticised Ed Ball's article in the Observor. If either of the other two win some of these comments may be highly embaressing to have repeated. The candidates need to be able to disagree while searching for the 'better' ideas and expressions of them rather than knocking holes in each other. Was he alone in this? By the end no but he stood out the clearest for me. It would be wisest to use the charity principle when interpreting the views of other candidates and to assume the best intentions even if you need to demonstrate how their current idea fails to live up to, or achieve, them.

To come back on Tom's point above about the placards I would just like to say that it was not a football match we were at. All candidates represent the same party and broadly the same values. I do not see the need for the noise and disruption, let the candidates make their own impression.

I'm sorry to intrude on the Ed Miliband love-in, while I felt the behaviour of his 'fans' were really off-putting - Darren Cummings' comments were apt, that "his tone of voice and barbed comments during the debate his was the least comradely performance and left me feeling a little sick". I wouldn't say that EM's performance made me feel "sick", but looked to me really plastic, phoney. On reading Mehdi's comments: "I suspect that Ed -- with his articulate, passionate and eloquent pitch to the party's left, on Iraq, on the banks, on a cheaper alternative to Trident, on the 50p tax rate, on the living wage -- is now the man to beat." Really! But who is he trying to reach? He was to be fair preaching to the converted, but, if his style, approach, is anything to go on, I don't see his views realistically striking a chord with your average man/woman in the street. Having an opinion on a topical issue is one thing, actually getting through to people that you look to for votes is quite another. He doesn't have the personal touch that Diane has, who in her introductory remarks went straight to the point and was most articulate in identifying the bread and butter concerns of ordinary working people. I'm not saying that Diane should be leader, much as she appeals to a traditional, passionate and working class strain (which is still kicking and breathing even post-Blair) within the party, while DM has the intellect that we should expect in a potential prime minister. I don't share the assumption that EdM would appeal to the wider electorate, and more to the point, be able to communicate and identify with working class men and women, while his comments about Labour being seen as having been in the hands of the bureaucrats sound really banal (but no doubt from one who knows!). He may appeal to students, wonks, etc, but is that enough...? Andy Burnham may have some more appeal to and identify with ordinary men and women, the hard-core working class, although he strikes me as weak (ie not forthright, courageous), while Ed Balls is perceived as really divisive, and, not least, inflexible (another GB?). I have to admit that this is a difficult one, but that the three months to decide on who is to be the next leader is going to be crucial.

I wasn't there ,but you Darren come across as a dullard and a bore

I'm with the tits

If Ed M's "fans" want to wave placards and shout their support, then good on them. They are young and have the right to express themselves and their politics as they see fit but they need to be aware that they might not be having the effect they want. But it's a non-issue.

Comments above have described Ed M as "petulant" but I suspect this is a result of him deciding (rightly) to put some clear blue water between himself and his brother and he is right to do so. As to those ideas not appealing to the average man and woman, I think that is just wrong. Taxing those who have made a fortune in the boom years is unlikely to upset the majority of the electorate. I'd be delighted if corporation tax rose to European norms. Re-thinking Trident and its costs would not appear to be upsetting even to the military, let alone your average punter and suggesting the Iraq war was wrong is a rather populist position, if anything. They're all reasonable points.

On the other hand, I think Ed B is being very honest about immigration from the European Union and he seems to be implying that immigration has served as a proxy for an incomes policy over the last few years - we cannot allow low incomes to be permanently pegged where they are and this economic stasis is the real reason why so many working class voters deserted Labour.

I liked what David M had to say about the deficit and I agree that it is time to take the Tories on around deficit budgeting, provision of public services and the redistributive nature of the state - I just wish I trusted him to make the same point publicly, more aggressively and do it now, before Labour allows itself to be permanently labelled as financially irresponsible. If it hadn't been for 15 years of Tory under investment in the public sphere, high levels of spending would not have been necessary. It's his lack of aggression which worries me - we need him to take Cameron and Clegg apart (as Balls did to Gove a couple of days ago over Exams) and I'm just not convinced that he has it in him. He speaks with the greatest gravitas of all the candidates but that's not difficult given the competition.

Will be interesting to see how Ed M grows during the campaign. I wasn't impressed at all by Diane Abbot despite going into the hustings thinking that she had the best positions and the most credibility. Too much eye rolling and shallow emotional appeals without substance, despite holding the strongest hand in terms of political consistency.

Honestly speaking, my vote goes to whoever manages to hold the Con Dems to account over the next few months. The REAL hustings is taking on the coalition and winning the arguments in Parliament and with the public for a new kind of re-distributive state which embraces civil liberties but fairly and squarely ensures social AND ECONOMIC justice for the British people. We were NOT hammered at the last election, we DO have something to say and much to be proud of.

Rob - I didn't hear her say last night that she was "in favour of a nuclear deterrent, just not Trident". Perhaps you misheard. I did hear her say on Newsnight later very clearly that she would not replace Trident with anything.

I do find it strage that a candidate for the leadership of a supposedly democratic party should be castigated for saying things that party members agree with.

As for the NPT, I'm sure D.Miliband could fashion some argument that says why the long-term renewal of Trident is consistent with the letter of the treaty, but it drives a coach and horses through the spirit of the treaty, and everyone knows it. And for someone who backed the flagrantly illegal invasion of Iraq to lecture others about multilateralism and international law really does take some cheek.

Ultimately, if not having nuclear weapons is so unrealistic, we will have to explain that point to the dozens of nations around the world who somehow seem to struggle by without them.

Party at ed's tonight
the other 4 in bed with their ovaltine

Ed and Diane were excellent
Balls is a surly bugger ,Burnham What's he for?
Dave milli too right wing for me

I hope Ed Balls grows in momentum and confidence over the summer, he still has a key role to play despite his poor showing on Wednesday.

Mehdi - I agree with this. I was there last night and had thoughts in a similar vein.

I was more perturbed by Diane Abbott though. 24 hours previous I was as big an advocate of the 'nominate for debate' movement as anyone, and yet have changed my mind rather drastically since.

Diane worked the crowd shamelessly, and all the soaring rhetoric and ideological nonsense is dangerous and risks causing factions within the party. At one point she said "If I were Prime Minister Trident would be the first cut I'd make" - lapping up the anti-Trident feeling of the activists in the crowd. When pushed by David Miliband however she said she was "in favour of a nuclear deterrent, just not Trident". Clearly therefore she would like some sort of land based system? A land based system would put us in contravention of a non-proliferation obligations and would cost more, as David Miliband pointed out. She replied and called him a 'technocrat' for abiding by binding treaties.

She did a great job of appealing to the idealism of the crowd and regularly secured the loudest applause, but very rarely was anything she said realistic, in fact very rarely did anything she say border in the realm of realism. Her presence on the ballot is now more divisive than it is healthy, I believe.

Good observations, Mehdi. Ed's sixth form fan club and their placards, amusing at his launch,add nothing of value and may end up feeding a perception of his relative youth and inexperience.

I am finding it difficult to work out whether the policy gymnastics of the two Eds are what they actually believe or simply a form of differentiation. Whilst admitting to a genuine change of mind and policy can be an asset for a leader so is the ability to defend a record under fire.

If just one of them talked about fairly taxing the truly rich and going some way to recovering the £125 billion a year in lost revenue... well they would get my vote. The top 1000 richest in the UK increased their personal wealth last year by £77 billion to well over £330 billion. If we get a few millions in tax from the lot of them I would be surprised.

Mehdi: Not sure there is a need to be 'very, very' careful; but you're right - he's ahead and needs to make sure he keeps himself in check.

From being 'natural successor' Big Brother David's little brother and climate change spokesperson, he's really emerging into his own as perhaps the person that can re-engage core Labour supporters by going back to the roots of the movement's values.

I have to admit, watching bits of the debate it was clear that Diane Abbott was merely using her media training and a lot of gesticulation/populist comments, but nothing substantial.

David M also seems to lack substance all of a sudden. Perhaps it's the surprising elevation of his little brother as potential leader. Who knows.

Interesting, for sure.

Tom

great post but don't let them bore you into submission

Tits was probably meant as twits or something

The young vocal support for ed milli inclines me towards him all the more

parties ......hmm
it's direct political activism against the cuts that will wake up this sorry lot.

Perhaps all the real activists are in single issue politics?

Jimbo, asks ''How come AV is good enough for the leadership election but not for the general election?''

Its very easy, liebour are a bunch of hypocrites and phoneys.

I was also in attendance last night, and I can't possibly fathom the deluge of pro-Ed Miliband rhetoric in the media today. For me there was only one candidate that came close to resembling a party leader, and that was David Miliband - a man with a clearly defined rationale and framework. I would also add that I was hugely disappointed by Ed Balls, and found the two Eds' pushy attempts at constantly trying to get the Chair to throw back to them a touch vulgar - it just didn't look good. My full blow-by-blow report has run on business news hub BusinessWings today, please take a look if you have time.

@Mehdi Please report the facts. As one of Ed's "fans" who was actually there last night, it was not obvious that Diane was being interviewed, and as soon as a Channel 4 staffer pointed this out, we went quiet and allowed Diane to be interviewed without interrupting.

@Ayse Whereas many David Miliband supporters seem to be suggesting a sense of entitlement regarding the Labour leadership, Ed's fans know that he has an uphill battle and we believe that demonstrating that he has grassroots support is vital. See above re. comment about interruptions.

@Alex Re. your "sixth form fan club" comment, congratulations on your generalisation and insult of all young people.

We are not embarrassed to show our support for Ed and were perfectly decent in allowing other candidates outside to be interviewed without being interrupted. Clearly there was an intention by the author to stir up controversy where there was none. We weren't there chanting anti-David or anti-Andy slogans. We were there showing positive support for a candidate - not negativity against any other - which should be appreciated. It is quite saddening that some cannot accept this fact.

@Mehdi Perhaps you are the one that needs to be "very, very careful". Are you sure you haven't made a bigger tit of yourself by writing this?

The people chanting for Ed M were just embarrassing, and it made me think I was at a football match instead of a leadership hustings.

I thought all the candidates were impressive, David the most so, however Diane's answer on immigration was very good. Even then, I admired David's line "If you want British jobs for British workers, don't vote for me" because I think it takes a lot of courage as a politician to say why people shouldn't vote for you.

And I can't help but feel it might get ugly, or the consequences will come to show under the new leader (assuming it's a Miliband).

Mehdi, I agree that I would feel incredibly resentful if my brother decided to run for the leadership as well as me.

Let's get this straight. There is no negativity towards David from 'Team Ed'. I personally think that David would make a great leader of the Labour Party and an excellent Prime Minister. However, my personal belief is that Ed Miliband would be better on both counts and I am putting my all into campaigning to this effect. I'm not going out and slagging off David or his campaign, but merely promoting Ed's. What is everyone's problem with this?!

@Mehdi... the @ isn't just used on twitter. See Liberal Conspiracy, Comment Is Free, hell, even the comments on the Spectator use it fairly often.

And who compared Ed Miliband to Barack Obama? Fairly obviously, the comparison is between the support. Why is the fact that someone can enthuse young people into coming out to support them seen as a bad thing? If it was Diane who had a lot of young people visibly supporting her, people would be acclaiming it as proof of her being a breath of fresh air.

Amongst each other as much as amongst the candidates for the leadership we need to really strive to not get personal on this. We can have and need to have opinions on things people do and how they came accross to us but what we don't need to do is call each other names. We all want a fairer juster society and a great many of us have spent years working towards this end, we'll achieve it by pulling together not pulling apart.