'... find a candidate(s) with moral intellectual distance ... '
Thats rather a tall order Steven, amongst the present bunch.
But I'm glad we agree on Burnham's potential. And, we need an Opposition that we oppose constructively for the next two years.

Liarbour only had one policy, 'don't get outflanked on the right (or wrong)' yet in the end they were incompetent enough to be outflanked on the right. Now the murderous stooges standing for the leadership claim that they lost the election because Liarbour wasn't racist enough. Who needs the BNP with filth like this?

Completely agree, Diane will think differently on policy and how people identify with labour as a party started out of a proud working class labour movement for education social justice, equality, and the poor. If you look at the wasteful Elitist Authoritarian policies on civil liberties from the cabinet in which David Milliband was foriegn minister, Abbott reasonably voted with the publics conscience. A loan voice of reason in an otherwise debate of presentational posturing/positioning. I agree forge a party with an identity to be proud of and listen to the community members on the populartity of policies. I am voting on policy (like I do by reading and listening to the radio 4 any questions, a listening thoughtful unspun not visual forum) if there is a potential policy debate to bring about my membership to vote. JHonest about fiscal social polciy remembering Keynes and Social Human Rights to Welfare (at a community level) and civilised social justice to equip productive workers and balanced tolerant educated citizens with a soul and solidarity with those less comfortably off than the intellectual elite of leaders. Lets burn branded words like new which mean nothing in history and ignite substantive policy debate with guiding social justice principles. We dont need mercenaries we need a soul to develo to oppose policy with a conscience and regain (tolerant but remembering) voters trust.

Depends how you define credibility, James. If its about judgement (and more than one of the New Labour candidates said it was) then David Miliband in particular and the New Labour candidates in general are fundamentally not credibile. They displayed catastrophically bad judgement on the key issues of the last 13 years, and the ones that ultimately cost them office.

They were wrong about Iraq. They were wrong about the neoliberal economic model that brought the biggest recession for generations. They were wrong about immigration because they allowed the socio-economic conditions in which xenophobia flourishes to fester, and actively pandered to the right-wing on the subject (ask any inmate of Yarl's Wood). And as a result, they lost 5 million voters since 1997, tens of thousands of party members, and the first general election in which they faced a half-way presentable opposition.

The right of the party has for too long convinced itself that it has the monopoly of wisdom on the left. That posture is in tatters. It simply could not survive exposure to the real world. I give credit to Ed Miliband for at least seeming to recognise that. I give more credit to Diane Abbott for never having been wrong about these things in the first place. But the other three, from what I saw tonight, particularly Balls and David Miliband, are simply far too steeped in the tired, failed thinking of the New Labour project either to re-energise the party or to re-engage the country.

Was the debate filmed? Is it avaliable to view anywhere?

Glad to hear some of the candidates resisted the urge to point score over immigration.

I whole heartedly agree with Ed Miliband that "it's time to move on from the era of Blair and Brown". In fact I strongly believe that ordinary British people do not wish to see Blair and Bush's names written in any where, these names are history now.
I also believe that we as Labour Party have to consider the future of British people. We need to choose a leader who would be able to unite the party and take on the serious issues such as employment, education, anti-social behaviour, crime and immigration and then fight back, regain the trust of ordinary British people, and also safeguard the welfare of millions of disadvantaged people up and down the country.
To do that I think David Miliband is the only Man who can certainly achieve a successful outcome.

The absurdity of David Wearing's analysis is contained within it. "on the key issues of the last 13 years"

Thirteen Labour years. Thirteen years Labour has never enjoyed in power before. Thirteen Labour years precisely because we had a government that took the right decisions according to the votes of the public, rather than the prattling chattering New Statesman reading Guardianistas.

Indulge the kind of views which Mr Wearing advocates and the next thirteen years will be Conservative years. So same question for him as to the Bennites in the 1980s: how do your unelectable left-wing values benefit those Labour needs to be in power to help?

The only way Labour wins is to rebuild the coalition we won with in 1997, 2001 and 2005. Anyone who seeks to lead us in a different direction, away from power, into some silly leftwing comfort zone must not be elected Labour leader.

Mr Balls, Mr Ed Miliband and of course, Ms Abbott, will lead us awry. And Andy Burnham, thoughtful, decent and from a different background, just cannot win. So Labour choose: David Miliband who can become Labour Prime Minister or someone else who will lose, lose and lose again.

Ed Miliband has to watch himself he doesn't turn the debate ugly. Right from his suporters waving placards and chanting as others arrived to his tone of voice and barbed comments during the debate his was the least comradely performance and left me feeling a little sick. We need a debate within the party not a war ... been there, done that ... wasn't any fun.

Burnham's 'Man of the People' is a great pitch. Lot of truth in it compared to the rest of the hopefuls, and could clinch it for him.

"Abbott may come off best because shes never held a post of responsibility ever in her political life"

Does it occur to you that being MP for one of the most deprived parts of the country might involve some sort of responsibility? The casework involved? Standing up for the interests of people at the very bottom of the social ladder? You think this doesn't involve responsibility? What about being one of the few black MPs, with the responsibility of representing a minority that has suffered grievously in this country for decades? When Abbott entered Parliament, serious racial violence, bigotry and deprivation loomed large in the background. The small cohort of black and asian MPs she's worked with have had a huge responsibility on their shoulders.

"never held a post of responsibility ever in her political life"? What utter, ignorant, thoughtless crap.

Adam Gray - there isn't a prize for how many tired New Labour cliches you can cram into one comment, you know.

I'll say it again, New Labour lost 5 million voters, tens of thousands of party members and the first election in which it came up against a semi-competent opponent. It was wrong on Iraq. It was wrong on the economy. Now if you think by standing stock still, or by moving even further to the right, then all those voters and members are going to come flooding back, then I wish you luck. But I would suggest that a better bet might be for New Labour to get out of *its* comfort zone, admit its serious failings, and try and come up with some fresh, new ideas that appeal to the progressive majority in the country.

David Miliband - Credible? Are you kidding? I felt his performance was the least credible of the lot. He was far too polished and rehearsed to look trusthworthy (close your eyes and you could be forgiven for thinking you were listening to Blair). Diane Abbott on the other hand - she justified her answers, used Plain English and spoke from the heart. If the Labour party is looking for a leader that will help them reconnect with the public - she's your woman.

The Millibands and Ed Balls were the ones who went on talking too long over the chair asking for Diane or Durnhams turn. Durnham wasted his space with cringeworthy references to Hatton V Kinnock crudeness bating and the need to "handle(!)" public opinion" Er quite sad really. Diane is an experienced able debater polite enough to wait her turn even when the others over waffled over the chair segway. I have studied discource analysis, Swatantra (!) yours is not worthy of reply hence why experienced New Stateman posters like David who used his real name long time above, gave up on you long ago. Peace Love empathy, solidarity, be natural, not stiff suits or reactionaries. Smile love dont fear, Im going out now for joy in the real world, drivel to yourself.

Obviously, not everything the last government did was right but to claim that it lost votes because it was not left-wing enough stretches credibility. If we'd seen a huge rise in the votes for the Greens or the Socialist Party (or whatever they're called this time) this could be believed. But, apart from literally one or two constituencies, the votes moved from Labour to the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats who, evidence suggests, are somewhat to to the right of Labour.

Personally, I'd like to see the party move leftwards provided we can devise a strategy to "sell" this to the voters rather than frighten them off.

I haven't decided yet which candidate to vote for. I've previously ruled out Diane Abbott because I have never, ever, heard her say anything in favour of the Labour Party. It seems from the account of this meeting that she may well be doing so now so I'll consider her again. And I agree that her presence will ensure that there is a proper debate.

Tony - the votes polled by the Greens and Socialists are hardly a useful measure, given that everyone knows very well that votes for small parties under FPTP are usually wasted. More often, centre-left people vote through gritted teeth for Labour (as I did) or the LibDems for fear of something even worse. That's how the system forces you to behave

As Johann Hari demonstrates very well here, the majority in this country is centre left http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-har... Not for nothing did both the parties now in government spend the election campaign glossing over the more right-wing aspects of their platforms and pitching themselves as more “progressive” than Labour. Cameron - unlike Howard, Hague and Major before him - has a background in PR.

But look at this in practical terms as well. The fact is that Labour's biggest and most politically costly policy failures were the right-wing ones. Above all the embrace of the free-market model which caused the banking crash that caused the recession that caused the bulk of the deficit.

Should Labour have been more right-wing on economic policy? Do you believe, against the rather compelling evidence, that the embrace of the free-market was a roaring success? Should Labour persist with this catastrophically failed model?

I'll say it again. It is time for New Labour to get out of its comfort zone. It is absurd, after this seminal event in economic history, that only Ed Miliband of the four New Labour candidates was able to acknowledge the plain reality that neoliberalism had failed.

Teh UK is a rich country with a different hostory and culture to US. But as for your feeble accusation that Dianne Abbott that not held a position of responsibility I suggest you do what Portillo attempted and live Road to Wigan Pier down and out in Paris and London amongst some real people today. Barrack Obama and Diane are very different people but your logic would say Obama held no responsibility compared with Clinton and the old republican so shouldnt be in the arguably most powerful position today. Strange one that. He didnt waste any time in attempting to get health care extended did he. Swatantra do you want us to lose quality due to unclear poorer quality of argument than the Government. I would rather someone who will oppose the rich cutting essential public services (low grade jobs) from the poor, and creating the misery of mass unemployment. Many conservatives did nort get Camerons Big Society Rhetoric. Swantra do you believe there is no such thing as community as do many rank file conservatives when you attack single parent families. Or try to make out Diane Abbot has not held a position of responsibility you obviously dont know much about the labour party history then! She has to be more responsible in the media than you on your anonymised web interuptions to an otherwise more substantive debate with Diane very much a part of it.

I totally agree with every point of the response of David Wearing. Case work is vital and the only argument used last night against PR. She has hgeld respoinsible positions throughout her life, more so than many of the candidates who the mass electorate will never have heard of or recognise unless making some reactionary biggoted attack against hard working Poles within the EU. I must ignore the thoughtless ignorant crap of Swatantra he speaks for noone not even himself very well! Im afraid I tired of him not learning from his Victorian attitude toward the Working Class. Surely the Spectator would have more fun winding him up!!!

Ive now watched the debate and Burnham and Balls came across better than I gave them credit But on Policy and tone I still have reservations and dont trust their mercenary loyalty to reactive "New" Labour electioneering machine! Please Dianne Abbott and Ed make number one and number two progressive cases to adapt a centre left ground. I am afraid whatever David Milliband says he sounds just like Tony Blair and will lose to the Public Relations charm of Clegg and Cameron. Ive had enough of wafflers If I wanted a waffler I would stand! I dont like hard mercenaries in a fragmented policy cultural paradigm either. We need Diane Abbot to gain support and Ed Milliband to gain experience from her as a dream team ticket. David would eventually adapt and come on board with the others. Anyway lets not be nasty, we need a progresive alternative for when the Machiavel pragmatist conservative libs fall on unsavoury policies. Better to step back find a candidate(s) with moral intellectual distance and be a moral opposition rather than an even more con trick reactive one!