Who/ what should be in our new LeftWatch banner?

By Tim Montgomerie

Overnight we'll be updating the LeftWatch masthead - dropping Brown and his pork pies and adding in the new Labour leader. David Miliband and his banana or Red Ed.

Should we make any other changes?

I'm inclined to keep the dead LibDem bird because - although Coalition partners - we're still political opponents and 65% of Clegg's members see themselves as left-wing.

The Mirror's Kevin Maguire has asked to be added to the banner but perhaps Ken Livingstone is more deserving?

And what about the Turn Left Arrow? Is there something that better illustrates today's Left?

All ideas welcome...

In the Labour Party some members are 608 times more equal than others

By Tim Montgomerie

ConservativeHome's first and proudest act was to defend party democracy. Michael Howard wanted to end the decisive role that grassroots members play in the election of Tory leader. This website started a campaign that with others - notably IDS, Theresa May, Michael Ancram and Barry Legg - defeated Mr Howard. We still have a process where MPs shortlist two candidates who members then choose between. My own view is that the retention of party democracy was important in giving the Cameron leadership bid its momentum.

In under four hours we'll know the identity of the new Labour leader. But it's worth remembering that the electoral college used by Labour is far from democratic.

As the New Statesman has just tweeted, the vote of one MP is 608 times more valuable than the vote of a grassroots member in Labour's union-heavy electoral college.

This morning's Guardian, no less, calls for reform:

"Labour is lucky, save in the 1981 deputy leadership contest, that it has never elected a leader or deputy in the modern era against the majority wishes of ordinary party members. But it will happen one day, perhaps today, and Labour will deserve to be embarrassed when it does. In a democratic party, each member should have just one equal vote. Labour needs to rethink its system, whoever wins today."

Ed 'Forest Gump' Miliband ahead in shock poll of Labour's electoral college

By Tim Montgomerie

A poll by YouGov for The Sunday Times (£) produces the surprise result that Ed Miliband might be nosing ahead of his older brother in the race to be Labour leader. Once second preference votes are taken into account Ed beats David Miliband by 51% to 49%. The Shadow Energy and Climate Change spokesman leads in two of the three part electoral college, trade unions and party members. The Shadow Foreign Secretary - who has led in previous YouGov surveys - leads among Labour MPs and MEPs.

William Hill have slashed Ed Miliband's odds from 3/1 to 2/1 and lengthened David Miliband from 2/9 to 4/11.

The poll comes as relations between the two brothers continue to sour. The Political Editor of The Sunday Telegraph, Patrick Hennessy, reports that "Forrest Gump is now a "fairly common" nickname used by members of the David Miliband camp for Ed Miliband."

Only two of Labour's putative leaders know when St George's Day is

By Jonathan Isaby

On Wednesday night Paul wrote about Channel Four's Labour leadership hustings and concisely concluded what each of the candidates was about.

This morning Adam Boulton of Sky News hosted a full hour and a half's debate between the quintet. None of them said anything particularly surprising or unexpected - lots of soundbites and platitiudes all round, basically. All quite uninspiring.

But one thing which Adam Boulton threw into the mix was to ask them a few questions to test their general knowledge and establish whether or not they are living in a Westminster bubble.

One of the questions was to ask when St George's Day is.

Shamefully, only two - David Miliband and Ed Balls - came up with the correct answer of April 23rd.

Miliband Jr, Burnham and Abbott all failed to get it right, with Abbott submitting the particularly pathetic (and completely incorrect) cop-out of "It's soon" on her paper.

Click here to read Sky's Live blog of the debate.

Blair's view on Iran is clear. What's that of the Miliband brothers?

By Paul Goodman

When I heard Tony Blair make the following remark in his Marr interview, I felt as though a glass of cold water had been thrown over my face -

"It is wholly unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I think we've got to be prepared to confront them ... if necessarily, militarily."

Others will doubtless compare listening to Blair to being soaked by other substances, or denounce him as a bloodthirsty, deranged warmonger - and so on.

But at least he has a view, and is wiling to express it.  What have Labour's main leadership candidates got to say on the matter?

David Miliband

On his campaign website, David Miliband posts nine foreign policy items.  None of them refer to Iran.  The website says that he's running five campaigns, including one to save Britain's pubs.

Ed Miliband

On his, Ed Miliband carries a statement headed "Foreign Policy": "Ed Miliband believes that Labour must learn the lessons from some of the mistakes it made in government in terms of foreign policy. He believes Labour must not go into the next election still defending the war in Iraq — and that we must base our international alliances on our values, not the other way round."

Ed Balls (because I knew you'd ask)

On his, Ed Balls statement - "Why Ed?" - carries no reference to foreign policy at all.

-

I don't agree with Tony Blair's support for British military action against Iran (though we need a big push on sanctions).  But that country's push to gain nuclear weapons is a vast foreign policy problem.  Because -

• It's likely to spark a regional nuclear arms race.
• That would (as the Israel/Palestine conflict fundamentally does not) further destabilise a region on which we partly rely for natural resources.
• And because during such a race the old rules of mutual assured destruction might not apply.

So, then.  A statement from Ed Miliband consistent with opposition to further wars abroad.  Nothing from David Miliband on Iran (though as an ex-Foreign Secretary he's familiar with the issue).  No question at all on foreign policy to all six candidates during yesterday evening's Channel 4 hustings.  I appreciate that foreign policy was never likely to be front-of-shop during this election - any more than it was during the Conservative one that produced David Cameron in 2005 - but the lack of interest is telling.

You can argue that all Blair's doing is political positioning, carried out against the terrible shadow of Iraq - and its bloody losses.  But isn't that exactly what Ed Miliband's doing?  Where's the sense that Labour's leadership candidates are seriously grappling with vital, urgent global security challenges - especially Iran's drive for nuclear weapons?

Mission accomplished by Ed Balls in Channel 4's Labour leadership debate

By Paul Goodman

There've been very many Labour leadership debates over this long summer.  Few have followed them in detail.  This evening's one, hosted by Channel 4, may have been different: after all, Labour members' ballot papers are currently arriving in the post.

I watched it with three questions in mind.  What was each candidate trying to do?  Did he or she succeed?  And - finally and subjectively - which one, in my view, looked most likely to follow Tony Blair as a Labour election-winner?

So let me deal with each in turn - pointing out at the start that the event had a Darwinian flavour: the candidates were allowed a lot of latitude by Jon Snow to jostle for verbal space, interrupt each other, and shout each other down (or attempt to).

The candidates were asked about the Blair autobiography, the economy, immigration, the 50p tax rate, housing, and universal benefits - as well as which candidate would be their second preference (the Milibands named each other), and which actor they'd like to be played by in a film.

-

Diane Abbott

Aim: I read it as: to push the Diane Abbott brand, and her ideas - in that order.

Performance in debate: TV-fluent, punchy, skilled at presenting herself as an outsider in touch with Labour Party members and voters.  Clear and strong on scrapping Trident.

Election-winning appeal: In the almost unthinkable event of her winning, she'd attract the media to the same degree that she'd repeal the voters.

All in all: 5/10.

-

Andy Burnham

Aim: to promote his slightly ecletic, somewhat Old Labour, north-focused brand, and presumably boost his Shadow Cabinet prospects post-poll.

Performance in debate: He was clear, not targeted by other candidates (probably because he's not going to win), and got across his agenda of tax rises, immigration control, and - interestingly - firmer controls on NHS spending than the Government.

Election-winning appeal: Couldn't see it extending from his north-west base beyond the Midlands into the south.

All in all: 6/10.

-

Ed Balls

Aim: To confirm himself as a big hitter who can't be denied a top post by either Miliband brother.

Performance in debate: Outstanding in his distinctive, aggressive way.  Leapt in to answer the immigration and universal benefits questions first.  Tried to turn the tables on Jon Snow when the candidates were asked about deficit reduction by challenging the basis of the question.  Like Burnham, apparently tough on migration policy.  Of all the candidates, he was the one who best achieved his debate aim.

Election-winning appeal: Balls would be a very strongly-flavoured marmite candidate: either loved or hated.  The debate confirmed that the love wouldn't extend beyond his base - but also that he's run a strong, gritty, rooted campaign that's been relatively free of banal abstractions.

All in all: 7/10.

-

David Miliband

Aim: To make a successful pitch to party members.

Performance in debate: The candidate that the others - especially Diane Abbot - were most keen to shout down.  Constantly appealed for unity.  Fought his way through to be heard more or less when he wanted to be, and looked more urgent and commanding than at the start of the campaign.

Election-winning appeal: His problem is that trying to appeal to party members and floating voters at once produces muddle.  So for the moment, he's prioritised the first at the expense of the second.  For example, he attacked his brother for suggesting tax breaks for employers who pay a "living wage": instead, he said that it should be paid out of a tax on bonuses.  Rowing back from some of the positions he's taken will produce accusations of flip-flopping.  For all his improvement, he didn't look to me like an election-winning "heir to Blair".

All in all: 6/10

-

Ed Miliband

Aim: To be the soft left candidate who wins through on second preferences.

Performance in debate: Seemed to be the candidate that the others most wanted to target.  Got badly squeezed for time.  Wanted to stick to his mantras on supporting a living wage, a graduate tax and "not retreating into a New Labour comfort zone".  Was originally asked the deficit question on which Ed Balls challenged Snow - and was thus shown up badly by it.  Repudiated Blair's book.

Election-winning appeal: The most disappointing of all the candidates - and the one who seemed to me to be best placed when the contest began.  Seemed to be following Ed Balls' lead on the economy.  Appeared to suggest that 50 per cent of the deficit should be tackled by tax rises.  The media would make short work of him.

All in all: 4/10.

Blair backs Cameron on the deficit, spending, public service reform and VAT - and poses huge problems for Labour's next leader

By Paul Goodman

Tony Blair's memoirs, "A Journey", will today be probed and pored over by people looking for stories.  Blair has trailed them by giving an interview to this morning's Guardian, which has also provided a summary of the book's main contents, itself described earlier today by Jonathan.

However, there's a story that the paper (for whatever reason) hasn't picked up and projected.  But Robert Hutton of Bloomberg has done so - namely, Blair's support for Cameron and the Coalition on deficit reduction.

Hutton quotes Blair as follows -

“If governments don’t tackle deficits, the bill is footed by taxpayers, who fear that big deficits mean big taxes, both of which reduce confidence, investment and purchasing power...

Hutton himself writes -

"In his memoir "A Journey", published by Random House today, Blair said Britain “elected a Tory version of New Labour” in May with a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. He said Cameron's policies are close to his own vision of using market forces to improve public services, ideas rejected by Brown, who led the Labour Party to defeat in May after forcing Blair out in 2007..."

- and -

"Brown “bought completely the Keynesian ‘state is back in fashion’ thesis,” Blair wrote. Support crumbled in the election because “we had become the old Labour Party".  Blair’s suggested alternative, including an increase in value-added tax, is along the lines adopted by the coalition."

Much of the interest in "A Journey" today will be in what it has to say about the past - in particular, about Blair's relationship with Gordon Brown, and the war in Iraq.

Most of the rest of it will be in what he has to say, albeit obliquely, about the present Labour leadership contest: in the Guardian interview, he warns against attacking "Tory cutters and Lib Dem collaborators".  He also says about the deficit that "you've got to have a way out of it and it's got to be credible… If you simply say no you aren't going to succeed".  This can be read as a view similar to Alistair Darling's (and dissimilar, please note, to that of Ed Balls).

But a longer-term significance of Blair's memoirs will lie in the effect they have on the political future - and especially on the battle for the next election.  The quotes that Hutton has unearthed place Blair's view closer to Cameron's and Clegg's than Darling's - which, surely, is where it really lies.  As Danny Finkelstein pointed out in the Times (£) recently, Blair -

"opposed higher tax rates, wanted to privatise large parts of public service provision, opposed most government intervention in the economy, and was a liberal interventionist in foreign policy"

- while David Miliband, touted as Blair's successor (and tacitly endorsed by the man himself) -

"...wants a High Pay Commission, a living wage and employee representatives to sit on company pay boards. He believes that the bank levy should be doubled, that charitable status for private schools should be removed and that a mansion tax should be introduced. There would also be an “active industrial policy”, “private sector reform” and closing “the class gap in education”.

The point isn't the spurious claim that "Blair's a Conservative" (let alone a Tory).  It should go without saying that he isn't.  He's either, according to one's view, an extremely right-wing social democrat or an extremely left-wing Christian Democrat.

It will be claimed that Blair's a busted flush with the voters.  I'm not so sure.  He reached parts of the electorate that other Labour politicians (such as Brown) simply couldn't reach.  He remains the only Labour leader to date who's won three elections - and in a row, too.  A slice of voters who voted Labour in 2005 voted Conservative in 2010, and could make the difference in a close election.

Expect CCHQ, in due course, to seize Blair's remarks and hurl them at whichever Miliband leads Labour - especially Blair's apparent support for a VAT rise.  Ominously for the Opposition, Blair refers to setting out his views after a three year pause, which suggests that he may do so again in the future.  He's an infinitely smaller political figure that Margaret Thatcher.  But his legacy and views could bestride Labour - as she did the Conservatives for many years post-1990, "like a colossus; and we petty men. Walk under his huge legs, and peep about. To find ourselves dishonourable graves".

Mandelson, Campbell and Blair all warn Labour against 'Red Ed'

By Tim Montgomerie

They do not use the expression 'Red Ed' - that was Fraser Nelson yesterday - but Blair's inner circle have come together to help the cause of David Miliband, who was Blair's long-term policy chief - and injure Ed Miliband's chances.

In an interview with this morning's Times (£) Lord Mandelson warns against the candidacy of the younger Miliband brother:

“You can’t win elections without a coalition, and to suggest that we should be concentrating on our core current voters rather than looking to professional people and affluent people is by way of saying that we want to remain a minority party... “If you shut the door on new Labour you’re effectively slamming the door in the faces of millions of voters who voted for our party because we were new Labour.”

Mandelson is caricaturing Ed Miliband's position but the former Climate Change Secretary has certainly called on Labour to tilt more towards its core supporters. An endorsement from Mandelson is, of course, a mixed blessing. He is hardly a peacemaker. In his Times interview he takes a provocative swipe at two Labour grandees he has long disliked: “I understand that people of a certain age like Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley want to hark back to a previous age, and they believe that [Ed] Miliband would reconstruct the party in that image.”

The former Deputy Prime Minister doesn't endorse David Miliband but his intervention and Tony Blair's launch of his autobiography - on Wednesday - are intended to boost the man who was at Blair's side through much of the New Labour years. In private, reports the Daily Mail, Mr Blair has dismissed the Ed Miliband as a 'disaster' in the making.

And to complete the effort by Team Blair we had the wisdom of Alastair Campbell yesterday. "Ed would take Labour significantly leftwards," blogs Campbell, "and leave even more of the centre ground open to the Tories."

2pm: Mandelson talks to the BBC about his concerns about Ed Miliband.

GMB leader in threat to withdraw funding for Labour if David Miliband is elected leader

By Jonathan Isaby

The splash on this morning's Times (£) carries the stark headline "Put our man in or we cut off funding, union warns".

The paper has been speaking to GMB General Secretary Paul Kenny - a vocal supporter of Ed Miliband, whose union has also made a contribution to the shadow energy and climate change secretary's leadership campaign.

The underlying message of what he has to say is that Labour would not be guaranteed to continue receiving the millions the union has given it if the bookies' favourite, David Miliband, is installed as leader and takes the party in a direction of which he disapproves:

“If the new leader offers us more of the same, many unions — including our own — would have to consider where we are at. Ed Balls and David Miliband represent where we’ve been. They are not without talent. I would not rubbish them. But if the direction of the party went off chasing some right-of-centre ground...”

He added his concern the shadow foreign secretary would, like Brown and Blair before him, treat the unions with condescension:

“We were smiled at like we were elderly relatives sat in the corner with a party hat on. Access was never a problem — the question was the outcomes.The fundamental difference between Ed and his brother is that when David said ‘Let’s reach out to the middle classes’ he made the same mistake as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Labour can’t function without its grass roots.”

At the end of the day, the likes of Mr Kenny are far more hostile to the Coalition than they would be to any individual senior Labour figure such as David Miliband, so I am not entirely convinced that he's intending to go ahead with withdrawing funding for the party.

Rather, it is all about positioning in advance of negotiaitons about policy - it's not as if it would be the first time that unions have held Labour to ransom.

Wannabe shadow chancellor Ed Balls forecasts economic "hurricane"

By Jonathan Isaby

Ed Balls - whose odds of becoming Labour leader are now 50-1 according to Ladbrokes - this morning gave what many (such as Peter Hoskin) are concluding was a pitch for the shadow chancellorship under whichever Miliband wins the day (Paul Goodman has already advised them against this course of action here).

Speaking at Bloomberg, he insisted that the Government's deficit reduction plan is "economically unsafe" and accompanied his forecast with vivid imagery:

"George Osborne was fond of saying - wrongly - that the Labour government had failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining. What he is now doing is the equivalent of ripping out the foundations of the house just as the hurricane is about to hit."

He certainly seems in denial about the scale of the problem he and his beloved Prime Minister left the nation. Yet he specifically tried to claim that he is not:

"The fundamental questions we face now – is it right to be cutting billions of pounds from public services and taking billions of pounds out of family budgets this financial year and next? What will that do to jobs and growth? And ultimately, what will that mean for the deficit? – are almost ignored.

"So strong and broad is this consensus that a special name has been given to those who take a different view – 'deficit-deniers' – and some in the Labour party believe our very credibility as a party depends on hitching ourselves to the consensus view. I am not one of them."

He went on to say that halving the deficit over four years (as had been proposed by Alistair Darling) was "too severe to be credible or sustainable". However, he still concluded:

"Labour does need a credible and medium-term plan to reduce the deficit and to reduce our level of national debt, but only once growth is fully secured and over a markedly longer period than George Osborne is currently planning."

"I think to do a slower and steadier pace [of cutting the deficit] going forward is actually more likely to support jobs and growth, more likely to boost financial market confidence and likely to be fairer as well."

You can read the whole speech here; meanwhile below is a video extract.