by Atul Hatwal

Labour’s leadership race needs to become a lot less comradely. Last night’s debate was a pedestrian trot through the expected.

There was little direct challenge with even less to enlighten members on how these candidates would bear up when facing the Tory meat-grinder.

This has to change.

Gordon Brown serenely glided through his selection without having once been put under the type of pressure the Tories subsequently exerted on him every day.

While his disastrous leadership was little surprise to several of those who had worked with him at close quarters in government, for the rest of the Labour party his inability to deal with sustained political attack was a nightmarish revelation.

Ed Miliband triumphed without once having been robustly challenged on his innate lack of electability or an economic platform that totally ignored the judgement of the British people at the 2010 election.

Yet again, the Labour party was largely unprepared for what the Tories did to him.

This time, the membership need to see the leadership contenders run through their paces in a live-fire environment.

US primaries vet their aspirants in a way British parties’ leadership elections rarely do. Obama was a far better candidate for having faced Hillary and her 3am call ad.

The Tories need to be introduced into Labour’s leadership election.

What would they do to these candidates?

Andy Burnham is in many respects the ideal contender on paper. Experienced, decent and committed.

But he was also chief secretary to the Treasury just before the crash and opposed a full public inquiry for Mid Staffs as secretary of state for health.

This clip from the general election, highlights the continuing political danger from Mid Staffs and his inability to answer the most obvious and basic Tory attack.

Last night, Andy Burnham seemed to be positioning himself as the Kevin Keegan of the Labour party. The passionate, northern, nice guy. Yet we all know what happened when Kevin Keegan faced off against Alex Ferguson.

If Labour elect Andy Burnham leader, the Tories will tear him apart. It would be like giving Ramsay Bolton a puppy for Christmas.

Yvette Cooper is not quite as vulnerable as Andy Burnham to the Tory onslaught. She is impressive at the despatch box and speaks with authority. But her role at the heart of the Brown government and then Ed Miliband’s opposition team, is fodder for attacks.

Of all of the candidates, she is the one most wedded to defending the last Labour government’s spending record and seems trapped re-fighting the 2010 election.

Her ideological conservatism and political inertia combine to make her the continuity Brown candidate. Dan Hodges captured the essence of Yvette Cooper in a tweet last night,

“Tea or Coffee, Yvette?”. “I like tea. But I also think it’s important we don’t forget about the coffee as well”. — Dan Hodges (@DPJHodges) June 17, 2015

The Tories would lash her to the political carcass of Gordon Brown as surely and securely as Ahab to the whale.

Liz Kendall has the benefit of being unknown. She wasn’t part of the last government and as she pointedly said last night, doesn’t carry the baggage of the past.

The Tories have less to work with on her and would take time to resolve their best attack. Her recognition of the reasons for Labour’s defeat and the difficult decisions needed to regain economic credibility, further limit their scope for attack.

But even then, as a lifelong resident in the Westminster bubble and yet another ex-special adviser, she has weaknesses of her own and given her relative inexperience, needs to be tested.

Labour’s members deserve a contest where Liz Kendall, and all of the candidates, are given a proper test.

For the vast majority of the membership, the ability to withstand the inevitable Tory onslaught and take the fight to them is the criteria on which they will make their choice.

In their world, politics is a pastime not a passion.

They do not regularly go out canvassing, deliver leaflets or attend meetings; do not take to twitter to berate the ideologically impure and their lives are not professionally or personally dominated by politics.

For them, the last election was a disappointment not a disaster.

In a party of over 240,000, with only 5-10% active, 220,000 or more fall into this category.

The ideological totems that mean so much in the Labour’s internal debate, as currently played out in the media – aspiration, austerity, budget surpluses or deficits – are an indecipherable code for most members.

They tell members nothing about what matters most.

At the general election, there were two cardinal vote-determining criteria: economic competence and leadership.

For electors in the Labour leadership election, there is only one: beating the Tories. Vague ideological sentiment, either to the left or right, is a secondary consideration.

This is the signal. All is noise

If Labour is to avoid the repeating mistakes like Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband, the gloves have got to come off in the contest.

The shadow boxing needs to end so members can see who is able to take a Tory punch, who has a glass jaw and who has the political ringcraft to defeat David Cameron.

Atul Hatwal is editor of Uncut

Tags: Andy Burnham, Atul Hatwal, Labour leadership race, Liz Kendall, negative campaigning, Tories, Yvette Cooper