And so the process begins for the Labour Party to redefine itself after what has been a crushing and bruising defeat. As leading figures in the party start the long-drawn out process of declaring their candidacy, and others start to make their views known on who they will back, the deep realisation is only now beginning to settle-in that Labour was comprehensively beaten at the General Election, and that on a national level we are a discredited force in the eyes of large parts of the electorate. While the last few days have been the calm before the storm, with all eyes fixed on the love-in between Cameron and Clegg, media attention will soon start to turn to the question of - not how did they win it - but how did we loose it?

The first question I would ask prospective candidates for the party leadership is one that all parties should ask themselves on a constant basis. What is our purpose? What is the Labour Party in the business of doing? And why would we do things differently than other people in other parties?

The most basic question in any liberal democracy (if we take this to mean a country that respects the right of the individual to make choices about their own life and destiny) is how do we work to alleviate cruelty and humiliation? How do we alleviate  and respond to the most basic forms of suffering and pain in our personal lives, in our social lives, in our national life, and in our international engagements.? To be left without treatment for an illness or disability is humiliating. Not being able to get a decent education is humiliating. Not having a stake in your local community is humiliating. Not being able to cast a vote that matters is humiliating. To have to work hard and not get a just reward is humiliating. To have an easy life and not pay your fair share is cruel. To stop other people making their independent choices about their lives, free from prejudice and intolerance, is cruel. To run down public services to the point where they are decrepit and unworkable is cruel.

So in this leadership election, I want to know what the potential candidates think are the uncomfortable truths that the party has refused to face? Where have we been cruel and where have we humiliated people? Where have we failed to stand up and fight against cruelty and humiliation? Why have we not led the challenge against the siren voices of cruelty and humiliation in our society, particularly in the popular press? When did we give up our radicalism in order to compromise with the way the system is now? When did we stop emboldening ourselves to rip down the system and start again in the interests of creating a more just society? What does a potential party leader have to say about the failings of the Labour movement and the limitations that we have imposed on ourselves? To put it bluntly, has Labour’s urge to remain in government, and to change the system from within, meant that we have been in office but not in power?

The questions that we should demand answers to go further. What will our new potential leader do to give us confidence that our mission as a party will challenge the embedded and sectional interests that deny social mobility? What will our new leader do to ensure that we make real, dramatic and visible reductions in poverty? What will our potential leaders say about the managerial culture that we have fostered? Public services feel remote from peoples lives, they are bureaucratic, defensive and are seen to promote a new, exclusive, self-interested managerial class. Has our acceptance of the ‘process’ of good governance and our obsession with being seen as good managers of our public services, worked against us? Was the defining moment in the banking crisis not how you save the banks, but how you change them? What will the new leader say about the radical steps that are needed to make this country more innovative, more productive and economically more vibrant? What will the potential new leader say about the fundamental changes we need to make to eliminate the cruelty and injustice that remains at the the heart of the British economic and social system? And if we are to gain any credibility, what explanation can the new leader give as to why didn’t we tackle these things when we were in office?

What will the candidates for the leadership have to say about devolved power and local determination? Look at our party structure. We are centralised, we have overly contrived conferences that are based on a safety-first approach. There are no burning policy innovations coming through from our members because local parties find it hard to engage in debate and discussion that will make a difference. Will the new leader look to our local parties as examples of innovation, change and radicalism, or will they continue to be seen as a threat and as something that needs to be suppressed? Will setting our local parties free, in a federated and autonomous structure, help us to energise our local base again?

Britain needs both a cultural revolution as well as an economic revolution. While the right-wing parties talk about the culture of entitlement, as it relates to social benefits and the welfare state, Labour offers no concomitant challenge to the culture of entitlement that perpetuates private schools, the casino banking system, the inequities of the the housing market, the ‘executive’ model of company and organisational power, tax evasion, bigotry in the press, naked profiteering and the economic exploitation of vulnerable people. There is a very strong narrative to be developed around issues of personal liberty that only government and state action can ensure. Rather than treating state intervention in the balance of personal liberties as a threat to the individual, what will our new leader do to ensure that the state is seen as the guarantor of our freedoms, the protector of our individuality and the mechanism by which disputes between the individual and the powerful are sorted out? Labour has the chance to be become the radical voice of civil liberties if the new leader can turn the argument around from one of defence, to one of advancement.

In all of this, the new leader must be above all a card carrying, flag waving, out-and-out pragmatist. It s practical policies that make a difference. Lectures to think-tanks and policy groups don’t make a difference to voters. It is talking to local people in community groups, in local councils, in workplaces, at petrol stations, in hospitals, in doctors surgeries, in schools, colleges and universities, that will make a difference. Pragmatism plays a significant role in British politics. Tony Blair understood this, which is why many on the left accused him of being a Tory. But the electorate understood that when he went off to earn his living giving speeches to international business men and policy groups, that Labour had moved away from being involved in their lives and being on their side.

Therefore, it is only by having a relentless focus on the ordinary and the day-to-day lives of working people, that Labour will be able to harness the resilience and independence of the electorate. The cynical view is that the British are phlegmatic and deluded. The truth is that ordinary people are resilient, independent and focus exclusively on what will benefit them. Lofty appeals to fairness will not work. The next Labour leader has to appeal to a ruthless self-interest that articulates the principles of social solidarity, social democracy and the advancement of the individual. Together we are stronger, more prosperous, less cruel and less prone to humiliate others. And while you are about it, loose the suit!

Finally, the next leader has to ask the question, and come up with a sustainable answer, about why our time in government ultimately felt so timid, and has come to be seen as a wasted opportunity? This isn’t just a fight against the other parties, between the Conservative and the Liberals, but is instead a fight against the political traditions of many of our communities, the partisan interest in the press and the media, the entrenched interests of business, the ideological interests of international finance and global casino capitalism, and while we are at it, of the vested interests in the trade unions and the tribal interests of many members of the Labour Party. How can we challenge the entrenched class interests in our social system, if we are unable to move past our tribal interests in our own party? Once we get over the audacity of the Con-Lib pact, then voters will rightly question the nature of politicians who say one thing one week, and then ditch their principles the next week - just to be in office. The next leader of the Labour party has to have a coherent response to this. It is a pragmatic, down-to-earth and principled answer that will be needed.