We are told by Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn that a great debate about Labour's direction is needed. That is as true now as it was when they were both members of a cabinet which tolerated no dissent from the line handed down from Downing Street. Nevertheless, it remains the case that a real debate is timely as Tony Blair's leadership draws to a close. The present prime minister seems more focused on his legacy to history than on the pressing demands of government. He appears determined to leave a Labour party shackled to his idiosyncratic views on both domestic and foreign policy.

For example, he now wishes to enmesh the UK into America's missile defence system before he steps down. This utterly pointless exercise has absolutely nothing to do with the country's security. It makes a mockery of American and British commitments to a less hostile world, and has been created for a non-existent "enemy" with missile capability. Together with Iraq, Afghanistan and Trident replacement, the next prime minister will face a series of decisions made immeasurably more complicated by the tortuous strategic thinking of Tony Blair. Certainly, the policy debate called for by the new enthusiasts for party democracy ought to start with our unbalanced commitment to American global policy. Yet it is axiomatic in political thinking that domestic policy dominates the citizen's mind at the ballot box.

In the race for a vacant leadership role, there are three electorates to consider. Firstly, there is the parliamentary Labour party, from where a candidate needs to secure at least 44 votes to enter the fray. The next challenge is the Labour party itself, seeking the votes of individual members and of affiliated organisations, including the trade unions. Finally, there is the most important electorate - the British people. After all, whoever is selected as party leader is intended to be prime minister. The Labour party will want a winner.

What makes a winner? Policy, say Clarke and Milburn. To a degree, they are right; but even the very best policies need to be communicated. Back in 1994, when Tony Blair was elected leader, his main appeal was not policy initiatives. It was his immediate appeal to Middle England. Both Clarke and Milburn know this. Thus it is a tad disingenuous to pretend that they are simply looking at policy. As we move to a more presidential system, so the leader becomes the personification of the party he or she leads. This is where personality is critical. It is why the Tories have worked so hard to rebrand their party from Theresa May's "nasty party" to the "family friendly" party of Dave Cameron.

Yes, there must be a debate about policy, but it must be a candid one. Other than John McDonnell (of the Campaign Group and therefore doomed to failure), I know of no suggested candidate for the leadership who voted for Labour party policy against, say, foundation hospitals or top-up fees. One cannot put a fag paper between them overall, which is why a leadership contest is such a depressing prospect. What real choice do people have, knowing that candidates have ignored party policy in the past, and are likely to do so again?