Firstly interesting topic and well written

Of course the title of your piece is correct that Labour need some time away from governing to be able to figure out what the future of their party is. This future will come from analysing the party's past. This is not just the previous government but all of the different ideas that have represented strands in Labour thinking. This is exactly what David Cameron did in his re-branding of the Conservative Party following his election as leader in 2005. He drew on the party's history of one-nation Conservatism and the principles behind Disraelian government to draw out different tendencies than those that had dominated the party since Mrs Thatcher's leadership.

The history of the Labour party is, if anything, a more fruitful source of inspiration. If Henz is correct, and I happen to think he probably is, and Labour's best chance of success is to ape the 'Big Society' then the party's long history of mutualism and its close ties to the co-operative movement should clearly be the first calling point. The Labour Party's history richness comes from the fact that it is littered with abandoned and failed visions of utopia - much more so than the Tories or Liberals because of the nature of British Socialism. Within this leadership election we have seen some attempt to reach into its history and retrieve new ideas. Andy Burnham's discussion of a national care service has used language that has sought to link it to post 1945 welfare state which is still seen by almost the entire Labour movement as the party's greatest governmental achievement. Ed Balls is, by contrast, the anti-history candidate who seems unhappy to talk about any event before 1997. This may however be an attempt for people to forget his role in the destructive battles that clearly dominated that government by attempting to tie himself to the mast of Blair. Oh and also history isn't the vote taken in March 2003 that sent our troops to Iraq and on that subject all the candidates should be ashamed of themselves except Diane Abbott who at least saw it for the illegal disgrace that it was then and isn't having to wriggle out of it now. Although I do have some grudging respect for Ed Balls for standing by his belief in the rightness of the war even now. Its the kind of respect that I have for people who vote for UKIP and are proud of the fact - that is to say i am disgusted with what you are doing but honesty has to be worth something.

Despite Balls's desire to believe that history started in 1997 - or possibly at Granita - it is his debate with Diane Abbott on the subject of immigration that have revealed one of historical splits in the Labour party. In attempting to represent poorer people in society it attempts to represent immigrants and the people most directly affected by immigration. This can be an impossible square to circle, particularly if you show Ed Balls's political weakness in arguing that people are worried about something therefore we must do something reactionary and retrograde. In fact, and this leads me on to my next comment on the post, the job of politicians must be to shape the minds of the electorate as well as just do what people want this week.