Politics can be exhausting at times.

Just when you think that there's time for a bit of read and review, the circus moves on and along comes another audience for the clowns to perform to.

Nowhere is that clearer that the current election for the next Labour leader.

For those of who've been fortunate to avoid the noise and whistles, it's been a bit like a U2 record.

There's lots of hype around it and you want to be interested in it but it's just the same old snoozy rubbish that isn't quite as good as the original stuff.

Only U2 has a bit of an Edge.

Let's be honest, the Labour Party nationally is in a real mess.

It's under attack from all sides and doesn't know what to do about it.

Too left wing for England and too right wing for Scotland, it's wandering in the political wilderness looking for its identity.

And yet just over a month after suffering a battering at the general election, the party is already making a decision on who should lead it into the next battle of 2020.

Instead of taking a step back and looking at what went wrong it seems like they are in a race to capitulation.

Rumours are that at least two of the front runners were signing up supporters even before the election.

Now I'm not against forward planning.

But perhaps the focus should have been on doing more to win the election rather than feathering their own nests.

It makes Mario Balotelli look like a real team player.

The problem is that the Labour Party is one election away from becoming nigh on irrelevant as a ruling force.

One wrong choice now and the party will remain out of power for at least another ten years.

Those who should have stood to be leader know that - that's why they've not put themselves forward.

Dan Jarvis, Chukka Umunna, Tristram Hunt, Keir Starmer - these are the people the party should be looking to.

But instead they've been pushed to one side as the party hurries into making a decision.

As a result, the front runners all have links to the Brown/Blair period which means that the spectre of a failing economy will hang above them.

With the ballot closing today so far it seems that party members will have a choice of three: Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall.

What I've heard of the leadership contest so far has been virtually laughable.

The general theme seems to be: "We lost the election to the Tories because we we opposed the Tories".

In Scotland that changes to: "We lost the election to the SNP because we were too much like the Tories".

And then the rest of the rhetoric gives naff generalisations like "I believe in a better Britain", "we need to learn that aspiration is not a dirty word" and "join me on a listening tour".

It's one blog and a country retreat away from a positive mind coach business.

But it means absolutely diddly squat.

What Labour needs to is to have a long hard look at itself and realise what it's supposed to be enforce it starts looking outwards.

But above all else it needs to find someone at the top who people beyond the party believe in.

The three people in the running are all nice enough with strong intellectual roots.

But they are all much of a muchness.

Andy Burham would be an ideal guy to go to a football match with.

Yvette Cooper would be a solid juice for godmother.

Liz Kendall would be a great invite to a dinner party.

But none of the above really have the wow factor, the buzz beyond the soundbites to bring the general public round to the Labour party's way of thinking.

There'll be a lot of talk over the next few months within the party over what's best for Britain.

But I fear at the moment, those voting in Labour leadership race are simply sending in the clowns rather than the ringleader himself.