Latest Posts

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

Vote now!

Each of your top 25 policy proposals has now had a full hearing, and we're ready to open voting on the New Ideas series.

You can vote for any three of the 25 pitches that have been argued on these pages over the last ten days. The most popular five choices will be taken to the party and presented as your preferred ideas for the manifesto.

I can't guarantee that they will appear in the final draft of Labour's 2010 manifesto, but I fully intend to lobby for their inclusion over the coming months as the choices of grassroots Labour supporters.

The rules are simple:

* You may only vote once. Duplicated votes will be filtered out by IP address.

* You may only vote for three policy proposals. Voters who select more than three policies will have their votes disqualified.

Please do read the supporting arguments, which are linked below, before voting.

Vote for your three policy proposals here.

The final 25 policy proposals are below:

A full wide ranging housing plan to include demolition and filling of derelict homes.

A national living wage.

A public share in the private profits of local green energy generation.

A fully elected House of Lords.

Lower the voting age to 16.

Create universal childcare.

A youth club in every ward.

Clamp down on tax evasion through tax havens.

Commit to building a national high-speed rail network.

Make advertising of Junk Food to children illegal.

Investment in off-site and outdoor education programmes for children.

The National Curriculum should include credit management and personal finance education.

Introduce post graduate student loans.

Free minimum standard of long term care for all older people.

Make hospital car parking free in England.

Re-nationalise the railways.

Increase the basic rate of income tax threshold to £10,000.

Remove private schools' charitable status.

Introduce free prescriptions on the NHS.

Create a national standards agency to regulate private housing standards.

Liberalise the Sunday trading law to allow weekday opening hours on Sundays.

Improve access to parenting classes and offer them free to those on low incomes.

Both parents should have the option of taking shared amounts of maternity and paternity leave.

Use public buildings, such as schools, for community and social events.

Link a commitment to curbing domestic flights by 2025 to further electrification of the railways.

These short descriptions are not perfect, and are expanded upon and improved in the individual posts.

By Ali Moussavi

Inevitably, in the coming days and weeks, a number of perspectives will arise as to how 12-year incumbent governments can turn the tide of negative poll-ratings. The spike in the usage of verbs such as 'renew', 'revive' and 'realise' is testament to this.

While there are valuable contributions to be made, debates on future direction are the irreversible side-effects of a 15-point polling deficit. When the weather was good, no one uttered a word about values – it was plain and clear for all – New Labour is a party of third-way social democracy. If you wanted a debate on values, you would be told to look at the back of your membership card.

Some have tried to argue that the absence of a debate on Labour's future direction is the cause, not the symptom, of its position in the polls. This is incorrect. Some Labour MPs need only look across the chamber and they'll see a party in desperate need of such a debate who shockingly enough are 15 points ahead.

This is the discussion to be had, and it will remain pertinent long after Tuesday's poll numbers have crumbled into dust.

The present Conservative Party is a city built on a fault-line – a fault-line which has existed for as long as 24-hour news cycles have: that between believing in something and winning something. Some parties win precisely because of what they believe. Others win because of a plethora of other reasons ranging from hair styles to cycling to 'Now for Change'.

In many ways, the secure foundations of this city are a lazy anti-incumbent press. Some commentators ascribe too much power to the press' ability to shape the outcome of elections - the so-called 'Sun Wot Won It' factor. While the press does not decide the outcome, it certainly decides which arena the battle takes place in.

Polls show that even the public are very conscious of David Cameron being a leader who enjoys the luxury of opposition and benefits from free rides. Even after this last summer – arguably a good one for the Tories on the spending/cuts debate – we forget that it only kicked off because a shadow cabinet minister committed a major league gaffe by revealing the extent of the fault-line in his party. To realise this free ride, one need only consider how hesitant the Tories were to talk about cuts before June.

Across the country, Labour activists are considering which conference fringe events to attend. It never hurts to talk about 'the future of the Labour Party'. Political parties are meant to be structured on debate and this should be the case both when they are 15 points down and 15 points up.

However, all too often, activists forget that the present dividing line isn't between Compass and Progress, but between a party that stands tall in an economic storm by taking action and a party that hides under the bedsheets, opposing what every sane economist supported.

The 'dog ate my homework' excuse for an agenda only works for the Conservatives time and time again because the press humours them. Getting Britain out of recession, balancing the budget and taking on global challenges like international security, climate change and the economic crisis are direction for the Labour Party. And if some activists wonder where we will go before and after the election, whatever the result, the answer is closer to home than they think.

Photo: Downing Street, Flickr

By Tim Nicholls / @tim_nicholls

I’m a leftie. I believe, to my very core, in the redistribution of wealth because more equal societies are better functioning, happier and more just. I believe that the rich have a moral duty to help pay for those in need. So, I must be positively cock-a-hoop about the Lib Dem’s new plan (if infighting does not cause them to retract it) to implement a new mansion tax. I should be calling on Labour to propose the same. Right?

Wrong.

First of all, I find it shocking and more than a little hypocritical that the Lib Dems can spend years railing against Council Tax and how unfair it is to base a system of tax on house value, only to then proclaim it as the fairest base for their new policy. David Laws showed this hypocrisy, wholeheartedly but quite obliviously, last night on Question Time: one minute defending Vince Cable’s new tax, and the next lambasting Michael Heseltine for bringing in Council Tax. Now, don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with lambasting Michael Heseltine, but by unconsciously admitting this double standard in their tax policy, the Lib Dems have shown themselves to be just as untrustworthy on tax and redistribution of wealth as the Tories.

But my main problem with the Mansion Tax is not that it is patently hypocritical: it is that the Lib Dems actually had it right before. Council Tax is unjust and house value is not a sound basis for tax liability. In my mind, taxes should be levied on the transfer of wealth or the use of services. We pay tax on our income, the purchase of a house, the purchase of shares, the sale of a business, and inherited wealth, among other things. All of these revolve around a transaction of some sort. Road Tax and TV Licences are fees for the right to use something and go towards its maintenance: i.e. there is a tangible gain for us to be able to use it and this nominal profit is what legitimises the charge levied by the Government.

But the Mansion Tax does not have this underlying legitimacy. Instead it is a tax on continuing to own something. It is like having to pay VAT every year on, say, a computer. You pay more tax simply for the right to carry on owning something.

I agree with higher rates of Income Tax and proposals for higher levels of Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax without any difficulty. The prime function is pay for state services and to redistribute wealth, but a person is receiving a nominal gain every time they pay tax. That is not the case with the Mansion Tax and, even though it will redistribute some wealth, it is still a bad tax. Furthermore, it carries with it all the flaws of Council Tax (it ignores that a house worth over £1 million may not be a remarkable house in some areas, or that the person living there may not be wealthy themselves).

Tax, in a redistributive system, should be based on ability to pay: i.e. levels of actual wealth. House value ignores this. Aiming it at the presumed rich (although this may not be the case in reality) does not give the plan legitimacy. If house value is an unsound basis (and it is), it is unsound for everyone.

By Jack Scott / @Jack_Scott

Next week, the minimum wage will rise to £5.80. Since it was first introduced in the teeth of Conservative opposition, the minimum wage has risen by 81.25%, far outstripping a decade of low inflation. Does anyone believe the Tories would have raised it above inflation so consistently?

Since its introduction, Labour has also legislated to ensure tips do not count towards the minimum wage and that there are the toughest powers in Europe for rogue employers who break the law. The Conservatives voted against the introduction of the minimum wage and its strengthening, which went through Parliament last year.

In addition, David Cameron opposed longer maternity and paternity leave and flexible working – so much for Cameron’s compassionate conservatism.

Only a Labour government can truly protect workers' rights. The minimum wage remains one of Labour’s most powerful expressions of our values in action. I am immensely proud of the difference it makes to the lives of the UK’s million lowest paid workers.

But as thoughts turn towards a general election, I am also aware that the minimum wage is far from safe. The Tories’ opposition to the support that Labour is giving to people during the recession shows how out of touch they are. It seems that Cameron has decided the targets for his myopic and siren calls for an “Age of Austerity”: not the bankers with huge bonuses, or the millionaire estate owners, or the lucky few who earn over £100,000 a year - all of them will be safe if there is a Conservative government.

Instead, Cameron has called for the abolition of the Low Pay Commission, calling it a “useless quango” he that he's going to put on the “bonfire”. In addition to setting the minimum wage, the Low Pay Commission also advises on enforcement against rogue employers. Rogue employers need to be exposed – enforcement of the minimum wage is a vital component of fair competition (an issue which Cameron waxes lyrical about). Proper enforcement is in the interests of reputable businesses who pay the minimum wage and don't want to see themselves undercut by rogue employers who don't.

This is yet another example of how Cameron’s hands-off, devil-take-the-hindmost economic obsession actually damages British competitiveness.

Only Labour is committed, heart and soul, to defending the minimum wage. The Liberal Democrats initially opposed the minimum wage, calling it “misconceived”. Vince Cable, who the Liberal Democrats wheel out at every opportunity as their economic sage said increasing the minimum wage above the rate of inflation set a “dangerous precedent”. How is it possible to oppose increasing the minimum wage above the rate of inflation on Tuesday, and then tell us you want to see greater equality on Wednesday? The Lib Dems, like the Tories, cannot be trusted to protect and strengthen the minimum wage.

If you think a rogue employer is not paying up then get in touch with the national minimum wage helpline on 0845 6000 678. And don't worry, you don't have to give your name or details to them if you don't want to.

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

LabourList readers have voted the National Minimum Wage as Labour's biggest achievement over the last 12 years of government, in a poll conducted with IPPR ahead of its fringe event at conference next week.

The minimum wage received twice as many votes as the next most popular Labour achievement.

Speaking about the polls - which were conducted to take grassroots voices to the conference fringe - Carey Oppenheim, IPPR's co-director, told Politics.co.uk:

"The aim is to try and open up the debate beyond the four walls of the conference. This is only the beginning but I think it's a recognition that the way that conferences have operated in the past is just too closed."

The full results of the poll were:

National Minimum Wage: 37%
NHS improvements: 18%
Other public service improvements: 12%
Peace in Northern Ireland: 8%
Efforts on poverty eradication: 8%
Tax credits: 6%
Other: 11%

IPPR asked for the views of 50 LabourList readers, who volunteered to take part in the poll last week. More results will appear here over the coming days.

By Sunder Katwala / @nextleft

Cleaning up political funding is back on the political agenda. Charles Clarke called on the government to "legislate in the final session of this Parliament to reform the system of political Party funding along the lines recommended by Sir Hayden Phillips, difficult though some aspects of his proposals are for Labour".

James Purnell, writing for Progress, agrees, but goes much further in wanting much lower donation caps:

"We can debate what a cap on annual donations from individuals should be, but it should be in the hundreds of pounds – certainly not the £50,000 that Cameron wants, which would still mean parties chasing donations from wealthy individuals."

It sounds good. But is there any chance of finding consensus? It might appeal to the centre and to non-party opinion. But surely the right will be horrified. Perhaps we could form an unlikely alliance. For here is ConservativeHome editor Tim Montgomerie, in the new Fabian Review, when asked for one issue which the Cameron Conservatives haven't talked about much which he would like to see become a priority:

"Ending state and big donor financing of political parties so that all parties had to look to ordinary voters for their funding."

It takes a few weeks to produce a quarterly magazine. And, this morning, Montgomerie is excited about the possibilities for ConservativeHome after Michael Ashcroft took out his Bank of Belize credit card to splash his cash on buying the site. And he mentioned his previous support for limits on big donors yesterday, in stressing his confidence in his continued editorial independence. (Does it, however, make the Westminster water cooler rumours that Montgomerie was wary of what the deal would mean for the site's independence more plausible?)

Anyway, I am sure ConservativeHome will be looking for ways to show very publicly in the next few weeks that they have not been muzzled in their robust grassroots independence, as a Times editorial this week feared could be the case.

So here's my modest proposal for the next big ConservativeHome campaign, and a great way to put those resources to good use while showing they remain as independent as ever.

Let's make common cause on what seems to be our shared conviction - that it is time to take the big money donors out of politics.

PS: Tim is not just writing in the Fabian Review but he is appearing on the Fabian fringe at the Labour conference too. And you thought we were the experts in the politics of permeation and entryism...

Since the Labour party will spend much of next week talking about the Conservatives, we thought that the best way to address the question "Who are the new Conservatives" was to bring Tim Montgomerie, Fraser Nelson and Phillip Blond to Brighton, where they will discuss that question with Polly Toynbee and Fabian Research Director Tim Horton. It takes place on Monday night at 6pm. (Full listings on the Fabian website).

So the Fabian Review sees a tussle between Tim Montgomerie and 'Red Tory' Phillip Blond in the battle for David Cameron's brain and the soul of the right.

By David Stuttle

Among all great benefits to the development of the civilised world that Britain has created and established, the invention of the railway must rate as the greatest. From its inception in the nineteenth century through to high speed trains in the twenty-first the Railway has been the foremost method of transport throughout the world.

The railway in Britain developed rapidly from a few small local lines carrying mainly freight to a network of passenger and freight lines covering the entirity of the British Isles. As some railway companies grew in commercial stature and financial strength they took over and incorporated other smaller lines and companies.

In 1921, by Act of Parliament, the big four were created: LNER, LNWR, Southern and GWR became operational in 1923. But they were still private companies, competing with each other and operating to make profits for their shareholders. This situation was not viable for long as investment in improvements and new locomotion became too expensive for the companies.

The shortcomings of the private railway network became apparent during WWII, as services became less efficient and equipment frequently failed. To stop the total decline of the railway network - one of the best in the world in its heyday - the post war Labour government nationalised the railways and brought them into public ownership in 1948.

Nationalisation allowed for huge investment in the Permanent Way and in those new and more efficient locomotives, as well as the upgrading of rolling stock. A new system of ticketing was brought in that enabled the passenger to buy one ticket for the whole journey instead of having to buy separate tickets from each company for the section of the journey travelled on that company’s lines.

We would still have a national railway network to be proud if two acts of folly had not been perpetrated by Conservative governments. The first was the decimation of the rail network following the Beeching Report in 1963. This travesty allowed the Tory-led road lobby to gain power at the expense of the railways. Many branch lines and freight lines were closed in the sweeping cuts that followed the adoption by the Conservatives of Dr. Beeching’s recommendations.

As a result we have spent countless millions on an overcrowded road structure that has never been capable of accommodating the volume of traffic wanting to use it. We have huge, fuel-inefficient, pollution-producing lorries travelling long distances, each carrying a tiny fraction of the goods that could be transported by rail. Often these lorries are travelling on roads that run parallel to railway lines. There are now more private cars on the roads than ever envisaged because for most of the people there is no longer a railway station near their homes. And the buses are as infrequent as snow in July. One of the strong arguments put forward at the time of the Beeching cuts was that busses would replace the trains. It never happened. Bustitution did not work.

The second act of folly by a Conservative government was the privatisation of the railways. Having failed to invest in the railway the Tory government under Mrs. Thatcher sold off one of our biggest national assets. But just like the effect of cutting the railways under Beeching, privatisation has not worked either. Companies set up to run different parts of the railway system have under-invested in their service provision and equipment. Millions of pounds of public money has been handed over to the privatised companies to keep them afloat, while fare prices have escalated, passenger numbers have dropped and shareholders have profited. Inefficiencies have increased and accidents like the one at Hatfield are all too common. 

The only way to bring our railway network back into the supreme transport system it once was and make it a beacon of excellence to the world is to re-nationalise it. A nationalised railway network will:

* Invest in re-opening closed lines and open new routes to attract more custom.

* Create employment.

* Invest in additional and new rolling stock to add carriages to trains and enable all passengers to sit for the whole of their journey, including commuters during peak times.

* Run at a lower cost without needing to make a profit.

* Reduce fares for travellers and thus encourage more people to travel by train.

* Reduce the number of cars on the road.

* Carry more freight and cut out all the HGV traffic on the roads. Only smaller LGV lorries will be needed to carry goods from railheads for local delivery.

* Eliminate the need for building new roads.

* Have a more efficient timetable so that passengers do not have long waits between connections.

It is time the Labour Party returned to its socialist roots. One step along the way would be to re-nationalise public services: telephone, energy, water, buses and first and foremost, the railway network.

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

Quelling persistent rumours that President Obama has "snubbed" Gordon Brown this week, the PM has given this interview to Sky News today:

View 'Brown: the special relationship has never been stronger' by Alex Smith >

By Brian Barder / @BrianLB

It's well established that poor parenting runs in families and can have disastrous consequences for the life chances of the children affected. Children ineffectually or abusively brought up by incompetent parents, or often by a single parent who perhaps lives with a stepfather (or much more rarely a stepmother), grow up and have children of their own - sometime when still teenagers - whom they in turn bring up ineffectually with the same likelihood of disastrous consequences for them.

Child abuse, whether violent or sexual or both, notoriously gets practised down the generations; the abused become abusers in their turn. Children of incompetent or abusive parents are likelier than others to play truant from school, to leave school with inadequate or no literacy or numeracy skills and thus to be virtually unemployable except in temporary and unskilled low-paid jobs, to become offenders and to spend time in prison or young offenders' institutions, to smoke, practise alcohol abuse or take drugs or all three, to become obese through bad dietary habits learned from infancy, and consequently (or independently) to be victims of bad health with short life expectancy, to have several sexual partners and sometimes children by each, and in general to fail all along the line to fulfil their human potential or to lead happy and fulfilled lives. Children in these categories have an above-average likelihood of being taken into care, again with poor prospects for leading fulfilling lives.

There is thus a powerful case for society to try to break into this cycle of poor parenting with its high individual, family and social costs. Education in sound parenting clearly ought to occupy a much more prominent place in all school curriculums, but many of those affected may rarely attend school and will therefore tend to miss its benefits.

The case for the state to provide parenting classes, especially for those from low-income, low education and low aspiration backgrounds, is accordingly strong. It might be possible to make attendance at parenting classes compulsory for parents of young children, or prospective parents, who come before the courts for any reason and are assessed by magistrates or judges as likely to benefit from parenting guidance.

Attendance at classes in suitable cases should be part of the conditions of injunctions, ASBOs, binding over and ordinary sentences, especially if suspended. Compulsory parenting classes should be held for people of parent age in prisons and young offenders' institutions. Voluntary parenting classes should be offered to appropriate parents by primary and perhaps other schools, with suitable inducements to attend. There should be publicly funded parenting classes on commercial and public service television channels, associated with celebrities from the worlds of football, pop music and television itself, perhaps in a reality TV format with audience interactivity, penalties and prizes. There should be a strong effort to establish parenting classes as normal and useful for parents from all walks of life and social classes, so that no stigma attaches to attendance at them.  Wherever possible the classes should be seamlessly integrated with other social, sporting or entertainment activities.

All this would be expensive, but much less so that allowing the cycle of bad parenting and human failure to continue to pass from generation to generation every couple of decades into the foreseeable future.

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

The Young Fabians will be putting together podcasts from the Labour conference, which begins on Sunday. If you haven't already, check out the LabourList Conference Timetable.

You can listen and download them here (TUC and Co-Op podcasts are already available) or subscribe via iTunes.

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

In an interview with this week's New Statesman, Gordon Brown says nervously:

"I've got my ideas and I've got my views about the future, and it's my duty and my responsibility to get these across. I accept that you're dealing on occasion with a very hostile opposition and media, but it's my duty to get my views across."

And, he says, the next election will be the "big choice" election.

We've already seen what Brown thinks about New Labour's challenge in post-recession Britain in his Prospect article, but what is he likely to say in his big speech to conference and the nation on Tuesday?

I'm told the speech will build on the rhetoric heard in the US Congress, at TED and at the UN yesterday about the economic and environmental challenges we face. But there's also likely to be substance - and even a couple of new policy announcements. Here a few thoughts on what those announcements might be:

* There will be a referendum on voting reform at the same time as the general election.

* Britain will commit to a full network of High Speed Railways.

* Compounding what's already been said, the PM will speak of a nuclear-free future and fully signal the intention to replace Trident with three new subs rather than four.

* The PM will accept the challenge thrown down by Sky News to debate David Cameron and Nick Clegg in the run up to the next election.

* He will signal beyond doubt the date of the election.

By Sonny Leong

An outright Conservative victory is widely anticipated within the Westminster Village. Poll after poll shows them to be not only ahead but to be perceived as being strong on most public services – an area that has traditionally been a vote-winner for Labour. So what is happening here? Who are these people that believe the Tories can deliver better public services? To be honest I wonder if I am living in the same country as them.

Rewind the clock fifteen years – hospital waiting lists were the butt of jokes by stand-up comics, teachers, nurses and doctors were leaving their professions in droves, class sizes were unmanageable, schools were crumbling down - literally falling apart - police forces were demoralised, and David Cameron was Special Advisor to Norman Lamont.

Cameron may be mouthing Compassionate Conservatism – but what does he know about being unemployed or having no money to pay for your next meal? Or for that matter his shadow cabinet, whose combined net worth is in excess of £100 million?

Meanwhile Cameron’s side-kick Osborne is behaving like a bullying public school boy with more than a glint of arrogance, posturing like he was born to rule over us. Their motto – ‘screw the rest, we’ll look after our kind’ is as blatant as it is offensive. Their 3,000 wealthy friends who would benefit most from plans to cut inheritance tax must be counting down the days to the next election.

Peter Mandelson is absolutely right in saying that Tories were "foaming at the mouth with excitement". We have to stop their charm offensive and reveal them as the frauds that they are. They will say whatever the public wants to hear to get elected - we have to expose their lies and total lack of compassion.

It doesn’t seem unfair, therefore, to ask if people are insane in wanting the Tories back in government. And yet if the polls are to be believed, for the moment at least, huge numbers of people are seriously considering just that. The hard truth is, though, that we can’t blame the voters for not listening to us.

Perhaps we have been burying our heads in the sand, hoping against all hopes that the economy will turn around and all will be fine?

We have to accept that to a very large extent we are still repeating now tired old messages that have begun to bore the voters. We have to accept that we have failed to articulate our policies with clarity and have failed to energise our supporters and voters with a vision of hope and aspiration. And we have to accept that to a large extent we have failed to deliver fairness for hard working families and to protect the dignity of our pensioners.

If we are to really challenge the lies purported by the Tories in claiming that they are the party of progressive politics, we have to rediscover the fire in our belly. We have to rediscover our hunger for victory.

To do this we need to start talking about social justice, fairness and equality. We have to articulate our strength of feeling about tackling poverty and our belief in the nobility of the human spirit. We have to take our fight to the country for the things that we passionately believe in and carry the message to the people that need us most.

Our election manifesto has to embrace hope, be transformative, aspirational, compassionate and equitable. Here are some of my suggestions:

* A referendum on a fairer electoral system and process.

* Constitutional reforms to parliamentary representation.

* National Civic Service where unemployed 18-24 year olds can participate in voluntary work domestically and internationally.

* Reform the banking industry by breaking up banking giants and refer all mergers and acquisitions to the UK Competition Commission.

* Setting up tax-free industrial parks for new green industries to offset our reliance on the financial services sector.

* Take back into public ownership those rail franchises that have failed, and consider road tolls on all motorways.

* Set up a National Housing Board to oversee the development of social housing throughout the country.

* Appoint a Cabinet Minister for the Elderly and establish its own department to look after the welfare of pensioners.

As we all head to Brighton for our Conference this week, we have to have a purpose for the next few months, and that purpose is to lay open the shallow mindedness of the Conservative policies for all to see. There is all to fight for, and a fourth term is still a possibility, however bleak the outlook is currently.

So let’s all stop sleep-walking, wake up and take the challenge to the British people.

Sonny Leong is a Publisher and Chair of Chinese for Labour.

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

The Scotsman is reporting Alistair Darling's anger at Charles Clarke's new calls for Gordon Brown to go. Darling apprently said:

"I've really got no time for people who say 'if only there was someone else, it'd be all right'. That's bollocks. The real fight we've got is collectively. There is no point in thinking the day afterwards 'if only we'd said this, if only we'd done that'. We need to come out fighting – and that burden rests on each and every one of us."

Calm down, Darling!

By Lesley Griffiths AM

When Assembly Members were asked by the Western Mail what the Assembly's greatest achievements were in its first 10 years, free bus passes came top of the list. It is a policy that has transformed the way pensioners travel and has provided a real boost to public transport companies and the Welsh economy. And as Labour Leader Rhodri Morgan has made it clear, while Labour is in charge the free bus scheme is guaranteed to continue.

Free bus passes have given older people independence while supporting a public service that is used by everybody. Despite its popularity, the Welsh Conservative Party has continued to undermine this scheme, dismissing it as a free gimmick. Conservative Transport spokesman, David Melding, recently declared he would like to see the scheme applied at off-peak times only.

Similarly, universal free prescriptions, free school breakfasts, free swimming for the young and elderly, and any other scheme that involves helping different strata of Welsh society, have been subject to a predictably callous diatribe by senior Tories.

Cheap phrases such as “freebies” and “giveaways” have been thrown around the Senedd chamber by the opposition over the past year.  But despite their best efforts, those reactionary opinions do not reflect the mainstream view in Welsh society. When it comes down to it, the Tories never change – always on the side of the haves, always keen to take things away from those who have least.

Mr Melding’s comments regarding free bus passes were dismissed by National Old Age Pensioners Association of Wales Assistant Secretary Emlyn Lloyd who claimed “the provision of bus passes is seen by many of our European members as an essential element in improving the welfare and mobility of elderly people.”

Earlier this year, the Welsh Tory Group firmed up its opposition to universal free prescriptions by making it official policy. This has been rejected out-of-hand by the medical profession. Speaking to the Western Mail last month, Dr Richard Lewis, Welsh Secretary of the British Medical Association, rightly pointed out that under the old system, many people, particularly from those who found themselves just above the exemption threshold, were not collecting their prescriptions because of financial hardship. He added that creating a list of exemptions was “unworkable and unfair.”

Dr Lewis is right. Contrary to Tory propaganda, this debate is not about bonjela and paracetemol. It is about real people suffering from chronic conditions like high blood pressure and being unfairly made to pay for medication, as they were under the old system.

That cannot be allowed to happen again. Our agenda to eradicate social exclusion and root out poverty once and for all in Wales will remain our priority in Welsh Labour. As Gordon Brown outlined in the UK Government’s plan for Building Britain’s Future, public service entitlements should be guaranteed to parents, patients and communities.

Since the Assembly’s inception, Labour-led Governments have introduced important new entitlements which are making a real difference to people’s lives:

Free school breakfasts make sure children start their day with a nourishing meal and are ready for a day’s learning. No child should be expected to learn in schools when they are hungry. Experience has also shown that successful breakfast schemes in schools have led to positive changes in the attitudes of pupils. These in turn have led to, for example, improved attendance, improved behaviour and sustained concentration.

Free swimming promotes good health amongst the young and older people and makes facilities accessible to these groups.  It also spreads our message of social justice as many parents will take their children swimming who normally might not be able to afford it.

School uniforms grants make sure pupils are dressed equally whatever the income of a family. Thousands of pupils have taken up their right to uniform grants, which now boasts an uptake of 99.6%. How can that that policy not be worthwhile?

The Tories would happily see an end to these policies. And the fact that they would ditch the entitlements which are making the biggest difference to the most vulnerable speaks volumes about their priorities as a party.

In the same way that we have helped the vulnerable, we are also helping those businesses that are struggling during the global economic downturn. The ProAct scheme provides training for employees who are on short time working, and helps keep skilled staff that may otherwise be made redundant.

The Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government is delivering – for businesses, for workers, and all the people of Wales. Yes, these policies cost money – but is always money spent for a purpose, helping keep people fit and healthy, helping our economy to cope with the recession. We make no apology for that. It is money spent for the good of the people of Wales.

These policies are bold and progressive. We in Labour are proud of them and will fight the Tories tooth and nail to keep them.

By Michael Green

Over the last year we’ve seen how the nation state stupendously failed to regulate a global economy. We’ve also seen that there are still inefficiencies in some areas in the nation state providing public services. But we also saw the need for the nation state to bail out banks, provide fiscal stimulus, guarantee jobs for young people and raise taxes on the rich to pay for it.

The point is: politics is more complicated than ever. It’s neither a 1945 Keynesian social democracy moment, nor is it a 1979 free market Thatcherite moment. It’s daft to try and label this moment with any ideological label be it liberal, prog-con, Keynesian or whatever.

Yet the bulk of the electorate like to keep things simple. It's hard to see a vision for the future without labels like ‘progressive conservatism’, and it's hard to see a clear sense of direction and travel. The danger is that Labour gets associated with being able to do nothing more than spend money, and people are sick of hearing about money being spent after the bank bailout, the fiscal stimulus and the high debt worries.

Of course, all the money spent was necessary and will be until recovery and falling unemployment. But Labour still needs to show that its long term vision for the future is not about spending more and more on new schemes. Its vision must be about doing things differently.

A moral crusade for 2010:

* Restructure public services and the state to show how public sector productivity will rise.

* Choice and voice where ever possible in public services.

* Pro-EU economic growth strategy.

* Halve the national debt by 2014 and show how government, public service cuts and tax rises will achieve this.

* Get the Alan Sugars, Peter Joneses and Duncan Bannatynes to back Labours economic recovery and growth strategy of industrial activism to show up the Tories lack of economic vision and confirm that Labour isn’t back to crass Keynesianism or needless spending.

* Listen to everyday issues of citizens and don’t write up an election manifesto purely from think tanks.

* Rebuild communities through expanding the foundation trust model to things like youth clubs, community centres, parks and maybe even SureStart centres, in order to give the party a broader sense of purpose beyond the wholly necessary entitlements and systems of redress and budgets in public services.

David Cameron is in danger of successfully portraying Labour as an unimaginative party that can do nothing more than recklessly spend money. Peter Mandelson is right about the need to portray Labour as progressive state reformers and the Tories as ideological state retrenchers. Labour also needs to show its fiscal competence by announcing where spending will be cut and where taxes will be raised, and why.

But Labour will also need a language of communitarianism around the edges because Cameron is currently using that language to his advantage. There should be more choice in public services, but simply bleating on about choice alienates people as to what exactly the party stands for as a broader moral crusade.

The Building Britain’s future website has no information on how Labour will halve the budget deficit by 2014. It mainly consists of how money will be spent on in the short term and long term. We need a budget deficit reduction action plan together now or we risk being labelled fiscally incontinent and out of control.

Key themes should be:

* Increasing public sector productivity (without throwing money at the problem or throwing the baby out with the bath water.)

* Economic recovery (also an explanation of why the fiscal stimulus was vital, with business figures to show how.)

Gordon Brown can get back his fiscal authority if he shows exactly how he will cut the budget deficit dramatically by 2014. The electorate are sick and worried about hearing of more and more of their money being spent.

By Bryony King

Past research has suggested that people are becoming more afraid of losing their sense of community, with people continually lamenting the 'loss of community spirit' and talking about the 'good old days' where everybody seemed to know each other and there were community and social events aplenty; street parties, discos, carnivals, youth clubs, competitions, mass picnics and more. People came together to organise events, campaign together and spend leisure time with each other, there was a sense of community and belonging that many feel we have lost.

A survey in December 2008 of 1,970 adults showed 87% thought that community spirit was on the wane. A separate survey of 826 ethnic minority adults showed this figure to be even higher, at 95%. Recent experience has taught me that many people are unaware or simply apathetic to important current issues within their community; generally it's mainly older people who seemed to be more aware and involved.

The Tories are keen to capitalise on these negative feelings, barely concealing grins as they talk about 'Broken Britain', an imaginary place where family breakdown causes crime rife communities, where people might rush home to board up their doors and windows, get shot on the way to work each day and never say 'hello' to neighbours in case they are drug dealers. Of course they blame the Labour government for this, whilst their only solutions seem to be concerned with how to keep people married and keep the “traditional” family together, thus saving society.

Many more sensible reasons are given to try and explain this decline in community spirit; change in lifestyles and attitudes and lack of positive leadership, for instance. If Labour took action to make safe public buildings, such as schools, widely available for community use and just a few people within the communities took the initiative to organise and publicise social events and activities could the feeling of community spirit return? It would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Schools are more likely to have facilities that a local community centre or church hall, the usual venues for community and social events, lack, such as computer and internet facilities, sports facilities, theatre facilities. They are large enough to be able to hold several group meetings or events at the same time. These benefits could be shared with the wider community, not only building a greater sense of community spirit but forging stronger relationships between the schools; students and teachers, and the people of the community. 

Many people want to change their communities. Let's offer them a safe, well equipped place to do so.

The Paul Richards column

Here’s a question: who is the only member of the Liberal Democrat frontbench with any experience of government? The last Liberal Government ended in 1922, and the last Liberal to serve as a minister of the crown was Sir Archibald Sinclair in 1940. Even Ming Campbell hasn’t been around that long. The answer is Vince Cable, who was a special adviser to John Smith MP, when he was secretary of state for industry in the Callaghan government. Fetching John Smith’s mug of tea does not equip you to run the economy.

The rest of the Lib Dem ‘shadow cabinet’, as they are grandiosely self-described, have no more experience of running the country than the legions of barbers, taxi-drivers and pub landlords who seem to always know how it should be done. And barring a coalition government which brings Lib Dems into a Conservative-led administration (never gonna happen), the Lib Dem front-bench will pursue their careers in the sure-fire knowledge that they will never drive their policies through parliament, see the inside of a red box or run anything more significant than a bath.

You have to wonder about the psychology of politicians who know they’ll never be in power. Even a Lib Dem councillor knows they may end up as chair of planning or children’s services. In the darkest times for the Labour or Tory parties, their MPs knew one day the sun would shine on them once again. But the Lib Dem parliamentary party wakes up each morning, makes speeches, drafts manifestos and policy statements, gives interviews to the Guardian, delivers Focus, and goes to bed after a constituency fundraiser without advancing by an inch the likelihood of Liberal Democrat government. Without the prospect of power, of actually doing something for people, surely all you’re left with is egotistical, preening self-regard?

They blame the electoral system, of course. If only Britain had proportional representation, they say, then British Liberals would be in government as they are in other European governments. On Sunday in Germany the liberal ‘Free Democrats’ may well give Merkel the extra numbers she needs to form a coalition without the SPD, even though they are polling at only around 15%. One of the arguments deployed against electoral reform is the ‘Genscher Factor’: the phenomenon named after Free Democrat and former Nazi Party member (joining in 1945, a little late to be fashionable) Hans-Dietrich Genscher who served in successive coalition governments from 1969 to 1992 because his small centrist party held the balance of power. Imagine a Clegg Factor – no matter who you vote for, you always get Nick Clegg in the Cabinet.

I blame the media. This week in Bournemouth, journalists have been reporting the policy announcements, Clegg’s Big Speech,  the behind-the-scenes spats between Webb, Cable, Clegg and Huhne as though they mattered. For one week a year, they can pretend to be important and get on the TV. It’s unfair. It gives them a false sense of their own worth. It leads to them saying daft things such as ‘go back to your constituencies and prepare for government’. I seem to remember one delegate to the Lib Dem conference in the build-up to the Gulf War declaring from the rostrum: ‘Saddam Hussein, the Liberal Democrats are watching you...’ which must have sent seismic shock waves through the Republican Palace.

Individually, some of them are talented, intelligent and good company. We share many of the same concerns. They’re not the Tories, after all. But as a party the Liberal Democrats represent the worst aspects of politics. They seek office, but not power. They offer criticism, but take no responsibility. They parade principles, but play the dirtiest political games locally you can imagine. They claim the high-ground, but operate in the gutter (Ashdown’s answer-phone reputedly said ‘please leave your message after the high moral tone’). They will do and say anything to get elected, no matter the contradictions and inconsistency, even within the same council’s boundaries. Their MPs pretend politics is about blaming someone else, and thus contribute to the denigration of democracy as self-government.    

The Liberal Democrats are like eunuchs at an orgy: filling up space and eating all the crisps, but unwilling and unable to do anything useful.

The Chris Cook Economics 3.0 column

I was interested to see that the US is planning to impose sanctions on gasoline supplies into Iran, with a view to applying pressure on the Iranians to cease development of nuclear energy.

To date, US sanctions have been almost entirely self defeating.  Restrictions by the US on the supply of communications and IT technology have not only provided enormous black market profits inside and outside Iran, but have also held back the spread of perhaps the most liberating influences in Iran today, as was evident from recent unofficial coverage of events from Iranian bloggers, “tweets”, mobile phone cameras and so on.

Moreover it was a subject of some amusement in Tehran last October, both among the elite I met, and the man in the street, that the very financial sanctions aimed at bringing Iran to the negotiating table had the perverse side-effect of protecting Iran from the Credit Crunch meltdown then in progress.

Could gasoline sanctions work?
Indeed they could, but not in the way the President Obama would wish, I suspect.

Firstly, like all sanctions, they would  work to bolster the government through the Iranian people's intense patriotic nationalism. The more noticeable the effects, the more this would be the case.

Secondly, it would work to increase already significant profits of those within Iran who control access. Outside Iran we would see  Russian and Chinese refiners, rail and road haulage operators and traders such as Glencore and Trafigura all making mouthwatering profits.

Thirdly, it would in fact be a boon to Iranian policy makers who have been trying and failing, through rationing and price increases, to reduce Iran's catastrophic waste of carbon-based energy, and the massive subsidies involved.

This final point was recently brought home to me in relation to the environmental disaster zone of the Niger Delta in Nigeria, which is another “externality” of the toxic enterprise model of the global oil industry. It served to remind me that the current global system of financial capital -  the combination of deficit-based money and “for rentier profit” equity - is in fact one of the principal causes of our problems.   

How many barrels has the G7?
In all the discussions going on in connection with Climate Change, it seems to me that the focus is almost exclusively upon which of the energy consuming nations should take the pain of cutbacks in energy use, and particularly how that pain should be shared between the developed nations and the developing nations.

I really think that this ignores a very large Elephant in the Room, and that is the energy production,  use, and development strategies of the energy producing nations, and what they do propose to do with the proceeds. To paraphrase Stalin's inquiry as to how many divisions the Vatican had at their disposal, “How many barrels has the G7?”

Reversing the Polarity
In fact, there is a very simple and straightforward route to fund the transition from carbon, and that is to “monetise” energy – through the issue by producers of Units redeemable in energy - within an International Energy Clearing Union global framework agreement.

By way of example, Iran could gradually  increase gasoline prices to global levels, and then issue to the population Units redeemable in gasoline and its energy equivalent by way of compensation. A consumer would then have the simple choice of continuing profligate gasoline use, and paying for it with Units, or of exchanging these Units for (say) the Korean flat screen TV he fancies.  

A carbon levy on transactions could be made to create a “Carbon Pool” fund and this would be invested in renewable energy and energy saving projects – particularly a new generation of public transport - and it would be both wise (and profitable) for the West to facilitate such a process.  Nuclear energy, on the other hand, would not be economic using the same “energy accounting” approach, and this is a serendipitous outcome.

Nigeria, for its part, is crippled by electric power shortages at the same time as enough gas to power Brazil is simply flared off because it is not profitable to do anything else with it. I propose that Units redeemable in Nigerian energy would be issued and sold to investors.

The proceeds would then be invested as “energy loans” which would fund decentralised power generation using currently flared gas, and a new generation of renewable energy production for the day that existing resources run out. This energy production would cut the fuel use of existing production, and free it to redeem the Units sold to investors.

The proposed global market in emissions and carbon credits is brought to us by the same people who brought us the Credit Crunch. It makes no sense to monetise by global governmental fiat carbon dioxide which is intrinsically worthless. In my view, we should reverse the polarity of the global financial system by monetising the energy value of carbon instead.

A new global settlement is necessary, and it must necessarily centre upon energy producers and energy users. The US discussions about to begin, and the Copenhagen discussions in December, are in my view doomed to failure unless there is a recognition of the true source of the problem.

By Nick Redfern / @nick_red

We are in a recession, and in order for a country to leave a recession, it must experience a growth in spending. This can be achieved through an increase in consumer spending, business spending, government spending or a combination of all three. To quote a business that would welcome this proposition: “Every Little Helps!”

I propose the abolition of the restrictions on shops’ Sunday opening hours. The current law (in England and Wales) prevents shops greater than 280 m2 (3,014 sq. ft.) to open for longer than 6 hours or outside of 10am to 6pm on Sundays. Many varying reasons are given for these restrictions, but I find none of them to be satisfactory.

I’ll start with the most indefensible argument: that it’s “God’s day.” You may well believe that, but most people do not. In this day and age, such an argument is ridiculous: why should one group be able to force its religious practices against others?

While on the topic of religion, the current rules hamper employers, workers and customers, solely for observing a religion other than Christianity, which happens to not designate Sunday as a “holy day.” This puts them at a disadvantage, just for not being a Christian.

One argument used by proponents of Sunday Trading Law is that it provides “family time.” Surely it should be down to the members of said families if they want to spend time together on a specific day of the week, and not pushed upon them by legislation. Perhaps a more noble cause would be to provide more opportunities for families to engage together during the week.

The main concern of the trade unions, in regards to Sunday Trading Law, is that employees could be forced to work on a Sunday by their employer. The current legislation guarantees the right of employees to refuse to work on Sundays, without fear of reprisal from their employers. (In fact, this right was later given to employees in Scotland, where Sunday trading hours are not restricted.) Some might say that this is an inadequate protection for workers; however it's the only protection that shop workers in small shops, Scotland or any of the exempt shop types have. (Some of the exemptions I find to be quite odd, such as: “any shop where the trade or business carried on consist wholly or mainly of the sale of intoxicating liquor.” Why is this granted a special exemption?)

While this is all well and good for those with jobs, what about those without? Unemployment currently stands at around 2.47 million. History of previous recessions teaches us that the central economic question has to be “does this policy have the potential to boost employment.” By allowing shops to open for longer on Sundays, jobs will be created both directly and indirectly (or at the very least the number of job losses reduced).

I hope that unions like USDAW will recognise the need for both their members, currently in work, to stay in work - and for those unemployed to get into work.

(Special thanks to Tom Watson for help with a particular sentence)

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

Charles Clarke has been busy today. This morning, he gave an interview to the Evening Standard in which he said Gordon Brown should stand down for "his own dignity", citing grounds of ill-health, and that without change Labour will be in opposition for ten or fifteen years.

He's now speaking at the second in the series of lectures organised by Progress, saying he "rejects the complacency and the pessimism" of the idea that Labour is bound for inevitable defeat.

Presumably, he means on the condition that the PM goes. The full speech is below:

--

I want to begin by strongly commending Progress on organising this series of lectures focused, absolutely correctly, upon the need for Labour to win the next General Election.

It is an honour to follow Peter Mandelson’s first lecture in this series ten days ago, in which he rightly confronted Labour with the need to address our current fiscal deficit in an open and clear way.

The May 2010 General Election

In the ‘New Statesman’ last week, Ed Balls correctly described Thursday May 6th 2010 as ‘the most important General Election for a generation’.

The outcome of the election will determine the way in which this country’s economy responds to the world financial crisis we have been experiencing over the last 18 months or so. It will determine the balance between tax and spending for the next decade and the way in which public services are organized and paid for.

It will set the international locus of this country, both in relation to the European Union and in the nature of our relationship to the United States as we continue to contest the threats posed by international terrorism. It will decide how democratic politics will be conducted, and with what integrity, for decades to come.

And it will shape the form of British politics for the next generation, in particular determining the nature of progressive politics and the place of both trades unions and the Labour Party within it, if indeed they have a future after the very serious defeat which opinion polls currently predict.

The stakes next May could not be higher.

As this country faces up to these various challenges, it needs strong and clear leadership, of the type which David Cameron’s Conservatives have so far showed not the slightest capacity to offer. That is why, as so many commentators observe, the Tories have so far failed to ‘seal the deal’ with the British electorate despite the awful weakness of Labour at this moment.

I see no signs at all that the Conservatives will rise to this challenge. They are mired in the petty point-scoring of partisan oppositionist politics. Their Party is deeply divided upon policy issues of the greatest significance. Their demeanour remains introverted, provincial and backward-looking, notably so in the international arena, they offer no policy or political vision for themselves and they inspire no confidence in their team of political leaders. Both in 1992 and in 1997 Labour prepared far more seriously for the challenge of office and had a far more substantial programme for government.

But I am sorry to say that many in Labour are also failing to face up to the grave situation which we face. Our leadership is weak, uncertain, tactically unsure and lacks vision. We are unpopular, with current poll standings at an average of 41 Conservative, 26 Labour and 18 Liberal Democrat. Labour voting intentions consistently underperform the Party’s core support, with a big pool of lost Labour voters now backing other parties and Labour supporters apparently more likely than Tory ones to be thinking of switching sides.

These ratings have declined consistently since 2008 despite an apparently unending sequence of new relaunches, a string of policy initiatives and significant political changes, such as the arrival of Peter Mandelson into Gordon Brown’s government.

This level of performance is likely to lead to the loss of well over 100 Labour seats, and some estimate even 150 losses.

And, worse than unpopularity, all the evidence is that Labour is not trusted at the very time when trust is essential for any Government which needs to make the hard choices which really are necessary to set this country’s course for the future.

Some in Labour, principally those around the Prime Minister and his close supporters, believe that some level of economic recovery will bring with it increased confidence and popularity as the public gives Gordon Brown the credit he rightly deserves for the leadership he offered internationally in fashioning a global economic resource to the crisis which came upon us a year ago.

And they believe that with an increase in Labour popularity the Conservative Party will implode as its own weaknesses and contradictions lead to deeper divisions and turmoil, out of which a Labour victory could emerge. It’s a respectable view, though not one most people in Labour, including myself, share, and it would require the heroic improvement in our political performance which continually fails to materialise.

Others in Labour believe that if we go on as we are defeat, possibly disastrous defeat, is certain. However they feel that this is the natural, even inevitable, end to a period of three terms of Labour government. They believe that the ‘pendulum’ effect in British politics will, more or less inevitably, return Labour to office in a few years – possibly as early as 2015 – and all of our efforts should be focussed on preparing the policy agenda for 2015 and determining the leadership of Labour which will take us into that General Election, which they expect to take place after Tory failure in Government.

It is perhaps not surprising that such views are held by those who want to reassert ‘traditional Labour’ as the dominant force in Labour post-2010 (our version of a kind of German ‘Die Linke’ – statist, narrow and backward-looking in its approach) particular as some of these purport to believe that there is no real difference between ‘New Labour’ and the Conservatives in government.

But it is rather more surprising that views of this kind are also held by some of the strongest New Labour voices who believe that there’s no hope for 2010 but that something will turn up to make Labour victory in 2015 a real possibility.

Whatever their detailed ideological approach both these strands of opinion coalesce in the defeatist conclusion that’s there’s not much to be done now about winning in 2010: the real battle will happen after the (in their view) inevitable defeat, and we should prepare for that battle now. Various sophisticated defences are made of their view that there’s nothing to be done but knuckle down behind the current leadership but the net effect is that they both propose no real change whilst in their souls acknowledging that this will lead only to disaster for Labour and the people Labour was founded to serve.

I reject the complacency and the pessimism of these views.

I assert that we cannot coast to this massively important General Election next May without doing everything in our power to maximize the Labour result at that election and ideally to win.

To do the best we can we have to answer the questions which will then be asked by millions of voters, which is ‘Why Labour? Why does Labour deserve our support? Why should Labour stay in power?’

If we have strong, truthful and persuasive answers to these questions we will gain their support.

If we don’t we won’t.

Today, in September 2009, we still have a chance, precisely because there is still, despite Labour’s weakness, tremendous uncertainty about the Conservatives. But every month that passes without Labour making the necessary changes reduces our chance of winning.

The way to win is to be able genuinely to provide answers to the voters’ questions.

In this lecture I suggest that the answers lie in:-

- Promoting and explaining our record

- Changing the conduct of politics

- Setting out our clear policy programme and vision

- Forcing our opponents to set out their approach by being utterly candid about ours

- Galvanizing the Labour Party

Promoting and Explaining Our Record

The first reason to vote Labour in 2010 is our record in government. What Labour has achieved in office is in itself a big argument for supporting Labour again in 2010. It is of course also true that Labour’s record since 1997 will be an important element of the political battleground as our opponents try and misrepresent the history of these years. The Tory ‘Broken Britain’ campaign is just one example of the levels of dishonesty to which David Cameron will descend. Their strategy of constant repetition of this big lie has succeeded in giving far wider currency to this distortion than it deserves.

That means that the case for Labour’s record in office since 1997 has to be about a great deal more than a series of statistics, impressive though they often are – for example on living standards, crime levels, educational achievement, reductions in illness and many other aspects of our national life. We can genuinely claim to have changed the country for the better and we need to explain how we did it and why it was necessary.

Important institutional changes from the minimum wage to Sure Start, from the Scottish Parliament and London Mayor to foundation hospitals, from stability in Northern Ireland and stronger legal rights for everyone, including minorities previously discriminated against, from binding climate change targets to an expanded European Union are all strong achievements for which Labour can take credit.

But our record is about more than describing progress. We also have to explain how the changes were achieved and to describe the obstacles we had to overcome. We need to acknowledge where we have failed, or our methods have not worked, and we need to explain where major events – say 9/11 or the collapse of the international financial system – have changed the way in which we set about achieving our goals.

Labour’s ambitions in 1997 were enormous and some could be quickly implemented and legislated, despite political opposition, mainly from the Conservatives (including its current leadership).

But some of our ambitions were far more difficult to achieve and required better consideration of the means to achieve them than we sometimes gave. In some cases we shook up the existing system, often substantially, without providing a new stable settlement. The House of Lords and some parts of the legal framework following the passage of the Human Rights are examples.

In other cases we set out on great and profoundly ambitious programmes, such as reducing child poverty, ending social exclusion, raising educational standards for 11-year olds or improving levels of public health. In general we made good progress but not enough, and as we did we, rightly, raised expectations which we have not been able wholly to deliver.

In areas such as these our mantra was ‘invest and reform’, but we sometimes believed too much in the change that could be achieved through ‘investment’ (public spending) on its own and too little in the benefits from the often more difficult ‘reform’. But we now have a good idea of how well our measures have worked, or not. In general we understand the difficulties which remain. It is now essential (it would have been better if we had started a couple of years ago) to explain our successes and failures and to set out openly what we now have to do to improve upon our achievements.

So the debate about Labour’s record in office cannot simply be about some kind of toytown tit-for-tat with statistics and anecdotes called in aid of partisan political assertions.

Labour’s experience in office ought to be a major asset in 2010. We have learned both from what we have genuinely achieved and from our understanding of where and why we have failed. We should use that comprehension to fashion our proposals for the policies of the future.

This has to include explaining why some very hard decisions have been put off or avoided and why some of our reforms are still incomplete. This list includes the delay in establishing green and sustainable practices, some reforms of the public sector and welfare and our failure to develop a system of prisons and probation which reduces re-offending.

Labour’s record should be a massive election asset rather than the albatross which our opponents believe that they can hang around our necks.

Nowhere is this more important than in the management of the economy. It is now critically important that the Labour leadership does what it has not yet been prepared to do and explains fully and carefully how it is that the enormous British economic success story of 1997 to 2007 has turned into the economic adversity of today.

It is not enough simply to blame the ‘world economic crisis’, or evil bankers; we also need to acknowledge where we made misjudgements, albeit in common with others, and what we have learned which will inform and change our policies for the future.

There was never any need to respond to the childish media game about ‘Gordon Brown apologizing’ but it was necessary to explain openly what happened and why, and what we are going to do about it. And that need remains today, particularly in relation to the taxation/spending stance which Labour will follow.

It is extraordinary but true that our political opponents see Labour’s record since 1997 as an asset in their efforts to persuade voters to support them in 2010.

Labour should be promoting our record in office as a big reason to vote Labour again, but if we are to do that we need a far higher level of both candour and explanation about what we did and didn’t achieve, what we did right and what we did wrong.

Changing the conduct of politics

The second big reason to vote Labour in 2010 has to be our commitment to the clean conduct of democratic politics.

This may seem ironic given the sequence of problems that have haunted Labour in recent years from the ‘Cash for Peerages’ claims, to the conduct of our own Deputy Leadership election and the MPs expenses scandals of recent months.

The basic reason why all of these matters are now in the public domain at all is because the Labour Government passed the Freedom of Information Act and legislation to make Party funding transparent.

The fundamental truth is that, despite Labour’s discomfort from particular revelations, the Act has improved and will continue to improve the conduct of government business and public life in general. The exposure will lead to further beneficial reforms which will be good for democratic politics despite the current pain.

But that’s what makes it so important for Labour to be in the vanguard of making the necessary changes.

Labour is committed to the highest possible standards of political probity but it must show this by its actions, in a way that the Labour leadership has so far totally failed to do.

That means ensuring that a proper system of pay and allowances for MPs is put in place, only part of which Sir Christopher Kelly is empowered to recommend if he sticks to the remit he was given by the Prime Minister. This should have happened by the end of July and must now happen by Christmas.

It means legislating in the final session of this Parliament to reform the system of political Party funding along the lines recommended by Sir Hayden Phillips, difficult though some aspects of his proposals are for Labour.

And it means publicly and strongly ending the culture of spin and manipulation symbolised by the activities of Damian McBride, but which still remain too close to the centre of Labour.

In addition, as I have argued before, there is merit in removing the timing of the next General Election from any suggestion of party political manipulation by now naming the day, May 6th 2010, and proposing a Bill for fixed term Parliaments, which could be considered in Parliament on a free vote.

This culture of politics remains a major Achilles Heel for Labour in May 2010, unless we show by our actions in the time which remains to us that our commitment to high standards is honest and real, which means action now and not promises for the future.

Indeed future promises without current action threaten to make the whole situation worse, which will bring about the ironic and damaging outcome that it will be the Conservatives who will be able to create the rules of the future conduct of democratic politics, which I have no doubt that they will do in the most partisan fashion.

Setting out our clear policy programme and vision

The third reason to choose Labour in 2010 is that we have to be the Party which has the vision and clarity to lead this country into an extremely uncertain future – economically, militarily and politically.
We will only get voters to listen to what we have to say about the future if we address some of their concerns about our past conduct, which is why getting our explanation of our record across is so important and why we have to remove any doubts about our commitment to the honest conduct of politics.

That said we have to be clear in our own propositions. Most have already been well-rehearsed and need only to be summarised here.

We need to strengthen regulation of the world’s financial system so that speculative banking is separated from the necessary finance for households and business.

We need a fair and transparent posture on the balance between tax increases and spending cuts which is necessary to reduce the fiscal deficit.

We need a modernised and reformed welfare system focused on those in real need.

We need to place green and environmental sustainability at the heart of our society, notably in relation to transport, energy and waste.

We need to continue focusing delivery of high quality public services upon the needs and choices of the consumer of the service.

We need to construct high quality housing for all parts of our community.

We need to strengthen our efforts to reduce local crime, to contest serious and organized crime and to control illegal migration.

We need to strengthen our commitment to working with the European Union and engaging internationally.

We need to complete the task of modernizing our constitution including the House of Lords and the Alternative Vote for the House of Commons (though I would suggest in the manifesto, rather than by a separate referendum).
I believe that a centre-left policy programme of this type would be credible and offer a coherent answer to the economic and international challenges that we face.

I also believe that it would be electorally popular and would enable Labour to present itself clearly as the force best placed to manage the social challenges which our country faces.

It would set out with clarity the reality of the choice that the country faces next May and convincingly answer the question, ‘Why Labour? in a way which would gain the support which we need.

Forcing our opponents to set out their approach by being utterly candid about ours

The fourth big reason to choose Labour in 2010 is the appalling nature of the Conservative alternative.

Thus far our Conservative opponents have been very successful at diverting attention from their proposals or the implications of their actions.

This not because they have a clear and coherent position which has few real questions to answer. It is because of a combination of fleet-footed public relations, mainly from their Leader David Cameron, and the absence of any clear Labour propositions against which they could reasonably be benchmarked and challenged.

If Labour both explains its record properly and openly, and also provides clarity about its own proposals and intentions, I believe that the Conservatives will be drawn onto the territory which is most dangerous for them, namely their specific plans and objectives.

The less clear Labour is about its own approach, the greater will be the Conservatives’ ability to avoid scrutiny.

And it is indeed scrutiny which they rightly fear as they are beset by serious ideological divisions far deeper than any in Labour. At the moment they are disguised because of David Cameron’s success and what they believe is the imminent prospect of power.

But the Tory divisions have not gone away.

The more discussion that there is about tax and spend, the greater will be the splits been those Conservatives, like George Osborne, who viscerally favour a combination of tax cuts for the wealthy and deep cuts in frontline public services and those who take a more ‘One Nation’ approach in the belief that state services can make a positive contribution.

The clearer that Labour is about its plans for improving the quality of education and health, the more that argument will be joined by Tory advocates of the return of grammar schools, like David Davis and Graham Brady, or of charging for GP visits, like Charles Tannock MEP.

And the Conservative divisions around security, on matters such as ID cards and counter-terrorism, remain a major weakness for their Party.

But the greatest tension remains around Conservative attitudes to the European Union where the Party leadership has adopted stances and forged alliances which are really incredible and will massively damage Britain’s national interest, as many Conservatives will privately concede. These issues will come to the fore if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. A strong pro-European position from Labour will exacerbate those tensions and divisions.

In short, the current kid-glove treatment for the Conservatives is not inevitable. Scrutiny of their approach and proposals will intensify the more that Labour is clear and strong about ours. And the more the Tories are scrutinized the more likely it is their apparent unity and coherence will be weakened.

Galvanizing the Labour Party

In all epic contests, as the May 2010 General Election will surely be, the morale and commitment of the competing forces is bound to be of great importance.

We can expect the Conservatives to be optimistic, engaged and confident as they have been at the European elections and recent by-elections.

For Labour’s part, our members and local leaders need clear explanations for our successes and failures – both locally and nationally - to engage with local debate.

They need a clear sense of the positive programme and ambitions which a Labour fourth term would seek to out into practice.

And they need real-life and credible illustrations of the consequences of a Conservative win, and clear examples of Conservative division.

Nationally, the Labour Party needs to find the resources which a modern national election campaign requires. The collapse of funders’ confidence in Labour under its current leadership means that it is a real challenge even to pay the wages of our current staff, and we need nearly £20 million just to pay off our debts and keep going until next May.

Raising the money to fight a General Election campaign seems almost impossible in current circumstances and so it is essential for the Party, and its Leadership, to establish the sense of momentum and direction which is necessary to earn financial support.

That said, the commitment of members of the Labour Party is our greatest asset. The fatalistic sense of impending defeat has to be replaced by confidence that we know the direction in which we are going and we have the means to put it into effect.

Conclusion

I conclude by returning to my starting point, the reference to Ed Balls’ remark last week that next May will be ‘the most important General Election for a generation’.

He is right and that insight should determine the conduct of all leaders of the Labour Party, from the Cabinet to every MP and party activist, over the coming weeks.

It is also the most important General Election for Labour itself. A resounding defeat of the type many predict if we fail to change our approach would lead to a real collapse of our Party, which would have few resources and all the potential for bitter internecine conflict following defeat. It is by no means clear that we could succeed in pulling ourselves around as we did with such difficulty through the 1980s and early 1990s.

For Labour itself the stakes are far higher than the personal futures of a few politicians. It is about the future of the Party itself.

As we face this the issues are fairly straightforward for those who believe that if we go on as we are we can win the General Election, as people gradually shift to give us their support. Their task is to try and encourage improved performance by our national leadership, to hope that an increase in economic optimism will translate into increased support for Labour and to attack the Tories on the best available grounds.

For those of us who doubt the efficacy of that approach and who fear the consequences of just going on as we are without any fundamental changes the issues are rather more difficult.

For many of us the analysis which I have offered today is very gloomy. It does say that if we go on as we are the prospects for Labour victory are very low. To say this is only to repeat what almost every commentator, politician and citizen (if the polls are to be believed) already believes. We need to address this political reality armed with Antonio Gramsci’s famous injunction – ‘Optimism of the soul, pessimism of the intellect’.

The optimism of the soul is very much needed because for many Labour member this widely held pessimism leads directly to fatalism and even despair. Many have decided to make the best of the next few months of Labour office in the view that there really isn’t much to be done to avoid the disaster which is coming down the line next May. So they make their own dispositions.

Others have come to the same conclusion but see a longer term political strategy for them. They focus on the shape, nature and leadership of Labour after the 2010 defeat they expect. In political terms they are positioning themselves, but have in effect decided to depart the field of battle for 2010, except in formal terms.

My appeal today is to these fatalists, to those who are in despair.

There is a route to that May 2010 General Election which leads to a Labour win.

It is difficult and will require a good deal of change from what we have been doing. But I believe that the duty we owe to all of those millions of people who have given us their support and who depend on Labour in office is to do our absolute best to set the Labour Party on the path which gives us the best chance in 2010.