Having been challenged by e10rifles to provide a view on New Labour's approach I thought I would have a go (but go easy on me as there is no-one who is going to like this). 

Our objective as set out in clause IV is as follows:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.’

Removing the waffle it has 3 objectives:

1) A state which wants to maximise its achievement;
2) for the individual to realise their potential; and
3) that opportunity is available to all. 

and could easily have been written by Adam Smith, Milton Friedman or Freidrech Hayek. 

The only inconsistent word in the clause is the use of the word socialism, which is "a planned economy where the means of production is owned by the state" and is inconsistent with any of objectives 1 to 3.

However, I don't think that any part of the party actually advocates the policies designed to achieve the objectives.

The left want socialism, equality of outcome (or at least redistribution of wealth), not opportunity.  Without the use of force this cannot maximise the potential of individuals due to free riders. 

Some people will always be smarter, faster, stronger or better looking than others.  They will never use their talents to greatest use outside of wartime unless they can somehow gain relative to others.  In practice they either don't put the effort in ("free ride") or cheat the system.

Similarly if there is no incentive, then there is no incentive to take risks.  Why should the bureaucrat challenge poor practices within public services?  Why should the businessman set up a new venture? 

Socialism, due to human nature, has inbuilt stagnation of progress and regression of what we currently have.

However, although New Labour is not as bad, it is hypocritical.  The tax take as a percentage of GDP is over 40% and rising.  At the same time borrowing is increasing.  Forgetting all of the various policies and their aims this must mean one of two things; either:

1) more centralised planning by the government removing funds through taxation and recycling them back (less a cut for bureaucracy) to existing powerful interest groups (such as business) thereby keeping the poor in their place;
2) redistribution of wealth which essentially means socialism and has the same free rider problems highlighted earlier.

I'm going to assume its the first option and illustrate it as follows.  Lets take a policy which provides subsidised bespoke training to businesses (remember this is bespoke training, not the provision of transferable qualifications).

The desire is an improvement in productivity, but the business would do that itself if it would lead to an increase in profit (that is what businesses do).  The real effect is a tax on everyone to pay for a single businesses expense.  Transfering wealth from individuals to the owner of the business and is contrary to our objectives. It protects the existing business owner and their employees at the expense of new business owners and the currently unemployed who would get those jobs. 

This policy driven set of input planning rather than objective output policies is at the heart of why New Labour is disliked and considered wasteful (I did say that no-one would be happy).

So what is the solution?  The answer is simple, government should act only where it will achieve the three stated objectives set out in clause IV.  The only place for action is in areas typified as "prisoner's dilemmas" where collaboration leads to a higher outcome because there are incentives for all.  When it does act, it must act as a rational consumer, purchasing the highest quality available.

1) For education this means the public funding of transferable skills only and continued training until individuals reach a level of basic literacy and numeracy skills where they can actually get a job.
2) For crime it means policies based upon reducing repeat offending.
3) For welfare it means a negative income tax (rather than tax credits) and benefits where the lowest paid worker in the land still takes home more each week than the highest benefit claimant.
4) For defence it means removing the means whereby our arrogant leaders can follow other arrogant american leaders into stupid wars we couldn't care less about
5) For all public services it means understanding that there is a knowledge gap between planners and delivers such that no public funding system can ever be accurate and as such the use of private sector providers for public sector services is more likely to result in profits being made due to poor negotiations than genuine efficiencies.  But in the light of this, there has to be the quality systems (designed by peers within those sectors) which are acted upon where insitutions are failing.

but ultimately it means admitting our failings, that there is not a policy to fix all of society's ills and following policies genuinely designed to achieve our objectives rather than grabbing tomorrow's headline. 

Hopefully e10rifles now has something to get his/her teeth into.

Last Friday I was invited to spend the morning with a group of Labour councillors discussing what ideas they should include in their party's next manifesto. Whilst they weren't exactly reaching for the party poppers to celebrate Gordon Brown's anniversary in office, they were surprisingly less depressed than many Labour Party members I bump into in Westminster.

So many exchanges on here end up in furious name-calling so let's try a new approach.

On this thread each poster has to name one policy which they believe their fellow Party members will support, regardless of their stance within the Party.  As soon as someome objects to a post however, it's over.

Now, our party has two years to strategically turn things round to win a fourth term in some form, or to at least get underway some progressive, social-democratic reforms for the longer term future. As Labour activists and members, or perhaps former supporters, what would be top three on your list of positive policy directions that you would like the party leadership to adopt?

A Labourhome member writes

New Labour is dead in the water; its electoral credibility has been shattered and it's time we took a long hard look in the mirror, remember what we believe in, what we joined this great party for and look to the future. Gordon is the past, and he needs to go sooner rather than later if we are to remain a force in British politics. Here's my vision for the future, not for now, not necessarily for 2010 but for the long term health of the party.

If there's one argument that's tired and worn-out it's the commonly wheeled-out view in this site that a.) going in the McDonnell policy direction will save us b.) going back to the Blairite policy direction will save us.

Wasn't this some barmy Tory policy idea from the mid-90s that was quietly abandoned? Why the need to blanket-militarise today's teenagers? Why introduce such a reactionary, atavistic and totalitarian policy idea that deserves to be buried in the graveyard of history along with the Hitler Youth and FDJ?

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2271362,00.html

 

After reading this piece on Labourhome and writing a (poorly spelled) but long and ranting comment, I have put my thoughts together and written a bit more extensively on the Guardian's Commentisfree site.

I have reprinted it below - please let me know your views.

Does anyone have any suggestions for relatively small, but practical policies that could make a real difference?

Have had a busy evening. Had to miss the Sports & Social Club Karaoke to speak at the City of London Fabian Society and then go to White City to be on Question Time Extra - QT's "after show" covering the audience responses.

Following on from the controversial debate on abortion, here's another human rights question in the news today.

This time, I think ministers have made the wrong decision.

The Fabian Society has asked a few Labour MPs what they would propose to Ed Miliband for insertion into the party's next election manifesto. Here are the thoughts of Frank Field:

OK, a bit of policy to discuss here.

As some of you may have read, the game 'Manhunt 2' has been banned yet again after by the BBFC on the grounds of 'taste' and 'decency'.

Is it really acceptable these days for those in government or government quangos to tell adults what is 'tasteful' and what isn't? Shouldn't it be for us to decide?

The government will close a tax loophole that allows fat-cat bosses to pay less tax than their office cleaners, Gordon Brown said today.

Tony Woodley offers a cogent and impassioned plea for equal treatment for agency workers in an article for the Guardian's CiF.

He argues:

'The Warwick Agreement between trade unions and ministers in 2004 promised domestic legislation for equal treatment of agency workers if the EU route failed to deliver, a pledge repeated by ministers in the Commons this year - as the government shamefully manoeuvered to face down this essential equality bill, despite the backing of 125 Labour MPs.'

There are more than one million agency workers in the UK, many paid less than the minimum wage, they have less holiday and sick pay entitlement than directly employed staff and there is nothing in UK law that can protect them. As well as being an affront to a decent and progressive politics, it is an affront to a decent society. The ability of unscrupulous employers to employ people on lesser terms is undermining hard won standards of employment as well as creating a two-tier workforce. Apart from the moral imperative, the ability of unscrupulous employers to create a working underclass will prevent the UK economy becoming the dynamic knowledge-based economy that Gordon Brown highlighted in his speech on Monday.