James Purnell MP

20 July 2009

What is it about your political beliefs that put you on the Left rather than the Right?
I’ve tried to do this without creating a right-wing straw man against which to define myself. Many goals are shared between political traditions – such as freedom or equality before the law – although the priorities we give them and the methods by which we pursue them differ.

But below are some differences which I think are about direction, not just priority:

First, the Right tolerates inequalities that the Left hates. I’m on the Left because I worry about inequalities of capability – some people have it very easy in our society, others far too hard. The goal of policy should be to correct these inequalities in power. This is partly but not only about redistribution of income.

Second, I believe that governments succeed more often than they fail. People on the Right are more sceptical of government’s effectiveness. The Right also worry that more government means less community or individual action: we think that government helps communities be more active and individuals more powerful.

Third, I’m utopian. People on the Left tend to have a vision of what society could be like, and believe it’s the role of democracy to try to make that a reality. People on the Right are more likely to value the status quo, believing it represents the tested wisdom of previous generations.

What do you consider made you Left wing?
My family – we were a Labour family living in middle England. My mother and grandfather were on the Aldermarston march, to campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament. I grew up cursing the cruelty of the Thatcher administration.

But the fall of the Berlin Wall when I was 19 made me confront the strengths of the arguments of those on the Right – that not all inequality was unjustified, that states can fail, that utopias can be dangerous unless they respect individual freedom.

That leads to some hard questions for the Left:

- What kinds of inequality do we want to reduce?
- How can we reform the state so it fails less?
- How do we respect individual freedom without giving up our goal of building a better society?

Many of the disagreements within the Labour Party over the last fifteen years have orbited around these questions. These aren’t primarily questions about electability – they’re about being clear about our values, and the best way of achieving them.

I essentially believe that the Left has the right goals, but too often had the wrong method. We let ourselves think that government worked best when it was publicly-owned and centrally-run. My experience is that government normally works better when the individual has the power, whether to choose between parties in elections, or between providers in public services. The world is too complicated for most of its problems to be solved from the centre.

So, I would be in favour of having profit-making companies running state schools – as long as it increased equality of capability. But I worry about parents having to pretend to be religious to get their child in to a good faith school – because it means treating children unequally according to their parents’ religion.

How would you describe the sort of society you want Britain to be?
An open society, where people are free to choose their way of life, and given an equal capacity to achieve it.

That means giving power to individuals to achieve their goals, but also recognising those individuals will be more powerful if there is a well-run state and an effective society.

In turn, this requires each individual to contribute to making society work. As George Eliot wrote: “the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.”

But simply leaving individuals alone or allowing them to act without impediment will not be enough. That leaves only the powerful with freedom and the risk that their power becomes multiplied at the expense of the powerless. Real freedom and power for everyone requires collective action and institutions – to challenge unfair distributions of power, wealth, chances, knowledge and choices. And this action needs to be expressed and legitimised through an effective democracy.

What one or two changes would make the biggest difference to bringing that about?
Ending child poverty and every child being well taught.

What most makes you angry about the way Britain is now?
Children not having a chance in life because of the circumstances in to which they are born: because society both doesn’t have high enough expectations of them and doesn’t accord them enough respect.

Which person, event, era or movement from the past should we look to for inspiration now?
The Swedish social democrats, for combining pragmatism and idealism over a long period to shift the political reality in their country, entrenching social democracy as both morally right and electorally irreversible.

Comments
  • deguman
    cuts, cuts and more cuts seems to be the order of the day now, so mr purnell what will now happen to your doctrine of EofC. instead of all of this talk of cuts it is a shame that the labour party is not talking about clamping down on the £25bn avoided in tax every year by wealthy individuals and large corporations, see independent article 1/2/08, perhaps if some of the loopholes the wealthy take advantage of were closed we would not have to listen to old mandy baning on about how public services will have to become more & more efficient.
    also i believe that the labour party are now missing a golden opportunity not seen since the end of the ww2 to put forward policies that will really benefit the majority of people in this country and not just the minority at the top, such as meaningful regulation of the banking sector and financial services. perhaps you should read the book by naomi klein, "the shock doctrine".
  • thundernuts
    I'd wondered how long it would take you to re-brand yourself Jimmy

    Here you are, the man who brought in some of the most oppressive reform bills of this failed New Labour government, campaigning with a think-tank that consults Gideon Osbourne no less, for a new Left!

    You're still James Purnell- New Labourite

    I find it hillarious that this website links to John McDonnell's website. If you were to click on it, you'll see exactly what he thinks of this ;)
  • rwillmsen
    James 'We're closing in' Purnell trying to save his moribund political career by pretending to be some sort of intellectual, it's the funniest thing I've heard all summer!
  • James Purnell's reasons for categorising himself on the Left......'Equality of capability' is surely just 'equality of opportunity' (ie that those with equal capability should be able to 'succeed'....)....if it is more radical, and means equalizing capabilities where they are 'naturally' unequal, then Purnell's claim is either to the left of Mao or a sham.....

    So equality of opportunity: all Tories these days pay lip service to that (like Purnell)...ie 'equality of oportunity to become unequal'...and the sort of society it creates is soulless (see Michael Young's The Rise of the Meritocracy to AD 2033).......that's if it happened, which of course it doesn't because there's no equality of opportunity in Britain today; nor would there be, under a Purnell government!

    The rest of Purnell's 'Left'ism......is an argument that pure individualism is not enough, with which the late Milton Friedman would have no trouble (see his essays on the 'negative income tax'' and so on)

    Come off it, James - the descent of the Berlin Wall gave you pause.....shows how naive you were in the first place (and still are, or is it opportunism now?) New Labour is full of former Trots who have turned Right (like Alan Milburn)....a bit like the neo-cons in the USA - the original neocons) were former Marxists who swung to the Right and missed out the middle.....

    By the way, Polly Toynbee - there's no 'endgame', just a 'left turn' to more democracy, justice et al in the society within which one finds oneself....this does not leave room for an analysis of why and how one' startpoint' is as it is.....and is too relativist.

  • Thanks for your interesting post 3775. This is also one of the questions that came up at the launch - namely does trying to make individuals powerful imply an idea of society that is atomised, or over-individualistic.

    Maybe we should start with working out the area of agreement - I think we both agree that for individuals to be powerful, then there needs to be community and state action. The Right would tend to emphasise the role of community - I worry that if that isn't backed up by the state, then people will be at the mercy of whether there is a strong community where they live. The state is there to guarantee fairness.

    Do we also agree that we should aim to make individuals powerful? One of the key common themes of the contributions to this website is that individuals should be authors of their lives. For me, that means them being powerful - so not being victims of arbitrary power.

    Do we agree that arbitrary power can be exercised by the state and/or by private organisations?

    If so, that's where the disagreement over the role of the private sector in public services comes in. I believe we should always seek to give individuals power over the public service they receive, power to shape it or to exit it. That can be done through choice of providers, or through democratic control. I'm in favour of both of these, and think it's largely a matter of evidence which to use in each case.

    Where we go for a choice of providers, I'm in favour of a wide range of providers, and that's why I'd allow profit-making companies. I see no inherent reason why they will deliver a bad service - and if they do, and individuals have the power, then they can go somewhere else.

    What do you think?
  • Name
    I don't understand why private organisations would do it better than public organisations. People who I know work for the public sector are committed individuals who do their best. Who aren't on the salaries that these private organisations pay. Private organisations, I perceive, are run to line the pockets of a few. I think public organisations are also more answerable to the public and already give individuals the power to receive and shape services.
  • communitarium
    I would like to test the notion that individuals can be the author of their own lives. The power for the individual to change the public services which don't represent them, only the individuals that run them
  • communitarium

    Power!
    It is interesting to note James that focusing on observable behaviour, revealed in observable preferences in observable conflict about observable decisions concerning observable issues are all very important.

    However, on social mobility it is clear, on observing any mobilisation of bias and observed exclusion of certain interests from the conversation, along with the observed exclusion of certain issues from the agenda and the observed attempted manipulation of the rules of the game, key issues can be prevented from becoming key issues and potential isues may not become an issue at all.

    Finally, it is clear that if an individual or organisation succeeds in making key decisions on key issues (power) that significantly affect their constituents and were not in their constituents best interests, this is perhaps because any individual or organisation concerned may manipulate information, language and the socialisation process in order to shape his/her constituents needs and hide from their constituents the true nature of his/her interests.

    If a local MP and Labour Party structure is as defunct of new ideas, policy and a modernising agenda as the bankers are of integrity how can any individual, using, lets Labour values succeed in acheiving power or empowerment?

    Which dimension James? What part of the political spectrum? Classical Liberalism...Third Way...Negative Freedom... Berlin... Hobhouse/Green...Positive Freedom?Liberty

    James you are correct in expressing that the Labour Party awaits the emergence of the next generation who will geniunely be elected by the people, be representative of the people they serve and act in the bests interest of all the people.

    YOU WILL LOVE TO BE PROVED WRONG?
  • Brian Gould
    There is a long list of people who were children and young people who heard all this crap too many times and as soon as you got into power you pissed all the chances away and now we have a long list of youngsters being told the same crap the people were told in 1997 which never materialised.
  • Brian Gould
    Gordon Brown on the news today sya we are making the changes we need to so people can see the differences between the major parties.

    Again! you can't suddenly say we are taking the actions on poverty and the dissaffected when you have been in power 12 years and everything you came to power to do you have not done. Poverty is twice as bad today as it was in 1997 more children are at risk becaues of Labour and their lack of policies and policies that punish the poor because the rich are too influential.
  • We don't want choice. We want provision. Thanks.
  • communitarium
    How is Milburn going to "end school elitism over jobs" when the ELITE are taking over the schools?

    Alan Milburn's attempts to focus the gap in social mobility targeting more children from low income families into professional occupations is nothing more than an attack on Gordon Brown by challenging the present New Labour machine to make its decision on what it stands for. It would appear that this individual from the North East is still championing the Blair doctrine. Increase in Academies and university places appears to be the order of the day.

    If the Academy programme is the product of Labour values could Milburn please tell all Labour members and supporters why Lord Michael Bates (from the North East) the person responsible for the Tory general election campaign in the North of England, opposition local government representative and climate change advisor, a peer recommended by David Cameron and the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party is sat on the board of FIVE failing Vardy Academies as the Deputy Chairman. Both these individuals coincidentally live in the North East, one went to same school as Blair and Milburn is spouting social mobility.

    The Labour Party wants to practice what it preaches and look inward towards it own social mobility policy within rank and file and have more women ministers in the cabinet, for starters, instead of boys.

    Listen to this individual he will certainly seal Labour's fate and political social mobility into third place nationally.

    DIVERSITY AND CHOICE CERTAINLY PRODUCES CONSERVaTISM NOT EXCELLENCE.

    I am very interested in what you are offering James....a fourth way perhaps as both Milibands (manifesto attempt) have failed miserably on policy.

    Are you happy with this scenario James? Are you a champion
  • piecesofeight
    "equality of capability"

    What on earth is that? People are not born equal. Fact. It has been the attempt of many enlightened people both within and without politics for over 150 years to attempt to address the inequalities resulting from circumstances of birth to offer equality of opportunity. Your phrase is completely and utterly meaningless waffle.
    I watched you on Newsnight last night and I'm no wiser to what it means now.
  • @piecesofeight - hello. I found your comment really interesting. When I first heard the term 'equality of capability', I couldn't understand what it meant either. But then I talked to a lot of people and I feel like I have more of an idea.

    As I understand it, 'equality of capability' refers to the idea that no matter what circumstances you are born into, people can have the capacity to achieve the same as anyone else. The idea that regardless of circumstances of birth, anyone can live the life they want to. So this could encompass having the education, confidence, social connections or opportunities to live a life of your own design. In this sense, it is not just opportunity (the moments and mechanisms for equality) but capability (the ability to harness these moments and succeed) that are attempting to be equalized.

    I wouldn't say the phrase is meaningless waffle, but there is a need for a discussion on what we are trying to say when we say it. What would your definition be? What do you think of the way I have tried to describe what I think it means?


  • piecesofeight
    >>>I joined Demos in June 2009 as a full-time media and communications intern. After graduating in 2006 with a BA in Economic and Social History from Bristol University, I worked for two years with a public-private hybrid education organisation. Most recently, I have spent a year living in New York City and working as the Marketing Assistant at the Big Apple Circus.<<<

    Did that degree include English Social History from the Industrial Revolution to the present? If not we're on different wavelengths, regardless of difference in age.

    In reply to your comment - I will not attempt to define EofC because as I said to me it is meaningless waffle and I have no respect whatever for the person who said it because I happen to live with someone directly at risk of being affected by the entirely negative Welfare Reform Bill initiated by one James Purnell.

    >>>As I understand it, 'equality of capability' refers to the idea that no matter what circumstances you are born into, people can have the capacity to achieve the same as anyone else.<<<

    Really? Where is the money going to come from to make up the difference of circumstance between the more fortunate candidate and the less fortunate in order to bring the latter up to a point where they can compete in life on an equal basis with the former? This is naive.

    >>>The idea that regardless of circumstances of birth, anyone can live the life they want to.<<< Naive again. Some historic figures have despite circumstances of birth have achieved great things under difficult circumstances, these are the exceptins not the rule.

    >>>So this could encompass having the education, confidence, social connections or opportunities to live a life of your own design.<<<

    For the rich yes, for the poor, no.

    >>>In this sense, it is not just opportunity (the moments and mechanisms for equality) but capability (the ability to harness these moments and succeed) that are attempting to be equalized.<<<

    This is naive in the extreme. Look around you! Physical differences are obvious enough so I'll pass on those but think of the hidden aspects of people's character that you pass on the street, and their home circumstances which will be only indirectly visible if at all. Equality of opportunity though not ideal is a phrase used by the traditional left as a target to aim for so that regardless of talents or lack of them, and circumstances of birth *all* people are offered a similar chance to develop those innate talents to the best of their ability unhindered by financial restraints.

    This is why the word *choice* which you haven't used here, is iniquitous. Choice depends on having the means to exercise a choice and this is possible for those with the means but not for those without the means who are left to fend for themselves and/or offered the lowest common denominator, the Public Hospitals in America, where you've been, or in different times to fall back on charity in this country prior to the 1940s.

    Life is deeply bitterly unfair, altogether a complete accident of birth. What the left seeks to do with equality of opportunity and what JP clearly does not, is to use money from taxation to level the uneven ground where possible to attempt to provide a more level playing field in terms of the barriers that we all stumble through in life.

    I'm not going to waste my time debating the difference between EofC and EofO, I don't think we need the former at all, it is and remains meaningless. What needs discussion and urgently is how to reinstate the common needs among the less fortunate in society such as housing where 70% can own and 30% can go hang themselves. There is now no government and certainly not one that JP is likely to involved with that recognises the need for common provision from common cause in so many basic areas of life without sucking up to private providers and paying them a hefty profit from taxation for that provision. If JP is of the left I'm the Pope. :-)
  • Name
    I think this website is a really positive step. I like the design to give people the opportunity to have their say. It remind me a little of facebook with the comments and like facility. I hope people utilise it and peoples voices are heard.
    Policy - I like the idea. It is soul destroying getting up every morning and giving 100% to offer yourself and your children a future, but knowing people can't wait to kick you while your down. To have to work yourself to breaking point and thinking a future is possible just round the corner only to discover that once you have qualifications without the right hand shake, knowing the right people, the right accent - no one will take you seriously!
    Problem - Not quite sure how the ideas will work to changing social mobility, I am all for equality just some will always be more equal than others. Basically eduation is great, but there has to be opportunity once this has been achieved. People need to know that their will be benefits for their investment in education for the future or else why bother.
  • briangould
    Stephen byers £125,000 for a house his partner allready owned... End of
  • briangould
    Alan Milburn discusses the report he chaired into how access to high-status jobs can be widened. He says top professions such as medicine and law are increasingly being closed off to all but the most affluent families.

    SORRY ALAN 12 years to late..As useual
  • briangould
    New Labour was so ideolistic when it arrived that it blinded to public to the reality that it was mostly lawyers who had taken over.

    New Labour is Dead they need to get rid of bungeling brown, as he is a jonah of epic proportions, but still they will loose because they cr**ped all over those who faught so hard to get them into power.

    They will be in the wilderness for many moons now and its all their own faults.
  • saintemillion
    James, do you believe that the redistribution of wealth is a fundamental belief of those who can describe themselves as being on the left?
  • treborc
    Do we have any left wing ministers in this government, like it or not new labour has been a massive failure otherwise it would not be fighting the biggest thumping it has ever Had.
  • working man
    mr purnell left wing, give me a break, nearly fell of my chair laughing, you brought in welfare reform that cause fear and distress on a daily basis to the sick and disabled, bullying them into non existant jobs, toughning up the medical test under esa so that as many as 90% are failing it and are being pushed onto jsa, private providers of back to work services are to be paid by result leading to harrassment and bullying of the most vunerable in our society in to unsuitable work, the fact that you never seemed to grasp is that people who are sick and disabled are on benefits because they are ill!!!!!! not lazy work shy scroungers, there are some who would like to work in a job that makes allowances for their disablility, but coercion and bullying is not the way to help, but for those who cannot and will never be able to work stop the bullying and harrassment.

    the reason many working class are supporting the bnp is because they no longer feel represented by either labour, cons, or lib dems, they feel let down by this government who siddle up to big business, they see globlization as a threat to their livelhoods with thier jobs are being moved to eastern europe and india ect, they see the health service peicemeal privitised, they see their workers rights and wage being cut, they see the erosion of the welfare state, they are concerned about immigration but this is not their main concern all the above are they just don not trust any of you anymore.

    two years ago i wrote to my mp telling her that labour had lost its core vote because the labour party had moved to far to the right and middle england voters would return to the cons she wrote back disagreeing with this, now this is happening and labour will continue to lose support and support for the bnp will rise. watch this space.

    working man



  • I think your particpation on Newsnight said more than many words!
    Due to unforseen pressure , you can not take responsibility for your walkout last month!
    Now you wish to ste up smokescreens wiht words about opportunity , fairness etc when you have been associated with a truely diverse , deceitful and at times dangerous government but as a minster- would never speak your mind-as money has bought most of New Labour in some way or other! Now you wish to talk about the left! hwo can trust Labour ! when they have displayed the same distrust that Conservatives left us with in the late 1980's and early 1990's !
  • paulwynter
    Colonialism or resources by corporations, in the interest of profit, exploitation of people so they have nothing left after paying their utility bills, no way for those without to ever compete with those with.

    This equals an unjust system of control of government by corporations which only benefits the owners, it is modern slavery!

    At the same time they are destroying the planet for everyone. Devastating Africa the place in most need.

    It seems that in the 21st century the primary concern is simply the ownership of the worlds resources, and that includes cash by the people we have trusted to look after ours, which they then take in vast quantities.……

    Bank workers pay themselves whatever they like because they are the only ones with access to the cash.

    We allow debt collection agencies to put people on the streets, and the council or state are mostly the people that do this.

    Oil prices are at the whim of speculators, spivs, oil companies and traders, the people are getting ripped off by all of them. In India the government (that owns most of it) will sell off to more speculators 15% of its energy, pushing prices up for the people and profiting the already massively rich. With a commodity so scarce now and with its propensity to damage the planet, do we really want energy controlled by spivs?

    At the same time its shifting still more the gap between the rich and poor, as the rich put up prices and exploit everyone they can through ownership, these are people that put nothing back, do nothing usefull but a lot that harms and exploits there fellow men, humanity is in the hands companies bent on exploitation.
  • petermorris
    Unfortunately the Left and New Labour would not recognise fairness, equity and equality if it tripped over them. One glaring example is how they treat pensioners. Half of the pensioners living overseas (500,000) have their pensions uprated each year just as if they still lived in the UK. The other half (500,000) have their pensions frozen at the rate at which they are first paid or as at the date of migration. This unequal and discriminatory treatment occurs despite each pensioner qualifying for the pension based on exactly the same National Insurance contribution rules. The reason for this discrimination is the fault of "historical accident" to quote one past DWP/DSS Mininster. Despite assurances from senior Labour Party figures prior to winning power in 1997 that they would fix this inequality, New Labour did nothing to fix it. As head of the DWP, James Purnell resisted every plea and request to change this unfair status quo. Cries of 'it will cost a lot of money' fail to convince because the NIF has a surplus of over £50 billion and growing to over £100 billion in the next few years, so it would be easily affordable to correct this injustice.
  • Visual
    The problem with "choice", James, is that it always ends up with middle/professional class having the choice and working class people getting what is left over. For example, who is it that is able to buy houses in areas where there are good schools? Nothing you or New Labour has said about this has addressed this inherent contradiction.

    All our schools should be good schools. The development of faith schools run without any democratic accountablity and academies has just meant that the good school/bad school dichotomy has been re-inforced.

    And by the way, where is the effort to make Open left more than just white males talking?
  • 3775
    I think Mr Purnell has fundamentally misunderstood both the meaning of equality and the means through which it is to be achieved. He rightly identifies different attitudes towards the state as a key distinction between left and right. However, creating a society that fosters 'equality of capability' requires a shift away from the very individualism that Purnell, unable to escape the slavish pro-market dogma of New-Labour, is so keen to champion.

    If a concern with promoting equality is the key terrain of the left then it follows that the left must also be concerned with the idea and practice of community. Both concepts imply a concern for the well-being of those around us and in doing so force us to move beyond the 'me-oriented' society that has developed so rapaciously in the aftermath of Thatcherism. In order to revitalize equality we need to move towards a 'we-oriented' society that stresses the importance of collective endeavor while maintaining individual freedom. We cannot have equality in a society that does not respect the importance of community.

    In light of this then, Purnell's stress upon 'choice' and the individual miss the mark. Revitalizing the Left requires a revitalization of community. The state is of course the most viable institutional platform from which to promote community. We need the state to be seen as a positive requirement for enabling an ethical and communitarian way of life. This is admittedly difficult when public confidence in the government, and in public institutions broadly, is waning. Democratization of the state, by extending local council powers to control public service budgets for example, is the surest means to reinvest the state with the kind of ethical value that is key to building a society that is 'we-oriented' and committed to equality.

    This is why Purnell is so misguided when he advocates, for example, the privatization of state schools. Profit-driven services cannot be encoded with social or ethical principles as their raison d'être, however hard we may try to do so. The need to return profits to shareholders will always trump any commitment to delivering principled service provision as soon as the two contrasting imperatives come into conflict. The New Labour view of public and private service provision as complementary and compatible is severely misguided and such combinations have proven very costly to the taxpayer.

    In order to develop the institutional architecture to support equality and community we need to feel that this is 'our' country. Not one that belongs to politicians and private companies. This requires a clearly demarcated and democratic public sphere that is willing to take on key functions in society and serve as a genuine institutional and material basis for community. We can only achieve this by bracketing off the public sphere from the unaccountable and profit-driven quality of the private sector. We need a break from New Labour, not an attempt to rebrand its tarnished logo, as Mr Purnell has so unimaginatively offered.
  • rwillmsen
    "I would be in favour of having profit-making companies running state schools"

    Jesus christ who do you think you are lecturing 'the left'. Any and all of the left find your political record and your current views contemptible. It's like Tony Benn lecturing the BNP on how to get elected ffs.
  • briangould
    "Before New Labour and Tony Blair, labour stood no chance of being elected."

    And there is the rub right there people who think politics is about being or getting elected.

    It's about what you do when your elected not just how you have conned the people to get there.

    Time to wake up!!!
  • GayJ
    Before New Labour and Tony Blair, labour stood no chance of being elected. The Conservatives talk about the 'Politics of Envy', whilst they are the party of the 'status quo, greed and a disorganised or no such thing as society. This is how they want it to remain, because they stay in control.

    Well done for choosing the Daily Mail, most people just quote Daily Mail headlines at you when slagging off any left wing achievements, without any evidence to substantiate their assertions.
  • briangould
    The coup d'état instigated by Blair and his lawyer buddies is the start of labours problems and any maitainance of Blair’s ways have and will be the seal on the coffin lid of the Labour Party The True Left should now stand up and take its party back from the hands of self motivated greedy legal people. Kick all the freemasons and common purpose nepotist’s out of the party, No Quarter asked or Given…

    Open the files on Dunblane demand the files from the FBI related to operation Ore and your part way to solving the problems.
  • deguman
    i also saw mr purnell on newsnight and also did not have a clue what he was on about. i think its about time some of these politicians perhaps had a conversation with some real people working in real public services and real low paid jobs in the private sector and perhaps asked them what they wanted the government to do for them rather than have it done unto them. come down from your ivory tower mr punell and you may learn how to put your ideas into a language we poor voters understand
  • Chris
    I don't think Labour have been a good advertisement for the idea that governments "succeed more often than they fail" or that they "help communities be more active and individuals more powerful." Scepticism about the effectiveness of government surely now extends well beyond just the political right. Look how many people don't even bother voting.

    New Labour came up with all their good policy ideas while in opposition (many dated back to John Smith) and never generated any good new ones while in power. From day one government was driven by a bunker mentality focussed on how things would look in the next day's newspapers. Real effectiveness of policies was ignored in favour of meeting crude targets that would play well in debates and TV interviews.
  • JPFXPierce
    "In December 2008, Purnell proposed charging interest on crisis loans to the unemployed and pensioners made by the Department of Work and Pensions, which are currently interest-free, at a rate of up to 26.8 per cent per annum." Wikipedia

    Thank God this was blocked. Solid left wing credentials there James!
  • PeterthePainter
    I saw James Purnell on "Newsnight" tonight. I have no idea what he is talking about e.g. "inequalities of capability". Suggest he visits Tescos at lunchtime in Hayes Middx. and sees all sorts of people New Labour has left behind. Try picking up Labour votes there by talking to them about "inequalities of capability"
  • briangould
    "freedom or equality before the law ." Complete rubbish ask some victims of institutional abuse if they were treat with equality.

    Lotto Rapist victims get £100.000 allegedly, The lawyers get £1,000,000.
  • briangould
    New Labour & Old labour are as bad as each other. You know that Mr Purnell.

    Both parties are right wing when it suits them and jump left when it starts to impact on the people, The government have a squeelometor and when the public squeeling becomes to loud then they just turn it back a notch.

    Not answering questions on Newsnight and aviodance of things you don't want to talk about is exactelly what the public don't like particularly from you Mr Parnell.

    You deserve to be out of the current government every bit as much as Gordon Brown doesn't deserve to be in it.
  • rwillmsen
    James Purnell is not of the left. End of story.
  • paulwynter
    until we address profit as the ruling classes only motivator we are lost.
  • doranj
    The point about choosing between parties and providers is interesting. In both cases we do not have input into policy - it's very hard to influence policy in either parties or providers of goods/services (most especially if they are private & corporate).

    We are not only consumers, James, we are workers also. And if we have little or no power in the workplace, we cannot push for changes that would benefit us as consumers and citizens...

    So although New Labour, like Thatcher, argued for rolling back the state, empowerment could not take place because of the legal restrictions on workers' ability to organise and the failure to promote new forms of democratic enterprise.

    What's missing here is who we are up against - those who are not elected but hold huge amounts of power and influence. Unless there is a plan to democratise the economy, no positive change can take place.
  • David B
    The failure of the state is not due to leftwing ideals that cannot practicably work, but to the inadequate way in which we half-heartedly carry out state initiatives that end up being so diluted they give the state a bad name.

    There is no morally sound way to run a country under rightwing Conservative rule. If the state fails, it is because we fail as a democratic nation. If Labour fail (and they do), it is because they have not had the conviction to implement leftwing policy.
  • michael_green
    When you refer to state schools being run by for profit companies, are you referring to Academies? Would these privately run state schools be allowed to go bust?
  • @realleft

    You think fiscal mismanagement and public sector bloating are right wing policies? You lefties leave this country in tatters time and time again and still have the gaul to blame everyone but yourselves. Face it - (champagne) socialism doesn't work.
  • michael_green
    I would be careful about asserting the term 'electorally irreversible', but I agree that modern and pragmatic social democracy is probably better entrenched in Sweden than in any other country in the world.
  • realleft
    my previous comment 'john says...' I meant james
  • realleft
    John says ', right tolerates inequalities, left hates them'
    Right does not only tolerate but right wing polices increase inequialities in society'.
    If the gap between rich and poor has increased during the last 12 years of new labour rule it is becuase their policies have been essentially rightwing.
    somewhere else John writes that he is proud of what new labour has done and wants it to continue. I believe him. But he then forfeits the right to say that he is on the 'left'.
blog comments powered by Disqus

  • Demos at Labour Party Conference

    Click here to see a list of Demos events at Labour's Annual Conference in Manchester from 26-30 September.

  • Labour Leadership Race

    492px-Miliband,_Ed_(2007)

    Open Left doesn’t want to see Labour’s leadership election become a beauty parade or a contest of personalities. Throughout the contest Open Left will be engaging with the candidates, challenging them on the strength of their ideas and encouraging them to open up their debate beyond the boundaries of the Labour Party.



    Click here to read about the Hustings of Ideas.
    You can watch the event here. You can listen to the event here.



    Click here to read David Miliband's speech to Open Left at 'The Future of Labour' event on May 28 2010



    Click here to read the Q&A with Ed Miliband

  • About Demos

    Demos is a London-based think tank. We generate ideas to improve politics and policy, and give people more power over their lives.
    Go to Demos

  • Join the Mailing List





  • Open Left launch





    Australia's new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, writes for Open Left about what being on the left means to her. Click here to see what she thinks.

  • Contact Us

    openleft@demos.co.uk


    For an archive of Open Left project press, see here.

  • Open Left Project

    immigration Jobcentre Plus jobseeker's allowance Labour Unemployment welfare