[...]the following are a few links to web sites that we connect to seeing as we feel there’re worth browsing[...]…

Some valid points….

Here you are, the man who bought in some of the most oppressive reform bills of this failed New Labour government, campaigning with a right wing think-tank for a new Left!

You're still James Purnell- New Labourite

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.

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.

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?

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?