People, when considering the way the Party has to go, should consider the alternatives we face under this coalition. Cameron and Clegg are effectively kissing goodbye to the NMW, by way of their adoption of the big society 'work for nothing' way of thinking. In truth, it'll end up as an abuse of those who are forced into meaningless voluntary programmes with no job opportunities at the end of them. Not to mention, far longer queues at the JCP, climbing inflation, a rash of repossessions which only the well to do will profit from by buying up cheap properties. At least Labour put in place effective anti-recessionary measures. The paying off of our deficit at the speed of lightning is only being promoted to protect the interest related savings of those who are sufficiently well off not to feel any damage; frankly, they should be made to give up more of their often ill earned cash.

This "soft left" social democratic approach will not work. Labour do need to return to its roots, and embrace a socialist philosophy to deal with pressing economic and social problems of the day. The analysis should be conducted using Marxist tools, which are the most appropriate when analysing the crisis of capitalism.

The soft left have a tendency to engage in hand wringing about low wages, economic insecurity for the working classes and unemployment caused by migration. The soft left has never known how to make a solid, intelligent policy to deal with the economic effects of immigration. New Labour faced the twin challenges of

1/ The extreme right's solution to this problem being to send all immigrants back, enforce tariffs and import barriers and support British industry and try to destroy foreign ones.

2/ The neoliberal line being that there should be no barriers to immigration, because a flexible labour market will keep wages down to a minimum, improve company profits and stimulate (highly inequitable) growth and production. Moreover, an influx of migrant workers weakens labour unions.

New Labour tried to adopt aspects of both arguments at the same time, and the result was a complete disaster, as the working classes thought Labour no longer represented them, and some on the liberal left felt that Labour were pandering to the far right at times (an example being Phil Woolas' campaign leaflets)

In my opinion there is only one solution to the issue of low wages for the working classes, and it's a solution no one wants to hear. We must have a completely socialist economic and social philosophy, with wide-scale nationalisation of industry, economic planning of production, minimum standards set for work conditions and a complete change in the primary objective of industry, with protection of employment and the welfare of workers superseding the profit motive (although the state enterprises will still have to work for profit, because the global economy is still capitalist). Moreover, macroeconomic variables will no longer be left to change depending on private actions, but governments should have a clear view of how much inflation, debt, government spending etc they want, and plan accordingly for it.

In this way, no workers will be undercut by cheap foreign labour, because the state enterprises will adhere to a minimum wage that will be much higher than the one currently set, and it will be a wage that is sufficient for anyone to maintain a good standard of living and afford all the costs of living.

This will not mean immigration will be stopped, but it will be PLANNED completely. All the immigrants who will come in will be catered for with respect to accommodation, employment, access to public services etc so that their arrival will have none of the negatives generally associated with immigration. This is the best solution, because no longer will immigrants be competing for jobs with the indigenous working classes. This policy is ideal in that it can be tweaked to respond to prevailing economic conditions. If there are vacancies and requirement for labour that most definitely cannot be fulfilled by the UK workforce, the government can plan to bring in the certain number from abroad to take up the work.

On the other hand, if due to some miscalculation (which can happen with government economic planning) the country is suffering from unemployment, and there are more people than jobs available at any one time, then all immigration can temporarily be stopped, and the government can increase taxes so that it can increase spending to try and engender full employment. In this way, the government can always respond with the best interest of the working classes at heart.

This is the only way that the UK can deal with the issue of economic migrants undercutting the wages of the white, working classes without resorting to quasi-fascist policies. The socialist's were never anti-immigration, and certainly will look upon sympathetically towards asylum seekers coming to the country to make a better life, fleeing persecution or abuse.

Until the Labour government realises this, the working classes will continue to see their position eroded by cheap foreign labour, and no conventional policy working within the capitalist framework can solve the problem. You can favour British industries to employ British workers by paying them subsidies, but how long can a government maintain this before the money dries up, even if it does raise taxes? It can decrease corporation tax, but even if corporation tax is lowered, private companies will find it more profitable to offshore their production to take advantage of extremely cheap foreign labour, which is more important for a company's profits than a mere decrease in corporation tax. One sided protectionist measures are very short term solutions (generally favoured by fascists), which doesn't take into account retaliatory actions by other countries. We need to remove ourselves from the WTO, and trade bilaterally with countries, stressing that we are in favour of FAIR trade not FREE trade, and that any trade transaction can only go through if no one in either country is made worse off.

Once other countries realise the superiority of our trading standards, both ethically and economically, more countries will leave the WTO, and that will be the start of a movement towards socialism in all countries.

I could not believe it when Blair said that Labour had lost the last election because 'it wasn't new Labour enough'!Incredible! The man needs his head examined.
But when the public see what a dogs breakfast the Coalition make of running the country we can expect a return to Labour to get the country back on its feet again and working.
luddites old man may have been refering to what old Labour and Unions might have stitched up in the backrooms and working mens clubs, over beer and sandwiches, not the open Party that we have today. Things have changed a good deal. The Party as moved on;most of the members along with it.
Sundar may have a point. You may have all the brilliant policies in the world, but if you don't get into govt they don't amount to a hill of beans.

By the way, the Guardian readers really have it in for both Miliband and Cruddas. Read the comments underneath the article and the vast majority are extremely anti-Mili/Cruddas.

very cynical

http://www.rentabedroom.info

The most jaw dropingly anoying thing ive read in years. In summary it reads:

We must have real principles not sound bites, and real solutions not focus on electioneering.

And we'll do that by re-branding our vocabulary and focusing on new eletoral stragities.

Duh! Sorry i might have missed something, but what did the 'new covenant' with britian acutally consist in? Was it 'we make a solem covenant to use bigger words'? They claim they have Principles, but haven't mentioned a single one! All they talk about is how they're going to rebrand!

It reminds me of the old buddhist khoan
"What is the sound of two men being vacuous?"

Treborc. I can never quite get how Labour are solely blamed for what you term the 'Pension Crisis'. That's a problem which has been accumulating for years. What Labour did, with the Pension Guarantee Credit in 2002, was guarantee every person of pensionable age a higher weekly income figure than they'd had before. It is means tested but Labour removed the upper capital limit and reduced the tapers to the advantage of many pensioners. Those that don't qualify have savings, arguably that is a provision they have sensibly made for their retirement, they have fared fairly well to have savings.

As for the banks, I partly agree, but when oh when are people going to start putting the blame at the door of the bankers who presided over their poor decisions? The bankers were paid enough for getting it right, they should be punished for getting it wrong, you can't blame it all on Labour.

When an election comes down to annoying pieties about "mutual responsibility" and "commitment to place," the Right always wins. The left needs to say that "responsibility" really means: living wages for all, health and education, protecting the environment, decent pensions for those doing the hardest and most unpleasant jobs, etc etc. That means big government and high taxation. A responsible politician needs to make the case for this, rather than dance around it with smarmy rhetoric. And yes, let's revive words like "socialism."

Gary, this is an important debate. I'm not sure all industries should be nationalised, but many certainly should, for example the trains. Above all, however, the government must take control of banking and finance. I don't see how the insane imbalance between housing prices and income can be addressed without harming many innocent debtors without massive governmental intervention. Too many now are caught in a trap they couldn't avoid, and yet, housing prices must be driven down. Let's take the profits back from those who made them.

We elected this lot through mismanagement, spending money we have not got. Signing deals for aircraft carriers we cannot get out of, borrowing money to build schools and electing right wing government by default.

Let's just talk about the minimum wage. Labour's achievement? Some 'very few' may have benefited. But millions lost out Why!! Because most companies don't pay what they can afford, they pay, that they can get away with. So many companies and small business started paying the legal requirement and reduced wages. I know many working people, working for less, then they did under thatcherism and if that wasn't bad enough.. Our fantastic Labour party open the door to mass-immigration forcing down the wages even further. Labour have a awful lot to do, to regain working peoples support and trust and to be honest i don't think They can!!!

Luddite. That's just gross exaggeration and a distortion of the facts. 'Millions lost out'? Upon which set of figures do you base this extraordinary statement? If employers reduced pay in the way you say, employees would have taken them to the cleaners in their droves as it would have constituted an unlawful variation in contract. 'Open the door to mass immigration'? Again, I say where do you get these figures? Labour introduced the EWRA, legislation which countered immigration rather than encouraged it. The problem with argument such as you put forward, is that it's just not evidenced based, it gives people the completely wrong picture.

What did Labour achieve in 13 years? Well how about; a dramatic turn around of the terrible NHS we inherited in 97, major investment and upping of standards in our schools, the introduction of the National Minimum wage, the introduction of the Pension, Working & Child Tax Credits, significant reduction in child poverty levels, a tightening of the rules on benefit entitlement for those coming from overseas, promotion of greater social & disability discrimination rights, years of low interest rates, peace in Northern Ireland, lower unemployment, constructive welfare reform, an acceptance that private and public sectors could and should work in partnership, reductions in road traffic casualties, adaptation to a digital age, and a greener environment - These are just a few of the many positive achievments made by Labour in its 13 years.

People have to start to understand that the old 'working class' has changed; it had to because of the way our manufacturing base has altered with the passage of time. The old manufacturing plants of yesterday are no more, they have given rise to a new era of industries. Many people who may have worked in a factory now work in offices; many of these people have re-labelled themselves as 'middle class'. As society has changed, Labour has had to change with it. We should look not just at the negative things but the positives as well. Labour promoted a lot of what is good, it certainly wasn't all bad in those 13 years.

If there was anything which forced down wages, it was the black economy fuelled by years of unemployment from the 90's, it encouraged workers from abroad to come over here to do work we simply wouldn't do. Labour did a great deal to ensure that those coming over here had to support themselves and register as workers. It should be remembered that subscribing to European free passage, means many people from this country work abroad, it's a two way thing.

I agree that Labour made mistakes on the economy, credit was too easy and did not allow for global downturns. Personally, I blame the banks for allowing it to get out of control, after all they paid themselves enough to get it right! However, the availability of credit did a great deal to balance things up between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', I don't see that as an entirely bad thing.

In order to be electable, Labour must appeal to the electorate in general, it won't please those on the far left, but it is of necessity that we stay somewhere not too far left of centre or we will relegate ourselves to years in opposition.