New Labour it seems to me is about constitutional reform, although this does not seem well understood, even at its heart. Most obviously and successfully with Scottish, Welsh and, all being well Northern Ireland, devolution. Less obviously, and less successfully so far, `liberal internationalism' and public service reform. Tony has identified the problems, which are very much in line with traditional labour values, and had some success. But the world has moved on from the world of the first half of the twentieth century, so the means to tackle the problems have also needed to move on - but that the problems are so visible suggests that effective twenty first century solutions are still unclear. In much the same way that Gordon has succeeded in putting John Smith's focus on economic discipline into practice, New Labour's universally acknowledged success, for Gordon to follow Tony's lead in focusing on these issues is the obvious path forward, but also continuing the search for solutions, meaning a continuing search for new policies, and a ditching of old failing ones.

In many ways liberal internationalism is more straightforward, although far from simple, but the signs are mainly positive: a new UN Secretary General and EU partners such as Germany and leading candidates for the French Presidency all actively seeking a more effective international security regime, a UK military apparently keen to take on new roles with leaders prepared to set out in public what this requires, and a US in the main starting to recognise the limitations of its recent approach. Tony hasn't quite made the connection between African security and African prosperity, but then it is not for one rich-country leader to do that, or even a few. Labour, and most British governments, have historically proved relatively adept at reforms of this nature - I hope that the upcoming anti-slave-trade commemorations do not focus just on the tragedy of slavery, but on the power of political will to overcome what had seemed like a natural part of the human condition. I don't understand why it is credible for people to question Gordon's international experience; his experience with the IMF, EU finance ministers, even a UN high level panel is probably unparalleled. In this domain the existing New Labour trajectory seems essentially sound, perhaps hard to believe with Iraq and all the suffering there, but I suspect painful as they have been that lessons have been learned.

Public sector reform at home though remains the big problem, to which current solutions seem poorly suited, and to which there seems to be much more resistance, sometimes very little other than resistance. For this Labour it seems to me needs to return to its `pre-Fabian' roots - before gradual but centrally managed change, to the celebration of local diversity. Not a post code lottery, but local choices. At heart this is a constitutional problem. It is about local government reform, but also about an opening out of the `public sphere,' not just about voluntary groups, although certainly encompassing them, but recognising that while more money for health and education is needed, so are changes in the way the money is spent. Voluntary spending is still nowhere near what is needed to tackle the most serious social issues, and normally not actually available to those who really could benefit from it. And public services are public for a reason, not because they are fine as they are, but because they are different to private services - not that there is anything inherently wrong with private services (this may be controversial, and may change, but for now Tesco do a great job providing food for me, and Amazon providing books). The need for much more locally accountable decision making should go without saying, although it is not yet clear that it does, but how to achieve it is far from clear, and the continuing challenge for Labour in power. Why not for example more public funding for local cultural activities, not centrally planned or solely provided by public employees, but funds to support local groups, particularly of young people, to engage in artistic dialogue about their lives, both as they live them and how they would like them to be? However it is done, there is a need for people to engage in politics - not as passive recipients as inevitably most will feel when most things seem to get decided nationally (except of course for a London `elite' of the `chattering class' who obviously feel involved already, and mainly seem to have grown up that way, and so largely fail to see the problem), but active participants shaping their lives and their communities in a way that affirms what has always been the truth at the heart of the Labour movement - that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. New Labour is still searching for answers here, so current policies will need to change. New York is still New York, so there is no necessity to abandon New Labour simply because of the passage of time. Whether a new label will be needed to see local constitutional reform through, only time will tell.