I live in East London, home to three of the most destitute boroughs in the UK, so am familiar with the seriousness of the ghettoised workforce issue, particularly prevalent amongst migrant workers and itself a natural consequence of a two tier employment rights system. I have also campaigned for the Labour Party across London, Kent, Leeds and Wakefield and been struck by the social tensions created by such an anomalous system, particularly on the part of working class voters suspended in a wage rise inertia, caused by the availability of cheap labour.

So my mind is returned to March the 2nd when the government employed the archaic parliamentary device of "talking out" a Private Members Bill carried by Paul Farrelly MP, which had it survived would have pioneered new laws to safeguard employment protection for millions of the most vulnerable temporary and migrant workers who suffer from low wages and no sick/holiday pay nor pension entitlement.

A number of (Labour) parliamentary staff watched from the side gallery as 115 of our bosses - a third of the parliamentary Labour party - pleaded for an opportunity to develop these measures. It was simultaneously unedifying to observe individuals in such loquacious form during the prior debate; orally sabotaging the necessary time to secure a division for the agency workers bill, thus ensuring its passage. I understand that the particularly chatty member for Stoke on Trent South has been rewarded for an indefatigable performance (and weathering the antipathy of his colleagues) with promotion to your side as ministerial aide.

As party Chair, your opposition to the bill was crystal clear, yet the promise to introduce such measures was and remains equally transparent in the Warwick Agreement. You say in your letter that you have just visited Brussels to accelerate the progress of a European Directive to give protection to vulnerable workers, yet this draft has been strategically stalled by the UK, amongst other member states since 2002.

Your leaflet implies that if you could just secure some form of power, you'd take forward this and other important policies which by their very absence have done such harm to the core Labour vote. Yet you have been a minister since 2001 and are nearing your first anniversary as party Chair. I value your integrity as a Labour MP so rule out any suggestion of opportunistic electioneering. So am I and others to take seriously this stunning volte-face?

I should say that despite appearances, the crux of this letter is not about you personally. It is about amplifying the frustrations of rank and file labour activists who on the eve of a hazardous local election campaign, simply cannot go on declaring to those we meet when knocking doors who are often the most naturally inclined to vote Labour, that they have never had it so good. Many feel utterly disenfranchised and we overlook them at our peril. I am aware that you are a tireless campaigner at street level so would be interested to hear what you are picking up during your encounters.

Is it not at least arguable that a culture has taken hold in the higher echelons of the party which dictates that the only way forward is more of the same, that to remain electorally successful we must stay rigidly faithful to the present course? Peter Hain declared when launching his bid for the deputyship that "we do not need a fundamental debate about our aims and values". From where I sit (often directly above you and Peter!) this is dangerous, myopic talk.

Through the pressures of long parliamentary hours many Labour researchers have I'm afraid taken to gambling, of the informal, innocuous bar-room sort (as opposed to the obscene casino variety). Many of us have a rather safe tip for the next leader of the Labour Party if you're interested? The same cannot be said for the deputy leadership contest which appears to offer a genuine opportunity for an oxygenating debate that would prove both internally cathartic and electorally appealing.

But most will reject facile posturing and policy teasing from candidates, instead demanding a declaration of what they really stand for and the committed means to achieve it, in order that an informed choice can be made. Contenders such as Harriet Harman by way of example, purport profound dedication to women's issues. Yet when a Conservative MP attempted a truncation of existing abortion rights, Harriet could not quite make it to the division lobby for a potentially knife edge vote, despite being seen lunching in the Commons 20 minutes earlier.

If we insist on singing the same song with its connotations of veneer and spin - in the New Labour lexicon I believe it was D-Ream's  queasy "Things Can Only Get Better" - there is a danger that many from Labour families and traditions will invoke an equally awful song which also charted well in 1994; EMF's "You're Unbelievable".

It would be regrettable if the upcoming May election campaign and crucially the deputy leadership contest were squandered by a refusal to fully engage with the concerns of the full spectrum of the electorate. A large section once loyal to Labour may observe the smiling, flesh pressing and surprising abundance of incongruous merchandise and consider: are this lot waving or drowning? Let's do neither. Let's start swimming again. Good luck with your work around the country between now and May the 3rd.

Yours ever,
Mark Donne.