Traditionally the party has been a coalition between some fairly right wing types (I'm thinking of characters like the late John Golding here), social democrats of the Tony Crossland / Roy Hattersley variety, 'soft left' opinion personified by Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot in his later days, and socialists or 'hard left' figures in the Tony Benn / John McDonnell mode. And for most of its life the party has muddled along well enough with these forces in some kind of balance with the occasional takeover bid by the left (e.g. the Benn deputy leadership challenge) usually being repulsed. Now, I don't want to paint a picture of an idyllic past here where all was sweetness and harmony, because it just wasn't; but generally speaking, anyone within the Heinz variety of social democratic / socialist opinion would naturally see themselves as drawn to the Labour Party and would join it if they were interested enough to participate. The parliamentary party would also be a coalition of these interests with Tribune and the Solidarity Campaign representing the different wings.

I think that's changed. I think we have a situation now where the centre right of the party no longer sees socialists as legitimate party members, and certainly doesn't want any socialists in the PLP.

The profile of members has changed too. In party meetings you can hear opinions routinely voiced on ID cards and the role of the private sector in the provision of public services for example that twenty years ago would have been received by the meeting with shock - not by a hard core of Militant members, but by the majority of ordinary party members. We've also lost our sense of evangelism. We used to want to change the world. We used to want to change it whether we were on the right of the party or the left, but we wanted to build a better tomorrow; we believed, all of us, in a more equal society. We would put our case to the public and argue and seek to persuade people of the merits of our case. Now, the obsession is on finding out what the people want and giving it to them. Or,rather, we want to find out what people in influential organisations say they want. The ordinary man and woman in the street has become even more marginalised. Think about the idiocy that is 'double devolution' of powers to local government, for example. Where's the protection for the unorganised, the inarticulate, the powerless; the people we exist to represent?

On policy, too, we have moved so far to the right as to be unrecognisable. What we marched against when the Tories were in power we now do ourselves, and do it gladly. ID cards, Trident, Academies, PFI, privatisation - all Tory ideas we all once hated, whichever wing of the party we were on. Now, support for these ideas is worn by some comrades almost as a badge of honour, a sign they have 'modernised.'

I know we were a mess in the '80s and we had to change. I supported Kinnock and accepted Blair's election as leader as necessary even though I didn't vote for him myself. I went along with the Clause IV change because I thought there was enough in what we were proposing to make a real positive difference and I didn't want to fight over history. I thought a Labour government would do good and didn't want to harm the chances of getting one elected having lived and suffered through that woman's reign.

And the 1997 -2001 government was good, and I say that as a member of the left of the party. It did good things that it can be proud of. Literacy and Numeracy hours in schools, class size reductions, hospital waiting lists, devolution, Human Rights Act, minimum wage, these are all wonderful achievements. The problem is, these are still the ones we claim credit for. What have we done since 2001 to be proud of? Since when was support for faith schools or academies something to cheer? Why have we gone so far to the right that what was once 'our issue' of civil liberties is now the preserve of the Liberal and Tory parties? Why are we going for compulsory ID cards? Why are we going for Trident replacement and a new generation of nuclear power? Why, when left and centre left solutions are required to combat climate change are we building roads and runways? Why, when we claimed we wanted to be at the heart of Europe did we abandon Europe and side with the Americans on Iraq? Who was right, Uncle Sam or Joska Fischer and Jacques Chirac?

I know that on each individual issue a case can be made. But for me, the basket of things we have done since 2001 makes this government one of the most reactionary, certainly in my lifetime.

Is there hope for the left? We are losing MPs and the PLP is becoming more homogenous. The proposals for reform to party conference seem to treat the party in the country as the enemy. Membership seems to be valued by the leadership only in as much as it provides funds. Policy making within the party proceedes along carefully framed lines of debate that almost determine the final outcome. Councils are being stripped of power and seeing it transferred to unaccountable unelected bodies or 'stakeholders', or 'partners' in the lingo of the new governance.

Thousands of good comrades have left the party since 1997 and left the left even weaker. I no more want the party to be a socialist sect, than I want it to be the right wing party it has become. I want a return to balance between left and right, where socialists and social democrats can meet, disagree, but at least treat each other with respect and as legitimate members of the one party. Can we have that again, or will the present trend toward treating the left either with contempt, or just ignoring it continue? Is there a future for the left in the Labour Party?