Over the last decade the impulse of debate has been drained from the Party. The scars of Opposition ran so deep that losing became equated with division. Well up to a point. Wild Trotskyites had to be removed from Labour’s ranks but beyond them there must be open airing of differences in a comradely and constructive fashion. That is what politics is. We learn and develop from debate. The campaign Jon Cruddas ran for the Deputy leadership of the Party showed that you can take a more radical line and talk about issues of class and inequality without any damage inflicted on the Party – indeed quite the opposite. So we should welcome the Progress initiative as it provides an opportunity to debate where we think the Party should go.

Progress think that Brown is becoming more Blairite and should become even more so. I would agree with the first part of their analysis. From civil liberties to criminal justice and silence on growing inequality, the thrust is more Blairite and is complemented by the promotion of Blairites into more senior cabinet positions. As one of them James Purnell has recently stated ‘Brown is the heir to Blair’. Well maybe. But the question the Progress statement begs is why on earth did Labour get rid of Blair to continue with Blairism under a new leader? The reason Blair went was because his political project had ended in failure.

A combination of the war, spin, sleaze, misguided public service and a refusal to face up to new challenges like the growing loss of traditional Labour support meant that the Party had to change. Not just the leadership but its direction. More Blairism won’t address the growing inequality gap and the untouchables at the top of society. It won’t protect agency workers or stop the rise in prison numbers. It has nothing to say about the anxiety and insecurity caused by the freedom of global capital to wreak havoc on our lives and because it won’t address these sources of unaccountable power it won’t revive our ailing democracy. Ultimately Blairism will put the needs of the economy before those of society and therefore inverts the principle of social democracy. Will Brown?

There were just two problems with New Labour. It wasn’t new enough or Labour enough. The market style reforms were just humanised neo-liberalism and as old as hills. Again quoting James Purnell who said last Sunday that the government is ‘ideologically neutral’ about whether to use the state, private or the third sectors. If only! Public services are continually rigged in favour of the market. And the market doesn’t concern itself with equality but profit. It wants winners and cares nothing for the losers. That’s why we need a democratic state to ensure brute bad luck doesn’t deform people’s lives.

Labour like all political parties must renew and revive itself. That is why Compass and others want to see the democratisation of public services. That is why we want to address the increasingly post materialist concerns of the middle classes, not least because we want to redistribute wealth to those at the bottom. This is the basis for modern left politics. A time machine that takes us back to Blairism answers nothing. It would be interesting to know if other members of the Cabinet agree? Let the debate begin.

Neal Lawson, Chair, Compass