News from the New Party

When Tony Blair's government took office in May 1997, there were high hopes for change. In some ways expectations were too high, but it remains true that party activists frequently supposed that the new government would renege on its commitments and implement a more thoroughgoing socialist agenda. They did eventually - but in the first couple of years they were more cautious. And so it was that the party base began to get uneasy with Blair's administration even as the government was still very popular in the country.

The initial signs were good. Blair appointed Frank Field as Minister for Welfare Reform, a sign that there was some serious intent to transform the debilitating legacy of the welfare state. Anyone who knows Frank Field's work over many years will be aware that he is not only very knowledgeable on issues of poverty and welfare, but he is also very realistic. He is aware of the problems of welfare dependency and the dangers inherent in means-testing. Unfortunately, within a year Frank Field was out of office - having argued intensely with his Secretary of State, Harriet Harman - and welfare reform was put on the back burner. Instead of genuine welfare reform we have had some piecemeal changes plus a huge tax credits programme under the control of the Treasury.

The next item on the domestic agenda was constitutional reform. This is attractive to government because it promises the appearance of radical action without the massive commitment of resources that some programmes entail. But what emerged from the frenetic activity of that period was a botched agenda of devolution - which now threatens the unity of the UK - a botched reform of the House of Lords, which has had to be revisited, and the botched introduction of the Human Rights Act, which ministers must now be regretting.

Nevertheless, Blair's dogged determination to stick with the Northern Ireland peace process did eventually pay off, even if we are only now - some nine years after the Good Friday Agreement - seeing significant progress.

In other areas we were promised reform alongside additional resources, but while the spending rocketed the reform was marginal. In the National Health Service, Blair's instinct for reform was largely scuppered by Gordon Brown. Similarly, in education, the logic of reform (in schools and higher education) gave way to piecemeal compromises that satisfied nobody. And as public services have faltered, the solution has always been to put in more money and, frequently, for Blair to announce he is taking "personal control".

It is said that the economy has been a success under the Blair administration, but that is highly questionable. The tax burden has increased and regulation has continued to stifle businesses, meaning that the long-term prognosis is not good.

What we see in the Blair years is an instinct for reform but the reality of state control that does not trust the reform agenda, most likely due to the influence of Gordon Brown. Genuine reforms have not materialised and instead we have had centralised target-setting.posing as reform.

The result is that the domestic policy agenda is not in good shape. For all the resources poured into the NHS and schools, we still have intermittant crises and calls for yet more money. We still have mediocre public services with no clear incentives and little sense of ownership by members of the public.

Blair appeared to recognise this but he sub-contracted large swathes of the domestic agenda to Gordon Brown. For that reason, the Blair legacy in the domestic agenda is pretty thin on the ground.