The Reform think-tank released a report today compiled by Frank Field, the highly regarded (at least outside of No. 11) Labour MP, who has an expertise in the causes (and possible solutions) of welfare dependency. Mr Field was originally part of the Prime Minister’s first cabinet, having being given the onerous task of reforming welfare. Not long after his appointment he was sacked, primarily because of the policy conclusions he had come to during his brief ministerial career. His removal is thought to have had much to do with the Chancellor, our future Prime Minister. Hence, the present state of the welfare state is the responsibility of the Chancellor.

Today’s report eloquently highlights the failings of Mr Brown’s New Deal. Far from eradicating youth employment as spuriously claimed by Labour’s Employment and Welfare Minister, Jim Murphy, the New Deal has cost a wopping £3.5 billion pounds and delivered very little. Youth unemployment is higher now than in 1997, and is continuing to rise. The most damning statement made in the report is, however, about economic activity. In 1997, the New Labour administration cited an improvement in the economic activity of working age people as an aim of the New Deal. A decade later the activity rate for 18-24 year olds has fallen from 76.7% to 74.4%, despite £2 billion pounds of government expenditure. The level is now even lower than in 1992. Another success for Mr Brown.

The Chancellor cannot be too happy about the release of this report, as it further damages his already tainted reputation. There are major problems with the welfare state in this country, problems that could have been better dealt with by Mr Field rather than Mr Brown. What the country needs now is new thinking in this important area of government policy. I fail to see how the expected change of Prime Minister is going to bring that about. Britain urgently needs a fresh approach to welfare.

So we, the British people, will not look back on Tony Blair and love him: he has been in power too long for that. We, even his opponents, will not hate him: his attributes have always repelled that. But we will, on all sides, look back and ask “What did he really believe in doing? And when was he going to get round to it?” – William Hague MP

Twenty five years ago, a fresh-faced Tony Blair came to my political patch and ran his first Parliamentary campaign. In 1982, shortly after the Falklands War victory, Mr Blair had been selected as the Labour Party candidate for the Beaconsfield by-election. At the time, he was a member of a party that believed in the nationalisation of industry, unilateral nuclear disarmament, secondary picketing, the withdrawal from the then EEC, and the introduction of an ‘annual personal wealth tax’. What does he believe now? A year later, he became the MP for Sedgefield, and went on to share his Parliamentary office with Gordon Brown.

In 1997, when Labour swept to power with a massive majority, Mr Blair and his cabinet, having ditched many of the principles held dear by ‘Old Labour’, trumpeted ‘new policies for a new century’ – an ethical foreign policy, a ‘new politics’ to combat cynicism about politicians, the decentralisation of government, the reform of the welfare state, encouragement for saving for retirement and early CAP reform in Europe. What does the Prime Minister (PM) think of his New Labour record of achievement? Did he achieve as much as he promised the British people?

In the coming weeks, Britain is set to ‘inherit’ a new PM, the co-architect of the original Labour volte-face, Gordon Brown. He was present in 1997 when the policies mentioned above (and many others) were announced. He is still present ten years later with the facts telling us all that none of these policies have been successfully implemented. So, as he announces his ‘Programme for Change’, let us remember Gordon Brown’s ‘achievements’ of the past. Remember the desire for a ‘new kind of politics’ as we recall Peter Mandelson, the Hindujas, Bernie Ecclestone and the ‘Cash for Peerages’ saga. Remember the ethical foreign policy as we recall Darfur, post-war Iraq and Zimbabwe. Remember the promised CAP reform as we recall the misery of the farm payments disaster. Remember the “retirement savings encouragement” as we recall the outrageous raid on private pensions. But above all, remember that as we are saying au revoir to Mr Blair we are saying bonjour to his partner in crime. For it is a crime to have promised so much, spent so much, and delivered so little.

It is a welcome change to hear common sense emanating from the British Medical Association (BMA). I should declare that I cancelled my BMA membership shortly after qualifying as a doctor. To my mind at the time, the organisation had rountinely failed to do what it should, i.e. stand up for doctors’ best interests. Not only that, their regular pronouncements on the state of the NHS appeared wedded to the original, out-dated, Socialist ideal. More importantly, by being both left wing and a poor advocate for the medical profession, I believed that the BMA was not serving patients’ best interests.

Recently, with the MTAS debacle, there has been more evidence of their ineffectual performance. It took doctors themselves to whip up support for resistance to the government’s imposition of the disastrous system before the BMA came belatedly on side. So today, I was very surprised to read that the BMA, having vocally supported doctors’ militancy, have now advocated a policy on NHS provision in this country that I can honestly support. To date, the BMA and its numerous committees, had a left wing ‘air’. Not anymore. For they have announced that they would support a slimming down of services offered under the NHS, i.e. rationing of care. For the BMA to be advocating such a radical move illustrates how acute the problems are in the NHS.

Britain has an ageing population and an increasing appetite for medical intervention. We all expect more from our health service than did our grandparents. That stoical generation are now few in number, and have been replaced by people who want and expect more. Ask any doctor about patient demands and you will get the same response: “increasing greatly”. The likely consequence of this justifiable expectation is a rationing of services provided by the NHS. In effect, it will become an acute service combined with specialist treatment of ‘major’ conditions.

The trouble with this conclusion are the political ramifications. Try being an MP in a constituency where only ‘necessary’ services are being provided by the local hospitals. Not many votes to be had there I suspect! And that is the problem. It is easy for the BMA to call for a slimming down of the NHS healthcare provision for their leaders are not elected on the basis of NHS performance. Unfortunately, politicians of all persuasions still are affected by health issues. Until healthcare provision in this country is depoliticised (by, say, creating the independent health board that the BMA suggests), the changes necessary to maintain an acute health service that benefits all in this country will not be made. The NHS needs tough medicine to cure its ills. If it does not take it soon, I fear its life expectancy will shorten.

Today, it is expected that three in five eligible voters in this country will fail to exercise their democratic rights. This compares unfavourably with elsewhere in the world. Last week, almost 85% of the French public cast a vote in the first round of the Presidential elections. In the 2005 Iraq elections, almost 80% of registered voters took part in the democratic process, despite the real threat of violence. Why are Britons so apathetic about voting? What should be done about it?

In this wave of local elections, new methods of casting votes have been introduced. To postal voting has been added e-voting. This new approach has come about as a response to poor voter turnout, particularly amongst the young. The principle appears to be: make the process easier and more people will vote. I am not so sure it is that simple. It is not just voter turnout that has fallen. At the same time, the level of membership of political parties has dropped dramatically. The constituency of which I am Deputy Chairman has been aware of this trend for a number of years, and even though we have maintained a membership total above 2000, that admirable figure does not compare well with the 10,000 our agent told me we once had during the 1970s.

An Australian friend of mine was over recently and he told me that he had recently been fined for failing to cast his vote at the last election. Although it was a modest sum, he accepted it was a fair penalty for not having taking an active part in his country’s democratic process. How would should such a system go down in this country?

I have long been a believer in compulsory, traditional voting. By that I mean that each eligible voter should be obliged to attend in person on an election day. Each individual would be free to not vote for a candidate by ticking a special box or spoiling the paper. And for those incapable of making it to the polling station, special mobile polling booths would circulate each constituency collecting votes from the infirmed. I do not like the postal vote system and and am very suspicious of e-voting. It should take effort to cast a vote as it took more than that to secure it and defend it. We all share a responsibility in protecting our hard-earned democracy. By casting a vote today for the party of our choice we make that democracy stronger.