We have a problem in this country and at its core is the unprecedented dominance of the philosophy of New Labour. Any functioning, healthy democracy requires an energetic critique of the views and actions of the party of government. That is the role of the Opposition but, although Mr Hague is good at the small things, can run meetings smoothly, and deliver a neat and witty speech, his impact on the elephantine bulk of New Labour is gnat-like. This is not good enough and, as we cast around for an intelligent dissenting voice, leaving out for obvious reasons the sheep-like flock of New Labour entrants at the General Election last year, and watching with growing alarm the intention to weed out the remaining black members of the flock, the lack especially of an incisive left-wing critical analysis of New Labour is desperately noticeable. Well, almost; for we do have Lord Hattersley who delivered

himself in absentia of some curious views at a conference forum against poverty yesterday.

We live in strange times, he began, and he is right. Especially when we have the vision of a very moderate socialist who, when a member of the vapid Callaghan Government, failed to create anything which could be described as muscular socialism, delivering a blistering critique of the Blair Government in terms which would have never passed his lips in the past. Can the current Government have moved so far to the right as to leave this former apostle of waffle beached with the comrades and commissars of the past? Apparently so, for Lord Hattersley is simply wrong when he chides the Government for making a distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor in their quest for successful social engineering. To deny the existence of the undeserving poor is myopic nonsense; to recognise their existence and to determine if possible to change them is a perfectly acceptable political goal, accepted

by liberal and clear-sighted reformers down through the years. Mr Hattersley would have us turn back to the systems which failed in the past, yet in one respect he is right. The thrust of Government policy, of the Third Way, is that of aspiration and of identification with success. Nothing wrong with that, yet full employment is a chimera and what of those who cannot work? Will Mr Blair's theology, both personal and political, identify with those as it should? There is meat here for carving and dissection. With respect, Lord Hattersley cannot do it. Who will?