This is a version of Toby Perkins MP’s speech delievered in Leeds on on Friday 21 October, 2011 at the Progress event –  ‘The Purple Book: Should we leave the big state behind?’

The Purple Book is a useful contribution to the debate that we need to have as a party. It is not (nor is it supposed to be) a coherent manifesto, nor do all of the contributors strictly base their arguments around decentralisation, but it is a welcome sign that a party that for too long has seemed to fall back on its own certainties is starting to wake from its intellectual slumber.

Politics is almost always about a response to something. New Labour was a response as much to the Labour party’s election defeats as it was to the Tory party’s failure with public services. The mood that catapulted Ed Miliband into the leadership was clearly a response to the disappointment felt by members of the party at the New Labour experience.

I am encouraged that this book does not retreat back to the old certainties but looks to move the party on from the world that new Labour was relevant for to the world that we currently live in.

My sense of the mood of those voters that left us at the 2010 election was that their two strongest criticisms were: firstly, that Labour was a party for other people but not for them – benefit recipients, immigrants and public sector workers and (in some people’s eyes) the bosses were those looked after by Labour. And secondly, that we spent too much (sometimes for too little return).

I think that the Tory party won permission for the theory of the public spending reductions, but that they are vulnerable to allegations that the specific cuts are unfair, and in the face of the obvious failure of our economy to return to growth I think the too far and too fast argument is being ever more widely accepted.

For the policies that come out of our policy review to contribute to an election victory after just one term of opposition we broadly have two tasks.

Firstly to allow us to take a politically attractive argument to the electorate that is both a response to the record of our past and the Con-Dem term of office that will also be affordable and sustainable in a world of still limited resources with huge social divisions.

Ed Balls has made significant steps forward with his insistence that the party will set in place significant ‘golden rules’ to ensure that we maintain a strong record on delivering change within a tight financial regime, but our stance in opposition is going to be vital to re-establishing Labour’s record for economic competence.

The government has been successful in convincing people that the debate about deficit reduction is purely one of cuts. We must be equally disciplined in making the case for a genuine growth strategy which enables us to re-balance the economy towards a long termist approach with a sustainable industrial and manufacturing base.

However, alongside this, as defenders of public services we need to be as relentless in the hunt for the most efficient public services as possible. Simplistic solutions which say that either public or private sector provision is the only way are unhelpful. There are services that can be better authored and delivered locally and others where people expect relative uniformity. The row over the postcode lottery around cancer drugs should act as a warning sign against devolving too much.

Ed Miliband’s message about the squeezed middle is an effective piece of political imagery, but fleshing out what that really means within the confines of the new financial settlement is going to have to place a much greater emphasis on personal responsibility in regards to employment and savings, and an updated expectation of what people can expect from a Labour government.

We need to support a stronger role for the savings Gateway, where government adds to the savings that deprived people are able to make, rather than the Child Trust Fund which was an unconditional payout.

Rache (Reeves)l lays out effectively the lack of savings in our society, but her piece omits the elephant in the room- namely that hundreds of thousands of families had more confidence in their houses increasing in value than trusted the vagaries of the stock market which meant that the gap between those who owned property and those who didn’t became so disproportionate.

The root cause of this is discussed in Caroline (Flint)’s chapter on housing. The lack of provision of housing is a significant factor in the life chances of many at the bottom of society and also skews the landlord- tenant relationship in favour of rogue landlords. Part of Labour’s plan for a good economy must involve creating more competition within the private rented sector through more provision of housing, and I believe we should look again at the issue of high rise apartments which were never done sufficiently well to deliver on their original purpose.

However that doesn’t mean that she isn’t also right about also using government enforcement to take action in the case of poor provision. But an empowering state with a strong focus on rights and responsibilities has also got to open up home ownership to working people on modest incomes.

Caroline touches on the alternative models of home ownership and equity release schemes which must be expanded if we are seriously going to narrow the gap between the haves and the have nots.

So Labour must get back to the contributory principle as the bedrock of our party. Of course, here to help those unable to help themselves but also to ensure that more are within an environment where they can help themselves. Rights and responsibilities within a lean, nimble and comprehensive public sector that delivers efficiently and works in harmony with a fair and entrepreneurial business community.

Toby Perkins MP is a member of the shadow business team