This will be my last contribution to the on-going debate because I have got
lots of work to do now that I have gathered my sources.

Once again I would like to thank everyone for their contribution and
recomendations- it really has proved most helpful.

I will share some last feelings before I write it all up in a chapter for
my thesis.  In payment for your time in listening and contribution I have
included a reading list on New Labour, The Third Way and Joined Up Policy.
Its not a comprehensive list or anything like that but in addition to the
sources raised through this debate (trace these through previous messages)
those on the list would make a good start.

Generally I still have mixed feelings.  There can be little doubt that
there has been a historical precedent for ideas and concepts associated
with JUP.  However by itself this information is not sufficient to prove
that the present conception of JUP (such as it is) is not new and by
implication not useful.  I guess this leaves me out on my own in the purple
corner.  I don't know if the 18 cross-cutting dept's set up have a
precedent or not.  Similar ideas have been expressed but I think the
implementation may be significantly different simply because we have had
more information and times have changed since the last time these ideas
seemed to have sway (the 1970's according to the blue corner).  Even if the
ideas themselves remained exactly the same, changing times and thus
changing potential for implementation, surely add some level of newness to
what new labour are trying to do.

However I don't believe the 'newness' of JUP is the only issue here, I
think we must consider our own reaction and role in this.

My position is that if JUP has any potential whatsoever for an enhancement
of welfare we have a responsibility, in fact it is our duty to follow this
up.  Like P Squires I worry where the blue corner arguements leave us.  If
we conclude that JUP contains nothing new and is indeed simply rhetoric to
be condemned it would mean the failure of the third way since JUP is one of
three key strategies.  However far more scary than that is that it would
leave us only with the previous alternatives of left and right.

I have briefly outlined above why I think it might be wrong to conclude
nothing about JUP is new or useful but even if that were the case then the
alternative of previous left and right leave us in no better position.
While both positions contain truths each, by themselves, has truly failed
to deliver a society everybody could unite (or at least tolerate) around.
And not for want of trying either- both sides have had chances to make it
work and convince people.  I think 'normal' people like me are sick of the
left and right approach and see it as overtly antagonistic which is not the
thing we need right now.  The greatest thing about the third way is at
least it tries to accomadate the major lessons of each position- this
electicity should be seen as a strength not a weakness as it is now.  That
doesn't mean we all have to agree and everything will be sorted but surely
thats preferable to the dogmatic rituals of the past where left slags off
right and right slags off left.  What do you think normal people make of it
all when all they see is two sides one arguing black and another white-
I'll tell you what, it makes them turn the whole rubbish off and forget.

Therefore, for me, we need the third way to survive more than ever.

Right now I do think NL are more hot air than anything but I would rather
support them and work with them to help them improve than just rejecting
them- after all they have hardly had the same chance as left and right to
convince people.  It seems far too easy to criticise- lets take the harder
decision and try to build something.

On the analytical side I think greg smith gaves us an important lesson- it
maybe very difficult indeed to place JUP into one typology since the very
nature of JUP requires entrepreneurial skills- ie. not standard at all.
JUP aims to fill the gaps left by ridgid application of systems and
therefore could well be different for each solution.  I am trying to build
my own JUP around inclusitivity but even then I have a feeling that it will
only be applicable to the topic I have been applying myself to.

Anyway thanks for listening- i'll post the reading list seperately since
this message is longer than I thought.

One last thanks,
Tim Clark