Right, scratch my last but one message- eimai mesa (greek for 'i'm in') why
should i feel guilty for using this opportunity to debate? (anyone who
knows me will be howling with laughter at my simple inability to keep my
big mouth shut).

P Reynolds brings some important points to the debate and seeing as I seem
to be the only malaka playing devils advocote I'll continue to question.

Point number one is absolutely bang on I think- the attempt to maintain
some form of hegemonic control though is not in the traditional sense.  It
is not an attempt to control the debate and everyone in it, simply a means
by which everyone can communicate with each other.  This is becoming so
important in an increasingly fragmented world.  The language and position
of third wayer's (if i can say that) is that they recognise many, if not
all sides have their own valid points about what they want.  Previous
languages and discources appeared to be exclusive in their construction
(ie. only the right were 'allowed' to use the language of the market).  The
third way attempts to set up a discourse in which the language is able to
be used by anyone without preconcieved prejudice (ie. anyone using market
language is not automatically categorised).  I don't know about the re-
writing of history simply because I don't believe it's possible but
shifting the terrain is not quite accurate (see point 3)

I think point two refers to the third way as it is now not its normative
potential.  We do need to be paitent- bear in mind that NL have only had
four years against the tories who had 18 to get a coherent strategy.  The
historian Timmins notes that thatcherism was not really recognisable until
the second term- perhaps the same will be with NL.

Point No.3 seems to have echoes of the other messages sceptical of JUP and
NL.  Reynolds portrays this third way as cosigning left and right to the
bin but we have already seen in the earlier JUP debate that many, indeed i
think all the ideas associated with NL and JUP are not new at all.  The
third way does not reject the ideas and values of both left and right
(making it something new in the process) but seeks to synthesis these where
possible and develop the original ideas but in our contemporary
environment.  I don't ever recall a third wayer denying the richness or
usefulness of previous discourses- how could they possibly deny their
heritage.

I for one could accept that the third way is no different at all from
crosslands version except in scale but reynolds is right about my choice to
try the third way for a bit.  I am just wondering if it has anything to do
with age.  Being young I have no problem ditching some of the older
terminology while accepting the original substance.  In this way the newer
generations carve out their place and understanding.  If i was older
perhaps I would be more reluctant to give up those terms that had informed
me.  Reynolds I think is right when he suggested the reason is that people
are tired of the old and want some new (even if its not really).

I agree about critically assessing JUP on the basis outlined.

Its interesting that reynolds locates 'critical analysis' in the context of
pragmatism since this seems to be half of what has p****d off M Powell
about NL (on this point whats wrong with PAP, pragmatism and populism)

Overall the key point here is that any characterisation of the third way
and JUP as ignoring the old left and right just isn't true.  Just as untrue
is the proposition the third way is not new in any sense because as F
Jameson says even were all the issues to remain the same the discourse
would still be made distinct by the contemporary context in which the
discourse is given meaning.

In short then we are left with the fact that the third way and JUP are not
old but not new and have in fact probably more to do with the politics of
depoliticisation and an attempt (at some levels) to repoliticise social
issues than an attempt at a truly new paradigm.

Thanks for listening again everyone- tell me to shut up if i'm getting to
much.
Tim