Leading Article: Tony, you may not be forgiven

Yesterday a political document was published. The title? "Building Prosperity: Flexibility, Efficiency and Fairness at Work." Where does this come from? The CBI? Some academic think-tank? The Department of Trade and Industry press office? No, it comes from the Labour Party, now so anxious that we should not mistake it for - well, the Labour Party - that it seems trapped in language that would come happily to the lips of any Tory minister. Flexibility, efficiency and fairness are perfectly harmless in themselves, and nobody should be criticised because they lack the ring of liberty, equality and fraternity. But "efficiency" and "flexibility", over the past decade or so, have become euphemisms for a management culture which believes, first, that sacking people is the best way to a successful business and, second, that employees should always do as they are told without question.

British employees, who have fewer rights at work than any in Europe, want to know whether Labour will give them a better deal. Leaked drafts of the party's document might have given them some encouragement; the final version, re-written by Tony Blair's staff, offers very little. The draft said that Labour would put an end to "zero-hours contracts", whereby workers are required to be on continuous call with no guarantee of work or pay. Now, Labour will just "examine how people can be protected". The draft said that Labour would "restore the right of staff at GCHQ to belong to an independent trade union". Now, Labour, rather mysteriously, only "believes" that they should have such a right. The draft said that employees should not have to wait two years before being protected against unfair dismissal. Now, Labour will just "review the whole question". Mr Blair should take care. Some people might want to "examine" or "review" their intentions to vote for the party at the general election.

The document offers more protection for workers who go on strike, but in the weakest possible language - they will be able to "present a claim" for unfair dismissal if they have lost their jobs after lawful industrial action. On strike ballots, which are governed by unnecessarily complex legislation, the document says simply that "we do not intend to change the laws". It goes to almost comical lengths to present Labour as a business- friendly party. Trade unions are to be released from the need to get repeated authorisation from individual members before union subs can be deducted from pay packets. But only, mark you, to end "the unnecessary burden on business".

What is the point of all this? How much more does Mr Blair think he needs to do to convince employers that a Labour government wouldn't lead to instant mass bankruptcies or to a pogrom in the boardrooms? After all, the Financial Times felt confident enough even of Neil Kinnock to advise a vote for him in 1992. We know that Mr Blair is obsessed with the idea that, to get to Number Ten, he must woo the readers of the Daily Mail and the Sun. But does he really believe that all this hedging and fudging, all these fine words about "competitive success" and "workforce flexibility", all these assurances that "we must avoid rigidity in labour market regulation" will stop the henchmen of Lord Rothermere and Rupert Murdoch finding anti- Labour ammunition when they need it? Shadow Cabinet members seem to live in mortal dread of the Tories making "an issue" of something. So do they intend to fight an entirely issue-less election, devoid not just of ideology but even of policy?

It is not as if the electorate, of whom 8.7 million have experienced unemployment since 1992, can be exactly enamoured of all this flexibility. Mr Blair believes, with reason, that the Tories' performance over the past four years is enough to lose them the next election. He therefore concludes that Labour should do as little as possible, that it need only avoid threatening and upsetting people and Downing Street will be his. But he could equally reach the opposite conclusion: that the British are so fed up with the Tories that they would vote for Saddam Hussein himself if that were the only alternative to another five years of John Major and Michael Howard, that Labour has a golden opportunity to campaign for a truly radical alternative. Future generations may not forgive Mr Blair for his failure to seize the moment.