So what's the next big idea?

Behind closed doors at Chequers last week the Cabinet sketched out its next manifesto. Labour's unofficial advisers run through the ideas Tony Blair took back with him to No 1

The countdown to the next general election - the first of the 21st century - has already begun. Labour opened its campaign on Friday when the Cabinet gathered for a specially convened meeting at Chequers to debate its battle plan.

So what will the next manifesto say? Tony Blair's historic victory in May 1997 followed clear-cut promises on health, education, crime, jobs and tax outlined in the famous Labour pledge card. The next election, however, is likely to see the Blair government not only fight on its record but also attempt to define the Britain it wants to see emerging in the early years of this century. And like many prime ministers before him - from Harold Wilson and his white heat of technology to John Major's ill-fated back to basics - Mr Blair is keen to offer the country "the big idea".

So what could entice both Middle England, the home of Worcester Woman and Mondeo Man, and the traditional Labour heartlands? There was a news blackout imposed on Friday's gathering at Chequers, but ideas are known to have been canvassed from think-tanks and other organisations that Downing Street respects.

We've sounded out those groups about their ideas. Below we give you a taste of just what they think should be on Blair's big ideas agenda.

TAP OUR CREATIVITY

TOM BENTLEY: Director, Demos

If there is to be one central idea then it should be creativity, pure and simple. If the Labour government wants the UK to become a model society, it has to make sure its creative potential is developed fully.

It needs to start in the schools, where there must be radical reform of the curriculum with children taught a wider range of skills - including better problem-solving techniques - the encouragement of teamwork and assessment by performance.

That means opening up the schools to a range of partnerships so that businesses, local government and voluntary organisations are fully involved. Their knowledge needs to be transmitted to young people. If we assume that education in some form should continue until at least the age of 19, some young people should be able to leave school at 14 and still be educated elsewhere through packages of learning.

A FAIR DEAL FOR THE ELDERLY

JULIET MOUNTFORD: Head of research and policy development, Family Policy Studies Centre

We're reeling from all the changes this government has been talking about. Now we need some consolidation.

The whole issue of family stability needs to be tackled; 150,000 people get divorced every year and there is the issue of retaining the notion of blame in divorce. Parents should have more time to consider the issues resulting from the impact of divorce.

Then there is long-term care for the elderly. The Royal Commission gave a very strong steer and the Department of Health has said there will be guidance in the summer, but will there really be a strong answer? The commission favoured individuals not being charged for their care, and that it should be free. The Government made a lightweight response. We have not yet seen the detailed legislative programme that is needed.

LESS SECRECY, MORE CHOICE

SHEILA MCKECHNIE: Director, Consumers' Association

Choice is the most important issue. If we are going to be truly competitive, the markets need to be driven by effective consumers. That requires a whole new approach to freedom of information. We need less secrecy, more transparency. In areas like the utilities, we need to see the price structure so that consumers can see what they are paying for. That means a radical approach to the markets.

People are not always able to make well-informed choices. We need to close the knowledge gap between business and the consumer, between the professions and the consumer.

Young people won't have choice, either, unless they are better educated. We all have far more information at our fingertips through the internet, yet unless we are better educated we cannot distinguish between what is helpful and what is nonsense.

QUALITY NOT QUANTITY

JOHN BLUNDELL: Director, Institute of Economic Affairs

Labour's problem has been that it has spread itself too thinly. It should tackle fewer things, not take on more. Better to do 10 things well than 15 fairly well. If I was Tony Blair I'd be kicking myself that I hadn't tackled three key things instead of 27 changes to the constitution.

It's time to involve the private sector far more in health and education. That doesn't necessarily mean business. It could mean non-profit-making organisations in the voluntary sector. They could help transform schools with incentives and proper budgets.

FOR THE MANY NOT THE FEW

ADRIAN HARVEY: Research director, Fabian Society

Redistribution is a dirty word for some; ministers tend to avoid it, but it should be the key issue for any government that is for the many not the few. We need a little less timidity.

It's not a new idea to put more resources into health and education but it has to be centre-stage. There is too much of a lag between gathering the resources and improved services coming out the other end.

TAX OR SPEND

CARL EMMERSON: Senior research economist, Institute of Fiscal Studies

The allocation of money is going to be very important. Take social security. The last manifesto pledge was that they wanted to cut the cost of failure - failures like unemployment, for example. Instead we have seen large increases in spending in that area. They have to ask themselves whether they continue that kind of redistribution or whether they turn more towards work incentives.

The economy has performed better than expected, which means the Treasury has more money. The Government needs to decide whether to continue to spend or to cut taxes. Or will the future spending be paid for by tax increases that have already occurred?

GET 14-YEAR-OLDS OUT OF SCHOOL

KATHARINE RAYMOND: Director, Social Market Foundation

We have around 32,000 young people leaving school without qualifications. Giving money to kids so they can study might work with some of them, but it would just keep a lot of them in the classroom - and they'd fail to actually study. It wouldn't produce results. It would be better to enable some of them as young as 14 to go to work for a couple of days a week. They would be learning about the adult world and they could also be paid for their efforts. That would make a far greater difference than paying them what would in effect be just pocket money for sitting in school, where they don't concentrate and don't learn.

WORKERS SHOULD WORK LESS

MATTHEW TAYLOR: Director, Institute of Public Policy Research

We've seen commitment to quantity - getting people into work. Now we need to look at the quality of work. In Britain, there are still poor skills and low investment. We need to invest in people but get away from this obsession with long hours. Disposable income has risen in recent years. Rather than it keep rising, why not have people working less, and they would have more time for the community and their families?

We've also seen people in this country who have assets, such as savings, reap plenty of benefits. ISAs give tax benefits to people who already have money, to the middle classes. But under the Tories the number of people with no assets doubled. If you gave them just a little bit of money, it would change their lives, and they would be willing to save. A lump sum would start them on the savings track.