People who do not take their full entitlement ought to be frowned on by their managers, not regarded as reliable workhorses. And the vulnerable should be protected against exploitation.But the Fabians have not been radical enough. While it is right that the state should set an overall minimum number of holidays, just as it sets a minimum wage and maximum hours, in order to prevent exploitation, it should not dictate when those holidays must be taken.The common public holiday is a hangover from the Fordist era of mass production when factories, mines and their offices all shut down at the same time for convenience. In today's flexible labour market, with working days scheduled to meet the peaks and troughs of demand, the role of the state should be limited to setting minimum standards ­ allowing employers and employees to negotiate precise working patterns.If that sounds too nakedly free-market for the Fabian Society, then the corollary is that the Government should set minimum holiday rights, not just to the eight or even 12 days to replace bank holidays, but to two or three weeks' annual holiday on top.That would be something to celebrate..

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor, masters as they are of what they like to call political strategy, have decided not to fight the next general election on their record. Gasp at their acumen! Wonder at their presentational skill! Weep at their cynicism! The Prime Minister and the Chancellor, masters as they are of what they like to call political strategy, have decided not to fight the next general election on their record. Gasp at their acumen! Wonder at their presentational skill! Weep at their cynicism! They are worried that the British people might perceive the general election on 7 June (foot-and-mouth permitting) as posing the question: Are you satisfied with the state of public services? In which case the answer might be: No. Instead, as we report today, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown want to ask: Who is more likely to improve public services in future, Labour or Conservatives? In which case they hope the answer might be more favourable to them.So forget all that stuff about "judge us on our record", "keep this card to see that we keep our pledges" and Mr Blair's solemn "vows to the British people". They were brilliant tactical ploys for the purposes of a different moment in 1997, and it seems almost tasteless to remind ministers of them now.We cannot allow Mr Blair to get away with his brazen declaration to a teachers' union conference this week of an "absolute commitment", if re-elected, to raise the share of national income spent on education. Was he hoping that teachers ­ or the rest of us ­ would not notice that he made that pledge last time, and broke it? Just as he will fail to meet the target for smaller class sizes? Or faster sentencing of young offenders? Just as he made the promise of a referendum on changing the voting system, and broke that? They did not promise much, and yet some of the few promises they made seem to have simply slipped their minds.The problem with such brilliance at the art of politics is that it insults the intelligence of the voters.

If Mr Blair had not yielded such hostages to high rhetoric, the electorate might have been pleasantly impressed by the record of the past four years. The economy has been handled competently, and a start has been made in education and, to a lesser extent, health. Money is beginning to be poured into both departments, after a delay that would have been entirely justifiable if it had been used for structural reform But it was not. Standards are higher in primary schools, but this is hardly the "step change" of Mr Blair's favourite managerial jargon. The Prime Minister only turned his attention to the monumental problems of running the health service last year.

Meanwhile, the transport system in this country has appeared to go backwards, with politicians squabbling over London Underground, and the rail system in a state of seemingly permanent paralysis.The sense of opportunities missed during New Labour's first term has been heightened by the failure of leadership on the question of Britain's future membership of the European currency union, and the botched job of House of Lords reform. No wonder they do not want to fight on their record.One other small but telling point. Mr Blair set great store by the fact that, before the last election, all the members of his party were balloted on the draft manifesto. The 95 per cent Yes vote was a significant proof that the Labour Party really had changed. Now the fact that Mr Blair has not quite finalised the manifesto, let alone secured his party's endorsement of it, is proof that he thinks the party does not matter.