...comes from TUC chief John Monks. As the TUC conference opens, he writes in the parliamentary weekly, The House Magazine:

"There are many positive items on the union balance sheet. But there are also negatives.

"Of major concern is the continuing development of a two-speed economy. Of course some sectors are doing well, but manufacturing continues to give real cause for concern. At first the main impact was mainly on longer established industries such as textiles, indeed last year some high tech sectors were doing well in the midst of a manufacturing downturn.

"But now no sector seems immune, and most of the recent high profile job losses have been in high-tech areas. We estimate more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs will have gone by the end of the year and 350,000 jobs have gone in the sector since 1997. The balance of payments is in severe deficit - we simply don't make enough of the goods we buy.

"Yet even manufacturing's problems have been overshadowed by the debate about the future of public services.

"The key test that the electorate will impose on the government in four years time is whether it has delivered. That does not leave a huge amount of time given the tough public spending regime in the early years of Labour's first term.

"It is not an easy task. So much of the public sector suffers from big backlogs of infrastructure investment that cannot be put in place over night, particularly with a PFI system that can spend a very long time drawing up contracts before a project even reaches the drawing board. And of course so many other public sector problems are caused by shortages of skilled staff. Increasing the sustained supply of the doctors, teachers and nurses will take even longer than many construction projects.

"But unions would agree that it is not simply a matter of increasing resources. Too many managers and too much strategy have been about containing demand and implementing cuts. Change is undoubtedly needed in many areas.

"Yet despite the enthusiasm for private sector managers in some parts of the government, they do not seem to have consulted any private sector change management experts. The first thing they would say is that you need to be very clear about why the change is needed, and secondly that you must make every effort to win the support and active engagement of the people who will be required to implement the changes.

"This is vital. At the moment, too many public servants are demoralised. They feel that the hopes they had after the change of government in 1997 have not been met. They worry about the decline of regard for public service and the power of the belief that only the private sector can deliver.

"The concerns of public servants were heightened in the election campaign. Out of nowhere came some briefing that the private sector was the key to revitalising public services. It seemed that the government's stated test that 'what matters is what works' was being replaced by an ideological bias in favour of private sector solutions.

"But I very much hope that we can resolve this issue. Any historian knows the dangers to both Labour governments and the trade union movement of a breakdown in relationships. It would add absurdity to tragedy if that breakdown were to occur over the shared and progressive agenda of improving public services.

"Without denying the need for change as well as more money, it may be that government has to learn to suppress the side of its personality that is unhappy without a constant stream of new initiatives, targets and announcements in favour of giving the public sector the space to harness the commitment of its staff to improve services, building on the public service ethos.

"Despite the focus on using the private sector in education, the government should perhaps reflect that 700 schools have been turned round from within the public sector."