I confess I approached the IPPR's report, Prosperity and Justice, with low expectations. I feared it would be yet more bland technocratic centrism. I was wholly wrong. It gets to the heart of our economic problem - that inequalities of power are impoverishing millions of us:

We have to rebalance the relationships of power which currently exist between different actors in the economy. A major part of the sense of injustice that is so widely experienced across the UK today is the lack of control people feel they have, both their own economic circumstances and those of the country as a whole. That sense of powerlessness reflects something real. Within firms, too much power is concentrated in the hands of management, and too little is held by workers. Hierarchical governance models hold back productivity improvement and the spread of workplace innovation, and hold down wages and working conditions.

This is wonderful stuff. And there's so much more to love: the stress upon the need for stronger trades unions; the correct claim that a fairer economy is a stronger economy; the stress placed upon bad management; recognition that redistribution of income is not enough; calls for a land value tax and tax on lifetimes gifts; and demand for stronger competition policy.

That said, there are some things I don't like. I'm not sure that short-termism in boardrooms is a problem (I'll say why tomorrow); or that monopoly power really has increased as much as they claim; and I'm wary of giving the Bank of England a dual mandate to target both unemployment and inflation.

Also, I'm not sure the report is sufficiently awake to some trade-offs. For example:

- Between stronger competition policy and investment. The "open markets" the IPPR rightly calls for conflicts with its desire for higher investment. Why should firms innovate and invest if they fear their profits will be driven down from competition from new entrants?

- Between worker say and automation. Greater worker voice might create opposition to labour-saving innovations.

- Between a higher minimum wage and incentives. A higher NMW would further squeeze differentials between the low-paid and the slightly better-paid, which might deter some from incurring the expense and hassle of training or changing job.

None of this is to say the IPPR is wrong - just that there are conflicts between good things.

There are also at least a couple of areas where we need more detail.

One concerns fiscal policy. The report says:

Higher wages prompt improvements in productivity. When workers are cheap, firms have little incentive to invest in new technology or innovate in workplace organisation: it is simpler to meet additional demand with more labour.

This is right. One way to achieve these higher wages is to ensure lasting full employment: it is no accident that productivity growth was strongest in the 50s and 60s. How can macroeconomic policy achieve full employment? (The IPPR omits mention of a job guarantee). And if it can, will firms really respond as they did in the 50s and 60s by investing more? Or might they instead fear a profit squeeze and invest less. Will we return to the 60s, or the 70s?

A second issue is worker control. This can occur at different levels. Workers can help set overall corporate strategy at board level. Or they can raise productivity by deploying their detailed but fragmentary and dispersed knowledge of inefficiencies in production and procurement. For me, the IPPR understate the latter.

But of course, the truth here varies from firm to firm. Which means we need a diversity of modes of worker control, depending on how this can best raise efficiency.

These, however, are quibbles and footnotes. Overall, this report is a very great achievement. Mrs Thatcher, reportedly, once banged a copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty onto a table, declaring "this is what we believe." I hope Jeremy Corbyn does the same for this report.