Make sure you leave on time …

Today marks WYPHD – not an obvious abbreviation is it? But it’s one that effects much of the population and many Young Fabian members. Work Your Proper Hours Day is the day when the average person who does unpaid overtime would start to get paid if they did all their unpaid overtime at the start of the year. A whole two months into the year – pretty shocking, eh?

And that is just the average. The TUC report today that there has been a further increase in the number of Britons doing ‘extreme’ unpaid overtime – that’s more than ten hours a week above contracted hours. Their WYPHD will be not until at least 26th April.

There’s 3 interesting aspects to this.

Firstly, speaking from my own experience and that of friends and colleagues, I suspect this affects a large proportion of young people – perhaps trying to impress in their first job after leaving education – and even more so Young Fabian members, a number of whom have jobs that will be stretched to fit the anti-social hours of parliament.

Secondly, the context of the recession. Whilst more people are working more hours than they are being paid for, unemployment is rising. Could the sum of a team’s additional hours put in actually be enough to create new jobs? Are young school leavers or university graduates struggling in the jobs market suffering more than they need to? It seems that during the recession there have been more temporary contracts being offered where once there may have been permanent jobs – is the nature of such work pressuring young workers to stay in the office longer to secure the prize of permanent employment, foregoing short-term health for long-term security?

Thirdly, and very importantly, there is a gender divide. The group with highest proportion of people working unpaid overtime, and the highest proportion undertaking extreme overtime, is single women. Level pegging in numbers doing unpaid overtime with single men is the group containing married or cohabiting couples without children. A majority of Young Fabian members who are working will fit into these categories. We can but speculate why it is that women are working more for free. Is it a greater work ethic? Or is it a way to show one’s value in a country still blighted by unfair gender pay gaps?

The TUC website has some other interesting stats. And the WYPHD site contains an unpaid overtime calculator and some games and novelties worth a quick look (during your lunch break?).

Plus, eagle-eyed news followers may notice that the long hours advice clinic has been put together by a Professor who has found fame elsewhere this week.

Fab 5: Thursday 25 February 2010

Your Fab 5 for today:

GUEST POST – Yes we care

Tulip Siddiq and Sam Bacon were 2 of the 80-strong Young Fabian-Labour Staff Network delegation that headed to Ohio in late 2008 for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. In a post originally published on Labour List they argue that young people are interested in a different type of politics, and present the implications for party organisation.

“Oh, they don’t care” – a common claim made about young people. Apparently we’re all apathetic and disengaged from politics. Not true. A lot of us do care. The disconnect is not of young people from issues or from politics – if we take politics in the true sense of the word. The lack of engagement comes from apathy about party politics.

The march against student fees had a record number of young people. Recognising the importance of this to their lives, young people took direct action to make their voices heard. But our political interest stretches beyond self interest. An overwhelming number of young people marched against the Iraq War and in the recent climate change ‘wave’ march. The Million Women Rise march, a woman’s only event, had five thousand women last year – significantly bigger than anything of its kind for decades – and a high proportion of participants were young. Oxfam, Amnesty International and campaigns such as Make Poverty History have young people as their key members.

And it doesn’t stop at marching. Politics plays a part in how young people live their lives. Young people are the predominant customer base of ethical free trade shops. It’s actually quite ‘cool’ to shop and live ethically, to eat fair-trade chocolate, buy make-up that hasn’t been tested on animals, to recycle, to attend concerts that raise awareness about issues…you get the idea.

We know of a young Muslim women’s group in Camden. They meet up weekly to discuss issues such as the growing threat of terrorism, free school meals, misinterpretation of Islam in the media and the bureaucracy associated with claiming housing benefits.

These young women would never attend the Young Labour events that take place in Parliament, or party political events anywhere in the country.. And why? Frankly speaking, Party politics is often viewed as a closed shop. It’s for the elite, by the elite. Often it’s seen as a club just for white, well connected London-based men. The lack of women and BAME MPs doesn’t help to counter this view. The national tone of PMQs (a rugby match anyone?) doesn’t encourage participation from all areas of society either.

Young people don’t see how voting or supporting a political party has any real connection to the issues they care about. And, frankly, we’re awful at explaining it to them. They don’t recognise that the actions they take are, in fact, political actions (to live ethically, engage in direct action, etc) and when repeating the mantra that “young people are all apathetic” we too fail to recognise this.

If we want them to engage in Party politics, we fundamentally need to change the way we ‘do’, ‘sell’ and ‘support’ politics. We need to show how politics affects individual lives. Party politics needs to be shown as a coalition of action, as working towards achieving specific outcomes and harbouring certain values. It can’t just be about ‘the Labour Party’ because a lot of young people don’t care about party loyalty. Unconditional party support is a relic of the past. We need to work harder to show people why we matter, what we can do for them, and what we will allow them to do for us.

Let’s face it – we live in an increasingly individualistic age. We need to clarify that being part of a party doesn’t mean you agree with every single policy. Being part of a flock that blindly follows the leader just doesn’t appeal to young people.

We both volunteered on the Obama campaign. And let us tell you – we need to change the culture of appreciation in British politics. We were inundated with food, drink and gushing praise the entire time. In the UK, it’s not unheard of going to campaign for a Labour MP for hours (in the bitter wind) and not even receiving a small thank you. We have to realise; the days of people doing menial tasks for little personal reward or thanks are over.

There are a lot of opportunities for young people to volunteer, and ‘make a difference’ with organisations will give them real responsibility. 3 hours of putting leaflets through letterboxes just doesn’t compare to being responsible for a shop floor at Oxfam. Time is a precious commodity, and experience is all important, so let’s think carefully about what we offer young people in return for their help.

There’s a lot of work to be done. And with declining party memberships (from all parties), it’s necessary too. But let’s start this work from the powerful realisation: yes, young people care.

Fab 5: Wednesday 24 February 2010

Here are your Fab 5 for today:

Politics is power. The rest is commentary.

There’s nothing like a General Election to focus political minds. As Labour braces itself for the toughest election since 1992, all of us are digging deep, fiercely debating what it means to be Labour today. We know that the next election needs to be about more than our record. It needs to reflect the realities of a changed world – one very different from 2005, let alone 1997.

Of course there’s the negative – the perfect storm of a political crisis in MPs’ expenses and an economic one in the banking crash. But there is also the positive. As we discuss in the latest Anticipations the explosion of the internet has been a powerful democratising force, giving people more ways to collaborate, communicate and organise than ever before. The fact that the next General Election will be the first to be fought online may have become a cliche. But that’s only because it has been said so many times.

Against this backdrop David Miliband’s speech to Demos yesterday was particularly pertinent. A big picture set piece about the challenges ahead, he framed the next election as a choice between two competing political visions with fundamentally opposing ideas about the rightful role of the state. At the heart of his critique of Conservatism was an analysis of the role of government that is as simple as it is profound,

“The principle [that applies to the challenges we face] is that power needs to be vested in the people, but we do not reveal a powerful populace simply in the act of withdrawing the state. In fact a powerless government simply means more power to the already powerful.”

Does that mean that we shouldn’t be worried about government becoming too powerful? Of course not. Government power must only be exercised when it empowers ordinary people. That’s why we need to look again at electoral reform – it simply isn’t right that the majority of votes at the next election just won’t count. It’s why we need to look again at the balance between security and liberty – people need to feel that power rests in their hands and not in the levers of the state. Yet at the heart of all these issues lies a fundamental principle on which all left wing policy should hang. A principle that David Miliband highlighted in his speech.

Politics is about creating powerful people. The rest, to quote an old Jewish saying, is commentary.

Fab 5: Tuesday 23 February 2010

Here are your Fab 5 for today:

A very Tory wobble

I was pleased but not surprised to read about the new Guardian ICM poll this morning. Seven points behind the Tories before the short campaign isn’t ideal. But it’s a far cry from the 1997 moment that the Tories have been hoping for. The fact that the Tories have yet to seal the deal, loses none if its salience, however many times it is said. Even in Cheltenham, a place that many people think must be true blue (it isn’t – the Liberals have held it since 1992), local people remain skeptical about Cameron and his clan. So why is that?

The challenge that the Tories face is that their greatest asset is also their Achilles heal. There is no denying that David Cameron is a slick presenter. He has turned the Tory image round from depths of the ‘wink wink nudge nudge’ days of Michael Howard and the ‘are you thinking what we’re thinking?’ 2005 campaign. But four years on and that image has become confused. David now has a split personality, stern ‘age of austerity’ Mr Cameron one day, joyous ‘let the sun shine’ Dave the next.

Andy Coulson famously said of Tory spin that if David doesn’t say it it simply isn’t news. Well David’s said a lot. But little of it has been consistent. On the doorstep in Cheltenham and across the country people are telling Labour activists that they simply don’t know what the Tories stand for.

With only a few months left until the election, it’s beginning to dawn on them that they probably never will.

Following the backlash to the airbrushed image of Cameron, The Tories have taken a different tack with their new posters – there’s no David Cameron in sight. But they know, and as the poll confirmed today, that he remains more popular than his party. As polling day approaches and the media spotlight grows even more the tightrope that Cameron has been walking will become even less stable. There’s no denying that Labour remain underdogs. But if we stand firm while Dave wobbles there may just be an upset.

James is Labour PPC for Cheltenham

Fab 5: Monday 22 February 2010

Here are your Fab 5 for today:

George Osborne: stupid banker

Today’s Sunday Times leads with a story about Conservative plans to sell off shares in the nationalised banks at a discount to certain groups of small investors – young people, for example – in a “people’s bonus”.

Osborne’s bank privatisation scheme is an attempt to inject fresh excitement into the Conservative campaign.

“The bankers have had their bonuses,” he said in an interview with The Sunday Times. “We want a people’s bank bonus for the people’s money that was put into these organisations.” The government spent £70 billion buying shares in the two banks to save them from collapse and now owns 84% of RBS and 43% of Lloyds.

While the shares are currently trading 30% below what the Treasury paid for them, City analysts expect the market will recover and a sell-off could begin within three years.

While the details of the Tory plan are still being drawn up, it is expected that people would be offered shares worth between a few hundred and a few thousand pounds at a discount on the market price.

The shares would be offered through the Isa scheme, so any dividends and capital gains would be tax-free. Even cheaper deals would be offered to young people and families on low incomes. There could also be special discounts for parents saving for their children.

This policy proposal, if true, is criminal.

When the Government acquired stakes in several UK banks, it do so for the common good – stability of the financial sector. The burden of the bail-out falls, while not necessarily proportionately, predictably via the general taxation system. It therefore seems equitable that, as the Government unwinds its investments, the debt it incurred stabilising the financial sector is paid off and the general tax burden is reduced. Depending on how well the banks are run in the next few years, the Government could even make a profit for the tax-payer – that would go some way to paying down debt incurred for fiscal stimulus incurred fighting the recession. Taxpayers would be rewarded, while not necessarily proportionately, predictably via the general taxation system.

Osborne’s proposal is incongruent with the Conservative party’s narrative on Government debt. Instead of realising the value of government-owned bank assets via sales at market price, he would – if the Conservatives are elected – crystallise the debt incurred saving the banks, transferring that value to a small group of investors who may or may not be most in need of government assistance. In essence, the “people’s bonus” is a lump-sum transfer to a small group of individuals from the government, paid for via general taxation.

And it seems very unlikely those who would benefit from the “people’s bonus” would actually be those on, for example, low incomes. Under the plans, those in specific social groups would be offered a discount on the market price. However, those most in need of government assistance are likely to be those who can least afford to invest several hundred pounds in the stock market, even with a discount. The relatively more affluent middle-class “young people”, or “families who are saving for their children” would likely benefit most. If Osborne really wants to use state resources to help specific groups, this proposal is a particularly blunt way of doing so – its outcomes would be uncertain at best, and the opposite to those intended at worst.

It is also entirely conceivable that some of those bankers whose well-remunerated actions were so damaging to the financial system, and thus necessitated the bail-out, could acquire discount shares in the nationalised banks and make a personal profit on them – a double-dividend.

If Osborne is electioneering, then he needs to come up with a more plausible explanation of why he intends to provide a windfall to affluent middle-class voters. And if he isn’t electioneering – if he really believes that the “people’s bonus” proposal actually rewards the general taxpayer for bailing out the banks – then he is a stupid banker.

Fab 5: Wednesday 17 February 2010

Your Fab 5 for today: