A single issue voter

During the general election I came across plenty of single issue voters and in this Labour leadership election I plan on being a single issue voter myself. My issue is women in the Labour Party and what our next leader plans to do to increase the number of women participating in the Party and standing for election. My experience of being a candidate was of operating in what at times felt like an all male world. Even within the Young Fabians it is a challenge to get young women to stand for election to the Executive, although our Young Fabian Women event the other week showed we have no shortage of bright, young women with lots to offer. I want not just commitments around All Women Shortlists and balancing the cabinet, whilst important, in many ways these just disguise broader issues around the engagement of women in politics. I want to hear the candidates’ ideas around how they will get more women involved in grass roots politics, the role of women at Party Conference and how they will encourage more women to seek selection as parliamentary candidates. That’s my single issue, so far there have been a few promising murmurings from some candidates but I want more. Whoever comes out with a clear plan for getting more women active in the Labour Party gets my vote.

The government is right to address the pensions issue

Firstly, let’s separate out two different issues relating to pensions – the pension entitlement (essentially a benefit), and public sector pensions (part of a contract between the government and its employees). The Coalition government has made proposals relating to both this week, which is likely to confuse the issue of how specific measures might decrease deficit spending/government liabilities.

Both are Pay As You Go (PAYG) schemes – where current payments are funded from the contributions of those who currently work – and both will become more difficult to fund in future years, largely for demographic reasons.

The are several problems for governments looking to tackle the issue of pensions – for example, people often don’t know the true value of their pension entitlement as it relates to a period a long way in the future; and older people are disproportionately vocal on the issue because it affects them currently, but any concessions we make to existing older generations makes it harder to rectify for future generations.

On State Pension Entitlement, the medium-term choice facing government is harsh – restrict pension entitlement to a shorter period of people’s lives (by raising the age at which the entitlement kicks in), or spread the benefits more thinly (i.e. pay less to each pensioner each week). It really is as stark as that, and the problem will get worse as the baby-boomers start retiring in this decade. (PwC did a good report on the impact to public sector debt if we don’t address this structural problem – and it would make the financial crisis look small by comparison). It is understandable in the context of better healthcare and the fact people are more active to a later stage in life that delaying the start of the benefit, rather than cutting the value of the benefit to each individual, is the preferred route.

I always thought Labour could and should have done more whilst in power to address the impending pensions crisis. I’m glad that the current government is speeding up measures announced by Labour, and thinking of going further. Linking the age at which state pensions kick in to average life expectancy – a measure which the current government is looking at – is a bold move, but one which I would support. Such a link reduces the downside financial risk to government/taxpayers of having to fund pensions over an ever increasing period of time, and ensures what limited resources are available to pensioners go further. Aligning the retirement ages of men and women is right and we should also make it easier for older people to carry on working, if they want to.

Of course, some of the problems which may occur in future in relation to state pension affordability will be directly consequence of measures they propose to introduce – in particular, the cap on non-EU economic immigrants will reduce the UK’s ability to afford pensions, for example by preserving the replacement ratio (roughly the ratio of the working age population to pensioners). This is another reason why that particular barmy proposal ought to be opposed.

As young people, it is important we contribute to the debate. After all, we are the generations which will have to fund baby boomer pension entitlements as well as face reduced entitlements ourselves. The short-sightedness (or selfishness?) of older generations isn’t a mistake we should repeat. When you add in funding our university education, environmental problems, and the massive transfer of wealth to them via housing stock, I think we are entitled to feel short-changed but it is important to address structural issues in our pension funding to avoid selling future generations down the river. (See David Willet’s book The Pinch for more on some of these intergenerational travesties).

Public sector pensions, on the other hand, are an altogether different beast.

There are a lot of arguments thrown around about public sector pensions – that they are lavish, ’gold-plated’, or act as compensation for employees who accept lower current wages than would be payable in the private sector. The truth, of course, is a little more complex.

In my own experience I know of people who have left private sector jobs to joint the public sector and who have secured higher pay, better pension entitlement and have to work a lot less for it. There is some evidence to suggest that the pay gap between private and public sector jobs has narrowed considerably over the last ten or so years, with a concurrent fall in public sector productivity. However, I think the worst excesses are mostly confined to management level positions, rather than more junior and frontline positions (nurses, firefighters etc). We should be careful not to assume that all public sector workers have it good.

In the context of a reduced number of current contributors to state pension funds (i.e. a smaller government workforce) as well as the demographic burdens of promises to older generations, it is understandable that the government want to limit the liability to the Treasury (i.e. the ‘unfunded’ bit of current pension payments). However, addressing this issue will be much harder for them than the state pension issue for a number of reasons:

• pensions are contractual entitlements, which would make it hard for the government to change already committed entitlements (which means they are unlikely to reduce current pension costs);
• changing pension benefits for new employees (for example, switching to average salary schemes) would not have a direct benefit to the public finances until those workers retire – possibly several decades;
• trade unions are likely to oppose any material changes to existing workers, and possibly new workers.

Making existing members of pensions schemes increase their payments into the scheme would be challenging, but probably the least worse option. Likewise, it might be possible to reduce the entitlement existing members accrue in future. Both are likely to meet strong opposition.

The tribal response to the appointment of John Hutton to chair a review into into public sector pensions was incredibly disappointing, and trivialises a very serious issue for the UK. It is likely we will need cross-party support for any measures to make public sector pensions affordable. Labour should be at the heart of those debates and contributing to the development of policy on those issues. Far from being deriding him for being a “traitor”, Labour should welcome Hutton’s appointment and make the most of his involvement.

After all, we can’t afford not to.

The Emergency Botch-it

Last night the Young Fabians and Progress jointly-hosted an event on the Emergency Budget. Rachel Reeves MP, Kitty Ussher, Councillor Claire Kober (leader of Haringey Council) and Young Fabian Chair David Chaplin were all on a panel, chaired by Stephen Twigg MP.

Despite coming only hours after the Budget speeches ended, there was a good, detailed discussion.

• Rachel Reeves MP highlighted the false comparison between the Greek and Canadian economies and the UK, suggesting that the measures in yesterday’s budget ran the risk of a double-dip recession. She didn’t believe the budget presented a positive vision for what the economy would look like in future, focusing far too much on government expenditure – she believed it was false to ignore growth as one of the main pillars of deficit reduction. She argued for a balanced, fair economic recovery.
• Cllr Claire Kober spoke about the difficulties the new housing benefits regime would cause not just for her own Borough, but also other in London where property prices are high. She also said that her own council were looking at ways of creating their own Future Jobs Fund following the abolition of the central government programme as an “efficiency saving”, highlighting the wider indirect benefits of such programmes – for instance, reductions in crime.
• Kitty Ussher, now Chief Economist at Demos, highlighted the ideological nature of the cuts in today’s budget as well as the Osborne’s evasive tactics in relation to the OBR’s revised forecasts which appear to show that, as a direct consequence of the budget measures, growth would be lower and unemployment higher – she pointed out that cuts in benefits and a rise in VAT would impact consumer spending, a key determinant of growth in the UK economy.



• David Chaplin said it was the first time he had experienced a Budget speech where cuts were ideologically driven, and that many other young people would be experiencing the same for the first time too. He highlighted measures which he thought would affect young people in the future, particularly a reduction in the spending on skills which he said was vital to social mobility. He also argued that Labour needed to change the way it responded to the economic narrative being written by the Coalition government or risk being out of power for a generation – he called on the Labour leadership candidates to be more specific about the sorts of economic measures they would advocate were they to win, arguing that we couldn’t oppose every single measure implemented by the Government without offering a credible alternative.

The debate from the floor was good – particular policies were highlighted as pernicious, such as the changes to disability living allowances and housing benefit – but there was pragmatism in the room. The panel and the floor recognised that had Labour been in government then they too would have to have made difficult decisions, and also that Labour didn’t get everything right while in Government (there was particular discussion about improving the housing benefit system).

Nonetheless, as Rachel Reeve eloquently argued, we need to tackle the Coalition head-on on the argument that the cuts presented yesterday are “unavoidable” – growth is a key way of reducing the deficit and the measures announced will slow trend growth – and even where we do cut, there is a fair way to do it and then there was yesterday’s budget.

Perhaps surprisingly, there was little discussion about the Liberal Democrat’s role in the Budget measures.

Overall, the consensus at yesterday’s event was that Osborne’s announcement wasn’t a budget, it was a botch-it.

(As a footnote, I’ll add that it is reassuring we have elected officials like Rachel in Parliament and Claire in Local Government – we need more like them. It is also a shame that Kitty felt she’d have more impact outside of Westminster, than as part of it.)

A podcast of the event will be published on the Young Fabian website later.

Live Budget webchat

Join our live webchat on the Emergency Budget from 12 noon today.

Can we stop fighting the Tory Party of the 1980’s?

Every time I hear that clip of John McDonnell saying he would go back in time and assassinate Margaret Thatcher I shudder.

I know many people will say that I’m too young to remember Thatcher and so I wouldn’t understand the way some people in the Labour Party like the ill-judged McDonnell or other long-standing Thatcher opponents such as Ken Livingstone still feel about her and the politics she represented. Perhaps it’s ok if they are allowed to continue to hate her, fight her, and moan about her. Its conversely similar to the way some web-savvy Tories still talk about her.

But the rest of the Party – those who actually want to return to government and win the confidence of voters again – must now stop fighting the Tory party of the 1980’s.

It’s not just the mobile phones which have changed since 1980’s, it’s the politics and also our society which has moved on, and so Labour should too. We’ve got to accept that this new coalition has shaken up our politics and it’s made people think that there is a new centre-ground in British politics which is a natural space for the Conservative Party and their Liberal Democrat colleagues.

But to show where this coalition is failing – and it already is – we need to do more than simply point out the mad right-wingers who still dominate the Tory backbenches. We need to stop arguing that Tories are all toffs with baronets who want to destroy the state and privatise everything in sight. Otherwise people won’t want to listen, we know that because we’ve tried it before and it doesn’t work.

Crewe and Nantwich showed us that, remember the Labour activist dressed-up in a DJ and top-hat? I think that’s a campaign to forget.

What I’d like to see now from all the Leadership candidates is a new and confident message about the modern conservative party under David Cameron which shows how their ideology is driving the desire to cut spending. The contest to be the next Leader of the Labour Party should help us reframe our view of the conservative party and find a way to really hold them to account and challenge them, not fall back to our old arguments about class and Thatcher.

David Chaplin
Chair, Young Fabians

The Fabian Leadership Hustings: a campaigner’s view

Here Young Fabian member and campaigner Ben Knight gives his views on the Fabian leadership hustings earlier this week.

This made it the third leadership debate I’ve seen in 4 days, and far from being a case of 5 people in auto-pilot, it was a lively and engaging debate.

Overall, I am greatly enthused about the future of Labour, both as an effective opposition and as a future government. David Miliband, in his opening remarks, said that it was now time to move beyond the era of Blair/Brown and this is something that needs to be hammered home – provided that lessons are learned of course.

Something that really set this evening apart from previous debates was a question about the candidate’s regrets. The candidates were asked ‘Which are the three most important issues on which you disagreed with the Government since 1997?’ Quite rightly, Iraq was the most common response. Diane Abott and Ed Miliband are making sure that their opposition to the war is well known, and I think that being able to say that they opposed such a devastating and unpopular war will help avoid future pain on this issue.

I was somewhat disappointed that Ed Balls expressed concern over the ‘loss of trust’ Iraq led to, rather than the loss of life – for both sides. Whilst he is certainly right to make his point, I think perhaps a sense of perspective is needed. In order to go forward, the mistakes of the past must be openly and honestly debated.

Staying with the theme of regrets, Ed Miliband was the only candidate to mention not being tough enough on the banks. I would have hoped that this would be something of a pressing concern for all five candidates, given that the coalition is trying to rebuild the old system as it was, rather than dare try a new model.

I was also impressed with Ed Miliband’s proposals for a high pay commission and his campaign for a living wage; they are both great causes worthy of support and I hope to see them come to fruition soon. With only days before the first budget of Coalition, it is imperative that banking reform is kept at the top of the agenda, and that Labour continues to be the voice of those least able to speak up for themselves.

I felt that the evening gave a good sign of things to come and that regardless of the eventual victor there are some dead certs for Labour’s future. Firstly – electoral reform. All candidates made arguments in favour of the Alternative Vote, as it requires any successful candidate to be elected with a majority of the vote, and it retains the crucial constituency link between voters and MP.

Secondly, there is a lot of support for Harriet Harman’s proposal of appointing women to 50% of shadow cabinet posts. The candidates argued this was needed in order to change the male-centric culture of Westminster, which at present poses a barrier to female entry and success in politics.

For me, the most salient point of the night was made by Andy Burnham, who seemed far less nervous tonight then when I first saw him speak. As the other candidates debated the pros and cons of AV versus PR, votes at 16 and House of Lords reform, Burnham reminded them that to a vast majority of people these issues are simply not the most important right now.

As unemployment is predicted to go up, welfare is reduced and harder to get, and with the government seemingly taking abject glee in watching it all unfold, Andy Burnham has delivered a sobering message to us all. It is imperative that Labour is vocal, organised and united so that it may once again offer an alternative vision – and offer hope – to the people of Britain that Mr Cameron and Clegg’s ‘new politics’ neglects to be concerned for.

Future of Finance Network: From Inception to Action

The last few weeks have been exciting ones for the Future of Finance Network – not only in part due to the election outcome, but also as the Network continues to grow and plan its first events.

There have been a number of discussions on the Network’s forum surrounding the prospects of truly progressive politics in the new coalition government and the social implications of the proposed spending cuts, and the Network’s Steering group has been active in pursuing a number of strategic partnerships and attracting sponsorship for events. The most prominent of these partnerships is with the Labour Finance and Industry Group (LFIG) who are keen to work together on events and promote the aims and influence of both organisations.

Working with the LFIG we will be hosting an Emergency Budget roundtable discussion with the Labour Shadow Treasury Minister immediately after the Budget statement by the Government around the 22nd June. This is intended to be a high level ideologically-friendly briefing on the financial and business implications of the Budget from Network members and LFIG members.

Another upcoming event to look out for is the first of our “Progressive Finance” events that will be held in the middle of July. These events will be an opportunity to look at some of the current and social issues facing the finance industry in an informal setting. Our first will focus on addressing the cultural issues that women face in the City. The event will consist of two speakers on their unique experience of the industry, a Q&A session, and an opportunity to network with like minded people in industry. We are currently in the process of confirming speakers. Despite focus on women, the event is intended to be inclusive and to stimulate the debate needed to tackle some of the wider and persistent cultural issues affect the world of finance and business.

Check out the Network’s website for future discussion posts and updates on our upcoming events. In addition, if you missed the launch, there are a number of video blogs posted to give you a flavour for the topic of debate and what members of the Network think is the “Future of Finance”.

Burnham backs Young Fabian pamphlet at last night’s hustings

Lots of interest in Young Fabian activity plus the signing up of new members at our exhibition stand; a sell-out crowd; and the adoption by one of the Labour leadership candidates of policy from the international chapter of the YF publication, Fast Forward (more of that later), all made for a successful evening.

It was a good hustings – audience members like myself who had been at Saturday’s event in the same venue were treated to some different content as well as some of the same words, ideas and pitches – and in my opinion each of the candidates improved upon Saturday. What was particularly positive was the honest, comradely, and occasionally humourous spirit in which the candidates approached the discussion. Long may that continue.

Amongst the same content as Saturday was a discussion of electoral reform. It’s amusing to see how far this issue appears to have turned around over the course of 2010. From the advocacy of PR (in whatever form) seeming to be a near-consensus of the left just a few months ago, we now find ourselves with all five of our leadership candidates fairly (small c) conservative on the issue and against such a move. I lean towards the argument of one of the contenders that this is not something that most of the country cares deeply and worries about, but from all I have read online this year it seems a clear difference between party membership and leadership. Maybe that’s just because those who favour FPTP or, to a lesser extent, AV, have just been more quiet. I know I have.

There’s a very fine balance to be had with regards to taking on board party members’ views and providing leadership which may differ. It’s a challenge they all face during this campaign and one to watch closely. But it’s also a reason why those candidates advocating and elaborating on the ideal of party reform, in particular around policy formation, will likely win votes.

In terms of new content it was pleasing to see the impact of the conversation that I, and a couple of executive committee colleagues, had with Andy Burnham on Saturday at the Compass conference, when Andy came to say hello at our exhibition stand. Andy left with a copy of Fast Forward, the pamphlet which was a product of 2009′s YF policy forums and tonight backed the call within the edited volume’s foreign policy chapter for an agreed framework for interventionism.

The successor programme of work – the 2010 YF Policy Development Groups – which I am managing, is underway and Young Fabian members are now taking part in meetings to develop new ideas under four themes. Check our website for more, it’s being constantly updated, and I promise to post here again on the groups  soon. It’s not too late to join any of them if you want to play a part and take your ideas to the highest reaches of the party.

Adrian Prandle

Vice Chair, Young Fabians

You can be too nice…

I was a candidate in the General Election and at my first hustings my opponent pulled out my chair for me to sit down. He was simply being polite and it was well meant, but straight away it left me feeling that I was somehow (as I was) being treated differently to the other candidates.

At tonight’s leadership hustings all the candidates went to great lengths to talk about their aspirations to widen the appeal of the Labour Party and in particular get more women involved. They were also super supportive and friendly to Diane, but in doing so somehow singled her out as different, as if she needed that extra bit of support. Now I know that people will respond with comments about nominations (indeed, one of the candidates made the same remark tonight), but regardless of how she got there, Diane is in the contest for Labour leader. She has proved herself more than capable of holding her own in public debates and whilst the older brother routine of her opponents is well meant (and probably unintentional) it risks undermining her contribution.

I realise there is no malice involved, and the other candidates are as well intentioned as my chivalrous Conservative, but if we are going to have a serious discussion about women in the Labour Party and about changing the culture of politics, we need to start with the contest itself.

Stories that speak volumes: Refugee Week 14th – 20th June

“Don’t sit on the sofa. When people sit on the sofa they get red spots on them and they itch too bad. I tell (accommodation provider) but they say it’s my fault because I must not have a dog in the house. I don’t have a dog. I am Muslim I don’t have dogs”

(Beyond Borders, Nottingham’s Refugee Week publication 2010)

Sometimes it’s the simple stories that speak volumes. The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK is an issue I never stop hearing shocking stories about. A quiet man from Congo Brazzaville who had won the respect of his British community through hours of volunteering and kindness, still with torture marks on his body and a judicial review open, forcibly deported with handcuffed hands and feet carried by 4 security guards onto a plane…A Kurdish man from a political family sent back because the area was considered safe with no regard for his family’s background, dead within a month of deportation.The UK’s disrespect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its treatment of asylum seekers has long been spoken of anecdotally.

Last week brought news of ‘special arrangements’ by the Home Office to speed up the deportation of a group of asylum seekers to Iraq. The Guardian (Tuesday 8th June) explained:

‘Government lawyers have warned high court judges that last-minute legal challenges should not be allowed to “disrupt or delay” a deportation flight to Baghdad due to leave Britain early tomorrow…The disclosure of the “special arrangements” around the charter flight to Baghdad sparked strong concern from immigration legal experts, who said that government lawyers were trying to tell high court judges how to do their jobs…
This is the first time the detailed operations of the “special arrangements” surrounding such deportation flights have become public. But the immigration minister, Damian Green, said they were standard procedure and had been used in 16 previous flights to northern Iraq.’

This is what makes me sad. All political parties are guilty. Something is not right. Asylum seekers have the right to a fair process to assess whether they are eligible for refugee status, and most of all they deserve to be treated as human beings. Why does the UK have such a bad record on this?

Gary Young wisely titled an article in the Guardian on 26 April 2010:

‘Yes, we need an honest immigration debate. But this tough talk isn’t it. Racist fear-mongering prevents discussion of the poverty, natural disasters and wars that cause people to emigrate’.

It also encourages intolerance and lack of understanding:

“They (UK Border Agency) don’t have any idea about our background or what circumstances we have been through. For example, they would ask you about when you had to report to the police in your country: “Where is the copy of the statement now?” How can anybody make them understand that in a country in which there is no photocopier in the University how can there be one in a police station? For God’s sake don’t torture those who have already been tortured.”

(Beyond Borders, Nottingham’s Refugee Week publication 2010)

May Refugee Week 2010 be an opportunity of more of us to take a minute to understand a little more about the truth, rather than the myths, surrounding asylum seekers and refugees, and to move as a country towards a better record on this issue.

www.refugeeweek.org.uk
www.refugee-action.org.uk
www.refugeecouncil.org.uk