Let’s ‘AVe more important debates

Am I alone in hoping that the early months of Labour’s new leadership is not dominated by the upcoming referendum on electoral reform?

I don’t agree with much of Anthony Painter’s blog yesterday on this campaign, but I do agree with the comment he supplemented it with which suggested that it’s not going to split the Coalition. I think there’ll be much bigger fracture points both before and after, but more significantly believe that the electoral reform debate threatens to distract from the damage ideological cuts will be making to people’s lives. The new leader, whilst building a fresh and credible policy platform, must focus on what matters. And to the people suffering most from the change in government, the electoral system isn’t going to be top of their lists.

It’s interesting that the centrepiece of Anthony’s post is the case for making the ‘yes’ campaign a ‘no’ campaign on first past the post. It strikes me that this is because there is actually very little to be said in favour of the alternative vote. It isn’t PR, just simply FPTP with the an added platitude. The belief that having the ‘support’ (often by default and through reluctantly reassigned votes) of 50% of those who vote (not 50% of the potential electorate) in a constituency will somehow instantly change politics or MPs’ behaviour is without substance. First it unfairly burdens the majority of parliamentarians with the characteristics of the worst. And second, it assumes that needing a few more votes provides enough of a tipping point to shift the complacency he describes. Why would it?

The big strengths in FPTP are actually best contrasted with PR systems (genuine, effective single member constituencies for the whole of the house; and consequently – particularly with a recall mechanism – real lines of accountability between public and politician) so to say, as Anthony does, that there are only two arguments for FPTP is slightly disingenuous. Of course the contrast for the coming months though is with AV not PR.

The first of Anthony’s two straw men, that FPTP delivers clear outcomes, is, as above, relevant to a comparison with PR more than AV, which would achieve likewise. The second, the propensity of maverick politicians is not necessarily one I’d make.

I would argue, however, that the case for change has to justify the inevitable expense and disruption; the similarities between FPTP and AV are such that this is questionable. There’s not a long list of things ‘wrong’ with AV, 50% is no bad thing – but it’s not the magic bullet its proponents suggest. Rather it is anodyne. But that doesn’t present a strong argument for amending our electoral system.

Anthony omits the simplicity defence of FPTP. I personally think it’s an important one. I don’t for one minute buy the counter-argument that to say other electoral systems are complex is somehow patronising to the public at large and that such views deserve to stay in the Westminster village. Complexity is a genuine concern. As Vice Chair of the Young Fabians I may be said to be part of a Westminster village accused of looking down on the wider population, but my own recent experience is worth highlighting. I am afforded the rare luxury of being an undecided voter in the leadership election. I understand how AV works and am certain to vote. Yet the iterations of how I will vote have been rattling through my head for months now. Do I place 5 ranked votes? Do I just vote for the three I’d be comfortable with as leader? Do I vote my likely second or third preferred leader number one so as to ensure they help take out early another candidate I don’t want to be in the final two or three? Possibilities are endless …

If turnout drops as a result of a change to the electoral system then we’re left with the perversity of MPs being elected with a greater share of the vote (50+%) but, potentially, less actual votes from their constituents. Is that desirable?

Given all the talk of PR in the months leading to the general election, I was interested to see very early on that all five of Labour’s leadership candidates were openly (small c) conservative on electoral reform when not long before it had seemed an unstoppable bandwagon in party circles. I’m not going to be a passionate defender of FPTP, and I would not be unhappy with AV, but I won’t be jumping on the bandwagon of change for change’s sake or as a solution to a problem of which the electoral system was not a cause. I just don’t think it’s where the radical centre-left should be expending its energy.

Strapping kids to a treadmill isn’t the answer

Building on his Health of the Nation post, Young Fabian Tim Nicholls takes another look at the importance of our relationship with food and argues that good habits need to start early.

In a previous post, I talked about the need for radical thinking to tackle increasing rates of obesity in the UK. Though I spoke in more general terms, particular attention needs to be paid to childhood obesity. This builds on the policy ideas in my last post: particularly vital is making good food cost less.

This is for two reasons. Firstly, if children grow up fit and healthy, they’re more likely to stay that way. Secondly, increasing rates of obesity in children are leading to rates of juvenile diabetes and other health conditions that are, in themselves, sufficient cause for action.

But what to do?

A great leap forward was made a couple of years ago. Say what you like about Jamie Oliver, he got school meals on the agenda and budgets were increased. Children were getting healthy food in schools and it was getting results. Already, there is news that this agenda is for the chop.

This would be a colossal mistake by the Government. This is not just because a move away from healthy school dinners will make our children less healthy; it is because the lessons you learn in early life are vital. If we can teach children about food – about what’s good for them and how much better you feel when you eat a balanced diet – half the battle is won.

Free school meals should be universal; ensuring that every child has one solid meal a day.

No school should be without a kitchen. Full stop.

Children should be involved in making dinners: not every day, but enough to give them a proper appreciation of what they are eating. This should not just be a schools agenda: we should be encouraging parents to cook with their children too.

But how do we do that when the work-life balance of many working families is so skewed and healthy food costs more? How does a single mother of three, who is working two jobs manage this? She would have to be Supermum. A living wage, childcare and flexible working should all tie explicitly into this agenda.

The point is that we should not just see child obesity as a health issue. It will not be fixed by strapping a child to a treadmill. To a child, life does not neatly split into home life and school life, it’s just life. A consistent message of healthy living has to span both.

Doing well by doing good: we need more Social Enterprises

As part of the Young Fabian Work and Families Policy Development Group‘s work looking at the future of labour markets, here PDG member Daniel Bamford argues that Social Enterprises present a perfect way of bridging the gap between hardcore capitalist and government provision.

In case you didn’t know, we are in a bit of a financial pickle. Whilst there is a clear and pressing need to continue Labour’s record of investment in public service provision, the coffers are empty. The tax take is down and likely to remain so according to IFS, OBR or any other oracular acronym we care to consult. Traditional methods of public sector procurement look increasingly unaffordable as we head into an austere winter but turning and fleeing nakedly to the markets to provide social goods is clearly not the answer.

Over the past 10 years a hitherto dormant giant has been asleep. Now it seems the Social Enterprise (SE) sector is waking up. The SE sector, broadly defined by a desire for both economic and social returns, encompasses all the space in the spectrum between hardcore capitalist provision and government provision.

The Social Enterprise sector represents a huge opportunity for us to radically and progressively re-shape our public service provision. We can save money, improve service delivery and create new meaningful jobs in an economy that needs an injection of dynamism.

Some Social Enterprises are for-profit and believe you can do well by doing good. Take Innocent Smoothies: responsible sourcing, 10% of their profits go to charity and the company makes money.

Other Social Enterprises are non-profits but may choose to generate significant income to further their social goals. The charity I co-founded, Business Bridge, sees income generation as a more sustainable than grant funding. Any income we earn is ploughed straight into broadening our social impact. We do good by doing well.

The success of organisations such as Cool2Care in child disability caring and Teach First in education show that innovative Social sector organisations deliver results as well as compelling arguments. There are currently more than 55,000 Social Enterprises active in UK. Together, they turn-over over £27bn and employ 5% of our workforce. Social Enterprise already makes a huge contribution to our economy but we really should be asking it to make a much larger one.

Labour’s creation of the Office for the Third Sector in 2006 is one of the prouder achievements of the UK civil society movement in recent years and should have been the start of something big. Unfortunately the Office is no more, only 4 years into its existence the ConDemers have, erm, condemned it.

New Social Sector legal and financial vehicles have led to innovation that should be placed at the heart of UK’s public service provision plans. And it is a shame that, at a time when it would make sense to expand the sector, it now faces a real struggle for survival. During the great recession we have seen that markets can be a force for bad. Now let’s see them unleashed as a force for good. For good.

If you would like to know more, please feel free to read a summary presentation I have recently put together on the third sector.

Daniel works for and co-founded Business Bridge, a charity helping entrepreneurs in South Africa, Ghana, UK and India.

Cutting Housing Benefit is a false economy

Earlier this month, the Young Fabian Work and Families Policy Development Group looked at the issue of housing, here PDG member Catriona Hatton finds that the arguments for and against cutting housing benefit all point towards the need for more housing.

In June George Osborne announced that a new housing benefit cap would be introduced in an attempt to slash the cost of housing benefit, which has risen sharply to £19.6 billion per year from approx £11 billion in 1997. The cap places an upper limit of £400 a week on a four bedroom house and £280 for a two bedroom property in rented private sector.

In favour of the cap, there is a strong argument that leaving housing benefit uncapped increases the housing benefit bill, since landlords effectively set the rate at which the benefit is paid. If Government willingly pays housing benefit at the price set by the market, landlords have incentives to set the rents as high as possible, since raising rents will not affect the tenant’s ability to live there. The result is tax payer’s money going to the benefit of private landlords in the buy-to-let market, an upward pressure on property prices for all, and an ever increasing housing benefit bill.

However the arguments against the cap, in my opinion, far outweigh the arguments for it. The impact of the cap will have devastating consequences for recipients, particularly in London and the South East where in many places it is simply not possible to find quality housing at the rate set by the cap. In addition any future increases in the cap would be linked to consumer price inflation rather than increases in rental prices, reducing the real value of the allowance.

Importantly the social mix of the London would be drastically changed, with thousands of families being forced out of inner London, causing greater disparity in wealth between different parts of London. Overcrowding will occur and new slum areas are likely to develop, resulting in the less well off being geographically cut off from the wealthy in society.

All evidence shows that separation in this way lowers life opportunities, for instance due to inferior access to education and employment opportunities and lack of connections. In addition there would be greater pressure on schools and social services in other areas as a result of a sudden influx and overcrowding.

It is argued that the cap will increase incentives to find work. However this is unfair on recipients who are not able to work such as pensioners, people with serious disabilities, and also on those recipients who are already in work but it is too low paid for them to cover their rent fully.

The root cause of the escalation in the housing benefit bill is the under supply of affordable housing and addressing this would be the most beneficial solution. The priority should be to create more affordable homes through the building of council housing, the expansion of housing association schemes, private investment through subsidies and through the expansion of shared ownership schemes. Only when the supply of affordable homes is increased will it be unnecessary for the tax payer to subsidise high private sector rent. Unfortunately the cap will only serve to worsen the problem as waiting lists for council housing and housing association homes lengthen, and ultimately it will push people into poverty.

The health of the nation

In this guest post Young Fabian Tim Nicholls looks at the issue of long-term challenge of obesity and asks how can we be radical but still sensitive on such a touchy and personal issue?

Last week, Anne Milton caused, in her own inimitable fashion, an all-too-minor stir when she suggested that overweight people should be called “fat” in order to motivate them to lose weight.

To say that obesity is a public health timebomb is axiomatic. Comparatively low food prices and increasingly sedentary lifestyles have caused our waistbands to expand. We’re getting bigger and our children are too. But it occurs to me that name-calling is not the best way to lessen our collective mass. It deserves more time and more debate.

Getting people to eat more healthily and exercise more (the one consistently proven weight-loss technique) requires a cultural shift on a daunting scale, but it also requires a proper understanding of the causes. The truth is that most people aren’t overweight because they want to be. Constraints on our time and our purses can make healthy living incredibly hard.

This requires much more than name-calling. In fact, in a society where the stick-thin are celebrated, to stigmatise being overweight is likely to have an anti-motivational effect. Furthermore, I don’t understand how the Right could accuse the last Government of making children too body-conscious, but stigmatise being overweight in a way that will clearly filter through to kids.

Change 4 Life, though much criticised, was a good programme that promoted healthy living in small – if you’ll forgive the pun – bite-sized chunks. But I think we have to go further; be more radical. Councils ban junk food shops near schools, but how do we get kids to not want to go to the chippy on the way home? Nutritional information covers our food packets, but how do we make sure this is understandable?

We have to look at all the behaviour that needs to change and we need to approach this from both the supply- and demand-sides. One of the ideas that interests me the most is to place an extra tax on junk/unhealthy food, in order to subsidise healthy food. The truth is that it is expensive to eat healthily. Subsidies would lower prices for consumers, but they will also force producers to change their behaviour. As prices for healthy food fall, demand will increase, with correlating calls for supply. In short, Burger King would move to selling healthy food.

Is this perfect? No. Is it complete? Clearly not. But the obesity epidemic in this country demands revolutionary and proactive solutions.

Public understanding is also key: we’ve got to move beyond “if you eat chocolate you’ll get fat”, because it’s not true and living without any chocolate would not, let’s face it, be much fun. Simple signs, like the traffic light system identify healthier food. But there is not yet a similar system for judging portion size.

It also demands wider thinking: this is not just a discussion about food. It’s about PE and health education in schools; strong and active family units; a living wage; greater corporate responsibility; tackling excessive alcohol consumption; and a better balance between work and family life.

Over the next few weeks, I’m going to try to unpack some of these issues but what do people think about the issue?…

We must stand by our NHS

In this guest post, Young Fabian member Martin Edobor argues that we might fight the proposed changes to the structure of NHS service provision in the UK, or risk undoing many of the improvements Labour achieved in its time in government.

Upon reading the Coalition Government’s NHS white paper, I was both shocked and dismayed with their plans to restructure the NHS. The proposals are likely reverse the progress that has been made under Labour, where the NHS delivered a new level of health and equality to the people of Britain.

One of the major proposed changes is to give GPs the power to commission the vast majority of health services for patients, which would result in the closure of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) – the bodies currently tasked with commissioning healthcare from NHS providers. At this moment in time a reorganisation would be the wrong direction to take; in this period of financial uncertainty, the NHS requires stability.

Michael Dixon, Chair of the NHS Alliance, has argued that only 5% of GPs are ready to take over commissioning. While the chief executive of the NHS, Sir David Nicholson, has suggested that the quality of current GP practice-based commissioners isn’t at the level which would be required to transfer commissioning to them under the proposed timetable. At this moment in time, most GPs are simply not prepared nor ready to commission services for their communities. By pushing forward with this reform, the Coalition Government are placing the quality of GP services at risk.

Another major announcement is the increase in patient choice of providers, but this is likely to lead to privatisation by the back door. Allowing private firms greater opportunities to win NHS contracts may result in a two tier system, where those with money will be able to receive better care than those without.

Edward Davies, editor of BMJ Career Focus, claims that the white paper was ‘expected and little more than a logical continuation of 13 years work from the previous government’. He couldn’t be more wrong: the British public did not vote for a re-organisation or privatisation of the NHS. For that reason we must do all we can to oppose this white paper, in order to maintain the quality of the service the NHS provides.

Are the leadership candidates being asked the right questions?

Yesterday’s Times leader (I would provide the link, but it’s inconveniently placed behind the Times’ paywall) sets out an interesting problem for the five Labour leadership candidates.  Despite months spent answering questions, the paper’s view is that it counts for nothing as they aren’t being asked the right questions. After over fifty hustings across the country that is quite a disappointing prognosis.

Is the plethora of husting events producing better questioning of the candidates? If the Party had to do it over again then I think there would be a serious rethink of the hustings calendar. Regional and local Labour parties, socialist societies, unions and other groups forming part of the all important ‘Labour family’ eagerly grabbed their own personal opportunity to quiz the candidates. (Sympathies go out to the campaigns’ diary secretaries!) But the result has been near identical Q&A sessions being asked up and down the country.

My colleague David Chaplin had a point in suggesting that hustings could have been better orgainsed around distinct policy lines. The likely bun fight between areas wanting to hust the candidates on particular policy areas would have been an issue, but it would have helpfully broadened out the questioning and focused on policy.

A good idea has been to encourage like minded groups to come together to do joint hustings (like the joint Young Fabians/LCID/SERA/Co-Op Youth hustings on Labour in the World). Similarly we’ve been organising webchats with individual leadership candidates, to give Young Fabians across the country a chance to put their all-important question direct to each candidate, no matter what the topic (you can join with the the first is tomorrow with Ed Miliband at 12.30pm here).

Still, we need to focus on the right questions being asked. Everyone will have their view; my three all important questions which the next leader of the Labour Party needs perfect answers for are:

1)    What will be your immediate priorities be post this long leadership contest: The Coalition have managed to grab a 100 days of government free from any meaningful opposition. What will you spend your first 100 days focusing on?

2)    How will you unify the party and more importantly the Shadow Cabinet: Alistair Campbell’s diaries continually point to disunity at the top of the Party threatening to hamper a return to power – how will you stop this happening again?

3)    How are you going to attract the broadest support amongst the voting public: Both the left and the right of the Party argue that Labour lost the support of respective left/right sections of the public. How are you going to deal with that situation?

You can join our lunchtime webchat with Ed Miliband tomorrow , 12.30pm, here. You can also submit a question in advance by emailing me at vrampulla@youngfabians.org.uk.

The Diploma debacle

The September of 2008 was witness to a quiet revolution in British education. That month, the Diploma was launched, with the promise to offer “14 to 19 year olds practical, hands-on experience as well as classroom learning…designed to help young people develop the knowledge and skills employers and universities want”. These new semi-vocational, semi-academic qualifications were intended to challenge the virtual monopoly orthodox academic qualifications held over secondary education, and perhaps even eventually replace them as the qualification of choice among students nationwide. However, the promised revolution has not materialised. So, what went wrong? And how can the Diploma be made to work?

This is a real tragedy as Diplomas have the potential to remedy our outmoded qualifications system. The Tomlinson Report, published in 2004, announced that A levels lacked breadth and challenge, and proposed the introduction of an all-inclusive vocational and academic qualification, such as the Diploma, to combat their narrow focus. The education establishment’s adherence to the “safe” duo of the GCSE and A Level has, however, yet to be seriously challenged by the different conception of the Diploma that the Labour government introduced.

The Diploma has the potential to play a role in tackling the rising number of “NEETs” (young people Not in Education, Employment or Training) which reached one million for the first time last year, while a recent report revealed that Britain “ranked 25th out of 27 OECD countries in the proportion of 15-19 year olds in education”. Such figures are a source of national embarrassment, but also entail material costs. A report by the Prince’s Trust in 2007 signalled that NEETs “costs the economy upwards of £90m per week”- a financial expense incurred in the present to challenge the social expense faced in the future.

The means to transform the Diploma into a more effective qualification rest in the government’s hands.

Firstly, it can ensure that the Diploma is granted equal status with A Levels and GCSEs by universities. Time and again, the most prestigious universities have wilfully ignored the “tariff” that standardises qualifications for university entry, admitting students with academic qualifications in preference to those with vocational equivalents. It is the duty of the government to make such institutions play fair.

Secondly, the government should review the structure of the course to make the Diploma both simpler, and more cost effective. A report published last December by Kathleen Tattersall, head of England’s exams regulator Ofqual, suggested that “simplification” would make the Diploma more attractive to a larger number of schools and students.

Sadly, the government’s position on the Diploma remains ambiguous at best. In June, it pulled the plug on the Diplomas in humanities, language and science due to be launched next September. In July, the right of students to enrol in all the established Diploma courses was abolished along with the Extended Diploma – a prospective addition to the programme worth 4.5 A Levels. Nick Gibb said that students should “be able to sit the qualification that is right for them” and not “be told by government what they can and cannot take.” Under the guise of student choice, he has actually reduced young people’s options by abolishing their entitlement and reducing the range available.

#kenwasthen … Labour or London?

It’s interesting that the contest between Oona King and Ken Livingstone has failed to attract significant national media attention, or a huge amount of engagement from Labour Party members. Labour is often accused of being too London-centric, and some of the leadership candidates have certainly gone out of their way to promote their regional roots and focus.

But while we have surely all made up our minds by now about who we are going to vote for as our new leader?! I don’t witness the same level of debate about which Labour candidate we want to challenge Boris Johnson to be the most powerful directly elected politician in the country.

Perhaps this is because Labour supporters don’t think we can beat Boris? Or perhaps its because we are a bit tired of these nomination processes now and if we are going to go to the effort to go to a hustings, its going to be for the Party Leadership and that’s about it?

But while the Leadership contest is about the future of Labour and how we will challenge and hold the new coalition Government to account, the Mayoral nomination race is surely about the future of London, and nothing is more exciting to me at this time than that.

I’ve lived in London all my life, and I think Labour in London has always been weaker than it should be. We have had and still do have, a huge wealth of hard-working London Labour MPs, activists with huge amounts of experience and knowledge, and a structure of local and devolved government which allows for our councils, and our Mayor to have a real impact on the lives of Londoners and make our city a better place to live.

For me, its a shame that Ken has thrown himself back into the race this time. I think if he had said that he wasn’t standing then we would have seen some of his supporters throwing themselves forward, such as David Lammy.

Ken should have recognised that it was time for the next generation to take on the challenge on re-engaging with Londoners, and what a great nomination race it would have been if Lammy and Oona has both been vying for our votes. Labour could have showcased its diversity and talent in London at a time when the Party is desperately looking for experienced and engaging personalities to re-connect with voters.

As we get closer to the nomination of our candidate for Mayor (it will be announced in London on the day before Party Conference) I hope that London members will get more engaged in the debate, and will see that Labour has to re-energise itself in London with a new and vibrant candidate before we have any chance of taking on Boris Johnson in 2012. In my opinion, there is only one candidate who can do that.

What are your views? Email me.

David.

David Chaplin
Chair, Young Fabians
dchaplin@youngfabians.org.uk