How the UK can fulfil its potential in the creative industries

In this member post, Young Fabian member Kieron O’Connell summarises the debate at our creative industries event earlier this month and argues that policy makers should recognise better the heterogeneous nature of the creative industries.

On Tuesday 14 June a group of Young Fabians gathered to hear Shadow Culture Secretary, Ivan Lewis MP, outline his approach to the creative industries policy review.

We were told that the creative industries account for 5.6% of gross value added (“GVA”), provide 2.3 million jobs, make up 8.7% of all UK enterprises and raise £17.8 billion in exports (at the last count in 2008). Mr Lewis sees great potential here: the creative industries can be reasonably expected to reduce the deficit and promote social mobility, with the right incentives.

What do the captains of creative industry think of this? Brian Message of the Music Managers Forum told us that music managers are forced to seek foreign investment to fund their bands’ activities. Music is regarded as too risky a business for British banks. Vincent Scheurer of Sarassin LLP told us that the UK’s (highly respected) video game designers are being lured to Canada by a particularly attractive tax regime. It would seem that many of the world’s economies see the creative industries as a viable option for growth, too.

The current approach to the creative industries does not work as well as it could. We must examine how to sustain growth in the creative industries, something Mr Lewis is starting to do. For a start we should adopt a much less vague approach.

As catchy as the term ‘creative industries’ is, it does not allow for sufficient distinction to be made between creative sectors. This prevents proper targeting of policy. Labour must consider the potential of each sector and direct investment accordingly.

Will the performing arts industry provide more jobs than the games industry? Could the publishing industry produce more exports than film and television? It may seem crude to think along such basic lines but this must be done to prevent generalised policies that would hamper the industry further. The problems raised by Mr Message and Mr Scheurer cannot be successfully addressed by anything short of carefully targeted state intervention.

A failure to address generalisation could prevent the creative industries from enabling social mobility. Clustered policy has led to intense geographic clustering. The Conservatives’ East London Tech City is the result of this approach. While the profile given to the initiative is highly worthy of applause, it encourages the view that the creative industries are one single industry and should be based in one part of the country.

This has an immediate effect on social mobility. A generation of creative students who are unable to relocate risk missing out on apprenticeships, internships and, ultimately, the jobs they want. Can our creative industries go if creatives cannot participate? A more sensible approach to the creative industries would involve incentivising creative networks to form across the UK’s major cities, thereby opening access to all. Viewing the creative industries as a single entity will prevent this.

I am confident Mr Lewis recognises these concerns. If the creative industries are to develop into exceptional economic performers and catalysts of social mobility then each sector must be carefully examined, its strengths and weaknesses assessed and policy set accordingly.

Some questions for “Next Generation Labour”

Next Generation Labour launched today, founded by several former Compass Youth Committee members. I can’t speak for the rest of the Young Fabian Executive, but to my mind there is plenty of space on the left for a plurality of ideas, perspectives, and youth organisations.* To that extent, the launch should be welcomed.

But reading their founding statement, I was left with some questions which I think Next Generation Labour’s founders should take seriously.

The founding statement says:

“…for so many of our generation, Labour became a party of the establishment. It failed to ensure growth was shared fairly enough – whilst the very wealthiest got ever richer; it raised tuition fees, pursued war, attacked civil liberties and let immigration be demonised.

To win, Labour must be willing to articulate a modern left politics and reconnect with the coalition of supporters it lost and the vast majority opposed to the Tories’ reactionary agenda.”

I’m not sure I fully agree.

If the electorate were really concerned about the ‘problems’ of Labour in government – rich getting richer, rises in tuition fees, a government pursuing war, letting immigration be demonised – then why did the Tories win a majority of the votes, and the chance to form a Coalition government who have gone on to do exactly those things?

Will Labour win the next general election solely by appealing to those opposed to the Tories? This seems unlikely to me – any general election victory will have to be built on winning over some people who supported the Conservatives at the last election. Surely these form part of the “coalition of supporters [Labour] lost”, too?

Moreover, are there enough people opposed to the Conservatives who will vote for a change in government at the next election? How might Coalition politics affect that?

Isn’t being seen as the establishment inevitable if you become a party of government? Aren’t constraints the inevitable trade-off in return for the ability to effect change as a governing party?

Is this founding statement therefore just an opposition’s charter?

My main concern is that the genuine desire on the left to “articulate a modern left politics” – shared by more than just “Next Generation Labour”, incidentally – could be the exact opposite of “reconnecting with the coalition of supporters [Labour] lost”.

Yes, Labour needs principles on which to hang any policies it puts forward at the next election (and in the intervening period). But those principles need to recognise the cold electoral facts the party faces.

Hoping that principle alone carries Ed Miliband through the door at Number 10 in four years time is wishful thinking. Establishing a new vision for the left on ground unappealing the broader electorate will likely only result in failure, however noble that vision is to the left.

It’s probably a dangerous game to quote Tony Blair, but seeing as he is the only Labour leader to have won a general election in the last 30 years, I’ll take my chances. Blair once said: “Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile.”

That, in essence, sums up the challenge Next Generation Labour – and the rest of us – face in the coming months and years: balancing our core beliefs and principles against the shifting sands of public opinion.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

*Our own Caroline Alabi is part of the founding group of Next Generation Labour.

Politicians and sex

What can behavioural economics tell us about political sex scandals? More than you might think.

I’m currently reading Dan Ariely’s excellent book Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. In one chapter, Ariely describes a study he undertook in 2006 which tested whether periods of sexual arousal altered responses to some questions about sex.

In short, they did.

For the study, Ariely got a number of young college men to answer a series of questions relating to sex. He then repeated the task but asked the students to ‘stimulate’ themselves while answering the questions. There were statistically significant differences in the way most questions were answered between the two states. For example: “Is a woman sexy when she is sweating?”  saw an increase in positive responses; so did “Can you imagine getting sexually excited by contact with an animal?”, “Would you slip a woman a drug to increase the chance she would have sex with you?” and “Would it be fun to get tied up by your sexual partner?” ; “Would you use a condom even if you were afraid that a woman might change her mind while you went to get it?” saw a decrease.

Ariely concludes:

Our results on attractiveness of activities suggest that sexual arousal acts as an amplifier of sorts. Activities that are not perceived as arousing when young males are not sexually aroused become sexually charged and attractive when they are, and those activities that are attractive even when not aroused, become more attractive under the influence of arousal. By showing that, when aroused, the same individual will find a much wider range of activities sexually appealing than when not aroused, these findings weigh in against the view of sexual preferences as being purely an individual difference variable—i.e., as dispositionally rather than situationally determined. Certainly, there are robust individual differences in sexual preferences and in the likelihood of engaging in various behaviors…

So what’s the link to political sex scandals?

The research seems to provide a rebuttal to the oft-used argument that exposing political sex scandals is most justified where hypocrisy has been committed (for example, the ‘family’ politician engaging in extra-marital affairs).

The research implies politicians are actually incapable of providing honest answers about sexual predilections when not aroused, compared to a state of arousal. So maybe we should be more forgiving of differences between publicly stated beliefs (when not aroused) and actual behaviour (when aroused)?

Equally, the research provides a strong argument for politicians to try and avoid making statements which might lead to hypocrisy. If they cannot accurately describe their beliefs when not aroused, they should simply avoid doing so.

Westminster has a lot to learn from Michelle Obama

In her latest YF Women Perspective column, Young Fabian Membership Ambassador Anna Bage reflects on Michelle Obama’s visit to the UK.

During Barack Obama’s state visit to the UK last week, the focus was on Anglo-American relations and the furthering of the ‘special/essential relationship’ between America and the UK.

In the same week, Michelle Obama visited the University of Oxford, addressing the girls of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School. Using her own background as a starting point, she outlined what she believed to be the key to accomplishment.

“Success,” she stated, “is not about the background you’re from…it’s about the confidence you have and the effort you’re willing to invest.”

In a motivating speech, Michelle outlined that regardless of background, experience or ability, having the confidence in your own ideas and striving for achievement was the way in which young women could progress, without limits, into whatever career paths they choose.

At the Fabian Women’s mentoring scheme on Monday 23 May, Ed Miliband took the same stance as the First Lady on the aspirations and opportunities for young women that the Labour party can endeavour to provide. Although it has a record on gender equality that surpasses that of both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, he argued, the Labour party still has a long way to go in promoting equality and fairness for its female members.

Much like Michelle Obama, Miliband recognised the potential of success that young women could make the most of, if given the support and confidence.

It is not only this, though, that would improve the way in which the political machine of Westminster operated. It seems evident that with more women in politics, ideas would evolve differently, with varying outcomes driven by diverse reasoning.

As Catherine Macleod, former Special Advisor to Alasdair Darling, said at the same event: not only do women have to work harder than men in the political sphere to get what they want, but they have to work harder in creating opportunities for themselves as well.

When Michelle Obama told the young women of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School that they could work hard and achieve whatever they wanted, wherever they were from, she played upon her own background as an example of hard graft overcoming a disadvantaged start in life. She reminded them that neither of her parents had attended University, and that she herself grew up in a poor and underprivileged part of Chicago.

It’s clearly important to improve diversity in Westminster by increasing the number of women. What’s equally important though, and what Michelle Obama highlighted in Oxford and Ed Miliband at the Fabian Women’s Mentoring Scheme, is that Westminster needs to become a better representation of society as a whole.

The Obama, ‘whatever your background’ motif, doesn’t yet ring true of Westminster: as well as being unrepresentative of gender, it fails to deliver on providing a variety of people from different social backgrounds. Providing opportunities for women outside of the Westminster bubble is essential. Those who have taken a less traditional route in education, perhaps, or whose degree status doesn’t reflect an obvious interest in politics can surely only contribute to the diversification of the House of Commons.

This in turn could improve policy.

By actively encouraging such diversity, and by taking a lead from Michelle Obama’s motivating speech, the Labour Party could find itself providing a strong model which all those in the political arena should aspire to.

Why Labour’s economic narrative needs to change

In this member post, Young Fabian member Max Krahé argues that Labour should own up to its economic mistakes, or risk losing the argument at the next general election.

In order to win the next general election, Labour must grapple honestly with its economic past. It should highlight its mistakes, and not overstate its achievements. Labour has everything to win from admitting mistakes, and everything to lose from denying them.

This article is not about actual economic analysis and will not dissect Labour’s economic record. It is about taking a step back and looking at narratives that can credibly be constructed. It is concerned with the image of Labour’s economic management, not with the actual record.

Labour got a lot of economic decisions right in government. But attempting to tell a story about ‘Labour’s decade of economic golden years’ is foolish: in the midst of the largest recession since 1929, a narrative of success is unlikely to wash.

The recession started under Labour, and in a sector closely associated with the Labour boom. People who have lost jobs, seen their savings wiped out, or find themselves in negative equity do not care if inflation was under control for the last 10 years. Labour’s economic successes are too far removed from most people’s day to day experience.

Negative stories on the other hand, including of course the Tory ‘deficit denier’ narrative, fall on fertile ground: they effectively exploit a gulf between positive Labour statements, e.g. ‘look at how well we managed the economy’, and people’s daily lives.

As a simplistic positive narrative about the economy is not viable (nor indeed true), what should Labour’s message be? A simple story might be this: Yes, debt was on the high side, and not every pound spent was spent wisely. The deficit was structural.

Nostra culpa, nostra maxima culpa*.

It’s not a line that should be used unprovoked, but could form part of any response to the next round of deficit denial and ‘Labour mess’ allegations.

How might it play out? By accepting the Conservative’s accusations we end the argument about national debt levels, and vacate ground on which the Conservatives are winning. Reducing debt levels is generally perceived as a good thing (as distinct from the narrative of ‘cuts and austerity’). So let’s not talk about debt.

Of course, the Conservatives may continue to attack ‘Labour’s high deficit’. So much the better: criticising a previous government’s policy would make the Conservatives look like an opposition party, undermining claims of being forward-looking and concerned with growth and the future of this country. It would lend support to our rival narrative of the ‘no-vision austerity Tories’.

Compare this with a continued defence of the deficit. In the short term Labour risks looking like a sore loser, and the deficit denier story may sink in for good (dishonesty is probably more damaging than excessive spending).

Even if the Tories eventually stop making ‘deficit denier’ accusations, this would merely freeze the debate. At the next general election expect the Tories to wheel out the same accusations: Labour cannot be trusted on the economy, they are still deficit deniers etc etc. Unless a credible counter-narrative has been established in the meantime, these statements will fall on fertile ground.

So if we don’t settle this debate now, we risk being branded (successfully) as economically incompetent at the next general election. Or we admit to our mistakes at a later time, taking the inevitable hit in the polls closer to the election.

The time to own up is now.

We should not be afraid of buying into the Tory story of the ‘Labour mess’. This will settle the issue, neutralise one of the more potent rhetorical weapons in the Conservative armoury, and will do so with plenty of time to spare before the next elections.

If we do not own up to our mistakes now, we leave ourselves open to Conservative attacks. And doubts about Labour’s competence on the economy are likely to re-surface at rather inconvenient times.

*Admitting to leaving behind a bit of a mess shouldn’t taint Labour as economically incompetent, if managed well. In owning up to the ‘Labour mess’, we regain the credibility needed to argue that 2008 was 1929 but 2009 was not 1930. Yes, debt may have been on the high side, but let’s not miss the wood for all the trees: Labour has prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector; Labour has saved the country from the brink of an economic depression. Maybe it’s ok if we didn’t leave the kitchen spotless in the process?

Rihanna is a lovely lass but I wish she would put her flower away

Earlier this week, pop-star Rihanna was defiant over her latest music video in which she shoots someone who raped her. US parent groups were up in arms at the message that sent to the nation’s children.

Those who bought the album (who does that these days?) to find out more will have been shocked: the sleeve depicts Rhianna’s crotch on full unclothed display save for a strategically positioned rose*.

Meanwhile on our side of the pond, today will see the publication of the Department of Education’s report into the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood. Written by Reg Bailey, CEO of the Mother’s Union, leaks suggest its headline suggestion will be the introduction of film-style age ratings for music videos.

As suggestive content continues its migration from the top shelf to day-time TV and mobile devices, this is a welcome recommendation.

Sex surrounds children and pressurises parents. Popping out to buy a teddy bear vest, a mother may well find the item displayed next to honey-I-shrunk-the-adult mini-bras, lacy camisoles, hotpants and mini-skirts. If it’s football season, you’ll probably find “Future Wag” and “Marry me, Mr Giggs” tops on discount. FCUK, Top Shop and Next have both been criticised for selling such items; only concerted parental activism has tempered their marketing efforts.

I’m not one myself but I know many parents who are deeply uncomfortable with what their young children are exposed to. They don’t like the clobber on retailers’ shelves, the raunchiness of the X-factor or Bratz dolls equipped with the latest makeup compact and accompanying air of moral flexibility. They are up for protecting their children from certain of society’s modern influences, a bit of cotton wool is their request.

At first glance, this seems an odd argument for a young progressive to be backing: all a bit retired Colonel, a bit Midsommer Murders, a bit… Daily Mail. But it’s not, and here’s why.

As progressives that place communities and healthy social relationships at the core of our politics, we need to fight forces that either seek to undermine those values or do so inadvertently. The sexualisation of music videos is in the second category.

Reg Bailey has been a tireless campaigner against premature sexualisation. His report will tighten regulations on sexualised music videos and provide a single portal for parents to complain about products that are inappropriate for children. Mr Bailey is expected to recommend that the retail, advertising and video industries get 18 months to clean up their acts or face tougher regulation.

Compared with times prior to the new media revolution, today’s children have less room to develop independent from media influences. They are increasingly squeezed by an ever increasing array of media sources and devices. Music heavily influences childhood. Looking at their role-models, it is no wonder that so many young teenagers choose paths that ruin their futures.

Lads flick on MTV and are entranced by the lifestyle of rappers who glorify violence and drugs; girls see a strong correlation between success and size 6 thighs.

It is not hard to see why teenagers, who feel they have few other options, opt to dedicate their teenage years to becoming the next member of So Solid Crew or the next Lady Gaga.

A female teacher friend of mine recently described how it was standard amongst the Sixth Form girls at her school to have a “boopsie“, a boy whom they are not in a relationship with but that will give them money. For what, exactly, is hard to pin down but it is unlikely to be a frank exchange of views.

My friend thought this was nuts. It is nuts. But these girls didn’t think so. They were shocked that ‘miss’ didn’t have a similar arrangement. For teenagers both female and male such commodotisation of relationships between the sexes is common. They have become normalised to it. It is what they expect.

Is it any surprise then that by the time they are teenagers, 900,000 girls in this country have feelings of worthlessness and depression, according to a recent Demos report.

None of these girls really chose “boopsie”: it is a norm created by their cultural influences. In this case, the school was in South London, the predominant musical influences from the West-Indian Raga and Dancehall scenes with their screamingly misogynistic lyrics. As the Sugar Spice n Things Not Nice blog points out:

While an example of this is easy to find in almost every dancehall song whether it is popular or not, Vybz Kartel’s latest single called “Tun Up The Fuck” (Turn up the Fuck). Here the lyrics consist of him saying “Ayy yuh tight pum pum gal, Mi love when yuh skin out fi mi fuck yuh” (Hey you tight p*ssy girl, I love when you spread it out for me to f*ck you).

The rest of the song consists of him bragging about his sexual stamina (without the use of viagra) and the ways in which he plans to make her orgasm.

Closer to home, the streets of London have produced the much acclaimed soul/ hip-hop artist Plan B. Whilst now more commercial and mainstream, his 2006 album contained songs told from the perspective of murderers, rapists and other violent agents. Citing European film, Plan B argues that he should be treated in the same way as film directors and writers: as a storyteller and narrator of disturbing events, not as a glamourising confessor.

His point is valid: talking is not the same as doing. His artistic right of expression needs to be balanced against the rights of parents to protect their children when they are young and vulnerable.

So, where to draw the line?

The Rolling Stones’ song, Brown Sugar, is a national treasure. X Factor contestants and soft drink advertisers fall over themselves to use it. But the song is also a narrative of a slave owner’s pleasure at raping and beating his black female slave. A sensible combination of softly-softly legislation in the form of age ratings for music videos couple with a strong incentive for the media to self-regulate is a good start**.

Society has a responsibility to collectively protect our children and allow them to develop relationships with each other based on mutual respect and an understanding of one another’s worth. Such judgements take a whole childhood and adolescence to form and we need to shield children from influences that push them in the direction of objectifying and commoditising other members of their communities.

Daniel Bamford is Young Fabian Networks Officer.

*I’ve not been able to contact Rihanna’s office for comment but if she’s interested I would happily discuss this article with her over a bottle of wine. I would tell her that she’s gob-smackingly talented enough not to need to go down the crotch/ rose route. If she still doesn’t want to lose the rose, like Robbie and Kylie, she should not mind doing it for the kids.

** Good next steps will likely come out of the Young Fabian’s Communities Policy Commission.