The Myth of the Military

This year, the traditional race for Christmas Number 1 produced an unusual winner- ‘Wherever You Are’ by the Military Wives’ Choir.

The chart-topping success of this makeshift group did not come as a big surprise to most pundits. A stirring, if sentimental, ballad, ‘Wherever You Are’ was composed by the real life partners of British soldiers on active duty, under the guiding hand of BBC’s choral whizzkid Gareth Malone.

Some of the proceeds of each sale go to the Royal British Legion and Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen Families Association. In addition, the track provides the everyman with the opportunity to demonstrate solidarity with British fighting men and women overseas and their partners- at a time of year when their separation must feel that bit more painful. At £1.99, many patriotic Britons would regard it as an insult if not every man, woman and child bought a copy.

There is certainly something noble about raising awareness of military families in Britain today. The unusual strains placed on the partners and children of soldiers on active duty cannot be properly understood by the rest of us, and it will be interesting to watch how the government responds to this popular outpouring of support in the new year.

However, this campaign brings into focus a broader development that has less benevolent social consequences. I am talking about the mythologizing of the British Armed Forces.

Nation-states have always been proud of their military heritage, and Britain can boast one of the most historically successful armed forces of all time. Martial pride often goes hand in hand with patriotic fervour, but in this latter respect Britons express conflicting views. We are not all the flag-waving, anthem-singing brand of patriots so prevalent in America. Yet those who admit to being ashamed of our country’s actions throughout history, and uneasy about our role in the modern world, are still shouted down on the comment pages of newspapers and television talk shows. A survey by Demos revealed that 79% of respondents stated they were proud to be British citizens, and that over 50% of English people, 55% of Welsh and 46% of Scottish are proud of Britain’s role in the world.

Pride in one’s country is no bad thing in itself, but it can distort perceptions of right and wrong when a nation is at war. Before the first shots are fired, commentators and armchair analysts have free rein to denounce and decry its government’s decision to go to war, but once British citizens are put in harms’ way, a sort of populist patriotism demands that critics put up or shut up.

The media tapped into this culture during the 1980s. Richard Vinen notes that it was during the Falklands War that The Sun came out as ‘the paper that supports our boys’. Today, the same paper holds the annual ‘Military Awards’, where celebrities and figures from popular culture present trophies for various battlefield exploits to soldiers who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Glamorising the very serious jobs performed by servicepersons, and their violent actions in the field, seems at odds with the desire to promote peace over war. One prize- the ‘True Grit Award’ was given to one soldier “for heroically jumping from his tank and tackling a Taliban fighter.” The focus of the ‘Millies’ seems very much on incidences of individual exploit rather than on the wider context of the conflict. It takes recognition of actions beyond the call of duty up to the level of hero-worship, at which point those who buy into this myth begin to forget the reasons why servicepersons are sent into harm’s way in the first place- to promote national security.

As Simon Jenkins rightly points out, none of the foreign interventions British governments have embroiled themselves in the last ten years have had a direct bearing on our national security. Those who pedal populist patriotism are fond of saying “our boys are fighting for our country” but rarely ask why they are fighting for their country or whether their actions are making Britain more or less safe. The terrorist attacks of 7 July 2005 are a terrifying example of how conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country less safe. If the popular media continues to glamorise the work of soldiers with events like the ‘Millies’, or smother the debate on ‘just war’ with romantic sentiment- as in ‘Wherever You Are’- we may cease to ask these burning questions altogether.

Louie Woodall is a member of the Young Fabians and Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Sadiq Khan focuses on victims but offenders also need to be high on the agenda

Georgia Hussey offers her views on the latest Fabian pamphlet launch.

Speaking at the launch of the Fabian Society’s ‘Punishment and Reform’ report, Sadiq Khan emphasised the need to put victims at the heart of the justice system. Khan has stressed the need to reshape the way victims are involved in the justice process, calling for a “significant shift in attitudes to and treatment of victims”.

Victim support is an area the Government appear to be falling behind on; discussing his victim support package in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Ken Clarke’s mention of victims of terrorism sparked criticism from Sadiq Khan. The Shadow Justice Secretary said that “after more than a year of delay, victims of overseas terrorism are still waiting for the compensation promised by this Government”.

But dealing with offenders should be key in any criminal justice policy, and the report, which hopes to inform the conclusions of the Labour Party’s policy review, showed a heavy focus on preventing people becoming offenders and re-offenders.

Barry Mizen’s presence at the launch steered the debate away from Khan’s focus on victims. Mizen, whose son was murdered in 2008, brought first-hand experience of how victims are involved in the justice system. However, as Mary Riddell, the chair of the debate, pointed out, Barry Mizen is not the ‘typical’ passive victim. He and his wife Margaret set up the Jimmy Mizen Foundation after their son’s death, which has helped many young people take on a positive role in their community. This kind of approach, he said, helps them become “responsible citizens in their communities”. As he writes in his chapter of the pamphlet, “getting justice for Jimmy was not just about punishment for his killer, it was about finding and exposing the truth of what happened to our son. What can we do to ensure young people don’t resort to violence against each other?”. His presence steered the discussion towards prevention, and supporting young people who might otherwise become offenders.

Adding another important voice to the ‘Punishment and Reform’ report was Baroness Jean Corston, who focused on female offenders in her contribution to the pamphlet. She noted that only 3.2% of women in prison are considered a ‘danger to the public’, but over 75% exhibit some kind of psychological disturbance. With an overwhelming majority of offenders being male, women are often overlooked in criminal justice policy. But these figures clearly show that many of the women in prison are “troubled rather than troublesome”. Any new criminal justice policy should incorporate ways to tackle this issue, and Cortson stresses the importance of giving those women an alternative to offending and reoffending. Early diversion into the mental health system instead of the prison system is key, and crucial support from women’s centres will help them get support, qualifications and skills that aren’t otherwise available to them.

Sadiq Khan’s call for a change in how the criminal justice system treats victims is a clear way to improve the system for the people in it, at little cost. However the debate must always centre on the offenders and on prevention. Greater support for victims cannot encroach on a commitment to eradicating a need for victim support; we need to work towards a society where there are no victims. Getting people more involved in their community, whether in a women’s centre or on youth projects, is a proven way to prevent people becoming offenders. Barry Mizen wrote that “trying to foster more civility and humanity in all aspects of life – from schools, to the streets, to prisons – is the only way to counter the incivility and violence”. This aim should not be forgotten.

Georgia Hussey is an intern at the Fabian Society.

‘In the Black Labour’: A roadmap to defeat?

Louie Woodall responds to Stephen Boyle’s argument for a new economic strategy based on ‘fiscal conservatism’.

The question absorbing Labour leaders, activists, and think-tanks alike is how the party can earn back its economic credibility. Recently, a quartet of Labour thinkers published ‘In the Black Labour’ , which offers one answer to this question. However, the paper does little to advance a distinctive economic strategy that traditional voters and activists can relate to, and does even less to bolster Labour’s chances at the next election.

The fundamental problem with ‘In the Black Labour’ is that it does not provide the alternative narrative that an opposition is supposed to offer the electorate. The authors are essentially trying to sell the electorate the same product pedalled by the Coalition: austerity, a small state, and the fictitious ‘Big Society’.

By placing ‘fiscal conservatism’ at the heart of its strategy, ‘In the Black Labour’ cedes the moral argument on the economy to the Conservatives and attempts to move the party onto the Coalition’s turf. It is easy to see why this would be an attractive course to take in the current political climate. November polling revealed that some 30% of respondents still blame the debts racked up by the previous Labour government for the continued economic slump

However, it also revealed that 46% believe Osborne needs to slow the pace of austerity, and that 35% favour a programme of public works to create jobs. Labour needs to remember that by 2015, the Coalition will no longer be able to capitalise on the excuse that their failures originated in the actions of the previous government. Osborne would have had a full term to place the country on the road to economic recovery, something which many indicators suggest he is far from achieving. Telling the electorate that it favours the government’s strategy but disagrees on the tools to achieve it will make Labour look uninspired and shallow to the victims of the Coalition’s policies.

By promising rigid controls over future budgets, the authors miss the opportunity to excite the electorate with a positive vision of economic growth. It is difficult to convince people that by cutting the deficit, more jobs and higher wages will follow. Labour should instead promote a programme of public works, with a focus on housing and infrastructure, and continue to sponsor the ‘green industrial revolution’ promised in the last manifesto. The Coalition is making tentative steps in these areas, and Labour should steal a march on them by promising a much more extensive campaign. ‘Effective Keynesianism’ can be sold to the electorate without recourse to fiscal conservatism.

Labour should not shackle itself to the same ideology dictating the actions of the Conservatives by promoting macho fiscal discipline over the more desirable aim of a resurgent economy. It should not reject deficit spending outright just to win back the votes of the City. The very idea that any government could commit to producing a budget surplus within a fixed timescale- as suggested by the authors of this pamphlet- is ludicrous considering the volatility of national and international economies. Setting targets that cannot be realistically met is an own goal in politics- just look at Osborne’s current woes.

Labour is suffering a crisis of identity, and every centre-left thinker is casting around for a narrative it can adopt that fits with the party’s heritage, while accommodating the current economic reality we face. ‘In the Black Labour’ seeks to gain the party short-term popularity by copying the Coalition’s approach to the public finances and planting the red flag squarely in centre ground. The authors should remember that the centre ground is always in motion, and may be some way more to left by 2015 than it is now if Tory policies fail to achieve their objectives.

Louie Woodall is a member of the Young Fabians and Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

What’s the point of PMQs?

Prime Minister’s Questions is about as alienating as Erskine May. If it’s an opportunity to shop window politics to the public, then we’re going to have to do better than showcasing a public school version of 8 Mile.

Of course, we’re often told – after Bercow has hush hushed MPs – that the public actually rather enjoy the Yo’ Mama aspect of the spectacle. But in actual fact, about half say they enjoy it and half say they’d rather see something a little more… constructive. For the Westminster Village it’s the highlight of the week, so that leaves the rest of the viewers outside of the bubble scratching their heads week in, week out. But for politicos a certain degree of over importance is attached to it. Commentators often use it as a barometer for how the leader is performing overall; bloggers score the contestants based on whether they’ve “won” or “lost” over the six rounds of questions, and MPs pack themselves into the House for a bit of live theatre.

But the level of interest it generates has nothing to do with how valuable it is to our democracy. It’s the one time a week we know that David Cameron and Ed Miliband will come up against eachother, so the hype surrounding it has more to do with the people than the format.

Does the format even allow for effective scrutiny of the executive? Half of the questions come from the prime minister’s own side, and can any opposition leader effectively hold the prime minister to account when they’re so limited by time? The quick exchanges incentivise point scoring and render any depth to questioning pointless. As a consequence, the public are presented with a hotch-potch of messaging, lines and planted questions that do more harm than good if the desire is to instill trust in politicians and engage with voters.

Contrast the format of PMQs with the incredibly popular Question Time. It’s far less confrontational, but there are still lively debates, and without the shackles of parliamentary protocol the discussion feels a lot more natural. Instead of PMQs, why not have the main party leaders answering questions from the public for an hour in a television studio? Like the leaders debates, but every week.

The interest those debates generated superceded even Sky’s imagination, and they set the ball rolling. They showed that people are interested in politics, as long as it’s presented in the right way. So instead of being flies on the wall why can’t we be active participants in the scrutiny of the executive? We might even do a better job than MPs.

Matt Zarb-Cousin is the editor of the Young Fabians blog, and the Secretary and Press Officer for the Young Fabians.

A PM held to ransom

David Cameron returned from the European Summit last week announcing that he had vetoed a new treaty in the ‘national interest’. It would be more accurate to say he was ‘held to ransom’ by the Conservative Party’s friends in the City.

Cameron’s Conservatives are a new breed of Tory. It would be wrong to say that, like the resurgent Wispa bars, they are the same 80’s product in a shiny new wrapper. Nearly 150 Tory MPs are ‘newbies’ who took their seats in 2010. Fewer of them attended private school then in years past- 54% today compared with 70% in 1983. The party is a different shade of blue from Thatcher’s time.

One thing that has not changed is the party’s vested interest in protecting the perceived generators of national wealth. The Smith Institute reports that 27% of the current Conservative crop have a history in financial services. According to Aditya Chakrabortty of The Guardian, the financial sector in this country employs about 1 million people. This means that an industry that employs less than one-thirtieth of the working population is represented by one-quarter of MPs in the dominant governing party.

The Conservatives and the financial sector are entwined in other ways too. A report by GMB reveals that nearly 60% of donations to the Tory party come from individuals and companies linked to finance, hedge funds and other City interests. The Square Mile has often been touted as the beating heart of London. In many ways, it’s the beating heart of the Conservative party too.

In light of such figures, it should come as no surprise that a Conservative Prime Minister should fight tooth and nail in the most prestigious of arenas to protect City interests. Cameron’s so-called ‘veto’ was not a free decision made by a plucky little Englander taking on would-be tyrants overseas, it was the ransom he was forced to pay in return for the continued sponsorship of the financial wizards of the City. On Newsnight, the Minister for Europe effectively conceded this point when he argued that: “There was a real risk that without the safeguards [Cameron] wanted…you would over time have a read across from the closer fiscal integration that the Eurozone countries want to do towards measures that would influence financial services in particular.” The ‘national interest’ was revealed by the bumbling Minister to be code for ‘financial services’.

Is it right that the diplomatic strategy of the British government should be dictated by a closeted club of multi-millionaires detached from the everyday experiences of the vast majority of Britons? Once again the formidable array of interests that profit or benefit from the mysterious operations of finance capital have shifted into gear in spirited defence of the sector. Financial services provide billions in corporation tax. Financial services are one of very few sectors that Britain can boast of being a world leader in. Financial services have a noble heritage reaching back to the dawn of empire, and deserve their vaunted position at the apex of our commercial society.

These are all true statements. What is interesting is that very similar things were said of the coalmining industry in this country thirty years ago, of shipbuilding, and of manufacturing. Other things were true of these industries. They were inefficient, could no longer compete with other nations, and required huge public subsidies just to keep going.

Curiously, the same could be said of the financial sector today. It is no longer efficiently allocating credit to those businesses that need it. It is losing ground to American and European competitors, a process that will only speed up as Britain is left out in the cold while closer fiscal consolidation of the Eurozone takes place. It has required £289 billion of direct financing by the taxpayer since 2008 just to stay afloat, far more that the £193 billion it pumped into the treasury in corporation tax between 2002-2008.

This is the final damning reason why Cameron’s Conservatives are a kind apart from Thatcher’s. Her government identified failing industries, stripped them of their workforce and let them loose to explore the seemingly endless opportunities promised by the ‘knowledge economy.’ Cameron’s government is being held hostage by a failing industry that continues to suck up the resources of the British state and dictate policy terms to a country that no longer sees it as a source of any worth.

Louie Woodall is a member of the Young Fabians and Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

‘In the Black Labour’: A roadmap to victory?

Stephen Boyle assesses the relevance of ‘In The Black Labour’.

With the coalition showing signs of fraying and Vince Cable supposedly so furious at David Cameron’s “veto” that he considered resigning, the odds of the coalition lasting a full term has dropped considerably since Friday.

While Europe is currently dominating the agenda, any election in the near future will inevitably pivot towards the ailing domestic economy. Worryingly,  it is on economic ground that Labour most lack credibility with the electorate. Recent polling data from Lord Ashcroft and YouGov shows that despite people’s lack of confidence in the current government, they trust Labour even less to deal with the current economic climate.

Last week saw the publication of In the black Labour which aims to broach this gap. The authors’ proposed remedy is to marry fiscal conservativism with equality of opportunity.

I believe In the Black Labour points the right way for the party. Labour desperately needs a credible alternative to the coalition’s cuts. The five point plan is all well and good, but its emphasis on the “nice” side of dealing with slow or no growth, in terms of taxing bankers, investing in youth education and infrastructure must be coupled with a more open acceptance of the necessity for cuts. At the moment this message is failing to chime with an electorate that still views Labour as culpable for the current mess. In order to re-establish credibility we need to accept that we made mistakes in the past, and unambiguously commit ourselves to acting in a fiscally responsible way in the future.

As to the first point, we need to be more open to the fact that we made mistakes during our time in power. Look to the abolition of the 10p tax rate as one example. In his recent book, Alistair Darling makes clear the political and economic costs this disastrous policy caused. Being candid that we made mistakes in the past, owning them, and speaking about how we have learned lessons would go a long way to re-establish credibility. This should not be couched in the passive voice of “mistakes were made” as if they were agentless, floating in the ether, but rather owned by us. We made mistakes. We have learned from them.

After that message has had time to sink in, we can demonstrate our commitment to acting responsibly. That will mean setting clear and unambiguous targets for the levels of national debt and public expenditure. This means that we will have to look for new ways of achieving social justice with less money, a challenge to which the Fabian’s new year conference admirably rises.

By accepting the severity of the current situation we can build a message that draws on the values Labour epitomises and that are most appealing to voters. The current cuts disproportionately target the lowest paid workers and women. Labour’s message should be that we accept the need for cuts; we know that it is wrong to leave a legacy of debt for the next generation, but we will act in such a way as to spread the burden more fairly across society.

Those viewing the policy debate since Labour lost power must have felt like they were looking through a kaleidoscope as an array of colour-coded publications cascaded by. Blue, Purple and Red have all raised their standards in the ongoing battle to define the next generation of Labour policies. While many of the colours will no doubt fade over time I believe In the Black Labour should be at the heart of what the next Labour administration does.

It is time now to start planning for the reality that austerity will outlive the current parliament and last into the next. A Labour party that does not accept that reality and put it at the fore of their message risks being seen as the greater of two evils in comparison to a resolute and ideologically driven Tory administration.

Stephen Boyle is a member of the Young Fabians.

Anas Sarwar: We can beat the SNP by harnessing the talents of our younger members

Labour MP and candidate for the deputy leadership of Scottish Labour outlines his intention to encourage more participation from young people.

It’s not surprising that young people in our country find themselves politically prominent just now.

Rocketing youth unemployment: the tuition fees rise; a reduction in the funding of higher and further education; the removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance; rising living costs combined with wage stagnation; and the inability of many to get on the property ladder, meaning that an unassisted buyer is likely to be in their late thirties before owning their first home; have disproportionally affected young people.

Youth unemployment will be the key issue of this Parliament – both in Scotland and the UK – and my growing fear is that it may be the issue of the next Parliament. Young people are now looking to their future and instead of deciding what line of work they want to pursue, they are trying to find any line of work they can pursue.

Youth priorities are often the same priorities as everyone else in our movement. Employment, access to services, security and equality of opportunity are things that we all want. However, although young people in our movement invariably have the same principles and ideals, they often have a different and fresher approach.

I recently chaired a policy commission for the Young Fabians entitled Building Stronger Communities which held sessions in London, Manchester and Glasgow taking contributions from a mainly youthful audience. The assembled audience were asked to pitch us potential policies to appear in a fictional manifesto: but what struck me about the commission was how willing and engaged the young audience were and how progressive their policies were.

That is why one of my key messages during my Deputy Leadership campaign has been the need to cultivate the talents. We need to recognise, cultivate and promote the young and old talented individuals within our party and the wider movement.

The SNP may currently be ahead in financial resources but in terms of potential, ideas and energy, we can beat them if we use the collective talent of the wider movement.

Young members should never be seen as only being there to make the phone calls, stuff the envelopes and  knock the doors, but as our resource pool and the advocates of Labour values whether in their workplaces, college or university campuses and in their local communities.

We have to harness the ideas, the skills and the enthusiasm of our younger members and use it to help drive our party forward. Social media and using the internet to effectively campaign is two of the many examples where the input of our youth movement has already made an impact, but where it also has a huge amount to offer.

If elected as Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party I will take it upon myself to lead meaningful engagement with the younger members of our movement. During my campaign I have met with almost every student group, right across the country and if elected I will seek to make this a formal part of our party structure, harnessing this energy and ideas and feeding them directly into our parties decision making process.

This contest is about the future of our Party and our country. Our young people are just that.

Editor’s note: The Young Fabians welcome posts from other candidates in the Scottish Labour deputy leadership election. Email mzarb@youngfabians.org.uk if you would like to contribute.

The Future of Fair Pay

Recently, the Young Fabians unveiled ‘Recovering the Economic Initiative’, a guide for Labour on how to restore its economic credibility. The recommendations are broad in scope, yet all focus on placing growth, fairness and responsibility at the heart of future policy.

One of the flagship policy successes of the 1997 Labour government was one that guaranteed fairness for all workers. The National Minimum Wage Act enshrined in law the right of workers to be paid a fair wage for their labour. The opening sections of the Bill state in clear terms that a worker is entitled to this wage – it is not a perk, a bonus, or an earned privilege, but an entitlement: a basic right.

However, for over a decade Conservatives have been attacking this right, and by fair means or foul have attempted to undermine it. When Tories- including David Cameron- campaigned against the minimum wage in 1997, hourly wages of £1.20 were common and legal. Even today, some Conservatives still seek to undermine the very idea of a national minimum wage- by taking the ‘national’ out of it altogether. Chris Chope tried his luck in March, forwarding a Private Member’s Bill that threatened to cut the rate in certain regions of the country. Besides fundamentally missing the point of a ‘national’ minimum wage, the Bill promised to randomly condemn thousands of people to poverty wages for living in the wrong place.

This is not the time to cut the minimum wage. It’s the time to take it a step further. The current rate may protect employees from exploitation, and free them from poverty jobs. But it does not do enough for workers in these extraordinary times.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported in July that a single person needs to earn £15,000 before tax to afford an acceptable standard of living. However, a worker on the current minimum wage, working 40-hour weeks for 52 weeks, can only earn just over £12,600. This rate of pay doesn’t even apply to workers under 21 years of age. Thousands of young adults are placed on a lower rate, meaning that the minimum wage effectively discriminates against them. Is the work performed by a 21-year-old really worth £1.10 more per hour than that performed by a 20-year-old?

Labour shouldn’t see the National Minimum Wage as the end of the road- but the beginning of the journey towards true wage fairness. Ed Miliband made a start on this with his Living Wage Campaign during the Labour leadership race, but this has been quietly dropped from Labour’s current agenda.

Worringly, Labour in the recent past has been flirting with the idea of a minimum wage that varies across the country. Gordon Brown thought about introducing a variable scheme in 2007, and it’s certainly gaining popularity on the left today, where the need to look economically credible seems to be overriding all other concerns. The flawed logic of some is that a minimum wage prices people out of employment- but what good is employment if you can’t live off your income?

Yes, there are regional variations in inflation. Yes, it’s more expensive to live in some parts of Britain than it is in others. Yes, small businesses may struggle with wage costs. But these are all problems that can be solved without undermining the idea of a fair wage. Labour should be seeking to attack the Conservatives from a different angle, by reviving the Living Wage Campaign and standardising the rate across all ages to end the downright immoral age discrimination the current scheme enforces. Tories, economists, and businesses all thought the minimum wage would lead to mass unemployment and national bankruptcy. They think the same would happen today with a Living Wage. They were wrong then, and they’d be wrong today.

You can download ‘Recovering the Economic Initiative’ here.

Louie Woodall is a Young Fabian Member and Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Public v Private: The Wrong War

Yesterday, up to two million public sector workers went on strike in protest against reforms to their pensions.

 The largest strike action since the 1979 ‘Winter of Discontent’ was casually brushed off by David Cameron as “a damp squib”, a statement that woefully underestimated the extent of the disruption caused and the strength of feeling across the country. One poll reported that 44% opposed the changes to public sector pensions while another indicated that 61% of survey respondents thought the strikes were justified.

However, throughout the day the internet and media outlets were dominated by verbal clashes between public sector and private sector workers. The picture that emerged on message boards, blogs and news websites was of a country at war with itself. Public servants were accused of “living in a fantasy world” while private workers were urged to recognise that they too should fight for better pensions rather than complain about public sector employees enjoying an easy ride.

Britain needs to move away from this idea of a country divided into two spheres, with one set of rules for public workers, and another for private ones. The Prime Minister’s recession motto: “We’re all in this together” cuts both ways. The current economic crisis does not have to be understood as a requirement on government to squeeze everyone’s standard of living. In fact, it can be seen as a reason for everyone to unite and refuse pay cuts, pension raids or redundancies- regardless of whether they work in the private or public sectors.

Both sets of workers have more in common than most seem to think. A recent study by the Institute for Fiscal studies shows that, while at the moment public sector wages are above those of private workers, they are forecast to fall in line with them over the next two years. Average public sector and private sector salaries will be roughly the same by 2014-15. So much for the argument that public servants are living easy while the private sector suffers. As for the complaint that private workers can’t defend themselves by striking like public workers can- just look at the actions taken by Unilever staff, who voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action in response to a threat to their pensions.

It is vital that all political groups- and Labour most of all- work to shatter the illusion that public and private sector workers are chalk and cheese. The IFS is predicting a 3% fall in average incomes for everyone next year, in a report arguing that what Britain is living through now is worse than that suffered in the 1970s.

We are all in this together, and we should all work together to secure fair salaries, decent pensions, and acceptable living standards for public and private sector workers alike.