Focus on Health & Society Series: It doesn’t really matter who provides your healthcare

By Adebusuyi Adeyemi.

In the latest installment of the Focus on Health and Society Series by the Health Network, Adebusuyi Adeyemi argues it doesn’t really matter who provides your healthcare.

A few weeks ago the Health Network held a debate around the ideology of private sector involvement in the NHS. The best compliment I can pay (and it is a compliment) is that I had such a massive headache afterwards. Rarely has my mind been so stretched, by so many sharp minds. Or maybe it’s all the daytime Judge Judy turning my brain into slush? Regardless, arguments for and against the motion of whether it matters if [more] private enterprise supplies healthcare were keenly exchanged, whilst the House of Lords voted for Section 75 down the corridor. Can you can guess what end of the spectrum I sit on…?

The NHS has always relied on private contractors. Many GPs are self employed and hold contracts, either on their own or as part of a partnership with the NHS. Dentists, Pharmacists and Opticians are nearly all privately owned. Similarly, it is private contractors who provide almost all of the IT equipment, build the hospitals and make the drugs. All our health related data is held on private companies’ machines. Heck, when the government tried to deliver a coherent IT vision, it failed. Admittedly because the private sector had already delivered on a lot of it and fought hard to maintain its share. Still, ‘privatisation’, strictly speaking should be viewed as what it is: the transfer to the private sector, of services which were previously provided by a struggling public sector.

Not sure where I stand yet? How about if we consider the hypothetical of owning a clothes shop. This is the only clothes shop in the city. Our clients/customers have no choice but to shop here, irrespective of the choice and quality of clothes we offer. If, however, we find that another shop is opening next door to us, providing nicer clothes for the same price or cheaper, with more choice, then that will force us to change the quality of the garments and the level of service that we offer; otherwise we’ll rapidly go out of business as our competitors will take customers away from us. If you haven’t figured it out yet, I support the idea that it doesn’t really matter who provides your healthcare, as long provided (and regulated) well it is.

Now, for all my spiel of corporate involvement, I don’t worship at the feet of the private sector, nor advocate the full disembowelment of the NHS. ‘Slippery-Slope’ arguments aside, regulating private providers properly in any sector is the responsibility of the government and this must be done, and done well. We can’t trust the Coalition Government to regulate private providers so that only people in the south are looked after, or that health inequalities increase. Still, we must give the principle of private-provider involvement a fair hearing.

The Health Network and guests recorded a draw for the motion on the night, which was in stark contrast to the votes counted from the wider community online. As a strong supporter for the motion, I was pleased to see a few people warm to the philosophy of increased private sector involvement, proving discussion is key to advancing thought in this space.

Introducing competition will mean the NHS will be forced to increase the quality of the work that it does otherwise an external provider delivering a better quality service may be appointed instead. From a business perspective (and the government’s perspective) this makes sense as it weeds out poor performing providers, replacing them with better ones (and if there are no better providers, then the current providers will remain in place).

There are many caveats to add to this piece that time (read word limit) doesn’t permit. From ensuring the principles of greater equality of power, wealth and opportunity are maintained, to detailing how our value(s) of collective action and public service do have a place alongside a more competitive NHS, there’s more I wish I could say. But this brief piece is only to stimulate thought, I hope it does.

What if only one chain of universities supplied doctors? Or only one drug company was allowed to make N-acetyl-p-aminophenol (paracetamol #Geek)? Unions, Socialist Medical Groups and others are right to assert the Health and Social Care Bill will result in increasing privatisation of the English NHS. In fact, this is in keeping with the “supply side” economic policies of this government, which promote privatisation throughout the entire public sector (Royal Mail, Urenco and the Met Office to follow soon).

However, there is an idea that needs to be considered seriously, that it doesn’t really matter who provides your healthcare.

Adebusuyi Adeyemi is Chair of the Health Network.

The debate was organised by the Secretary for the Health Network – Lauren Milden and chaired by Ivana Bartoletti of the Fabians Women Network.

Generation Y or Generation Why Is It So Hard To Get A Job?

 By Alvin Carpio and Ben Powell.

As part of our series of blogs introducing the Young Fabians Policy Commissions 2013 Alvin Carpio and Ben Powelllook at Britain’s continuing problem with youth unemployment.

Across Britain, one million young people are unemployed. Long spells of unemployment early on in a person’s work history can have long term scarring effects making them less employable. There is also lost productivity.

Dealing with youth unemployment is important to both our economy and social stability. We need young people to have work experience early in order to prepare them for life in the labour market after compulsory schooling. We also need to deal with it to avoid the sort of events we saw unravel in summer August 2011.

We have been called the lost generation, the scarred generation, the hopeless generation. We are not generation y, but instead generation why is it so hard to get a job?

Of course it would be wrong to paint a generic brush over all young people, in the same way that was done during the riots where all young people were deemed to be criminals. Also, we have to remember that in the 1970s, the young people growing up during Margaret Thatcher’s government were also called the lost generation too.

Still, this is an issue that affects all young people, including Young Fabians. There are many young people who are overqualified and many who are underemployed. Many young people find themselves with a degree that they were promised would make it easy to get a job. For some, their degrees are now worthless, especially for those who graduated from the new universities as the top 2000 companies in Britain mainly recruit from the old universities like Oxbridge and Durham. Some Young Fabians will be unemployed themselves.

Dealing with youth unemployment now matters because rates were increasing even before the recession. This points to structural issues and suggests that even if we were to return to growth, it would still be a problem.

The commission will consider three main questions. Firstly, why is youth unemployment so high? Secondly, how is youth unemployment affecting our members and their communities? Thirdly, what can we do to respond to youth unemployment? We’d love you to take part in the discussion and we hope you’ll join us for the commission’s events.

Alvin Carpio and Ben Powell are co-chairs of the Young Fabians Policy Commission on youth unemployment. You can sign up to be involved in the Young Fabians Policy Commissions here – http://bit.ly/11ulMLw.

Tackling the Care Crisis

By Felicity Slater and Jack Storry.

As part of our series of blogs introducing the Young Fabians Policy Commissions 2013 Felicity Slater and Jack Storry explain the need for Labour to come up with creative answers to Britain’s “care crisis”.

One of the biggest challenges coming Britain’s way begins with a ‘c’. Not cuts, but an entire policy area (or two) – care.

We’ve decided to run our policy commission on what has been called ‘the care crisis’. Social care and child care are two issues that are often tagged by policy-makers and politicians as ‘difficult’ or ‘too potentially toxic’ to handle. That’s because there really are no quick fix, low-cost solutions to make social care cheaper or improve child care availability.

What’s driving these issues to the top of the political agenda now is that over the coming decades they are going to put an increasingly large strain on the nation’s public finances. But at a time when politicians are actually looking to cut public spending that’s an increasingly unwelcome prospect. At the same time, disparities in local provision and soaring costs are having a huge impact on people nationwide. It’s clearly time for reform.

Much of that fiscal pressure comes from social care and is caused by the fact that people are living much longer. While this is clearly something to celebrate, for government that means higher pension costs, higher health care costs and increased social care costs. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s long-term fiscal sustainability report states very plainly that by 2060 we’ll be spending £80 billion more PER YEAR, virtually all because of an aging population. That is not small change.

But where social care presents a threat to Britain’s long-term fiscal health, child care arguably presents a real opportunity.  The primary problem with childcare in the UK is one of affordability: far too often, it actually makes more sense for one parent to stay at home and look after the children. The sharp reality is that person is usually the female parent and thus they are squeezed out of the labour market, unable to take full-time work, if any at all. That results in the UK having lower levels of female employment than many other European countries, particularly Scandinavian nations such as Denmark and Sweden. Quite simply, it would be a good thing for the British economy if those women were able to work.

When put like that it all sounds relatively straightforward, but as we said at the start there are no quick fix, low-cost solutions. These are issues that can’t just be wished away or ignored for the next administration to face; they need to be solved. And, broadly speaking, it’s our generation that is going to pay the price if they aren’t.

So we’re going to spend the next few months looking at these issues, hearing from the experts and seeing if we can’t pull together a few ideas about how to solve them. Social care and child care are fascinating policy areas that we can’t wait to get our teeth into. We’d love you to take part in the discussion and we hope you’ll join us for the commission’s events.

Felicity Slater and Jack Storry are co-chairs of the Young Fabians Policy Commission on care. You can sign up to be involved in the Young Fabians Policy Commissions here – http://bit.ly/11ulMLw.

Localism: an opportunity to restructure our economy?

By Richard Bell & Jack Stenner.

In the first of a series of blogs introducing the Young Fabians Policy Commissions 2013 Richard Bell & Jack Stenner outline how Labour needs to reconcile the findings of the Heseltine Review with the party’s values and a One Nation economic vision.

Localism is firmly back on the political agenda following the publication of Lord Heseltine’s No Stone Unturned report on economic growth and as increasingly-desperate policy-makers from all parties seek out innovative ideas to maximise the stimulative impact of public spending. As a result, Labour localists are faced with a unique and exciting opportunity to advance the agenda for the devolution of substantial political power away from Whitehall through economic and not constitutional arguments. Our policy commission will explore a localist approach to restructuring our economy and generating sustainable growth.

Ed Miliband has begun to flesh out Labour’s economic strategy. The recent proposal for a network of regional investment banks builds upon plans for a more redistributive approach to tax, intervention in failing markets like energy and a renewed focus on apprenticeships for young people who don’t go to university. There is still a notable reluctance within the party, however, when it comes to discussing the role of public spending in a One Nation economy.

This is partly as public spending is the aspect of economic policy which is most susceptible to changing financial circumstances, but also because Labour is in something of a catch-22 position. The two Eds rightly believe there is little public appetite for large spending commitments; and that the credibility Labour has begun to regain on economic policy might quickly dissipate at the first sign the party isn’t sufficiently committed to reducing the deficit. On the other hand, avoiding making firm public spending decisions isn’t a workable long-term strategy and the Prime Minister’s attacks on Labour’s ‘blank sheet of power’ resonate.

The result of this political paradox is that Labour is unable to articulate an economic vision with the clarity and strength of purpose required to reach swing and non-voters; and is unable to capitalise fully on the economic failures of the Coalition Government.

One issue this commission will seek to investigate is the extent to which placing a localist agenda at the center of Labour’s economic policy platform might represent a means of circumventing the policy constraints of the current political conversation on the economy. Localism isn’t, however, merely a tactic through which Labour might change the political mood music- it is an idea which has the potential to transform the foundations of the British economy.

In No Stone Unturned, Lord Heseltine recommends that presently ringfenced budgets for skills, employment, infrastructure, housing, transport, regeneration, research and business support – now thought to total up to £70 billion – should be transferred to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) through single funding pots. LEPs are public-private partnerships comprising local businesses and councils formed to identify local economic priorities and drive growth and employment policy in economic sub-regions.

Labour has broadly welcomed Heseltine’s report, but there has as of yet been little debate within the party as to how the former Deputy Prime Minister’s programme might be consolidated with Labour values and a One Nation economic vision.

There are some aspects of Heseltine’s model which plainly do not align with progressive principles:the proposal for single funding pots to be distributed via competitive bidding will sit uncomfortably with many Fabians; the lack of democratic accountability in LEPs as they are currently comprised has been raised as an area of concern by Labour local government leaders and think tanks; and there are questions as to whether the funding levels proposed by Lord Heseltine will deliver the economic impact the country needs. This commission will seek to formulate progressive solutions to each of these policy challenges.

Nonetheless, at its heart this is a One Nation idea. Heseltine’s proposals reflect a belief that spending decisions will generate more growth where they are made by local people who know how their economy works, have a stake in its success and understand residents’ priorities. A One Nation economic model must not duplicate New Labour’s reliance on the City of London, but must seek to build strong local and regional economies. Lord Heseltine’s plan represents a political and policy framework through which the party can begin to build that model.

There’s a lot of work to be done. We are planning to run events exploring these themes across the UK, but please feel free to contact us in advance with ideas for articles or events or to let us know if you are interested in contributing to the work of this commission.

Richard Bell & Jack Stenner are co-chairs of the Young Fabians Policy Commission on localism and the economy.You can sign up to be involved in the Young Fabians Policy Commissions here – http://bit.ly/11ulMLw.

Focus on the Creative Industries Series: Sadiq Khan MP on the importance of the arts to London

By Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP.

In the latest instalment of  our Focus on the Creative Industries Series, Sadiq Khan MP discusses the importance of the arts to London.

Politicians discussing the arts and creative industries can often seem forced and contrived with little knowledge of the subject they’re talking about other than what they’ve been given on the latest zeitgeist crib sheet. I realise that I may set myself up for a fall immediately but the arts, and the fruits of the creative industries, is something that us Londoners are probably more exposed to than in most other cities in the UK.

But what does it mean to London? Across the UK, the creative and cultural industries have predominance in London and the South East. More than 40% people working in the industry do so in these regions.  25% of the people employed in these industries are in London, compared with 13% of the overall employed population based in London.

We see then that as an employer and revenue generator it’s a big deal for London. And it’s not just West End theatres or major art galleries that contribute to this. We have a wealth of smaller community based organisations, including in my own constituency TARA Arts, a theatre venue which hosts and presents theatre and other live performances, as well as facilitating the development of emerging young and mid-career artists. I’m also one of the patrons of the Polka Theatre in Wimbledon, which specialises in youth theatre. Alongside each show Polka have a learning programme which includes school visits and workshops and this helps children explore and develop creatively. This development and incubation of new ideas is something which the more community based groups do so well in London, for example the renowned Battersea Arts Centre (BAC) which, in its own words, ‘pioneers new practice in contemporary theatre’. They proved this to great effect with ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’ which having begun at BAC then moved to the Edinburgh Fringe and then to the West End and to the United States. This may be an obvious example but it is a good one.

Why are community organisations so important? It’s quite simple really, they are the ones who can be the first, and sometimes only, form of interaction between local people and the arts. It’s here and also in schools that the flame of creativity can be ignited. Whether that be by music, theatre, visual arts – it can be the thing that encourages the budding creative to investigate further. Young or old, the arts and creative industries can also bring people together across communities. The collective experience of taking part in arts based activities, or even just enjoying them as part of an audience can be something that is treasured, and also something that can open up debate. London’s cultural diversity also means that the range of art being created in the city is truly global, which in itself serves to promote understanding of the differences between us, and more importantly the similarities. This building of relationships through social interaction relates to what the social scientist Robert Putnam would call ‘social capital’, and the creation of social networks which in themselves have value. I agree that the creation of these social networks is undoubtedly a good thing as they bring people together who may not otherwise meet.

From a politician’s point of view then, I see the arts in London as performing a number of different roles. It’s an employer, a revenue generator, an educator, a community service and also something that can bring a great deal of pleasure to millions of people. It’s therefore important that politicians support the arts and creative industries where possible and make sure that they are available to all. It is essential in these tough economic times that we do not see a retreat of arts organisations away from the community level but that we try to nurture creativity as much as possible.

Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP is Member of Parliament for Tooting and Shadow Minister for London.

How Osborne abandoned social mobility

By Louie Woodall.

The words and deeds of this government have rarely been in alignment. However, the gulf between aims and actions is at its starkest when it comes to the goal of greater social mobility.

This mission is supposed to be at the heart of the Coalition’s strategy for creating a fairer Britain, one where a child’s life chances are not dictated by the class and income of their parents.

Yet this laudable policy was grossly absent in last week’s budget. Despite the bluster that this was a budget designed to reward hardworking people, the policy announcements that look like routes out of poverty at first, on closer inspection are nothing more than dead ends.

Take childcare. The government trumpeted its additional spend of £150 million on childcare vouchers as proof of its commitment to remove barriers into work for hard-up families. But an analysis of the distributional impact of the policy reveals that fully 80% of the earmarked funds will go to parents  already in the top half of the income scale. Worse, part time workers will receive nothing under the scheme.

What about Osborne’s celebrated help to buy mortgage guarantee scheme? This was the one part of his Budget speech he singled out as a means to boost social mobility:

“The deposits demanded for a mortgage these days have put home ownership beyond the great majority who cannot turn to their parents for a contribution. That’s not just a blow to the most human of aspirations – it’s set back social mobility and it’s been hard for the construction industry. This Budget proposes to put that right – and put it right in a dramatic way.”

Going beyond the strange idea that home ownership = social mobility in the first place, again the benefits are skewed in favour of the better off, (those earning above the median wage)- and even they will struggle to make use of it.

Housing charity Shelter explains that the mortgage guarantee fails to tackle the problem unaffordable homes at its roots, Robbie di Santos says:

“The trouble is, while this makes it easier to get a deposit, you’d be borrowing 95% of already very high house prices, which are way out of kilter with what ordinary people earn. Our calculations – again based on local house prices and local double income households – suggests that the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee would bring the average local home within reach of the average double income household in only 16% of the country.”

Are these the actions of a government committed to a fairer distribution of opportunity across the income scale?

It certainly doesn’t look like it to me. Some argue that faith in social mobility as a weapon against rising inequality is misplaced, and that we should measure our progress in becoming a fairer and more civilized society by how far apart the richest and poorest stand on the income scale rather than by how easy it is to get from one end of that scale to the other.

However, if we understand social mobility as a mechanism for empowering the very poorest to escape the poverty trap, than it does have the potential to change lives and transform society.

Sadly, in the Budget this government has proved it is far, far away from working towards such an end.

Louie Woodall is Editor of Anticipations.

The Welfare Debate: Getting Out What You Put In

By Ben West.

In the current circumstances, full employment may seem an almost absurdly ambitious goal (and it’s certainly a long-term project) but it’s certainly a goal that any government worth its salt should be working towards. An economy with large numbers of people on benefits is not something to aspire to or to defend; it is a symptom of a failing economic policy – something that Labour ought to be clearer on, and reminding voters of every day.

Those suspicious of Labour’s proposal today to link benefits to past contributions by reviving the ‘contributory principle’ have every right to be. The Trojan horse of ‘reform’ is often used as a means of attacking the system and the people who use it. We must be clear: irrespective of how much or how long someone has paid in for, JSA should always be enough to allow someone to live in dignity while they find a job – and that includes ensuring they’re able to cover transport to look for work and can buy decent clothes for an interview, rather than the current system of tests and box-ticking that leaves recipients infantilised, patronised and degraded.

But the idea of reciprocity is fundamental to the legitimacy of the entire system. When FDR signed the Social Security Act in the US, he remarked that,

The way we protect the system of social insurance over the long term is by ensuring that the broadest possible range of people have a stake in it. Once a public service (see council housing, schools) becomes stigmatised or its use confined to the least influential and most marginalised, it’s only a matter of time before it comes under attack and eventually abolished.

This emphasis on universalism is one of the things that makes the systems of places like Germany and Sweden so resilient. White-collar workers on £50,000 can be confident that if they lose their job, they will be able to collect the equivalent of 70% of their average income until they find a new one. Crucially, the fact that so many do so without social stigma, or without being treated like a feckless idiot at a job centre, means that they are considerably more likely to defend the rights of those less well-off who happen to find themselves in the same boat.

Again though, we should be realistic about today’s announcement. A tax on banker’s bonuses isn’t nearly enough to get us there. To be convincing, the policy needs to be part of a wider set of policies designed to address the structural inequalities that lead to low wages and unemployment in the first place. This needs to include a commitment to gradually raising the minimum wage to a living wage, proper employment rights for agency workers, regulation of private landlords, and above all else, a coherent system of vocational training which ensures that those in the most precarious service-sector jobs are valued and respected in the employment market.

The end goal needs to be a high wage, high skill, high productivity economy, rather than one where we accept poverty wages and unemployment as facts of life. Labour needs to avoid the trap where we fetishise benefits that, while currently a necessity for many, merely paper over the structural inequalities that create poverty and unemployment in the first place. Just as high numbers of long-term recipients on JSA is a symptom, not the cause, of our economic malaise, Income Support is a public subsidy of poverty-wage employers that this country can ill-afford.

As a Labour party, we shouldn’t be scared to articulate it in those stark terms – using the principle of reciprocity to restore dignity and respect not just to the social insurance system, but to the economy as a whole.

Ben West is a Young Fabians Member.

Talk of the 99% and the 1% is Disingenuous

By Chris Grezo.

In some ways, the Left is a victim of its own success. Thanks to the toil of progressives over the decades and centuries, policies that were once thought of as radical nonsense are now part of the basic consensus across the political spectrum: free education for children, state pensions, universal healthcare, votes for non-land-owners, national insurance, the weekend, social housing, sick pay and so on. The last two centuries of Western history have been marked by victory after victory for progressives.

But of course with each victory won, there is one less battle to be fought, and one less segment of society that needs the Left. A good example of this is the demise of the Liberal Party in the 20^th Century. Once the largest party in the UK, it shrank and dwindled to nothing after its main goal of votes for women was achieved. The liberal men and women who had supported the party no longer needed it, as they had attained what they wanted, and the party became irrelevant.

Where once the Left was clearly aligned with the vast majority of the population, it now finds itself more frequently fighting the corner of minorities. When it comes to the simple, tangible issues, the majority have what they want out of politics. You can no longer be fired for having a working class accent, your boss isn’t allowed to pinch your bottom, you won’t starve to death if you lose your job, you don’t have to doff your cap to aristocrats, there’s a legal minimum wage, and so on.

Many of the battles that progressives have left are more nuanced than in the past, or affect less people. Take the need for better regulation of the financial sector. This is not a clear, simple issue like universal healthcare. Almost no one really knows what is meant by “better regulation”, and it’s not a very tangible issue, despite its importance. It’s very hard for an ordinary person to feel the passion about financial regulation that an ordinary person might have felt about universal healthcare in the 1930s. Or take the poor treatment of disabled people by our current right wing government: the sad fact is most people aren’t affected by this, and it won’t change their voting habits.

The reality is that in 2013, only a third of the population feel strongly about contemporary left-wing issues, about a third feel strongly right wing, and everyone in the middle doesn’t really care. In some ways, this is something the Left should celebrate. The fact that people are so comfortable that they don’t need to think about politics is a sign of how things have changed for the better over the last century. But obviously this isn’t a very satisfying state of affairs for us left-wingers who make up a third of the population. There are important goals yet to be achieved: we need more social workers to stop kids being abused, better educational opportunities for the underprivileged, better treatment of the disabled,  a penal system that reforms prisoners, and many other important changes. But with so many people benefiting from previous progressive victories content to slumber in front of their TVs, it’s difficult to rally the crowds or get anyone to listen.

 And so left-wingers long for days gone by, when it was the masses against the classes, the people against the elite, everyone pulling as one. This leads to the wishful thinking of the so-called “99%”. Many left-wingers use this rhetoric to try to get everyone on side, to kid themselves that “the people” all want left-wing policies. Difficult debate is avoided: it’s instructive to note the increasing use of the phrase ‘super-rich’ instead of ‘rich’. The phrase is used because arguing for more tax on the super-rich offends almost no one, because the term applies to almost no one. But that’s just a cop out; higher taxes on the 1% are not going to solve all our problems. Left-wing policies require a lot more sacrifice than pressing a magic button labelled tax-the-super-rich.

Even moderate left-wing policies require higher taxes not only on the super-rich, but on the rich, and the upper-middles classes too. If, like me for example, you would like to decrease class sizes in failing inner-city schools to give the kids there a fair chance at life, you are committed to spending a very large amount of money. And that’s just one of a huge range of policies us left-wingers want. Many of these policies require sacrifices on the part of the top half of society to help the bottom half. And that’s why a huge chunk of the population hate these policies: because they don’t want to make that sacrifice. Contemporary left-wing issues are not about surfs who make up 99% of the population battling against the oppression of the Lords in their manors – those days are gone. Contemporary left-wing issues are about the fact that a family earning £100K a year while living in the leafy suburbs don’t want to shorten the length of their skiing holiday to pay for extra teachers at a grubby inner-city school that they’ve never heard of. And it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. We are not the 99%, we are the 30%.

Chris Grezo is a Young Fabians Member.

Why Labour should pay no attention to social mobility

By Colm Flanagan.

Everyone agrees that social mobility is ‘a good thing’ – last year all three party leaders gave speeches on the topic, and it appears to be at the heart of what Cameron’s ‘strivers’ are about. Conventional wisdom would tell you it is the new centre ground, or perhaps just the old centre ground that never went away, and if we don’t make social mobility ours, and win the argument on it, we’re doomed to fail.

But unlike other issues which there is cross-party consensus on, such as universal access to contraceptives, and free tap-water in restaurants, it is not clear that everyone means the same thing when they talk about social mobility, and there is a risk that it could mean something almost exactly opposite to what the Labour Party should be trying to achieve.

At its very worst, pursuing social mobility means you accept that there are some fulfilling, stimulating, well-remunerated jobs, with reasonable hours which scarcely impede family life, are physically undemanding and give good pensions – doctors, say. On the other hand there are jobs which are undesirable in every single possible way – pay, conditions, status, the lot – and that’s just the way it is.

All social mobility is in this universe is ensuring that a higher proportion of the sons and daughters of people in category B get jobs in category A, without ever addressing the issue that jobs like those in category B exist at all. Proponents of this approach rarely acknowledge that this will invariably mean consigning the children of parents in category A to jobs in category B, as it is never advocated that more high quality jobs are created, so some displacement of accountants’ children to the scrapheap must be necessary if social mobility is to take place. Rarely too, is it articulated that all the best ways of making a living are not actually salaried jobs obtained through good qualifications and a string of internships, but the best job is to simply own stuff which produces an income, whether that be a trust fund or property – most of the benefits of working with none of the downsides.

No, in this world of social mobility, the sum of human happiness is not increased by one jot, but people are happier with the system, because they feel now success has been earned and deserved, rather than inherited, and, in theory, it works better, because category A jobs are more important and need people of higher calibre to perform them.

In fact, before we waste a second on social mobility, we should be doing two things. First, we should be looking at the politically easy, but technically difficult question of how we can create more category A jobs. This was Ed Miliband’s focus in the second half of his speech on social mobility to the Sutton Trust last year, where he focused on Britain’s need to create career paths for the 50% of young adults who don’t go to university.

But it also means making the politically difficult, but technically easier decision, of spreading the pros and cons of jobs more evenly, so we no longer live in a two track society. Once this happens, it will still be important to have social mobility policies in place, because nobody should be pushed into becoming a lawyer if they would get a lot more satisfaction from being a mechanic, or a dinner lady if they would prefer to be an optician, but it wouldn’t be such an urgent issue – it would be a matter of individual preference rather than a matter of social justice.

I cannot express strongly enough how inconsequential social mobility is while our economy is so deeply unfair in so many other ways. The entire debate about social mobility looks like a Tory game of musical chairs, a hollow Ponzi scheme where the hope of your children bagging one of the glittering prizes means you put up with a system which keeps you poor.

If you want to continue to pursue social mobility and hold it dear as an aim, fine, don’t let me stop you. Make ability the sole barrier of entry for every profession, instead of the shaky system of guilds, contacts and luck which exists today. Just don’t coming crying to me when your children weren’t bright enough to make it in your ruthlessly meritocratic society and their lives are miserable.

Colm Flanagan is the Young Fabians’ Political Education Officer.

This is one of several views that will be debated at the Social Mobility roundtable:

Young Fabians Social Mobility Roundtable with Rt Hon. Alan Miliburn, former Labour Cabinet Minister & Independent Reviewer on Social Mobility and Child Poverty. 

The Young Fabians are delighted to announce an exclusive opportunity to partake in a roundtable discussion on social mobility with the Rt Hon Alan Milburn, who currently serves as the Independent Reviewer on Social Mobility and Child Poverty. This is a fantastic opportunity for you to have your say on this crucial issue and help inform the debate on how we ensure the next generation can do better than the last. The event will take place in Parliament on Tuesday 26th March between 6:45pm-8:15pm.

We have 20 spots available for this roundtable (10 male & 10 female), so if you are interested in partaking, please email the Young Fabians Networks Officer Rayhan Haque at rhaque@youngfabians.org.uk.  In your email, please can you state in no more than 150 words, what social mobility means to you and one idea that you think will make a big difference to creating a more socially mobile society.

Global Labourhood Watch: a vision for the Labour Party

By Alan McDonald.

The second decade of the 21^st century has been characterised by growing inequality, diminishing standards of living and rising levels of poverty in the UK and further afield.  The chasm that exists between policy-makers, the drivers of business and those who endure the consequences of their dalliances has widened.

The Labour Party, in anticipation of electoral victory (one well within their grasp) should be formulating policy, with the resolute ambition of halting this regression of society.  Underlying issues that pick at the very fabric of a cohesive and socially just society must be tackled at home, while simultaneously presenting the UK as a beacon of equity on the global stage.

With these principles in mind, the focus should be on reining in exorbitant salaries that prevail in the city and the banking sector.  The link between performance and reward has long since been broken.  The principle of commerce, of taking a calculate risk using knowledge and instinct honed by experience to create a profit, has disintegrated.  In its place a nauseating culture of reward and more reward, where risk has become all but an irrelevant afterthought, has spread like a cancer decimating any semblance of fairness and moral justice that might have existed.

The result is that ordinary people are suffering, as national governments meekly bow to the banking sector, corporate shareholders and rampant capitalists.  The removal of risk, or rather the transferral of risk from the ‘wealth creators’ to the common man has left a rancid flavour in the mouths of those who hold fairness dear.

UK salaries have stagnated as inflation continues above the target rate.  Across the EU the story is grimmer still.  Governments, at the behest of the markets, enact structural reforms, slashing expenditure to deal with the pre-eminence of deficit reduction; where infrastructure spending would stimulate growth. Unemployment hanging uncomfortably in the double digits and declining real wages are symptoms of deep economic malaise, and the hangover from the most heinous economic savagery in memory.

The greatest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world is happening, in reverse, and it would appear no one is preventing it. The voices of reason and fairness are being drowned out by the din of those who profess a doom for all, if the vestiges of the capitalist monolith are not protected.  While public services are being cut, inequality is rising and relative poverty is significantly increasing.   Food banks have become a necessity for large numbers of people across Europe – a stinging indictment of the misguided nature of the political pilots.  This fallacy is being enacted to protect those who are ultimately responsible for the global downturn.

The financial crisis has been conveniently utilised by the Tories to enact their political ideology, setting in motion wheels of change, which, if left unchecked, will result in the dismantling of the existing welfare state.  The privatisation of the NHS and the introduction of a profit culture in state education are perhaps the most contentious – the legitimacy of which is tenuous at best and would further exacerbate inequality in the UK.   It is a grossly unfair scenario which the left must challenge.

Furthermore, Foreign Aid budgets are under threat as the ‘political elite’ scramble to support failed financial institutions. The Tory Party, the brethren of the conspirators who precipitated the crisis and the ensuing austerity, have the temerity to suggest that we should cease these aid payments, when spending on domestic public services is being ‘rebalanced’.  This is a characteristically flawed perspective of the neo-cons. It fails to recognise the stark reality of the abject poverty endured in many parts of the globe, a poverty that dictates that many billions of people view long term planning as simply planning how best they might feed themselves tomorrow.  The invidious suggestion that Britain should reduce its aid budget in order to protect the ‘elite’ is archaic.

The time of rampant neo-conservatism has passed. The all-consuming focus on profits must be extinguished.  Governments must lead an equitable and humanitarian development, bridging the gap between the haves and have-nots. This vision must be fulfilled at home, whilst supporting those in the poverty-stricken regions of the globe to develop sustainably. Reckless capitalists should be cut adrift and society should no longer be used as their life-support system.   With the benefit of hindsight and the accrued wisdom of past incarnations the Labour Party must be ready to ignite this process.

Alan McDonald is a Young Fabians Member.