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.

Why Labour should take Gok Wan more seriously

Hear me out. At the weekend I bought some new shirts, but suffer from the problem that my neck is too large for my body. Or at least, the way the shirts are cut means that by getting a shirt with the right collar size, I end up with shirts that make me look like I’m about to set sail. Even opting for ‘slim’ or ‘tailored’ fit doesn’t completely address the issue, and it costs me more.

In this sense, I am victim of poor fortune – being born with a large neck means I have to pay more than others to look as good in shirts. If only shirt manufacturers didn’t seem to assume that men with big necks are also fat!

This got me thinking. Perhaps Labour needs to take the philosophy of Gok Wan a bit more seriously?

In Gok’s Fashion Fix, Gok demonstrates that it is possible to look like you’re wearing designer fashion but on a high street budget. In essence Gok is a fashion egalitarian who thinks your budget shouldn’t affect your ability to look good.

There are at least two reasons why Labour should take that sentiment more seriously.

Firstly, academic research suggests a link between career prospects and appearance* (for example, here or here). So wealth is partly a function of how you look. If people with bad luck have to invest more to look at least the same as people with good luck, then this might compound income inequality**. If Labour is serious about tackling the causes of income inequality, then it might develop policies to ensure looking good is more affordable. Fashion advisers to those on unemployment benefits, for example? Or propose legislating to prohibit discrimination on sartorial grounds?

Secondly, if there is a link between career prospects and appearance, then maybe there is an argument to focus more on how Labour politicians, prospective politicians and party workers dress? Investment in the personal appearance of ‘Party people’ (for want of a better phrase) may yield electoral benefits. I’ll leave it as an open question as to how much investment might be needed…

So there could be two tangible benefits if Labour took Gok Wan more seriously: it may help reverse income inequality resulting from bad luck (odd body shapes etc) and deliver better electoral outcomes.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

*Although note that sometimes changing your appearance can have negative impacts too.

**In the narrow sense of my shirt example this might not strictly hold – fat people, even if shirts fit them better, may experience slower career progression than those who are slimmer (other things equal).

The Progressive fightback? Start by abandoning the word ‘progressive’

This weekend, the great and the good of the centre-left will converge on London to perform a post-mortem on elections and of Labour’s year in Opposition. Huzzah! It’s Fabian Society Conference time.

Sadly I won’t be there. It’s my birthday this weekend, so I can think of a gazillion better things to do on Saturday than debate Labour Party strategy.

And I suspect it won’t really matter not being there. It’s highly likely that some or all of the following will be discussed as reasons for a rather limp twelve months for the left: length and timing of leadership election; strength of opposition narrative; focus on Lib Dems rather than Tories; complacency; Ed Miliband failing to find his voice quickly enough; trust on economic issues; lack of policies; Murdoch press etc etc.

So, for what it’s worth, here is my two-penneth on how to mount a ‘Progressive fightback’: start by abandoning words like ‘progressive’. Bin them. No seriously. ‘Progressive’ is meaningless. It’s bunkum. And, more importantly, using it as a badge of honour isn’t going to win votes.

Time was when to be a progressive meant something. In the 90s they were the sparkly New Labour types. Trendy. Cool. Progressives fought against the loony left whose wet dream was for complete nationalisation of all industry. And against those on the right who lamented the collapse of the Empire. And against those beardy weirdies in the Liberals who couldn’t make their mind up on anything.

Progressives even had their own colour: purple. What colour are you? Blood red? Too Soviet! Puke yellow? No thank you! Royal blue? Off with your head! They’re not progressive. Purple is progressive.

Voters could spot progressives. And they liked them.

But in Coalition Britain, we’re all progressive now. David Cameron is a ‘progressive Conservative’. Nick Clegg is a ‘new-fashioned progressive’. And the left is working out how to mount a ‘progressive fightback’.

I guess you’d know if you’re not progressive. Non-progressives are the sort who would make people sell a kidney just to be able to afford kidney treatment. Or the sort who would euthanase immigrants to keep their numbers down. Or the sort who would reintroduce tongue clamps for women. They’re not progressive.

Not you? Then well done! You’re progressive! Bravo.

Except the term, by being appropriated by parties across the political spectrum, has become devoid of any meaning. It is a huge canvas onto which you can project almost any ideal.

But there are other problems with the term too.

Take the AV referendum as an example. As Jessica Asato, Director of Labour Yes to AV, has now admitted, the Yes to AV campaign should have had the slogan “a small change that will make a small difference”. Yet the more fervent supporters of AV whipped themselves into an orgasmic frenzy, arguing that those who didn’t see the point of AV (68% of those who voted, as it turned out) were heathens opposed to the betterment of society. AV was change. It was progress. If you opposed AV then you weren’t progressive. You were conservative. Or stupid. Or Rupert Murdoch. Or a stupid conservative Rupert Murdoch.

So terms like progressive alter the terms of the debate in an unhelpful way. Opposing specific forms of change doesn’t mean you don’t share ideals, necessarily. It might just mean you disagree about means. Labels like progressive put an impetus on those who describe themselves thus to constantly agitate for change. But change for its own sake is pointless.

And for voters terms like ‘progressive’ have probably always been meaningless. But now they look increasingly patronising too. It’s the sort of term that might have resonance in a small band of intellectual and political elite – the denizens of the People’s Republic of Islington – but it in no way meaningfully relates to what punters on the doorstep give a crap about. Like paying the bills, or what’s best for the kids, or how annoying the neighbours are.

In short, it’s not a term that will help Ed Miliband look and sound like a fully paid-up member of the human race. And based on the last few months, that is looking like an uphill challenge.

To be ‘progressive’ is now completely, utterly, totally devoid of meaning. It is to be anything and everything, and absolutely nothing all at the same time.

So my suggestion is to jettison it. To use simple language that has real meaning to the sorts of voters Labour needs to win back. Maybe then they might be more willing to get involved with the Party and its work.

Or, at the very least, to vote for it in future elections.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

Two pints of Fabiansim and a packet of crisps

It has been an interesting few months for the Fabian Society. Since Ed Miliband’s speech at New Year Conference and Maurice Glasman’s challenging contribution to the Young Fabian lunchtime session at the same event, Blue Labour has entered the Labour thinker’s lexicon for 2011, and often inaccurately set up Fabianism as its polar opposite. The debate continues over on Next Left today.

It was amusing then to see Labour’s leader use an old friend as a shield for questions about his plans for departure from bachelorhood – his stag party “won’t be two Fabian Society lectures and half a pint of beer”. Is Fabianism really the worst thing imaginable in the Westminster bubble and beyond?

If so, perhaps it is time to inject some dynamism into the society?

The second half of the year will see a new general secretary appointed to lead the organisation – and a great opportunity to show Ed Miliband why he needs an active and exciting Fabian Society. Naturally, there is plenty to build on: the leadership of the Fabians will be handed over with record levels of membership; a fantastic body of thinkers and doers in its youth wing (but as Chair of the Young Fabians I would say that wouldn’t I?); some tremendous local groups; and a history of significant interventions. Packed out events like this weekend’s Progressive Fightback conference (final few tickets here) show that the wider left wants the sort of discussion and debate that the Fabians facilitate. This is an organisation with a lot of potential for someone to take on.

So what’s the dynamism needed then?

The two things I took on board most strongly from the delegation I led to the Obama campaign in 2008 were the importance of people, and the holy grail of strategy. These principles make a good start.

The Fabian Society holds a unique position as both a think tank and membership organisation with democracy at its heart. The membership is a strength. The society can grow in size and influence by capitalising on its members talents. A small, hardworking staff with smaller than desired budgets could be supported by the people who sign up year after year and call themselves Fabians. These people are already contributing to the Fabian Women’s Network, numerous local societies, and of course the Young Fabians – but I’m sure even more members have even more to offer if empowered to contribute. Be it to greater policy debate as the critical friend of Labour, or having those difficult conversations the party steers clear of. Be it with abilities from their professional lives, as web designers, writers, industry experts, and fundraisers. Or be it liaising with local Labour parties and progressive campaigns. We should seek to grow the membership in numbers, but grow them also as individuals, developing their contribution to the movement.

The new leader of the Fabians will have new ideas. But they must bring the people on the journey with them. How? Tell them what you’re trying to achieve and facilitate their involvement in it. Get your strategy right, and stick to it. (David Plouffe’s The Audacity to Win is the key read here.) The Young Fabian executive committee has four strategic priorities (to increase membership, member involvement, funds and influence). This is public. The difficult decisions we make as a voluntary executive are taken through this gauge. And members are helping us – the Membership Ambassadors identified and supported by my colleague Anna-Joy Rickard, for example.

If the Fabian goal is to provide Ed with the ideas he needs to win a general election and improve the lives being damaged by this government’s actions, then a strategy in place to achieve that will be a crucial part of the new general secretary’s role. If the membership is contributing its maximum to this, I have every reason to think we can be successful.

If not, there’s always a night in with Ed and Justine …

• Submit your thoughts on the Future of the Fabians by clicking here.

Adrian Prandle is Chair of the Young Fabians.

The Future of the Fabians: 3 suggestions

Fabianism is older than the Labour Party. Its tradition stems back before the Labour Representation Committee, before Keir Hardie and before version one of Clause 4. And yet Fabianism was crucial to every Labour government since it formed the party and must still be crucial to contributing to the formation of the next Labour government.

Sunder Katwala moves on from his service to the society and leaves it at time of renewal across the Labour Party. The Fabians and the Labour Party will both have new General Secretaries in 2011 and both individuals will have the challenges of making their organisations adapt to opposition.

Young Fabians and Young Labour members should rise to this moment and to Ed Miliband’s assertion that a new generation has taken over the party. In 2010 over 190 of the Society’s 320 new members were Young Fabians.

So here are three suggestions I would offer to the new Fabian General Secretary as an active member of the Young Fabians:

1. Membership is more than paying your subs

The Young Fabians pride ourselves on being an inclusive organisation, where being a member means more than receiving a magazine and pamphlet in the post each month and going to conferences. Young Fabian members are encouraged to attend social events, contribute to policy commissions, join in online debates, write for our blog and for our magazine. We strive to make our members feel part of an organisation of like minded young people that they have ownership of and a space where they can debate and offer ideas. There is more the senior society can do to foster a sense that Fabians are part of a tradition, a community, a movement, where their ideas are valued and contribute to the future of the Labour party.

2. Campaigning is an important part of politics

Whilst we’re unashamed of being part of “pamphlet labour” and talking policy is our usp, the Young Fabians have a great tradition of being young campaigners as well as young thinkers. For local, general, European elections and even the US and Swedish General Elections, the Young Fabians have hit the #labourdoorstep and given the shoe leather needed to win elections for Labour candidates. There is a time for pamphlets and a time for action and the Young Fabians are as proud of our canvassing as of our policy and research. Without campaigning, Labour candidates would never get elected and our policies would stay in pamphlet books rather than getting on to the statue book.

3. Politics happens outside London

After some deserved criticism and a lot of hard work, the Young Fabians have made huge strides at improving our reach outside of London. The key lesson we learned, wasn’t to mandate a largely London based Executive to travel up and down the country running meetings. It was to learn that empowering non-London based members to run events with advice and guidance was more productive and brought better results. We still have further to go on this but there is much to be gained from empowering Fabians to run their activities, with relevant support, wherever they are. The new General Secretary should build and develop the Fabian local societies, encouraging them to become active parts of the Labour party in the regions and areas they work.

I’m sure there are more ideas that other Young Fabians would like to add to the debate about the future of the Fabians. Please join the debate and submit your contribution here.

Brian Duggan is Policy Officer for the Young Fabians.

Can charities learn from online innovation when it comes to raising money?

We’ve become so used to charities being funded through Government grants that we are in danger, now the Government has closed off streams of funding, of ignoring their demise. If we value these organisations and the work they do then perhaps we need to look at innovative ways of funding them?

Last month the Poppy Project, a charity which pioneered  specialist support services for the victims of sex trafficking, found out that the Government was immediately cutting its funding. It is now faced with a need of £450,000 in donations by the end of June to continue. TimeBank, on the face of it an excellent example of David Cameron’s vision of the Big Society, faced a similar situation when it found the Government cutting a quarter of its funding by refusing a £500k Office of Civil Society grant.

With hundreds of charities facing the same grim reality it is becoming increasingly important for charities to find better ways of raising money and showing that they are valuable enough to merit attention. Big Society in Austerity Britain seems to mean a begging-bowl dependent Third Sector.

The obvious stumbling block is that in most cases charities aren’t able to ‘sell’ what they do to the people who benefit from what they do – frequently their ‘customers’ have no hope of affording these services. This either leaves charities having to cultivate philanthropic supporters with deep pockets (who are few and far between… The most wealthy 10% account for about half of all individual giving in the USA; in Britain it is only a fifth) or fundraising through the public. [There's an interesting table, table 4 on page 9, of this Charity Commission report which looks at just how important different forms of funding are to different sized charities.]

Justgiving (though it is worth mentioning that Virgin Money Giving doesn’t take a commission) is a typical experience for those seeking to raise or donate to charity. People tend to ask their friends and associates to pledge money to their favourite charity in return for them doing something – running some sort of race, jumping out of an aeroplane or dyeing their body magenta. Hopefully people realise their fundraising targets and charities are suitably grateful. But, a controversial view perhaps,  are we learning to care less about the charities and their work, and focus more on the fun and exciting challenges we get to take part in to support them?

But is there a better way to achieve the same aim of raising money and raise interest in charity projects?

I happened to read this article from the Harvard Business Review on pay-what-you-want experiments online, some people will remember the less successful experiments:

• Steven King’s aborted attempt to get people to pay for his book, The Plant, chapter by chapter – it was never finished; and
• Radiohead fans will remember the band’s attempt at ‘honesty box’ music distribution with the digital album In Rainbows – people paid on average £2.60 per album.

Of course the failures are easier to remember than the successes,  but Prof Gans highlighting of Kickstarter should make UK charities think seriously about what they can learn from online innovations in money raising.  These tech start ups are embracing the sort of democratic low-value, large-base crowd source fundraising that political campaigning, like Obama’s 2008 campaign, has taken on and showing a more business/value ingenuity.

Crucially they don’t depend on Mr Cameron’s largesse.

The trouble with G.O’D.

The Guardian reports today that Sir Gus O’Donnell – head of the Civil Service – blocked an attempt by Gordon Brown to launch a judicial inquiry into the phone hacking affair because of the general election.

Given recent revelations, that looks like particularly poor judgement.

And it raises another important question: is Sir Gus O’Donnell too political to be head of the Civil Service?

On the one hand, you might agree with his analysis that it would “inappropriate to hold a judicial inquiry so close to a general election”, as the Guardian reports – any such inquiry would likely have become a campaigning issue due to (a) the fact former Editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson , was a key part of David Cameron’s so-called ‘inner circle’ and (b) Labour had lost the support of the News of the World (and the Sun).

On the other hand, the appointment of Andy Coulson – and his retention even when the evidence of widespread phone hacking continued to drip into the public sphere – calls into question Cameron’s judgement. It is entirely appropriate for political opponents to highlight this.

More fundamentally, the proximity or otherwise of elections should not be used to insulate politicians from poor decision making, and nor should it be used to obfuscate the judicial process – remember, victims of phone hacking were subject to illegal acts for which some reporters have already been imprisoned.

This is the second time in 10 months that Sir Gus O’Donnell’s advice has been called into question – the first related to his role in the coalition negotiations last summer.

Is it now time for him to go?

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

Are some wars better than others?

Is a civil war better than military intervention by other countries?

I ask because the Stop The War Coalition is tonight demonstrating against military intervention in Libya. On its website, the Stop The War coalition lists ten reasons against military intervention, which include:

• As soon as NATO starts to intervene, the Libyan people will start to lose control of their own country and future.
• Intervention can only prolong, not end the civil war.
• Intervention will lead to escalation.
• Respecting Libya’s sovereignty is the cause of peace, not is enemy.
• This is not Spain in 1936, it is more like Iraq in the 1990s. Or Kosovo and Bosnia.
• It is about oil.
• It is also about pressure on Egyptian revolution.
• NATO will only ever intervene to strangle genuine social revolution, never to support it.
• Liberal interventionism cannot be allowed to rise from the graves of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I’m not making these up, unfortunately.

Behind the assertion and the otherwise objectionable argumentation put forward by the Stop The War Coalition is a worrying underlying implication – that it is better to leave Colonel Gaddafi to use military force against his people, than risk shedding blood by intervening to oppose his brutality.

We’ve been here before.

Perhaps the Stop The War Coalition would like to believe there are moral absolutes – that killing is absolutely wrong. But the implications of taking a stance against military intervention to prevent civil war is that you might condemn people to die by other means. So much for your morals.

Or perhaps they are comfortable with military action in general, but object to the deployment of military force by a country in situations where there is no direct threat to its own people. But that is just as illogical – why oppose specific types of military action when you’re comfortable with the concept in general?

Or, more likely, perhaps the Stop The War Coalition long ago lost any coherence to its core aims.

The vexed issue of our involvement in military activity overseas did not resolve itself with the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Bad people exist, and some of those do bad things to others. On the facts of each case, there may be merit in acting to stop them on humanitarian grounds. The bad people may die as a consequence. So too might some good. But they might have anyway.

But that cannot be the intention of countries acting to intervene – they act to prevent unnecessary loss of life, not to cause it. However, doing so is not without risks.

Moral relativism might be troubling, but being a moral absolutist about military intervention appears unsustainable.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

Why David Lammy is wrong

In advance of this week’s vote on tuition fees, David Lammy has penned an article for the Guardian titled “The Oxford whitewash”, in which he basically accuses Oxford of institutional racism – it is, he argues, the university of the elitists in Government and “continues to recruit in the same image”. The tuition fee hike will only entrench that, he concludes.

There are several things wrong with David Lammy’s article, not least his questionable use of statistics – see here, here or here for example. But what most angers and worries me is that apparently serious Labour politicians continue to bemoan the symptoms of a deeper problem, rather than its root cause.

I’ll declare my interest early on – I went to Oxford. It’s not something I’m ashamed of – I worked hard at my local state-funded community college to get the grades, and even harder at the interviews to get the place.

While at the university, I helped on various access schemes including Sutton Trust summer schools and other outreach work. I tried to do my bit to encourage people with backgrounds like mine to believe that Oxford was a university for them, because I genuinely believe it is if you can get the grades and demonstrate potential to tutors.

But what struck me about the then 16 and 17 year olds I spoke to is that a worrying number of them had already made up their minds that Oxford and Cambridge were not the sort of universities people like them went to. Much of the outreach work I did was probably fruitless – not because of the best endeavours of the committed outreach staff at the university, but because those they targeted were beyond convincing of the merits of even applying.

Those experiences convinced me that while universities must do their bit to encourage applications, the real problem was that in schools like the one I went to there is a real poverty of aspiration. Kids aren’t necessarily encouraged to do their best, but to do enough to make league table statistics look a bit better (for example, I remember a lot of effort was spent trying to move kids on the C/D borderline at GCSE into the cherished A*-C grade). This isn’t a reflection on the teachers, of which there are many outstanding examples, but of the structure of the national curriculum system and the practical difficulties of making comprehensive education work.

It is easy for politicians to push the burden of outreach onto universities – it allows them to think less about policies to widen participation in primary and secondary schools, and gives them someone to blame when things don’t work out.

And it is easy for Labour politicians to play the elitist card, both about the current government and about Oxford and Cambridge.

But that won’t help change the problem Lammy identifies. The more Labour politicians bang on about elitism at Oxford and Cambridge – rather than do something useful like focus on the evident poverty of aspiration in state schools – the more likely talented young people from disadvantaged backgrounds will think that they’re not the sort of universities for people like them.

Instead Labour politicians should hold such universities up as the sort of institutions to which anybody should aspire; they should fight for a higher education system in which more universities develop world-leading specialisms; and they should advocate policies at all levels of education which are likely to result in higher volume of applications to world-leading universities (not just Oxford and Cambridge).

Labour should be the party that puts forward a positive vision for our higher education system, and the impact it can have on people’s lives. But instead the temptation to inverted snobbery is too great.

David Lammy is right to be concerned about the impacts of changes to the higher education system on those from disadvantaged backgrounds, but he is wrong to use lazy, worn arguments about elitism to make his point.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

Ed, take your time and don’t be hurried

PMQs is a pantomime but it’s one that needs to be entertaining for the right reasons.

With poll results coming in showing Labour on 40 per cent and, amongst students, 42 per cent the question has to be weather difficult PMQ episodes like today’s really matter? Some say yes, some say no. It is no good claiming piously that PMQs is a Westminster oddity that plays badly to the country – we all know it is one of the worst public excesses Westminster allows itself. Nor is it a case of simply taking it on the chin as a ‘bad week’ which won’t happen again. Irrespective of your view, a British political leader needs to show their ability to command PMQs.