Why young people find local government so remote

In this member post, Scott Nicholson explains the problem of young people’s engagement in local politics and why older councillors are more of a hindrance than a help.

In March this year I answered a call for written evidence from the Communities and Local Government Committee with regard to their inquiry into the role councillors play in their communities.

During the last National Census of Local Authority Councillors, it was revealed that the average age of councillors had increased from 55 years old in 1997 to 60 years old in 2010.

When submitting my evidence to the Committee I focused on this point and the implications for representation and local democracy arising from this lack of diversity in the age of councillors recruited. In addition to this I shared an anecdote from my experience of running for local government in which an existing councillor in her sixties spoke of her annoyance to a group of young candidates that we had been told that we could become councillors whilst still in full-time employment.

As a result of this I was asked last month to go down to Westminster and talk to the Communities and Local Government Committee about why people chose, or chose not, to stand in local elections.

Here I spoke of the importance of a council being reflective of the community it is serving. With regard to young people I feel this is important as I do not feel that older people are fully aware of the problems facing many of us today. People in their fifties and sixties experienced a stable career, free education, no student debt and a home that has increased in value. Today, only people born into money experience that quality of life and for people like us, things are going to be tougher than they were for our parents.

What do the older generations know of the experience of surviving at university when it has never been more expensive? What do they know of looking to get on the career ladder during a recession, working an unpaid internship and having to move back home and rely on parental income?

Perhaps an advantage young people have today is modern technology and the internet? However, older people do not understand how this technology causes younger people to work harder and for longer than their parents as they are able to take work home.

In addition to this, the cost of property has increased at a rate far higher than our wages. I also do not think older people understand that the deposit needed for a first-time buyer is 59 per cent higher than it was only a decade ago. Young people currently have to pay private landlord’s rents that are higher than the mortgage payments for the houses/flats they live in. What experience does someone in their sixties have of trying to save for a deposit on a house whilst paying private rents that are higher than the mortgage they are saving for?

People in their sixties were married with children by their twenties. Today families hold out on having children early on in hopes that further down the road they will be better able to financially support them. In addition to this, I do not think older people understand that the uncertain futures of young people have consequences on modern relationships, as couples do not have a stable environment in which to put down their own roots.

I also shared my opinion with regard to what I think puts younger people off from standing for election and what could be done to encourage more younger people to stand.

I personally feel that the problem starts at school. Not voting until eighteen and poor levels of citizenship education, leads to a lack of understanding regarding the work of local and national political systems and how to become politically active. This causes younger people not to seek to engage with councils with local civil society.

In my local authority the city council current has more councillors aged over 75 years old than under 35 years old. This eliminates much of the interest of younger people in local politics as they lack role models to follow. Younger people that are engaged, may feel that local government candidacy is not for people like them; they are for the retired. However, for most younger people, I think that this completely disenfranchises them.

I definitely do not think older councillors are against local government and when asked whether there should be more young people on the council, they would certainly say yes. The problem is they do not see themselves as part of the problem. Whenever criticised, I hear older councillors advertising their length of service as a badge of honour or qualification. This attitude creates a problem almost akin to bed-blocking in the NHS, in which elderly councillors fill seats and produce a barrier that young candidates struggle to get around.

The attitude that decades of membership is a badge of honour and a qualification for office is also a problem for young people at selection meetings. If a meeting of elderly party members gives greater weight to forty years of passive membership than five years of political activism and organisation, then younger people will always be at a disadvantage.

I believe there should be some form of ‘positive discrimination’ to ensure more younger candidates are elected. This could take the form of introducing a limit on the number of consecutive terms, or total years that could be served as a councillor. I feel this would free seats that could then be filled using under-35 short lists.

I recently raised this policy idea at the Rebuilding Our Communities policy seminar at the Labour Party Conference. Unsurprisingly, younger party members were very supportive, while older members were less enthusiastic.

People in our country that are under sixty years old have a huge amount of talent and make up the vast majority of our nation’s workforce. I think that local government being largely made up of older people wastes this talent and makes our elected officials unrepresentative. Most upsettingly, I feel this causes young people to find local government remote and as a result undermines the future of our democracy.

Scott Nicholson is Treaurer of Leeds Fabian Society and a Young Fabians Member.

British double standards and the Arab Spring

Freelance journalist Daniel Wickham examines British duplicity following the revolutions in the Middle East.

With reports of Russian made cluster bombs being used by the Assad regime, the Kremlin has found its reputation here in the west increasingly in tatters.

But is it really any great surprise that a government with a human rights record as dubious as Russia’s might have unsavoury friends? Much more surprising, however, is the long list of dictatorships and repressive regimes which Britain, an otherwise exemplary liberal democracy, allies itself to.

Only recently, the Home Office declared Saudi Arabia to be a close friend and ally of the British government, despite the Kingdom ranking as the seventh least democratic country in the 2011 Democracy Index. Our support is far more than just verbal- Saudi Arabia is the British arms trade’s number one customer, with British ‘controlled goods’ exports to the regime valued at £4,069,920,068 by the ‘Campaign Against the Arms Trade.’

This fact alone is enough to put into serious doubt the widely accepted claim that the British government is a supporter of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. But such doubts are never found in the mainstream media. Despite knowledge of our support for undemocratic regimes even during the Arab Spring, the media faithfully follows the government line- Britain is devoted to promoting democracy in the Arab world.

If properly scrutinised, however, our record of ‘promoting’ democracy and human rights speaks for itself. A list of Britain’s allies in the region reads like a who’s who of dictators and human rights abusers. From President Khalifa of the UAE to the Sultan of Oman and the King of Bahrain, Britain’s allies in the Middle East have all presided over a sharp increase in human rights violations during the Arab Spring. Crackdowns on demonstrations, torture and even massacres have been reported, but still British arms pour in.

In Bahrain, Amnesty international believe as many as 60 people have been killed. And yet, when 28 countries joined to condemn the violations in the UN Human Rights Council, the British government refused. Fortunately for them, the media remained silent.

Understandably, they have been much more vocal about the atrocities of the Assad regime- the crimes of the Sultan of Oman or President Khalifa of the UAE hardly even bear comparison to Assad’s bloody rule of terror. With thousands dead, and no end in sight, the situation in Syria is desperate.  But talk of intervention seems hypocritical. How can Britain justify intervening against one despot in the name of democracy, and yet continue to support dictators elsewhere?

The British role in the Arab Spring has been riddled with double standards- overthrowing Qaddafi on one hand, supporting Ben Ali and Mubarak on the other. And yet the government still presents itself as a staunch supporter of democracy, championing freedom for all Arab people. The onus for questioning this claim is on the mainstream media, who have a responsibility to do more to hold the government to account for their unsavory alliances.

So before we even consider intervention against a brutal despot in Syria, Britain must look in the mirror and address our own record of support for dictators in the Arab world. Only when the government can proudly say Britain supports democracy for all people, and mean it, can the notion of intervention even be considered.

Daniel Wickham is a gap year student, youth worker and freelance journalist going on to read history and politics at university

Caring is not something that happens to ‘other people’

As the Government dithers over implementing the social care funding changes recommended in the Dilnot report, much of the focus on social care in politics and the media has been on the funding and quality crisis in formal and institutional care.

However this debate risks obscuring the experiences of informal carers – 12% of the population in 2009/10 – and the devastating effect care can have without proper support

Caring is a financial leveller.  Almost every carer I spoke to as part of my research had faced financial pressures as a result of caring and/or due to someone in the family experiencing long-term illness or disability.  Very few had sufficient wealth to protect their lifestyle, or employers flexible enough to support them to continue to work and care long term.  This has financial effects that are dramatic at the time of caring, but which can last far beyond the period of care.

The costs are multiple.  Some are associated with disability and ill health: extra heating, transport to visit the care recipient, or to go to appointments.  Special diets, equipment, extra washing, incontinence pads.  For those who were getting older, or caring for someone with a long-term condition the threat of residential care loomed large on the horizon.  This can feel an impossible problem, and is poorly understood.  Carers simply cannot plan towards it.  Those caring for children unlikely ever to be able to look after themselves worry about what would happen to their children when they were gone.

And there’s the opportunity cost, lost earnings, doubled if your spouse also has to stop work to care, or is unable to work due to their own ill health. 26% of all working-age carers report having to change their work patterns, although this rose to 40% amongst those providing more than 20 hours of care a week.  Some stop work completely, others reduce their hours, with long-lasting effects on their careers.

Carers spoke of inflexible employers, even in the public sector. Many felt unable to do their job well because it required travelling that would have put the person they were supporting at risk, or they had to leave to deal with emergencies, or make frequent phone calls.  Those caring for children found it hard to find work within school or nursery hours. The battle to get appropriate formal support was often a further barrier to work.

As local authority care is further rationed, cut, or privatised, there will be greater pressure on family carers to step in.  Few carers feel they have a choice to care: it’s a situation they find themselves in, because they love the care recipient, or feel obliged, because there is no-one else.

This then leaves them with even less choice and control over working and their finances. If employment rights are further reduced by the Conservatives, carers will be left even more vulnerable.

Securing social care funding should be the starting point.  We must consider how we can best support carers. How do we ensure people are given a choice between caring and working? How can we provide high quality, affordable alternatives? Access to education and training?  Comprehensive information and advice to help carers navigate the complexities of the welfare state at a time of high stress?  Access to mental health support?

These are complex and urgent questions, and faced with a rapidly ageing population, we can’t afford to delay seeking answers any longer.

Caring is not something that happens to ‘other people’, something that can be planned for, or predicted.  It is something that can happen to any of us, at any time, and we need to place it at the centre of social policy if we want to ensure that it does not have catastrophic effects on families’ lives.

Sarah Hutchinson is a member of the Fabian Women’s Network

Apprenticeships: Put your money where your mouth is

At this month’s Labour Conference, Young Fabian Victoria Desmond presented in front of a ‘Dragon’s Den’ of panellists her ideas for alleviating youth unemployment. In this article, she explains how restructuring apprenticeships may hold the key. 

Apprenticeships have the potential to transform lives, and bring a whole generation of eager young people into the workforce. However, the current system is not fit for purpose, so I came to the Young Fabians with a comprehensive plan of how to reform it for the better.

The way that I sought to do this was to conduct an interview with a director of Tru-Cal Metrology Ltd- a calibration firm that specialises in precision engineering.

Together we came up with the following policy suggestion:

Firstly, we looked at the public private partnerships around which apprenticeships are currently organised. The current system is flawed and we therefore need to analyse how we can make these more effective. They need to be modelled around a bargain between the state and small businesses or in partnership with the proposed ‘British Investment Bank’ so that apprenticeships can be adequately funded.

These fully funded  programmes could then provide vocational qualifications alongside practical work place experience that is paid by the employer and subsidised to reach the basic level of the living wage- not the minimum wage.

Secondly, these apprenticeships must be focused in three specific sectors:

A)     The manufacturing industry,

B)      research and development and

C)      green industries

We also recommended that a fourth apprenticeship scheme should be modelled to target secretarial work. This particular programme would focus on giving people the skills needed to efficiently work and run an office, use office technology such as telephones and fax machines, and equip people with basic skills such as typing. Practical skills like these are already taught in bespoke secretarial colleges. Now it’s time to roll out the opportunities offered here to jobless young people.

Our third proposal is that the government offers a national insurance employer contribution holiday. We recommend employer contributions are either cut in half or eliminated completely for each employee aged under 25 for a limited period of time.

Ideally, we feel that this scheme should be in place for one year. However, this may be financially unsustainable, and therefore we reckon that for the policy to be effective and economically viable, a period of 6 months should be set as the limit. Funding for this national insurance employer contribution could be found from one of the following:

A)     a wealth tax,

B)      financial transactions tax or

C)      a tax on bankers’ bonuses.

We would say that the fairest way to fund this scheme would be via the financial sector, as a gesture of reconciliation for the damage that they have inflicted on the prospective future of my generation.

I gathered from my interview that the director felt that the specific industry that he worked in was in danger of becoming extinct in this country, calling metrology “a dying art”. There are few courses teaching these skills. I asked how long it would take to train an apprentice to equip them to work in the calibration industry; he specified a minimum of three years. He said he would take on apprentices under the proviso that the government would fund the costs of sending the employee to college and contribute to the wage bill.

In a damning indictment of current policy, he stated that in the 18 years that he had been running his business he had never once been given a single penny from the government to help sustain his industry- let alone seen any funds for an apprenticeship scheme.

This shows more than anything that when it comes to apprenticeships, the government simply must put its money where its mouth is. If it delivers on its promises to the youth, the government can save us from becoming the ‘unemployed generation.’

Victoria Desmond is a Young Fabian member

Why are young people locked out of economic and political systems?

At the Young Fabian Jobs Plan held in Manchester yesterday, Victoria Desmond explained how and why youth unemployment must be tackled now. Here, she describes how young people’s economic and political troubles are closely entwined.

Youth unemployment is at epidemic levels. One million 16- 25 years olds have no job. This has the potential to leave a long-lasting impact on the lives of an entire generation, but also has implications for the wider economy. Long term unemployment has detrimental effects on productivity and output, diminishes skills and wastes talent. As young people, we are the ones most affected by the economic crisis; however we are also the ones least likely to engage in the political system, and be engaged by politicians.

Many commentators such as Guardian journalist Shiv Malik go as far as to name us the “jilted generation”; not only are we ignored by the system, but we are wilfully locked-out of the policy debate by those in power.

At a time of acute economic difficulty, this is unacceptable. However, many young people do not make the connection between economic issues, in terms of pay or employment, and political participation, or realise that political participation is vital for the promotion of economic interests.

Alternatively, many young people simply perceive economists and politicians to be in cahoots with the ‘bad banker guys’ who bankrupted the system. Simply put, the majority of young people think that economics relates to money and banks, whilst politics relates to a remote, and disconnected distribution of power in the hands of elites.

Helping young people develop a better understanding of the connection between economics and politics is paramount. The problem that this alludes to is both educational and representational; a key reason why young are locked out of economic and political systems is simply lack of knowledge. Young people should grasp that they are already at a disadvantage because of these systems but that the opportunities to become more engaged exist.

They could be helped to this realisation if the mainstream media bothered to connect questions of economic disadvantage with issues of political representation. News outlets rarely present issues such as the living wage as both a political and economic project that has a real impact on young people’s lives.

Perhaps we can make up for failures of the mainstream media by embracing our status as the ‘socially connected generation’. Of course, there are many accessible forms of engagement; for instance we can follow our elected representative on Twitter, I can ‘like’ the “We hate David Cameron” Facebook page, and I can sign a petition in less than a minute to support the latest campaign fad.

Engagement with social media is important, but we have to accept that there are limits to what it can achieve. Sometimes we miss the obvious fact that those who engage politically on social networks are the same people who engage in the political system anyway.

In addition, when young people who do not usually get involved in politics do take part in an online campaign, they too often limit their participation to a quick tweet or a one-off email. They contribute too little and get back even less from the experience. In light of this, a question we should ask is: ‘when do social networks trivialise political debate to such an extent that it actually harms the cause of further engagement?’

Despite technological advances, it remains the responsibility of political organisations to engage the younger generation. We all know groups that have long mailing lists and comfortable membership numbers, yet still have a problem in getting these people to move from more casual or passive engagement to proactive commitment.

When push comes to shove, political organisations need people to attend events, campaign on the streets and devote time to recruiting new members. Otherwise, a terminal decline in participation is inevitable. People who are already engaged must remember that they have a social responsibility to attract new members – particularly younger members – to ensure future generations reap the benefit of a thriving political culture.

This also means rethinking the terms, themes and direction of campaigns toward younger audiences. We also have to take a critical look at ourselves in the mirror and ask: ‘are we the ones to blame for disenfranchising a generation?’

It’s easy to list the problems facing young people today. Finding serious policy solutions that can be framed and presented on young people’s terms is ultimately the best way to address the twin issues of political disengagement and economic vulnerability.

The father of Burmese heroine Aung Sang Su Kui once said: “you may not think about politics, but politics thinks of you.” The answers that we are looking for are not to be found in a convoluted political thesis or a miracle equation.

The key to solving the lack of active engagement is to go back to basics. Remind people of this simple quote. Perhaps if they feel more connected to political and economic systems they will be more inclined to engage. We need to start talking to a wider audience in a more accessible language, stop debating with ourselves and turn our attention to the people who don’t think that politics is for them.

When they start believing politics can bring real change, the seeds of engagement will be planted and perhaps then my generation can stand up for itself and make our voices heard.

Victoria Desmond is a Young Fabians member

Our unelected Queen must keep her views to herself

Nate Barker from ‘Labour for a Republic,’ on the Queen’s interference in affairs of state.

In this Age of Leveson, the media is keen to show how it can be a force for good and maintain its relevance in a world of ever-shrinking revenues. So I was heartily pleased to hear yesterday how the BBC had broken the news that the Queen had spoken to the Home Secretary in 2004 about Abu Hamza, telling him she was ‘aghast’ that he remained at large.

For years, republicans have been shouting about how the monarchy constantly lobbies to make known its thoughts and opinions on the matters of the day. This is despite being constitutionally-bound to remain neutral and above political affairs. Now, we had the authoritative voice of the BBC agreeing with us about the Queen’s attempts to influence policy.

I use the past tense because, in an utterly craven move, the Corporation has scrambled to assuage royal displeasure, issuing an apology for what they call a ‘breach of confidence,’ changing the focus of the story from a monarch overstepping their constitutional bounds to an apology for daring to draw attention to this. Make no mistake, I would rather the BBC had brought this to the public’s attention at the time, not eight years later – and I’m sure the Palace had a hand in its release – but it’s good to have evidence in the public domain of the Queen’s lobbying of government ministers.

Whether you agree with the Queen or not is irrelevant – constitutionally, there shouldn’t be any place in government for her views. Having grown up in palaces and castles with servants, never having to worry about money, it’s not a stretch to assume that her opinions may not be representative of the country at large. Yet, when she makes her opinions known to ministers, they carry considerably more weight than that of the average voter. We quite rightly have campaigned against media barons being able to influence the government, and there’s no reason why we should accept it when it comes from Buckingham Palace.

Instead of talking about whether the BBC should or shouldn’t apologise, we should be asking what else the Queen is talking to government ministers about and making it clear that, in a modern democracy, we simply won’t accept powerful unelected figures interfering in matters of state.

Nate P. Barker is Campaigns Officer for Labour for a Republic. You can find out more about the movement and sign up via www.labourforarepublic.org.uk or @Labour4Republic.

Young people need to talk about politics, and politicians need to listen

Hoor Pathan, project manager of LetsTAP (Let’s Talk About Politics) wowed the Fabian Summer Conference when she asked Ed Miliband directy to engage young people in political discourse. Here, she talks about the principle behind the project. 

Young people are often brushed off the political landscape as apathetic, unrealistic or just not bothered at all with politics as a whole.

However, the truth is far different. With the rapid changes for the worse that the Coalition has brought in, and the massive cuts taking place across all sectors which affect young people both directly and indirectly, the young are being forced to face challenges of a magnitude they have never imagined.

Tuition fees trebled. No guarantee of work after graduation. A Tory peer recently said “Britain’s never had it better.” As an 11-year-old in Britain today, I say: “Britain’s never had it worse.”

But the recent problems go far deeper than just university fees and cuts to services. The biggest problem today is that young people are trapped in a type of poverty which many have not noticed. It isn’t financial poverty, although this remains a huge problem which politicians have yet to face. No, the poverty I’m talking about is the poverty of aspiration, and the poverty of hope in politics.

You could blame the disappointment of ‘Clegg-Mania’ for this. However, the problem goes further than simple partisan excuses. Young people aren’t switched off; they just haven’t had the chance to get their voice across. The dissatisfaction isn’t about policy alone; it’s about being heard by those in power.

So what needs to be done? The good news is that Labour has already started taking steps in the right direction. Ed Miliband promised to focus on young people when he said “The work of a new generation has begun” in his acceptance speech after becoming leader. He’s already proved this isn’t just empty rhetoric, that he really means it, by holding talks with young people across the country.

But it doesn’t end there. Like in other walks in life, getting young people engaged in politics is a process of ‘Follow the leader.’ Members of the shadow cabinet, junior ministers, and local politicians including councillors, mayors and local cabinets need to go out and reach out to a generation who feels like they have been abandoned. A generation who feels as if a parent has left them and forgotten about them, a generation who feels that the government has lost love for them.

Both national and local politicians need to hold meaningful, rather than tokenistic, talks with young people where young people can actively raise their voice, put forward their concerns and feel as though they are being heard. Then we can move on to the bigger challenge, putting politicians into a position where they have to admit to the young where they’ve got it wrong and show how the ideas young people have are being used to shape policy.

As the political spectrum changes once again, the future of progressive politics lies with involving the young. The new centre ground is where the young who come from generations of non-voters feel inspired to go home and get their disenfranchised families out to the polling station come May 2015.

Hoor Pathan is project manager of ‘LetsTAP’

LetsTAP is a project aimed at involving young people in dialogue and debate with key local and national politicians, heads of services and decision makers in order to provide a safe platform for regular dialogue between decision makers and the young people.

LetsTAP aims to not only open channels of regular dialogue between decision makers and stakeholders, but also provide young people with a chance to actively scrutinize policy and services which affect them through various different methods, each relevant to the specific area of discussion.

Twitter: @Lets_TAP

Why we need a Minister for the Internet

In the past decade Britain has experienced a revolution.

The scale of this revolution cannot be understated; it has altered the way we live our lives, the way our democracy works and the way our economy works. In this article, I will discuss how the internet has transformed these three areas and argue why it is time we had a dedicated Minister for the Internet.

For young people in Britain today, the internet is a vital part of their everyday lives. Through social networks we are able to communicate to, and stay connected with, our friends, family and communities. Indeed, we increasingly live our lives not with the internet, but through it.

On the face of it, Twitter is just a website that allows users to transmit messages of 140 characters to people who follow them. However, this simple idea has had a huge effect on society. For example, it arguably helped facilitate last year’s Arab Spring. The internet allows us to communicate our ideas and exercise freedom of speech in new ways. In the past, if we wanted information we would have to go to a library to look it up. Now we can Google for information instantly, or search for it on Wikipedia. This has allowed the public to have comparatively better informed debate on important issues than in years past. A better informed public openly voicing their opinions makes for a healthier and more open democracy.

Access to the internet has now become so important that it is registered by the United Nations as a human right. However, according to the Office of National Statistics, 16.1% of people in the UK have never used it. Many more are not able to make the most of the opportunities the web provides because of uneven broadband provision across the country. If the internet truly is a human right and a social good, then access must be distributed evenly across society.

Labour should start making bold plans to ensure that every citizen in our country has access to, and is able to use, the internet. A computer literate society is a more social, more accountable and more prosperous society. In 2011, the online giant Google made over $37.9bn in revenues, which is more than the GDP many countries produce. Businesses such as Valve Corporation and Apple have also generated enormous profits by making the most of today’s online economy. These businesses are unusual because Valve’s Steam and Apple’s iTunes facilitate a market in products which are not physical, but purely digital. The market for such products still has a lot of growing left to do, and so governments should grasp the opportunity to encourage investment in start-up web-based businesses. After all, no one knows where the next Google will come from.

However, not every development of the internet has been a positive one. When we put our information on Facebook, or when we Google something, we share personal information with these companies. It is not simply my family and friends who learn about what I’m interested in, but also the online businesses who facilitate these interactions. Most of us would not want the government to know personal things about us, so it is hard to understand why we acquiesce to businesses gathering the same information. The societal pressure for people to use and sign up to websites has undoubtedly given businesses an opportunity to take advantage of what we do online. This is why government must step in to ensure that users’ best interests are promoted at all times.

Legislation covering the internet is unevenly driven by private, not public, interests. Although copyright law may not seem like a salient issue to most people in Britain today, copyright legislation laws have inspired young people across the world to get politically active in order to stop acts such as SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. The success of Pirate Parties in elections across Europe is just an example of how mainstream politics has so far failed to engage with online issues properly.

This is why I advocate the creation of a Minister for the Internet. The internet is ultimately a public good and we must be properly represented in matters surrounding it. The online revolution has permanently changed our society, democracy and economy. Creating a specialist ministerial position would allow government to provide better access to information and facilities for citizens struggling to get to grips with the many issues surrounding internet use. The ministry would also be able to engage better and consult more widely on online issues. It would clearly set out the government’s online agenda, make its plans more transparent, provide a brief covering the right to internet access, and encourage the development of online businesses.

In years past we had a Postmaster General. In this online era, why can’t we have a Webmaster General?

Lewis Miller is a Young Fabians Member

Republicanism: Why I Fight

One week on from the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, the campaigns officer of Labour for a Republic argues that the party should have an open debate about the future of the monarchy.

As a board member of Labour for a Republic, I’m often drawn into discussions about republicanism with fellow Party members. Generally, I find that most of them – after a furtive look around – are happy to agree that yes, they too are republican, or at least are incredibly sympathetic to our aims.

Their main concern seems to be that republicanism as an issue simply isn’t a vote-winner – but they’re wrong about this. In fact, Labour for a Republic is working to get the Labour Party to adopt a policy of republicanism in the longer-term; nobody is suggesting we head into 2015 on this issue. Right now, we want to work towards the point where it’s possible to have a frank, open discussion about the monarchy inside the party.

Sadly, this simply isn’t the case at the moment. Every argument in favour of republicanism is countered by those who unthinkingly support the status quo. Is it true that the monarchy is a harmless ornament detached from politics? Of course not. We already know that members of the Royal Family legally need to be consulted on a wide range of legislation, just like we know that they’ve actively lobbied MPs and ministers on certain issues in the past. We just don’t know how widely, because any communications between our elected officials and the Royal Family are exempted from FOI legislation.

But what about all the money they bring into the country? Funnily enough, Visit Britain no longer uses this as an argument, after it was revealed that their own data completely fails to support the idea. The reality is that the trend linking tourist revenue to the royal family is very weak. If anything, tourists are put off Britain by the crowds and disruption that accompany royal events. In an age of satellite television, curious foreigners opt to follow events from the comfort of their own homes, rather than go through the bother of flying over here.

Or how about the idea that in fact they’re already great value for money, that the royals don’t cost very much at all, and we republicans are just being Cromwellian curmudgeons? In fact, we don’t really know how much the Royal Family truly costs, (and neither does the National Audit Office) because there’s no way of verifying their figures, and they don’t include everything (security costs are a particularly large omission).

Could we be reducing the impact of NHS cuts by making a few cost-saving changes to the way the Royal Family functions? That’s a debate I’d be interested in having, but am prevented from doing so because the costs of the monarchy are shrouded in mystery. I don’t believe that’s right.

So, why do I fight? I fully believe that we deserve a head of state that is fully accountable to the people, and I feel that the Labour Party is the one movement in this country that can open up our monarchy to public scrutiny. My firm belief is that once people are aware of the truth about how this system operates then they’ll come around to support republicanism, and I challenge any royalists who disagree to have the courage of their convictions and to join with me to open up the whole structure to public scrutiny and prove me wrong.

This is a very important issue to me and one I could write about for pages, but for the sake of brevity I’ll close and leave you with one last thought. How can we ever make our society fairer, more equal, and more meritocratic, when installed at its very centre is the concept that some people are better than others just because of who they are – and isn’t this the very idea that the Labour Party is supposed to oppose?

Nate P. Barker is Campaigns Officer for Labour for a Republic. You can find out more about the movement and sign up via www.labourforarepublic.org.uk or @Labour4Republic.

NPF Elections: Dan Johnson

With the elections to Labour’s National Policy Forum in full swing, the Young Fabians Blog got in touch with all the candidates competing for the position of Youth Representative to learn more about what the NPF means to them, and what sort of policies young people across the country want to see introduced when Labour next enters government.

Dan Johnson, candidate for NPF Youth Representative, North:

This election for the NPF is probably the most important since its creation. Over the next two years the work of creating our policies for the 2015 election will be undertaken.

One of the biggest complaints among Labour members is our lack of policies. They want to oppose the Tories but also offer an alternative which we can communicate to the wider public to try and win their support.

Being a Youth Rep brings has its own unique responsibilities. While dealing with the debate over tuition fees and other student-related issues make up part of the role, it is important not to neglect other young members who have already finished their education and are now in work, or those who have taken a vocational route and avoided the fees incurred at university. It is understandable why tuition fees make the headlines and vocational qualifications do not, since it is the children of media professionals and political elites who attend university and who will have to pay for it.

I think that Labour (and more importantly Ed Miliband) has shown that the tag of ‘Red Ed’ is not accurate, that people are on our side and that we’re the only Party that speaks for them. This means we can finally get to work on dispelling the right-wing myths that permeate our media. Too often on welfare our response is that benefit cheats are bad, but we neglect to mention that the overwhelming majority of benefit recipients are good, honest people who want to work, that the money from benefits that isn’t claimed far outweighs any fraud and abuse, and that tax avoidance dwarfs the money claimed by fraud. We get caught up in making a snappy argument, instead of taking our time and making a measured case for real change.

The same can be said on immigration or Europe. Now that we have gained the support of the public in the last two local elections and in the opinion polls, we can discuss uncomfortable issues and ensure that people are well-informed, instead of reinforcing negative stereotypes in an effort to win support in the media.

We need to win back Middle England, but the arguments of 2010 or even 1997 won’t work. We need to set out a vision of where we want to go, a vision of Britain in 2020, after the first term of a Labour government. How will we reform our NHS when it is under-funded and scarred by Tory reorganisation? How will we make all schools better, rather than leaving many in inadequate buildings while lavishing money on a chosen few? How will we encourage the creation of jobs and long-term investment by companies rather than short-term gain for shareholders?

These are the questions that need to be answered, and these are the questions the NPF needs to take up in earnest.

Dan Johnson is a candidate for NPF Youth Representative, North

The Young Fabians do not endorse any of the candidates for the position of NPF Youth Representative