On a progressive note

In this Guest Post, Young Fabian member Alex Adranghi ponders the meaning of the word ‘progressive’.

Whether it’s the debate on higher education funding, tax credits, or party ideology, the much sought after ground is that of a ‘progressive’. With a liberal usage, the term has become synonymous for all things good. The progressive position is claimed by all parts of the political spectrum, so either all claimants share a common policy – which is clearly not the case, or it is a word with different meanings for different people.

So what does progressive mean?

Puritans will say that being a progressive is merely accepting the world as dynamic and embracing reform with changing ideas of society. This is also the widest description. Others may go further and add a particular direction to policy – the aims to make society more inclusive and fair. More tangible still is the position that being a progressive is about tackling societies problems starting with the most vulnerable and weak before moving through society. This ties in with another definition of progressive in terms of taxation. But even this has limited use as most of the spectrum would agree with these notions, yet there is a constant jostling for the progressive crown.

If we were playing a game of chess, a progressive might accept the state of play and look for the next move to maximise the value of their position. But if they wanted to force the game to take a particular course, is the progressive limiting what moves they can make now? If we are steering towards an ideology, does this impair their progressive credentials? We aren’t adapting to the needs of society, but we are coming to the table with preconceptions on what direction society needs to go.

Does this mean that true progressives are playing the short game, with no strategic designs of future? Or does this mean that being a progressive is nothing about future intentions, but merely how willing you are to make the next move? If the latter, how do you measure how progressive a policy is?

For example, if we accept climate change is having a critical effect now the sustainability of our society for this generation and the next, should we not be doing everything we can to avert it? Or do we want a balance with ensuring jobs and prosperity for people today? Where does it leave us if we are managing conflicting progressive policies on a manifesto of topics? Less progressive? How do you measure each package?

The parties argue that they are the most progressive of them all. Does the political spectrum measure from the same stick? Or is a better measure of the policies of different parties just political ideology? If “progressiveness” isn’t a metric which allows comparison of policies, then why do we use the term at all?

Activists and supporters have an opinion greater than many in the public, but does using the term progressive obfuscate our message to the electorate compared to a situation in which we used, for example, the long-since abandoned “S-word”?

More in the litany of disregard for women

Christine Quigley, member of the Young Fabian Work and Families Policy Development Group, argues that the coalition government should not take support for granted from women who benefited so much under Labour.

Today’s announcement on Child Benefit cuts for higher-rate taxpayers is the most recent example in this Government’s litany of disregard for women. Osborne’s announcement today (well-timed to bury media coverage of the latest revelations on Andy Coulson) means that households where one earner takes home £44,000 a year will lose out on this valuable universal benefit. What is missing in this debate is an analysis of how the cuts will affect inter-family dynamics.

Many UK households still follow the typical male-breadwinner model, with the husband or male partner earning the main income, and women working part-time, on lower incomes, or not at all. (The full-time gender pay gap still sits at nearly 17% forty years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act.) For those women who don’t work, either through choice or necessity, the Child Benefit payment may well be the only money directly paid to them, as Katherine Rake points out. An income of just over £20 a week may not seem like much, but it allows a measure of control and independence. A plethora of academic studies such as Lundberg, Pollak and Wales (1997) point out the common assumption that family incomes are pooled, so that the distribution of income within the family doesn’t matter. The same study finds that the move from tax credits (generally received by the father) to Child Benefit (paid directly to the mother) in the UK saw greater expenditure on children’s (and women’s) clothing.

Once again, the Con-Dem Government hasn’t taken equity between men and women into account. We already know, thanks to Yvette Cooper, that women will bear the brunt of spending cuts from this year’s Budget, but an impact assessment from the Treasury is sadly unavailable publicly.

Conventional political-science wisdom holds that women are inherently more likely to vote for conservative parties. It may well be that the UK’s Conservatives are banking on our support – but selling women down the river won’t win our votes. Let’s not forget Labour’s achievements for women; from the Equal Pay Act and national minimum wage, to better maternity pay, Sure Start, free breast cancer screening, support for victims of domestic violence and increased political representation for women. Today’s cuts are symptomatic of what the Con-Dem Government really thinks of women – we must stand for progressive policies.

Power to the young people

In this guest post, Young Fabian Rhasan Brunner makes the case for greater support for young people

One of the best things about Britain is that young people have freedom of speech and have many opportunities to engage with people who have influence.

Young people today have a powerful voice and many are now prepared to play a part in tackling the issues we face. They are doing this through groups such as the UK Youth Parliament, through which the voice of young people is represented on a national level. Organisations like the Young Fabians are providing young people with opportunities to meet politicians and key opinion formers.

It is vitally important in today’s tough times that young people are able to take matters into their own hands and tackle them, head on. Not only does this have an impact today, it provides the foundations for a positive future for the country.

This is truly inspiring. Young people are following the footsteps of great historical figures such as Mary Wollinstincroft and Martin Luther King.

However, more must be done to give young people greater power and influence. For more information about how this can be done you can visit these websites and find out more about what young people are doing:

The British Youth Council http

www.byc.org.uk

UK Youth Parliament

www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk

Children’s Rights Alliance for England

www.crae.org.uk

We need common sense not ideology in education

In this guest post, Young Fabian Martin Edobor challenges the Tories’ flagship schools policy.

Official figures have revealed that only 153 schools have actually signed up to Michael Gove’s academy plan, despite the Education Secretary claiming last month that 1,114 schools across England had applied to become academies.

Despite the clear lack of support, Gove used emergency parliamentary procedures to rush through the Academies Bill during the final days before Parliament broke up for recess. MPs from both the Labour and Conservative parties have attacked Gove for using these measures, as the Bill has not yet been fully scrutinised. Due to the small number of schools which have actually applied to become academies, Michael Gove should not have used emergency procedures. Instead this Bill should have been, reviewed and scrutinised in parliament.

Ed Balls, the Shadow Education Secretary, has demanded an explanation from Gove on why he misleadingly claimed that over 1,000 schools had applied for the academies programme. It is time for Gove to apologise to Parliament for his misleading figures.

The government is rushing through educational reform, which has not been properly thought out. Gove is trying to introduce a free market model of education in a time of austerity. Clearly ideology is overriding commonsense.

Carwyn Jones – my political hero

In a guest post to mark the election of Labour’s new leader, Carwyn Jones, Leader of Labour in Wales and Welsh First Minister shares his political hero, Nelson Mandela.

My political hero is without question, Nelson Mandela.

Mandela has dedicated his life to bringing peace, equality and freedom for his people – a vision that even twenty seven years in prison could not diminish.

In his quest to make South Africa the equal society it is today, Mandela never waivered from his principles. Even when offered his own personal freedom – a whole five years before actual release from prison – he declined the offer, as it would have meant the ANC would have remained a banned organisation under the apartheid regime. In his own powerful and inimitable words, he told the South African government, “only free men can negotiate.”

During the five years he served as President of South Africa, he remained committed to reconciliation within his country and building the multi-racial democracy we see today.

Mandela has showed all of us that hope will eventually triumph.

A new political economy

In this guest post, Young Fabian James Silverwood makes the case for a new political economy.

Any contribution to the ideals and values that will shape the 21^st century must inevitably deal with the economic and political fallout of the global financial crisis. We have just witnessed the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s. The coalition government have responded with a vision of political economy that resonates more firmly with Thatcherite laissez-faire policy than the progressive mantle they claim to hold.

A wealth of academic literature has arisen over the previous thirteen years assessing the policy implications of the New Labour project. Three main hypotheses have generally arisen. Firstly, that New Labour was a modernised version of social democracy in line with the sort of revisionism that has always been central to the social democratic project. Secondly, that New Labour was an abject capitulation to the political legacy of Thatcherism and Neo-Liberalism. And finally that New Labour had become a hybrid of both ideological positions.

Space won’t allow further exploration of this theme but the legacy of New Labour will shape the Labour Party’s response to the most pressing issue to shape the first few decades of the 21^st century: political economy. Whilst not adhering to the argument that New Labour was merely a continuation of Thatcherism, despite huge and much needed fiscal expansion in public services, events suggest that New Labour especially on economic matters was hugely influenced by the preceding years of Thatcherism and neo-liberal theories of the market. Gordon Brown’s much vaunted emphasis on monetary stability and fiscal responsibility was placed before the altar of the City of London and financial services. The risk-based approach to regulation of the financial services industry and the belief that they could be made to work in the public interest was repaid with economic instability, social injustice and electoral defeat.

In his book, the Spectre at the Feast, Andrew Gamble notes that the politics of recession often leads to the questioning of current orthodoxies and a ruthless reassessment of former beliefs and assumptions. If the crisis that unfolds is deep and long enough then it can result in major political turbulence. As Gamble notes, this happened in response to the Great Depression of the 1930s, leading to the New Deal and eventually the Keynesian Welfare State. Similarly, the crisis of the 1970s lead to the re-emergence of neo-liberalism as the dominant political ideology.

An interesting facet of the global financial crisis is the speed with which neo-liberalism has reasserted itself. The right have successfully dominated the narrative that has emerged from this recession. What should be considered as a failure of neo-liberalism and markets has been re-written as a crisis of over-extended government and fiscal irresponsibility. To beat the crisis and rebuild our economy, the right argue, we need to roll back the state and in so doing liberate the private sector. Yet this view isn’t borne our by the facts. In an economy of corporate and consumer indebtedness and a financial sector that is still paralysed by its own speculative activities it is a fanciful proposition to say the least.

However, Gamble notes that while recessions lead to the questioning of orthodoxy that does not necessarily mean that prevailing economic policy will be replaced. He is worth quoting at length,

“Forces arrayed against neo-liberal order look comparatively weak, and there is as yet no compelling alternative vision of how the global economy might be ordered, what the steps might be, and what an alternative political economy to neo-liberalism might look like”

Constructing an alternative vision of political economy is the most important task facing the Labour Party. To achieve this Labour must address the following issues:

• Labour must challenge the market excess, especially in providing a more thorough critique of how markets fail.
• We must reappraise the priorities of UK financial institutions, working to support a new era of economic growth built on investment in higher value added manufacturing and green and creative industries.
• We should make the case for new forms of public and private ownership models and redress the deficits in corporate governance regimes to focus on long-term growth potential, product and technical capabilities. This will lay the foundations for an increase in UK exports.
• We must increase UK exports by moving into higher value added production. This will not automatically lead to a fairer or more equal society and appropriate steps must be taken to distribute both resources and opportunity evenly as possible.
• We must press for the unilateral implementation of a financial transactions tax on the City of London whilst using influence abroad to extend the scheme internationally. Funds could be split 50-50 between domestic needs and those of developing countries. Domestically the funds raised could be used to provide capital to the new banking system, fund vital infrastructure investment and launch a sustained and concerted effort to eradicate poverty in the UK.

As Will Hutton noted in the summer of 2009 the £1.3 trillion Labour invested to support the banking system, “creates a once-in-a-generation political opportunity to challenge the terms on which Britain approaches both the structures of capitalism and its management.”

The political and economic impact of the global financial crisis will shape the 21^st century. The way we respond will define the future of the Left. Get it right and it could provide electoral success, economic renaissance and a more equal society. Get it wrong and it could be eighteen more long years of Thatcherite politics.

Building the happy society

In this guest post, Young Fabian Adam Leeder makes the case for redefining what we mean by progress.

.

What could be a greater idea for the 21^st century than a wholesale redefinition of how we define progress?

Increasingly, academics and legislators are questioning the definition of what where we want to go as a society, which has been held for decades.

Consistently, studies show that a wealthier society is not a happier one. Since the 1970s, when Richard Easterlin published his famous ‘Easterlin paradox’ – that as we become wealthier we are becoming more discontent – politicians of all stripes have become increasingly interested in whether we need to factor in happiness because a wealth increase doesn’t cover it.

So if a booming economy doesn’t make us happy, then why don’t we start defining progress in a more holistic way?

However, for this new definition of progress to truly become one of the big ideas of the 21^st century it has to overcome some simple questions. First, why both to change our current definition? How might that change work in practice?

First, why should we care about measuring happiness? Can health outcomes and education outcomes alone tell us whether the government of the day is providing its citizens with a better life? It is true, these things are important. Yet they are not questions that hold universal answers. What one person deems a good education, may not hold for another person – do we continuously test our young people or indulge in more holistic education?

By contrast, everybody wants to be happy. If, as people working in and around politics, we want to strive for a goal then surely we should seek out the ultimate goal – a happier population.

A more immediate prompt to care about happiness is the recent Unicef report which ranked the UK as having the lowest level of child happiness across 21 industrialised countries. Unhappy childhoods frequently lead to social problems in adulthood. That means we need to act now.

Secondly however, even if we deem it worthwhile to factor Gross Wellbeing Product (GWP) then such thinking is pie-in-the-sky if we can’t make it happen.

Of course measuring how happy people are is inherently subjective. However, a number of noted authors and institutions are now starting to build measurement systems that can accommodate how happy our population is.

Joseph Stigliz’s commission report ‘What is Social Progress’, which was established in France at the request of Nicholas Sarkozy, has produced interesting findings. The report was based on the firm principle that progress must be measured by the overall quality of people’s lives and offered up some good practice for doing so.

Similarly, the Office of National Statistics have also started to develop some measures.

We are far from having a definitive measure – there probably never will be one. Yet hard work is clearly underway to producing the best possible measure we can have. Political weight must be thrown behind those efforts.

It is clear that a shift in the direction of GWP is already underway. Lord Layard was hired as the previous government’s ‘happiness tzar’ and Ed Balls’ Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning programme when he was Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families both show steps in the right direction.

By developing sound measures for happiness, this ultimate aim of how we define progress can be put at the top of the agenda for policy makers in the 21^st century. What could be a greater goal toward which to direct our political efforts.

The problem of graduate unemployment hasn’t gone away

Graduate unemployment is affecting thousands of young people around the UK, here Young Fabian member Benjamin Knight argues that young people biding their time as interns should not be taken advantage of whilst waiting for a ‘proper’ job…

Graduate unemployment is still a chronic problem in the UK but seems to have dropped down on the governments to do list. Current figures show that a shocking one in four graduates is unemployed. Given the rising trend in graduates opting to do internships, often unpaid, the true figure of graduates not earning is surely much higher. If left alone, the consequences will be dire for all.

Heading off to University in 2005 I felt many things – optimistic, nervous, excited and even lucky. Lucky because I was going to university the year before tuition fees were raised, so I thought I was quids in. Fast-forward three years (and my how they flew!) I then had the pleasure of graduating at the height of a global recession. Naturally this has made me rethink my previous good fortune.

The job market for today’s graduates can be a rather cruel place. Not only are graduates competing with each other, but the recession has forced experienced workers to take demotions or go after the lower paid/entry level positions – positions that would otherwise be going to graduates. This is likely to become much worse after the Coalition has taken its axe to public sector jobs in October, and further benefit reductions could hurt those on Jobseeker’s Allowance, already doing everything they can to try and find work.

Recently I have noticed that whilst there are lots of good jobs to apply for, the level of competition is staggering – it is not uncommon to be competing against up to 250 other applicants for a single position. From the employers view, this makes replying to each candidate and keeping them informed of their success or otherwise practically impossible, and as a result it is very unlikely that an individual’s application is ever even acknowledged. This constant experience of being ignored or rejected can make the whole process of applying for a job quite disheartening.

The difficulties of the job market as it stands have lead to a rise in graduates opting to do internships, often for free and for long periods of time. Whilst this can be a great way for people to gain coveted ‘office experience’ and certainly helps when it comes to writing your CV or covering letters, they are not always the first step on the employment ladder that many perceive them to be. One of the biggest problems is the actual cost of undertaking an internship, in terms of travel, accommodation, food etc. If you are lucky enough to have friends or family in a big city, then this can help negate the cost of doing an internship, but to those who do not, an unpaid internship is simply not a viable opportunity.

Other problems arise when keen, bright interns are asked to do anything and everything their employer tells them to. The lack of a proper job description means that interns are treated poorly or are under utilized by their employers, and they have little ground to make a complaint and so just go along with it, making coffee with a very forced smile.

Whilst we patiently await George Osborne’s miraculous private sector growth spurt, which we are assured will more than compensate for the thousands of public sector job losses, I feel that the government could be acting to protect the rights of interns, and actively helping to improve prospects for unemployed graduates. Firstly, I feel that interns should be paid a minimum wage for their labour (or better yet a living wage, as proposed by Labour leadership candidate Ed Miliband), as this would open up access to internships to the less well off. Secondly, employers should be encouraged to give each intern they employ a clear job description outlining their rights and responsibilities, as this would help stop people being taken advantage of.

There are real dangers associated with the current state of youth unemployment, not least in the form of a brain drain as people begin to look abroad in search of better prospects. The current stigmatisation by the Tories and the right wing press of people on benefits is also seemingly gaining ground, and I patiently look to Labour’s new leader to both defend these people , some of society’s most vulnerable, and to provide a clear and practical solution to the tough situation many have found themselves in recent years.

Is the irresponsible media to blame for EU scepticism?

In this post, Young Fabian Claire French argues for a moderate campaign to tackle the ever-growing Euroskeptic sentiment in the British media.

YouGov recently found (pdf) that more than half of the public would vote to leave the European Union if a referendum was held now. I was made equally uncomfortable by the prominence of skepticism among young people and ‘lower class’ (C2DE) voters.

Without the news media, many citizens would simply be unaware of what is happening in in the political sphere, particularly internationally. My belief has long been that the media, particularly print journalism, owes society the duty of delivering a sound, reliable source of information. Unfortunately we constantly witness the responsibility of the fourth estate being eroded.

Research points towards the mass media as the number one influencer on public opinion relating to the European Union. One briefing from the European Parliament said that media reporting of the EU: “in most cases this has tended to concentrate on political matters rather than developing in depth public knowledge”. Soundbites limit the depth and understanding of issues being discussed in European politics.

In June, the Daily Mail ran the headline: EU to ban selling eggs by the dozen: Shopkeepers’ fury as they are told all food must be weighed and sold by the kilo. They were left with egg on their faces when Renate Sommer MEP told the BBC that “Selling eggs by the dozen… will not be banned”. In fact, a procedure of weighing eggs was being debated in the Parliament – a practice that was in place before the bill was even raised.

Rife Euroskepticism amongst tabloid newspapers – particularly those leaning towards the political right – has created a moral panic in the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to mass migration and the dispersion of state sovereignty.

Headlines of “Eastern Europeans… (stealing our jobs/using our public services/driving up our crime rates etc)” have landed us with mixed messages and a frankly misguided public opinion. Gordon Brown’s unfortunate encounter with Gillian Duffy, the “Bigoted Woman”, is the prime example of fear that is whipped up largely by right-wing political parties and media outlets. It was also a turning point for the Labour Party – realising the extent of damage that has been done to the British ‘mood’ on European membership. The EU is no longer just a single marketplace, it is a collection of culturally diverse states, bound by political structures.

The drip feed coverage of EU policy of political parties including the United Kingdom Independence Party, the British National Party and right-wing fringes of the Conservative Party, as well as organisations such as the Taxpayers’ Alliance and Migration Watch is pushing this anti-European rhetoric.

It is up to the think tanks, the organisations and politicians of moderate parties to promote our membership in the European community. There are all sorts of  desirable factors that we all should celebrate and promote – not just us on the left, but liberals and conservatives alike.

The expansion of the EU is likely to cause controversy amongst these organisations and media, as the lengthy debate of whether Turkey should be the next state to join moved closer this week. In a national referendum held this week, 58:42 per cent voting to change the militarised-constitution. The BBC noted that:

“Voters endorsed modifications to Turkey’s current constitution, making the military more accountable to civilian courts and giving parliament.”

Turkey is different to the countries that have joined before it. Its locality – being so close to the Asian boarder; its culture and religion – though it is a predominantly secular country. There will also be the concern of capping the number of migrants coming into western Europe – which was not done in the UK, Sweden or Ireland when Poland and other central European countries joined in 2004.

It’s Eve of Poll in Sweden and it’s all to Play For

Brian Duggan posts this blog from the Young Fabians campaign trip to Sweden.

Tomorrow voters in Sweden go to the polls. They will be testing a one term Conservative-Liberal coalition and the opposition Social Democrats will be hoping to bounce back to power after one term out of office. There is certainly a lot Labour can and should learn from Sweden.

The Young Fabians and Young Labour have sent 15 campaigners here to help Mona Salin’s Social Democrats win back office and to work with and learn from our colleagues in the SSU, the youth organisation of the Social Democratic Party.

We’ve been campaigning by day and night in Stockholm Central for the local, regional and national elections which take place on Sunday.

Late Sunday night, we’re all hoping for a win for the Red Green coalition, with Mona Salin elected as Sweden’s first ever woman Prime Minister.

Sweden’s multi party system means coalitions of government and opposition are the norm and a stable policy and campaigning pact between the major blocks is framing this election. When voters go to the polls, they will vote for their proffered party and know their likely coalition partners. It certainly seems miles away from the Cabinet Office discussions in the aftermath of May 6th.

For the Social Democrats the campaign has been about driving a relationship of personal contact with voters, keen to reconnect after their loss of power in 2006 and move on. They are focussing hard on framing the debate on policies they know will work in their favour, unemployment levels, welfare cuts, economic inequality and of course their opponents plans for tax cuts for the wealthy few.

The mood and momentum around the Social Democrats is extremely positive. Recent polling shows them taking back ground and the narrative is fresh, positive, forward looking and most crucially of all focused.

It’s been a real learning experience for all the Young Fabians and Young Labour members. There’s a lot we will take back but in the meantime, there are leaflets to deliver and doors to knock on, it’s all to play for.

Brian Duggan
International Officer, Young Fabians
(Posted from our campaign trip to Sweden)