Empowering voters – the argument for AV

In this guest post, Young Fabian member James Roberts puts the case for supporting AV.

There is something intrinsically fair about the idea that the percentage of seats that a party has in parliament should be at least approximately equal to the percentage of people who hold corresponding views in the country at large. In contrast, there can be little argument that for a party to secure a majority of 65 (and 55.2% of the seats), as Labour did in 2005, with the support of only roughly 20% of the electorate, is undemocratic. This is partly due to an inherent bias towards the incumbent and partly due to the low turnout that year, but mostly down to the strange and quaintly simplistic voting system at use in the UK: First Past The Post (FPTP).

However, the only reform on offer in the near future is a switch to the Alternative Vote (AV). The distortions inherent in FPTP are well known, and while it is rather less well known that AV can lead to even bigger distortions, it does result in a considerable increase in the number of marginal constituencies and a majority of people’s votes counting, as opposed to the huge potential for wasted votes under FPTP. Most of the numerical arguments have been made and so instead I will try to present the cultural arguments in favour of reform.

Wheras the battle now is between the ability of each party to raise funds in order to swamp a small number of swing voters with material and the appearance of local activity, the deconcentration of electioneering from marginal seats can only increase the power of the individual to make their choices based on the needs of the local community.

The first post-independence Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, a Fabian socialist, made the case that democracy itself is not a ticket to the elysian fields, but is the very medium in which we, if we believe ourselves to be democrats and socialists, have to and should operate: “Democracy is good… because other systems are worse… But merely saying that democracy will solve all problems is utterly wrong. Problems are solved by intelligence and hard work.”

How can we condone continuing to support an antiquated and clearly badly-representative system? Even the joint leader of the German Communist Party in the 1920′s, Rosa Luxemburg, knew the importance of frequent and meaningful elections for maintaining a healthy public discourse: “Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element.”

The critics of AV will point out that the trend of falling turnout in Britain is bad enough already, without introducing any ‘fiendishly complex’ reforms that will ‘put people off voting’. On the contrary, it is by providing people with real choices and empowering them with decisions that can actually shape their own lives and their communities, that we can expect to see an increase in voter turnout. The critics will also point out that AV will lead to ‘consensus politics’, often pointing out the example of Italy’s record in (not) maintaining coalitions. This is less about the system itself however than the political culture of a region. Sweden has had a form of Proportional Representation (PR) since the 1930s which has resulted in the Social Democratic Party controlling the agenda of the ruling coallition. This has led until recently to a powerful social democratic consensus and some of the best rates of equality in the developed world, with Sweden (alongside its other Scandinavian neighbors) regularly placing in the top 3 in indices of political and economic freedom.

Before and during the UK 2010 general election, there were very few people who voted for the Liberal Democrats under the belief that they were a party of the centre-right, and in some ways they have succeeded in becoming a ‘moderating influence’ on some of the most regressive aspects of Conservative policy. Even on one of the Lib Dem flagship issues, tuition fees, we see that a considerable number of Lib Dem MPs are prepared to defy the whip and vote against any increase. While it might seem distasteful in today’s political climate to work with the Liberal Democrats, AV could only work to increase the chances of being able to rely on the ‘progressive majority’ that so many voters believed in before the election.

Eventually, with a switch to a more proportional system, such as a form of Additional Member System (AMS) which I myself favour, we could see many of the eurosceptic members of the Conservatives join the likes of UKIP. Meanwhile, it is possible that the gains the far left and the Greens would make might come at the expense of Labour and the Lib Dems, but it is unlikely that a coalition of the left could arise without Labour forming the lynchpin of such a force, as in Sweden.

If we vote against AV in the referendum in May, we do so only out of fear, and yet it will be our undoing. The malaise which has afflicted turnout and general trust in politics in the UK is amplified by the ineffectiveness of our voting system. The thing that people disliked about Labour towards the end of the last government was that politics became something that was done to people, rather than something people did for themselves. Cameron has proposed the ‘big society’ as a hazy way to tap into this desire for localism; we can go far beyond this rhetoric and instead of expecting the army of volunteers to appear, actually empower people to make the changes they want to see for themselves. This is what the Labour movement has always been about. This is the kind of issue we as a party have to put to the forefront of our campaign. This is the political extension of the work done by the co-operative movement and can only result in greater levels of equality of income and opportunity.

But only if we vote ‘Yes’ in May.

This was originally posted on the Merseyside Fabians blog.

Right stupidity

In this Guest Post, Young Fabian member Christine Quigley takes issue with calls for “a leader of the Labour right”.

For ten minutes, we were all playing nice. Labour had elected a new leader, and Party Conference saw a swell of support for (not-quite-Red) Ed from all sections of the party. Most of us were just relieved that the long wait was over, and that we could begin the serious work of winning back the country from the Conservatives, rather than sniping at rival supporters over Twitter. For me at least, the Manchester conference this year embodied a feeling that we were all on the same side.

A feeling that lasted right up until I read Sion Simon’s blogpost yesterday about the need for a leader of the Labour Right.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the Labour Right has a leader. His name’s Ed Miliband. He’s the same leader as everyone else in the party has.

Calls like Sion Simon’s do nothing but further foster factions within the party. Debate is good; division is not. We need only to look at Labour’s implosion into internal wrangling after the 1951 and 1979 election defeats to know how disastrous this sort of infighting can be. Just last week, some Conservatives were attempting to capitalise on disaffected David Miliband supporters by extending the warm hand of friendship (and an invitation to join the party). I have great faith in all those who supported the defeated leadership candidates to back our new leader; putting party over petty factionalism.

We have always been a party that accommodates different voices, and we are stronger for it. It’s crucial that important decisions and policy positions that we take up over the next few years are discussed and debated, to ensure that we’re getting them right. But the scattergun support picked up by the leadership candidates itself demonstrated how individuals can cross factional boundaries. Setting up a candidate to channel right-wing dissent isn’t helping anyone. (And really – Ed Balls?) We have to stop talking about right and left and start talking about what we all believe in; fairness, equality and justice.

So, whether you’re a unilateral-nuclear-disarmament, nationalise-it-all, dyed-in-the-wool red, or the palest pink ultra-Blairite, now is the time to redouble your support for Ed Miliband and the new Shadow Cabinet team. We won’t all agree on everything the party leadership does over the next four-and-a-half years, but we can agree on one thing; Britain is better under a Labour Government. That’s something we all need to fight for.

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.