Global Labourhood Watch: a vision for the Labour Party

By Alan McDonald.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan McDonald is a Young Fabians Member.

Strategy over tactics

Labour’s flirtation with Euroscepticism could have dangerous consequences.

By Steve Race.

The Labour party has now joined the ranks of the Eurosceptics – or so some may see it. Last month’s vote in the House of Commons on reducing the European Union budget was won by a curious alliance of the Labour frontbench and the most rightwing Tories. For Labour there might have been the opportunity to stake out a real position on the EU and graciously give David Cameron some breathing space at the negotiating table – after all, we hope to be doing the negotiating in 2015 and a damaged relationship with Brussels is not a great starting point.

On the other hand, there was the tantalising prospect of a tactical victory over the Tories, causing Cameron a headache by forcing a very public wedge between him and his backbenchers. Strategy over tactics or tactics over strategy: the eternal conundrum for politicians. On this occasion tactics won the day, and the Labour party stepped open-eyed into the Eurosceptic lobby.

The more ideologically unsubtle wing of the Labour party is now in the process of taking a settled view of the EU – in short, it believes that the EU is a neoliberal institution that oppresses the good peoples of southern Europe. This is nonsense, of course: the EU that introduced many of the workers’ and consumer rights that exist in Britain today is also the EU of
bailouts and austerity. It is a wide-ranging and pluralistic institution and as such contains both leftwing and rightwing elements.

Despite this, the core purpose and structure of the EU is something every Labour member can support, based as it is on problem-solving, unity and cross-border relations through discussion.

The problem for Labour in finding a way to articulate a strategy on the EU stems from the mendacity of politicians from across the political spectrum over the last 30 years. In 13 years in office, Labour did not make the case for the EU convincingly, made no efforts to explain the
symbiotic relationship between the nation-states and the union, and often used the spectre of the EU as a bogeyman to defend national positions. Nor was the argument made for the UK’s place at the heart of the EU – on decision-making and on shaping the direction of travel.

It now falls to this generation of Labour politicians to properly articulate a full-hearted case for the EU to avoid the UK sliding further towards withdrawal. In the short term, it may result in opprobrium. But the debate is dominated by the anti-EU right, and as such the public is not used to hearing about the EU in a positive light.

A Labour strategy on the EU should be based on pragmatism and reform. The party’s leadership needs to articulate the case for membership whenever possible – the case for jobs, for investment, for peace and security, for being a part of the largest trading bloc on the planet. The problems the world faces can only be solved by ever-closer working relationships between nations, even as ‘the state’ becomes, in many ways, increasingly meaningless, with pollution and climate change failing to recognise national borders and corporations playing the nation-state game to avoid tax.

Alongside this should be a strong case for reform – for cutting the waste, for stopping the travelling circus between Brussels and Strasbourg, for simplification and democratisation of the structures, and for stemming the over-reach of the commission and the British knack of goldplating EU regulations.

A referendum on withdrawal of the UK from the EU is coming; Ed Miliband was right last month to warn we may be sleepwalking to the exit. When the poll happens, on the one side, promoting withdrawal, will be the proponents of isolationism, with emotion and ‘patriotism’ at their back. On the other will be the leaders of all three main parties, allied with the majority of business leaders, calling for various ‘degrees’ of membership. The pro-withdrawal advocates have been making their arguments for years, while the pro-membership advocates have spent that time vacillating rather than making
the case.

When the time comes, if the pro-European lobby has not already made its case for membership, the voters may already have made up their minds.

Steve Race is Chair of the Young Fabians and leads our activity in the south-west.

Orginally published in Progress Online: http://bit.ly/ToXCjj

Conference 2012: leaning leftwards?

Opposition affords political parties the chance to change their identity.

Freed from the constraints of the government benches, Labour has the space to transform itself to suit the new circumstances facing Britain today. The party last did this successfully during the ‘90s, when Tony Blair adapted Labour to fit in with a world view where the market was king and the individual trumped society. His fundamental flaw once in power, however, was to entrench this distinctly Tory narrative rather than develop a fresh one that laid out how a fair, free, and equal society could be achieved.

Ed Miliband would do well not to repeat this mistake. The task he faces is to renew the party without detaching it from the cares and concerns of the people. The end goal is to win back the five million votes the party lost since 2010. Does this require a shift to the left or the right? At a fringe event hosted by Liberal Conspiracy and chaired by Rowenna Davis, this was the question posed to a panel composed of MPs, trade unionists, and special advisers.

The consensus opinion was, predictably, that a lurch to the left or the right would damage Labour’s election hopes. If a party moves across the ideological spectrum too far and too fast, voters become disillusioned and confused about what its members stand for. Something like this explains why Labour fragmented in 1983, and perhaps also why so many supporters deserted the party after 1997.

However, this logic does not rule out a gradual and measured move into once abandoned ideologies. In fact, the language peddled by Rachel Reeves and Luciana Berger- present at the Liberal Conspiracy debate- and other MPs at conference suggests that Labour is covertly attempting to shift the consensus leftwards back to its socialist home.

Let’s look beyond the rhetoric and get at the substance of what Labour’s proposing. ‘Predistribution’: a means of placing controls and limitations on the free market. ‘Active industrial policy’: code for a centrally planned economy where the state selects the industries that are our best bet for growth and prosperity. Labour is reviving socialist ideas and cloaking them in the language of prudence and practicality. As the party has turned away from the neoliberal doctrine that so epically failed to bring prosperity, happiness, and equality to the lives of the majority, it has predictably- and rightly- once again embraced the ideology of socialism to capture the electorate’s imagination.

The fact that the 2012 party feels compelled to disguise its leftward shuffle behind a wall of jargon is no great surprise. Labour still treats socialism as a dirty word, tainted by the failures of the 1980s. However, Rachel Reeves gave the game away in the debate when she said:

“An incoming Labour government has to look much more fundamentally at how the economy works in the first place so that it actually delivers for ordinary working people.”

Any classical liberal worth his salt would argue that it is not the government’s role to determine how the market distributes its resources at source. Most party loyalists at the high point of New Labour would have probably said the same.

However, right now Labour is saying that is exactly what the government should do. While the impenetrable language makes Ed’s latest agenda open to ridicule, it at least serves to soften the impact of policy ideas that have the potential to take us rapidly down the leftward path. Yet there will come a point when the country wakes up to the fact that Labour is trying to bring socialism back into fashion. When this happens, the party will have to either embrace this socialist turn or reject it. Let’s hope we have the courage to stand by our beliefs; beliefs that can win the country back for the people.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Ed takes on the City

“We need a banking system that serves the public.”

Ed Miliband set the stage for a full-on confrontation with the banking industry earlier today when he insisted that there must be a “full, open and independent inquiry” into financial services. Speaking at the Fabian Summer Conference, Miliband argued that the revelation that traders at Barclay’s had knowingly manipulated key interest rates in order to boost profits proved that decisive action was needed to end the corrosive culture of greed at the heart of the City.

Miliband’s speech was a manifesto for action. He demanded that a Leveson-style inquiry into the financial services begin immediately, with full powers to unearth where criminal wrongdoing had occurred. Suggesting that the criminal justice system did too little to prosecute “white collar crime”, he argued that the law needed to change to guarantee that those found guilty of illegal activity within the industry are put behind bars, and banned from working in the sector ever again. Finally, he made the case for a new banking “code of conduct” to ensure that workers in the City conformed to a higher moral standard than the profit motive.

The Conference audience welcomed these proposals with warm applause, even though much of what Miliband said had been mentioned earlier in the week. What made this speech stand out, however, was the strength with which the Labour leader denounced those who had dragged the banking industry through the mud. For once, Ed didn’t pull his punches. He suggested that the chief executives at Barclay’s would not outlast this latest scandal, claiming that they were either knowingly complicit in the illegal activities of their traders, or woefully negligent in supervising them. Intriguingly, he also stated that “no one believes the Libor [interbank interest rate] scandal is the end of the story” tapping into the popular view that the murky world of banking has a whole lot more horror stories to divulge.

Ed’s polling has improved in recent months, but he struggles when it comes to voters’ perceptions of his decisiveness. This speech- and you can bet it will be the first of many on the subject- was designed to close that gap. Cameron will struggle to appear credible denouncing the very people who bankroll his party- a report by GMB revealed that nearly 60% of donations to the Tory party come from individuals and companies linked to finance, hedge funds and other City interests. The advantage is firmly with Labour in this instance, and Ed is pushing it as far as it will go.

What is needed closer to the election is a coherent narrative on how to reform the sector for good. Ed indicated what might be included in this, such as the introduction of “challenger banks” to break up the monopolies of Britain’s banking behemoths, and an end to self-regulation of the industry.

What is encouraging is that, with the public mood behind him, Ed is able to take on the industry head on and firmly lay down the law to the City. No more does he need to pussy-foot around the issue of taking the bankers to task. The electorate is behind reform, and strong, serious reform at that. All Ed needs to do is keep up the pressure to see Labour’s poll lead soar.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Crunch Time For Ed

Tomorrow, Ed Miliband will address the Fabian Summer Conference in a question-and-answer session guaranteed to feature in this Sunday papers.

What is asked of him, and how he replies, has the potential to determine his political fortunes right into Autumn.

It is rash to underestimate the significance of what party leaders say in any forum, and what Ed says tomorrow has the potential to influence the (entirely healthy) internal debate currently taking place within Labour. In recent weeks, both the party and the country have been rocked by political storms that could threaten Labour’s delicate lead in the polls. How Ed addresses them, tomorrow and in the weeks to come, is important for the continued fortunes of the party.

The GMB Union’s motion to “monitor the factional activity” of the New Labour think-tank, ‘Progress’, within the party has led to bitter clashes both in the virtual world of the blogosphere and the real world of the CLP. Ed recently indicated that he is opposed to excluding organisations within Labour, but has so far shied away from addressing concerns about the ideological direction of the party, or fielded questions about how far the leadership is influenced by internal think-tanks. Perhaps a curious Fabian will challenge him on these issues tomorrow.

Even more recently, the scandal surrounding Barclay’s manipulation of key interest rates has put banking back into the spotlight and re-raised the issue of bank regulation.  Yesterday, Ed demanded “proper regulation of the market because the rules at the moment are clearly not being enforced, or are not working.”  One of Ed’s greatest strengths is articulating the public mood (as he did during the phone hacking scandal), and here once again he managed to encapsulate the righteous anger of the electorate at large.

However, words are one thing, action another. How is Ed really going to address regulation when in power? The recommendations of the Vickers Report are not due to be fully implemented until 2019, by which time many of the changes may be shelved or transformed in response to world events, and lobbying by the banking industry itself. Would Ed endorse a Leveson-style inquiry into banking culture, hauling chiefs like Bob Diamond and Stephen Hester into the dock for rigorous public scrutiny? Would he insist on a faster separation of investment and retail banking? These are all unknowns, and all questions to be asked of a future Labour PM.

Ed is arguably in his strongest position yet as party leader. Overtaking David Cameron on personal ratings for the first time in May, and with Labour riding high in the polls, he has the political capital now to really fashion Labour in his own image.

However, he must be careful to take the party with him. The Q&A tomorrow will help determine whether the Fabians believe he is headed in the right direction.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Ed Miliband will be at the Fabian Summer Conference tomorrow, taking questions from 2pm

Liberating the NPF

In the previous post, I discussed the history and future of the NEC. Here, I’ll take a look at Labour’s National Policy Forum and discuss its future direction.

The NPF does not share the NEC’s long history. It was established in 1997 to be the cornerstone of Tony Blair’s ‘Partnership in Power’ reforms, created to ensure that all the major party stakeholders had a voice in Labour’s internal policy processes.

Today, the NPF comprises 186 members, some of whom are elected, and some of whom are appointed by the party leadership. The entire body meets several times a year to debate the findings of Labour’s six policy commissions- another ‘Partnership in Power’ innovation- and make recommendations that are then taken to the Joint Policy Committee and NEC.

The Forum champions the principles of representation and inclusion, allowing all members- ordinary, affiliated, young and old alike- to input into party policy through their elected members. Labour spokespersons claimed that the founding of the NPF was “one of the biggest ever extensions of democracy within the party”, permitting ordinary members a real say in the policies they would then go on to vote for in General Elections.

Roughly a third of NPF members are CLP representatives, elected on a regional basis, and the local link is strengthened by the addition of members from local policy forums and regional conferences. These members ensure that Labour supporters wield real influence over the party’s manifesto ideas.

However, other party stakeholders are conspicuously underrepresented in the Forum. Union members make up only 30 of the 186 seats, despite the fact that their financial and personnel contributions to the party are on a par with that of CLPs and ordinary members. Socialist societies, such as the Fabians, are also sidelined, with only three members in total represented on the NPF.

The reasons behind the somewhat uneven distribution of seats may have something to do with New Labour’s desire to reduce the influence of Trade Unions and far-left elements in the party, and so avoid the ideological extremism of the 1980s.

However, because the NPF conducts a ‘rolling’ two-year policy process, representatives from all the groups united under the Labour banner have the right to be continually involved throughout. This constant participation must be seen as an improvement on the old system whereby policy consultation was largely concentrated around the annual conference.

The NPF also has an impressive record on liberation, boasting representatives for disabled, LGBT, and BAME Labour members and interest groups. These members ensure Labour’s policy proposals are sensitive to the needs of all Britons and help promote the creation of a tolerant, understanding society.

Yet the NPF could still do with improving its transparency and internal procedures. The report ‘Refounding Labour to Win’ recommends the party reviews the mechanisms by which ordinary members contact their representatives, and suggests that the minutes of NPF meetings be made more accessible. Such changes could allow card-carrying supporters to keep tabs on what their NPF representatives get up to at meetings, and permit proper scrutiny of NPF procedures to take place without having to resort to the confusing array of blogs and comment pieces that take the place of formalised reports.

The incoming NPF representatives will have a lot on their plate when they take up their seats. Besides helping shape Labour’s next manifesto, they will also be under pressure to implement reforms to their own internal procedures too. For Labour’s sake, let’s hope they’re up to the challenge.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Liberating the NEC

Up and down the country, Labour members are receiving their ballots for the elections to the National Executive Committee (NEC) and National Policy Forum (NPF). What are these organisations and who makes up the membership? More importantly, are they still fit for purpose in the modern Labour Party?

The NEC is the governing body of the Labour Party, responsible for setting its strategic direction and overseeing internal policy-making processes. Today, 33 members sit on the committee, drawn from the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), affiliated trade unions and socialist societies, and Constituency Labour Party (CLP) representatives. A handful of special positions are also set aside to represent Young Labour, Labour councillors and members of the Labour Party in the European Parliament. The link with rank-and-file members is sustained by the practice of directly electing CLP representatives, which is meant to ensure that the NEC speaks for the party as a whole, rather than just for specific stakeholders.

The purpose of the NEC is to govern in the interests of members. However, the New Labour project sought to govern the party in the interests of its leaders, and set about this by diluting the influence of trade unionists and CLP members on the NEC. This project reached its climax in 1997, when Blair published the ‘Partnership in Power’ reforms, which substantially altered the party’s internal decision-making structures. The affiliated unions share of seats declined from 17/30 to 12/32, and a new Joint Policy Committee (JPC) was established with the right to review the policy decisions of the NEC and NPF, and to overrule them when necessary.

Understandably, ‘Partnership in Power’ was seen as a ploy to transfer power from the NEC and concentrate it in the hands of the leadership. The new JPC was made up of appointed, not elected, members, and dominated by frontbench MPs under the watchful eyes of the leader. Ordinary members were placed in a perplexing situation whereby they voted for the membership of a decision-making body that had a good deal of its decision-making powers stolen away from it.

Ed Miliband has sought to remedy some of the more upsetting aspects of ‘Partnership in Power’ through the ‘Refounding Labour’ campaign. However, the final report remains vague on the future of Labour’s internal democracy. To date, it remains the case that ordinary members have no say over the composition of the JPC, and that ordinary members only have the right to vote for roughly 20% of the total NEC membership.

This does not seem in keeping with the image of a vibrant, democratic party that Labour seeks to make its own. The NEC must be liberated from the old-fashioned procedures that restrict the membership from having the final say on its composition. Members should have the right to vote on all the positions on the NEC- bar the leader and deputy leader. In addition, Labour has to wake up to the fact that in order for its governing committee to truly stand up for equality, it needs to create new positions allowing for the broadest amount of participation possible. To this end, dedicated Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish representatives should sit on the committee, which will allow the NEC to speak for Labour members in all corners of the Union.

They should sit alongside members who promote the key liberation campaigns present in Britain today- Women, BME, Disability, and LBT. Yes, the NEC has an Equalities Sub-Committee where the voices of these minorities are heard. However, if Labour wants to be seen as serious on gender rights, disability rights, and ethnic issues, it needs to put such representatives on the governing body proper.

Labour has always sought to be the pioneering party in terms of equality and representation- think about all-women shortlists and LGBT Labour. Now it must take the next logical step and place liberation officers on a new NEC, one that is fully elected, and fully representative.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Sharpening the Knives

The frenzied atmosphere of an election season may not seem to be the best time to try and make sense of the strange political manoeuvrings we have witnessed lately.

However, the Council and Mayoral elections taking place on May 3^rd are an important milestone for all the national parties. In a political and media world that seems obsessed with mimicking the drama and dynamism of the American system, the 2012 elections have taken on the character of the US Midterms- with important implications for how the results will be processed by those in the Westminster village.

There has been a noticeable surge in backbench unrest among Conservative MPs. Today, Nadine Dorris launched a blistering attack on the “arrogant posh boys”   (David Cameron and George Osborne) running the country, while another unnamed Tory sneered that Cameron seems to be “putting the school run ahead of the national interest.” These comments can be legitimately dismissed as the bluster of a few loose cannons, but they conceal a deeper malaise in the Parliamentary Tory Party. Badly bruised by a mishandled Budget and suffering the worst polling since 2008, some discontents have been publicly sharpening the knives in a show of defiance toward No. 10, egged on by a press eager to witness a big upset.

There is no suggestion that there will be a leadership challenge any time soon- if at all. However, it is possible that those Conservatives who have been put off by Cameron’s wishy washy social agenda and perceived capitulation to the Liberal Democrats on issues like Lords Reform and internet surveillance are trying to ‘talk down’ the party in the run-up to the elections. Why? So that they can use a bad result to force the Prime Minister down a more Conservative path, by claiming that Tory voters are deserting Cameron’s party because he is not conservative enough.

What about Labour? England’s ‘mid-terms’ will serve as a useful indicator of the party’s revival in the South.  Labour’s next majority cannot be attained without the help of at least some of those seats wooed by Tony Blair in 1997. A strong result here could act as the green light for the party to begin rolling out a more detailed policy plan and tell the nation just how it would do things differently. There have been glimpses here and there of Labour’s plans, fromenergy companies to the NHS. A resounding win on May 3^rd would give Miliband the momentum he needs to really press how Labour would govern in 2015 and beyond.

However, the knives haven’t been sheathed for him, yet, either. A failure to topple the Tories nationwide, and a Livingstone defeat in London, could throw the polling gains tortuously won over the last few weeks out of the window. The press will emphasise that even after all the Coalition’s failings, Labour are still not capable of winning back the people’s trust. Miliband himself will be blamed for failing to articulate a clear message to win back votes, and the vultures will begin circling again. One rumour doing the rounds is that a Labour defeat on May 3^rd will prompt an attempt by disgruntled MPs to push Yvette Cooper forward as Miliband’s successor. Naturally, this is all hearsay and smokescreen. What is certain, however, is that the forthcoming elections will be used by anti-Milibands and pro-Milibands alike to push their own agendas on the leadership.

Will the Council and Mayoral Elections be for Britain what the Midterms are to America- namely, a political gamechanger? Obama has certainly had to change his tune since losing the Senate to the Republicans. Perhaps Cameron will have to obey the more hardline elements in his party in the wake of a defeat. Miliband must also be wary too- a big win will place big expectations on him that he might struggle to fulfil, while a loss will bring the old naysayers out of the woodwork again. For both parties, it’s all to play for.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

The Future of Education

Amidst the hubbub of leadership questions, short-term poll obsession and questions over the future of the Union, members of the shadow cabinet have been very busy of late laying out exactly the kind of concrete policy views that some have said were previously missing from Labour.

One of the most interesting of these was provided in Stephen Twigg’s speech on reforming the education system. In it, he called for a longer school day, more teacher mentoring, and a focus on “soft skills” to better prepare students for life after school. The announcement coincided nicely with a review of the curriculum currently under way and due to be concluded later this year.

There is a broad consensus on what the outcome of education should be; namely, well- informed, well-rounded young people who have the capacity to advance themselves in whatever direction they choose. Sadly, in too many areas the wealth of a child’s parents still determines their success in life. There are serious debates taking place about the structure of schools and the deliberate attempts to carve them away from local authorities, but in this piece I want to focus on how education is delivered rather than the legal wrapper under which the school functions.

There are two examples of policies which can be implemented and cost very little that can help further both education and social progress. These are introducing debating at the heart of the curriculum and using peer-mentoring as a way to help the continuous professional development of teachers.

Firstly, we should put debating at the heart of our curriculum as a way of encouraging children to develop vital critical thinking and communications skills. People on the left often frown upon the idea of school as a place to teach workplace skills, but it is in work that we spend most of our lives, and as the one million unemployed young people in the country would surely attest, little is more dispiriting and eroding of an individual’s self-worth than the recurring rejection of unemployment.

Rhetoric and debating are typically seen as the purview of elitist independent schools, and as a skill with little relevance to daily reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Debate is part of the curriculum in many ways anyway, from analysis of history through dissection of English and the understanding of competing scientific theories. The contestation of ideas is a vital part of what it means to get an education.

Teachers often worry about anarchy in the classroom if they allow students to debate, but many programmes both here and in the US have shown that students, when given ownership of a position and the right to advocate for it, are more likely to take their education seriously. Indeed, a major review of education conducted by the Irish Economic and Social Research Institute showed that across a multitude of regions and cultures, interactive classroom learning is the most effective way of teaching students.

With some schools failing to teach students basic reading and writing skills, focussing on oral presentation is an alternative way to engage reluctant students. There is nothing like the fear of making a fool of themselves in front of their peers to make students work hard. Debating also has the added advantage of teaching exactly the kind of “soft skills” that Stephen Twigg talked about. Recent talk of getting Britain manufacturing again is heartening, but Britain’s comparative advantage lies in services, and the more children are able to think and provide in these areas the better their chances in later life will be.

Mentoring for teachers is another area where there have been promising results of late. Teachers do receive training, but it is rarely based on observation of their classroom performance. In a thought provoking New Yorker article, Atul Gawande discusses the parallels between teaching to surgery and how, even as a top surgeon, he sees many opportunities to improve. Teachers should not view mentoring as an imposition, but rather as an opportunity to improve their performance. Experienced teachers should be encouraged to offer their services as mentors, in order to perpetuate best practice among new recruits.

These are just two ways in which education in Britain could be improved. There are many others out there, and politicians should start listening to them. Together, they point the way towards a more open, student-centred and successful school system.

Stephen Boyle is a Young Fabians Member

The Fabian New Year Conference 2012: An Economic Alternative?

On Saturday 14th January, the Institute of Education in central London played host to the 2012 Fabian Society New Year Conference.

Hundreds of Fabians attended the all-day event, which featured some of the leading lights of the British Left and a selection of some of Labour’s most prominent frontbenchers.

This year’s theme was ‘The Economic Alternative’. Unsurprisingly, I left the conference with a sense that the Left is not offering just one alternative to the Coalition’s programme of unchecked austerity, but several, each occupying a different space on the political spectrum.

The alternative offered by Labour was set out by Ed Balls in his keynote speech. To the acclaim of some, and the horror of others, he made it clear that Labour would not reverse the cuts imposed on the country by the Tory-led government. However, in contrast to the Coalition, he did promise that the party’s focus would be fixed firmly on job creation rather than blind deficit reduction.

The overall impression received from those representing the Labour party on Saturday – which included Rachel Reeves and Chuka Ummanu – was that they were firmly sticking to their leader’s view. As Ed Miliband explained earlier last week, regardless of the Coalition’s performance over the coming three years, the next government will still inherit a deficit and in consequence have few spending options available to them. A future Labour government, therefore, would be a government of austerity too.

The need for Labour to allay suspicions that the party is, in Ed Balls’ words, “out of tune with the public mood” on the deficit is obvious from the view of narrow, immediate political interest. But as Sunny Hundal explains, by shifting the debate onto Tory territory, Labour instantly puts itself at a disadvantage. Labour will never look comfortable using the language of ‘fiscal conservatism’, or be able to dislodge the country’s preference for Conservative stewardship of the economy by promising “tough decisions on tax and spending”.

Historically, Labour has a poor record on economic management. From the historic debts of 1945 to the strikes and public sector strife of the 1970s, Labour has either inherited or created dire economic circumstances. Even New Labour, which was unique among Labour governments in presiding over eleven years of GDP growth, failed the economic test in the end when the financial storm broke. The Conservatives will always be able to claim that they are the party to be trusted with the economy when times turn hard. A Labour party promising to ‘out-macho’ the Tories will always struggle to make headway.

Other Left thinkers offered alternative visions of a future progressive approach to the economy. Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party, argued against our current economic model and stated her support for the introduction of alternate measures of national prosperity based on citizens’ perception of their own well-being and consideration for the environment. She also impressed on the audience the need to redistribute the existing wealth in society through a programme of progressive taxation and capital investment in Green infrastructure projects. The applause she received from the conference rivalled anything Ed Balls mustered, suggesting that the Left is not ready to pull on the hair-shirt of austerity just yet.

What I discovered throughout the conference is that Fabians responded better to policies and positions that promoted positive messages. Chuka Ummuna MP struck a chord by arguing that the British economy needs to be geared towards ‘pre-distribution’, and shaped in such a way that the proceeds work to lessen inequality rather than exacerbate it. The conference warmly acclaimed Will Straw’s pitch on the need for a National Investment Bank to fund SMEs, embracing the positive message that even a little investment could go a long way to transforming the fortunes of those trying to make their way through the economic turmoil.

Effective intervention, equality and redistribution were the buzzwords of the day, and if any consensus emerged from the conference it was that the economic alternative would have to reflect these three values. Let us hope that Labour’s more positive messages on jobs, ‘pre-distribution’ and ‘a responsible capitalism’ can shift the debate onto the Left’s territory, and force David Cameron to fight on our ground and on our terms.

If you were at the 2012 Fabians Conference and want to share your thoughts on the blog, please contact the team at: blog@youngfabians.org.uk

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog