Are We All Environmentalists Now?

By James Hubbard.

As part of our series of blogs introducing the Young Fabians Policy Commissions 2013 James Hubbard argues that we need to reframe environmentalism away from traditional left-right divides.

Could we report that ‘we are all environmentalists now’?

Probably not. But few contest the view that it remains one of the greatest challenges that we face. As is always the case, policymakers are presented with competing options and (here’s where it’s even more conventional) this area is traditionally seen as a left-right divide issue.

Well, we hope to do something about that. This policy commission’s premise is that it is possible to reframe the debate along new lines and, as was seen in the US following Hurricane Sandy, that being a ‘climate voter’ is not a question of political allegiance but of national interest, economic win-win and sound principle.

With this policy commission, we will explore policy options related to climate change, energy and the environment. The central theme is ‘resilience’ and all recommendations will be subject to this standard. The driving belief is that the pillars which support a sustainable economy, society and environment are consistent and policy interventions can deliver mutually supportive benefits across all three.

We stand at a critical juncture in national and international efforts to resolve our environmental impact. Decisions affecting our energy futures are being taken. International negotiations regarding the costs and impacts of climate change are being debated. Competing investment opportunities regarding more or less sustainable innovation options are being made across many industries.

Out of this process, how resilient will our economy, society and environment be? How effectively are our leaders giving us the best chances of long term competitiveness, defending national interest and making progress towards resolving major global issues?

Looking at one area of policy in isolation does not allow us to see the full picture. Let’s take energy. Inevitably, consumers and energy providers are driven to energy generation at the lowest possible cost. The combined pressure of consumer demand and market competition drive prices to the lowest possible short term levels.

But such a situation has spurred massive energy imports in recent years, destroying hopes of energy independence and ensuring reliance on foreign regimes, not to mention lost investments in growing sustainable energy industries based in the UK.

If that weren’t enough, Jeremy Grantham – one of the world’s foremost investors and a predictor of all the major financial crises of recent decades – has argued that we sit on the brink of a ‘carbon bubble’ driven by speculation on fossil fuel reserves across the world.

How resilient is that? We’d say not much.

Throughout this policy commission an exploration of resilience will throw different perspectives on current issues, adding up to a number of Big Ideas for 2015 in areas such as energy, innovation and investment, foreign affairs, jobs, education and many more.

The commission aims to prove that much vaunted economic win-wins on climate change, energy and the environment aren’t a pipe dream, but opportunities whose time has come.

James Hubbard is chair of the Young Fabians Policy Commission on environmental challenges. You can sign up to be involved in the Young Fabians Policy Commissions here – http://bit.ly/11ulMLw.

Generation Y or Generation Why Is It So Hard To Get A Job?

 By Alvin Carpio and Ben Powell.

As part of our series of blogs introducing the Young Fabians Policy Commissions 2013 Alvin Carpio and Ben Powelllook at Britain’s continuing problem with youth unemployment.

Across Britain, one million young people are unemployed. Long spells of unemployment early on in a person’s work history can have long term scarring effects making them less employable. There is also lost productivity.

Dealing with youth unemployment is important to both our economy and social stability. We need young people to have work experience early in order to prepare them for life in the labour market after compulsory schooling. We also need to deal with it to avoid the sort of events we saw unravel in summer August 2011.

We have been called the lost generation, the scarred generation, the hopeless generation. We are not generation y, but instead generation why is it so hard to get a job?

Of course it would be wrong to paint a generic brush over all young people, in the same way that was done during the riots where all young people were deemed to be criminals. Also, we have to remember that in the 1970s, the young people growing up during Margaret Thatcher’s government were also called the lost generation too.

Still, this is an issue that affects all young people, including Young Fabians. There are many young people who are overqualified and many who are underemployed. Many young people find themselves with a degree that they were promised would make it easy to get a job. For some, their degrees are now worthless, especially for those who graduated from the new universities as the top 2000 companies in Britain mainly recruit from the old universities like Oxbridge and Durham. Some Young Fabians will be unemployed themselves.

Dealing with youth unemployment now matters because rates were increasing even before the recession. This points to structural issues and suggests that even if we were to return to growth, it would still be a problem.

The commission will consider three main questions. Firstly, why is youth unemployment so high? Secondly, how is youth unemployment affecting our members and their communities? Thirdly, what can we do to respond to youth unemployment? We’d love you to take part in the discussion and we hope you’ll join us for the commission’s events.

Alvin Carpio and Ben Powell are co-chairs of the Young Fabians Policy Commission on youth unemployment. You can sign up to be involved in the Young Fabians Policy Commissions here – http://bit.ly/11ulMLw.

The Rural Penalty

By Simon Winch.

As part of our series of blogs introducing the Young Fabians Policy Commissions 2013 Simon Winch explains the need for Labour to engage with the distinct issues facing rural communities.

10% of the UK population lives in rural areas. When we think of a rural Tory heartland we may see landed gentry, fox hunting and servants, but there is also a large number of households in poverty that have been let down by a Coalition Government doing little to support community resilience. Rural residents have seen the localism agenda, and in it seen only cuts to services. Labour must demonstrate to a disaffected rural public that it presents a credible alternative.

Through a series of events and expert interviews, we will explore questions such as “in what circumstances has Labour won in rural areas?”, “what can Labour learn from the Lib Dems in rural areas?”, and “has Labour championed rural households less than other parties?”

Tight planning laws in many protected rural areas frustrate households installing insulation or generating renewable heat or power. Yet these households – many reliant on expensive non-gas heating solutions – are often deepest in fuel poverty. We will investigate what can be done to help rural residents exit fuel poverty, while conserving the natural and built environment.

We will ask whether it’s a given that a growing UK population needs more housing. If we do indeed need more housing, we will explore whether rural areas need to accommodate their fair share, and whether/ how this can benefit rural communities.

These questions will strike a chord with rural residents and take the political debate deep into Tory heartland. Deep blue areas may not seem an obvious priority, but the rural areas in Labour’s target seats could be key to a Labour majority in 2015. Your help is needed to investigate the Rural Penalty. You can organise events, interview stakeholders, research policy… Together we can deliver hard-hitting, robust policy ideas for 2015.

The right wing does not have a monopoly on the rural debate. The left must be heard too: fighting for a progressive, inclusive, One Nation Britain.

Simon Winch is chair of the Young Fabians Policy Commission on rural policy. You can sign up to be involved in the Young Fabians Policy Commissions here – http://bit.ly/11ulMLw.

Tackling the Care Crisis

By Felicity Slater and Jack Storry.

As part of our series of blogs introducing the Young Fabians Policy Commissions 2013 Felicity Slater and Jack Storry explain the need for Labour to come up with creative answers to Britain’s “care crisis”.

One of the biggest challenges coming Britain’s way begins with a ‘c’. Not cuts, but an entire policy area (or two) – care.

We’ve decided to run our policy commission on what has been called ‘the care crisis’. Social care and child care are two issues that are often tagged by policy-makers and politicians as ‘difficult’ or ‘too potentially toxic’ to handle. That’s because there really are no quick fix, low-cost solutions to make social care cheaper or improve child care availability.

What’s driving these issues to the top of the political agenda now is that over the coming decades they are going to put an increasingly large strain on the nation’s public finances. But at a time when politicians are actually looking to cut public spending that’s an increasingly unwelcome prospect. At the same time, disparities in local provision and soaring costs are having a huge impact on people nationwide. It’s clearly time for reform.

Much of that fiscal pressure comes from social care and is caused by the fact that people are living much longer. While this is clearly something to celebrate, for government that means higher pension costs, higher health care costs and increased social care costs. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s long-term fiscal sustainability report states very plainly that by 2060 we’ll be spending £80 billion more PER YEAR, virtually all because of an aging population. That is not small change.

But where social care presents a threat to Britain’s long-term fiscal health, child care arguably presents a real opportunity.  The primary problem with childcare in the UK is one of affordability: far too often, it actually makes more sense for one parent to stay at home and look after the children. The sharp reality is that person is usually the female parent and thus they are squeezed out of the labour market, unable to take full-time work, if any at all. That results in the UK having lower levels of female employment than many other European countries, particularly Scandinavian nations such as Denmark and Sweden. Quite simply, it would be a good thing for the British economy if those women were able to work.

When put like that it all sounds relatively straightforward, but as we said at the start there are no quick fix, low-cost solutions. These are issues that can’t just be wished away or ignored for the next administration to face; they need to be solved. And, broadly speaking, it’s our generation that is going to pay the price if they aren’t.

So we’re going to spend the next few months looking at these issues, hearing from the experts and seeing if we can’t pull together a few ideas about how to solve them. Social care and child care are fascinating policy areas that we can’t wait to get our teeth into. We’d love you to take part in the discussion and we hope you’ll join us for the commission’s events.

Felicity Slater and Jack Storry are co-chairs of the Young Fabians Policy Commission on care. You can sign up to be involved in the Young Fabians Policy Commissions here – http://bit.ly/11ulMLw.

Generation Crisis? Panel At the Fabian Conference

By Louie Woodall.

At last weekend’s sell-out Fabian conference, the Young Fabians launched their flagship policy pamphlet, Generation Crisis? Luciana Berger MP, Sunny Hundal (Liberal Conspiracy), Shiv Malik (The Guardian), Dermot Finch (The Princes Trust), and Joel Mullan (Young Fabians Executive) sat on a panel to debate the findings.

Political discourse revels in creating divisions both real and imagined. Rich v poor, private sector v public sector, workers v shirkers.

One of the most potent fault lines yet to be exploited is that separating old and young. Britain’s youth are reaping the withered harvest of neoliberalism sown by their parents and grandparents, facing years of paying off debts they did not incur, and threatened by a looming environmental catastrophe caused by climate change.

On the other hand, the youth of yesteryear enjoyed in their time free university education, relatively full employment, a benevolent housing market and the security of a universal welfare state.

Panel and audience alike examined the causes and consequences of the crisis engulfing the young generation, and attempted to find a common solution to avert disaster.

The key lesson learnt is that we must not let the pressures built up by unequal treatment of generations to boil over into open conflict. Mudslinging and divide-and-rule will not help forge a new deal for young people.

Instead, we need to have a full and thorough conversation across the different age groups to reconsider how the state and the market distributes its benefits to young and old. The obstacles in the way of a new settlement are not limited to the policies of the current government- in fact, Dermot Finch suggested that there were definite structural issues that stack the odds against young people achieving in 21^st century Britain.

Sunny Hundal argued that if we want to protect benefits for the young, savings will have to be made elsewhere. However, this need not mean robbing the old to pay for the young.

As today’s announcement on a new state pension reveals, this government is prepared to strike at both old and young people in its mission to cancel the deficit. The difference is that the pensioner caucus is strong, cohesive, and unafraid to pick a fight with politicians. On the other end of the spectrum, the youth lobby is riven by party allegiances and patronized by adults

Dermot thought that if young people put aside partisan interests and fought together for the equitable treatment of their generation through an institution the equivalent of Age UK, that this could make a real difference.

The audience, however, argued that the only sure fire way to ensure young voices were heard was to get them involved in politics and make them vote. Luciana Berger recounted an eye-opening personal experience when she talked with 150 Year 8 school pupils and found that not a single one of them knew who the Prime Minister was.

A report for Age Concern revealed that 18-24yr olds accounted for only 7.1% of the total turnout at the 2005 General Election. Compare this to the massive 42.6% share of the turnout recorded by the over 55s. No wonder politicians feel they can bully young people with policies that discriminate against them

However, if the problem is a relatively simple one of political engagement, the solution seems bizarrely complex. Should we campaign for votes at 16? Make voting compulsory? Or should parliament and local government inspire youth participation by sanctioning under-30 shortlists?

This debate, and the others touched upon by the panel, will go on and on, for the issues they address affect the destiny of us all.

Louie Woodall is Editor of Anticipations.

Are we facing Generation Crisis?

There is a feeling that this generation are losing out. Last year saw youth unemployment hit 1 million, the number of young people not in Education, Employment or Training rose by 12% and another 500,000 children entered poverty raising the total to 3 million.

Even those currently safe from the economic storm are facing problems their parents would never had dreamed of. The average age of first home ownership is now 39 and applications to university have plummeted 15% on the back of sky high tuition fees and pension reform means our generation working for longer, contributing far more and receiving a lot less than previous generations.

Just look at what is happening to welfare reform which has singled out young people, children now exclusively a financial burden on the State rather than our national future.

Nationally the Government’s economic plan has so far failed on two accounts: to generate growth and employment, and to cut the deficit in any meaningful sense. In fact the Government expects to borrow another £111bn over the next four years, the years of austerity will leave us with £24bn in borrowing – around the same as Alastair Darling forecast in his last budget.

But, after austerity, what? There is a growing feeling among young people that our generation has been sold down the river, that the social costs and benefits have been distributed unfairly between generations and that it is young people today who are being forced to pay. Any necessary pain now isn’t being paired with any promise about tomorrow.

2012 is the year for these questions. Whilst the UK and London gear up for the international showcase that is the Olympics, to showcase all that is best of British, we are wondering what legacy will have been secured after the £9.3bn has been spent and the world moves on? The year of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, should be the year not just for celebrating all that is great about Great Britain but also when we mark our commitment to make Britain better.

What should make us worry is the feeling that young people are losing the sense that parliamentary democracy can deliver social change. Fewer young people voted in the last general election than at any time since the war. The riots last August hinted at a worrying growth in social alienation among many young people. And international Occupy movements, having taken these debates out of political institutions and onto the streets, are now being moved on.

We don’t think any of this is good enough.

That is why we’re launching this years Young Fabian policy commissions under the banner of ‘Generation Crisis?’. These commissions will be looking at the key challenges facing our generation now, but also what future challenges our generation should get ready to tackle. We’ll be looking not just at the issues young people in the UK face, but also at the issues that young people are facing around the world and how we can support/learn from them.

The UK faces a turning point: a future where more will have to be done with less. A society where being left behind is a reality, where, unless we take action, inequality will dictate the lives of a generation and their children. A world potentially less confident and less open.

Or something different. That is where you can help.

If you are a Young Fabian member and are interested in chairing one of our commissions this year then please apply here before the 14th March.

If you would like to sign up to take part in the commissions then email Vincenzo Rampulla at vrampulla@youngfabians.org.uk and find out how you can make 2012 the year we work out how to stop the crisis.

By Vincenzo Rampulla and Claire Leigh, Young Fabian Executive

Sadiq Khan focuses on victims but offenders also need to be high on the agenda

Georgia Hussey offers her views on the latest Fabian pamphlet launch.

Speaking at the launch of the Fabian Society’s ‘Punishment and Reform’ report, Sadiq Khan emphasised the need to put victims at the heart of the justice system. Khan has stressed the need to reshape the way victims are involved in the justice process, calling for a “significant shift in attitudes to and treatment of victims”.

Victim support is an area the Government appear to be falling behind on; discussing his victim support package in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Ken Clarke’s mention of victims of terrorism sparked criticism from Sadiq Khan. The Shadow Justice Secretary said that “after more than a year of delay, victims of overseas terrorism are still waiting for the compensation promised by this Government”.

But dealing with offenders should be key in any criminal justice policy, and the report, which hopes to inform the conclusions of the Labour Party’s policy review, showed a heavy focus on preventing people becoming offenders and re-offenders.

Barry Mizen’s presence at the launch steered the debate away from Khan’s focus on victims. Mizen, whose son was murdered in 2008, brought first-hand experience of how victims are involved in the justice system. However, as Mary Riddell, the chair of the debate, pointed out, Barry Mizen is not the ‘typical’ passive victim. He and his wife Margaret set up the Jimmy Mizen Foundation after their son’s death, which has helped many young people take on a positive role in their community. This kind of approach, he said, helps them become “responsible citizens in their communities”. As he writes in his chapter of the pamphlet, “getting justice for Jimmy was not just about punishment for his killer, it was about finding and exposing the truth of what happened to our son. What can we do to ensure young people don’t resort to violence against each other?”. His presence steered the discussion towards prevention, and supporting young people who might otherwise become offenders.

Adding another important voice to the ‘Punishment and Reform’ report was Baroness Jean Corston, who focused on female offenders in her contribution to the pamphlet. She noted that only 3.2% of women in prison are considered a ‘danger to the public’, but over 75% exhibit some kind of psychological disturbance. With an overwhelming majority of offenders being male, women are often overlooked in criminal justice policy. But these figures clearly show that many of the women in prison are “troubled rather than troublesome”. Any new criminal justice policy should incorporate ways to tackle this issue, and Cortson stresses the importance of giving those women an alternative to offending and reoffending. Early diversion into the mental health system instead of the prison system is key, and crucial support from women’s centres will help them get support, qualifications and skills that aren’t otherwise available to them.

Sadiq Khan’s call for a change in how the criminal justice system treats victims is a clear way to improve the system for the people in it, at little cost. However the debate must always centre on the offenders and on prevention. Greater support for victims cannot encroach on a commitment to eradicating a need for victim support; we need to work towards a society where there are no victims. Getting people more involved in their community, whether in a women’s centre or on youth projects, is a proven way to prevent people becoming offenders. Barry Mizen wrote that “trying to foster more civility and humanity in all aspects of life – from schools, to the streets, to prisons – is the only way to counter the incivility and violence”. This aim should not be forgotten.

Georgia Hussey is an intern at the Fabian Society.

The Squeezed Middle: How To Build A Fairer Economy

In this member post, Jeevun Sandher – a member of the Young Fabian Renewing and Reforming our Economy Policy Commission - reflects on how Labour can build a fairer economy.

Most of us have a vague idea of what the “squeezed middle” is. However, a precise definition seems to elude many in the Labour movement. Understanding precisely who this group is and designing economic policy to promote their interests is the key to building a fairer economy.

To define the “squeezed middle” we could do much worse than to look at the work of the Resolution Foundation, an organisation working to improve the lives of people with low-to-middle incomes. For them, this group constitute about 11 million working adults who tend to earn less than the median income but are above the bottom ten percent in the income distribution.

In short, they are people who are neither too rich nor too poor. They are too wealthy to get substantial state support, but too poor to flourish in an open market economy. Increasing amounts of them are unable to buy homes, and struggle with household bills. More than half have less than one month’s income in savings and face comparatively higher rates of inflation (due to the basket of goods that they buy).

However, the real tragedy for the squeezed middle is that while the economy grew by 11 % between 2003 and 2008, the median wage remained static. At the same time, those on higher wages saw their pay packets increase and executive pay rose exponentially. The squeezed middle saw their living standards reduce at a time when the economy grew and productivity rose, giving the lie to the neo-liberal idea that people are paid their “marginal product” – that the wage chosen by the market is a fair wage.

This problem runs straight to the heart of Labour’s “fairness” strategy. By and large, these are people who work hard, do the right thing, but still struggle to stay afloat in an increasingly precarious economic climate. Meanwhile, CEO’s saw their pay rise dramatically in the decade before the financial crisis and bankers continue to take home multi-million pound bonuses.

The challenge for Labour at the next election is to construct a vision that rewards hard work and shapes a free and fair economy. There is no silver bullet, however. What is needed is a raft of policies to build an economy in which all gain when there is growth.

To begin with, those in the squeezed middle tend to be those with low-to-medium level skills. Any economic strategy must be focused first on investment in education, in order to build up human capital. Given the increasing returns to education we have seen in the past 30 years, this is just common sense.

However, it is important to note that this does not merely mean reducing tuition fees. As a recent IFS study has pointed out, those with similar A-level grades tend to go to university in the same proportion but it is much less likely that the poorest students will get the top A-level grades. Earlier intervention is key (e.g. Sure Start, the pupil premium etc.) to promoting social mobility and building people’s skills.

But this should just be the beginning. For too long Labour has accepted the Thatcherite free market consensus as gospel, and only aimed to tweak it at the edges to help those on low to middle incomes with measures such as tax credits and lower basic tax rates.

It is time to consider and undertake more radical measures. We must design policies which create better corporate governance structures as well as more accountability and transparency surrounding pay in the private sector. Only then can we ensure that all people will share in the proceeds of growth and be paid a fair wage. Hopefully, with these goals in mind we can create a compelling economic vision that helps us win the next election.

Jeevun Sandher is a member of the Young Fabian Reforming and Renewing our Economy Policy Commission.

Inside conference

Liverpool is lovely. The Labour Party should be planning another conference in Liverpool again, very soon. Everywhere people have been talking more about how welcoming, friendly and revitalising the city has been. It has even provided ample opportunities for delegates and members to escape politics for a little cultural respite.

That’s not to say that the mood amongst the crowd isn’t febrile. We’re only half way through this year’s conference but it is clear that people are chomping the bit to discuss and debate the issues. This afternoon’s speech from Ed Miliband therefore has a high conference threshold to reach.

The pre-briefing points to a leader’s speech of big themes and populist rhetoric, which should play fairly well to the TV masses. But Miliband will no doubt find a more challenging audience in the conference hall.

Just take the debate at this morning’s Young Fabian fringe. Politicians should not discount the appetite for discussing our “squeezed youth” agenda and the challenges facing the next generation, it is obviously huge when an 8am fringe leads to an almost full room.

And, importantly, people are not content with just listening, they want proper dialogue.

I’m not sure what Andy Slaughter or John Woodcock were expecting but they were soon faced with a full on and vibrant debate covering the full gamut of issues our Next Generation policy development group has been looking at.

What is clear is that Labour’s policy development process needs to be geared towards continual engagement with people on these issues, consciously reassessing whether their thinking answers the concerns and hopes of the people we hope policies will affect. As John Woodcock put it, moving beyond “cut and paste policy”.

Maybe that’s not where the leadership is just now but there’s a feeling they need to show they are on that journey. Despite the need for the big picture, which Miliband’s senior advisor Lord Wood made a cogent argument for at our Institute for Government event before conference, we know that the public also wants to be convinced that we can deliver. They also want to see a credible route for the high aspirations we are espousing. On everything – from our response to the Big Society, our ideas about mobilising communities and creating a living, breathing industrial base that can lead us to growth – people want to know how we might get there and what it will mean for them in practice.

That points to more incrementalist policies in some areas and more action from Labour-led local government.

Finally there is a sense that Government cannot do it all; while state-led policy is a necessity, the state needs to find its groove as a mobilising force for business, communities and ordinary people want to lead better lives for themselves and their families.

Vincenzo Rampulla is Officer without Portfolio for the Young Fabians.

Building Stronger Communities – responding to the Big Society

In this member post, Timothy Stacey – a member of the Young Fabian Building Stronger Communities Policy Commission – shares his reflections on the Commission’s first meeting.

Last week saw the first in a series of meetings between Young Fabians, Labour MPs and community professionals as part of the Building Stronger Communities Policy Commission, chaired by Richard Angell and with guest speaker Anas Sarwar MP. A key concern was how Labour can responsed to the Big Society.

Sarwar opened the debate by asking if it was wise to shape Labour’s attempt to build stronger communities as an afterthought to the Big Society. There was the usual suggestion that the Big Society was a cover for economic cuts. Angell added that in fact Labour is historically the party of grassroots organising. This is absolutely correct. But I worry that Labour is getting caught in a cycle of reiterating this fact as opposed to reinventing what it means.

It is also worth noting, as far as political point scoring is concerned, that the coalition is failing to be grassroots. It seems like small news that the coalition rejected Citizens UK in favour of Locality for its contract to train 5000 community organisers. But the strategic differences between the bids make the decision philosophically damning. Whereas Citizens UK look to build policy from the people, Locality offer to turn communities into an integrated third sector whereby the people take control of whatever the government decides it cannot afford to.

Grassroots organising partly means having the humility to connect with traditional grassroots groups and ask them what they want. In recent times Labour has drawn a line between itself and its union support base (despite being elected with union support, Labour leader Ed Miliband failed to stand by them during the pensions strike). But it also means connecting with new kinds of groups in the face of shifting social circumstances. Many people are not in a job long enough to see a union as representative of their long-term interests.

This would mean building real connections with groups like Citizens UK. The government’s rejection of its community organising contracts bid makes it a good time to get involved with Citizens UK. Many in the organisation are angry and looking for alternative means of support. They feel they have been shunned due to their independent manner of operation. But others are happy to have maintained this independence.

Often, it is seen as problematic that Citizens UK will only align itself with an external body if issues of the people are addressed. I see it as a good thing; as well as keeping Labour in line with what local communities want, Citizens UK can provide an active support base. Organisations like Citizens UK will also save taxpayers’ money in the long run because projects are often internally funded by participants.

In policy terms, this would require community organisations themselves to formulate policies as the government acts as an enforcer and provider. The living wage campaign is a good example of where government can support. The most sure-fire and exciting way to get people’s votes is not to guess at policies that will inspire them but to act as actual representatives, the messenger between their own ideas and government. It is for this reason that Ed Miliband has himself said that Labour should be more like Citizens UK.

Apart from all the long-term sociological factors, one of the reasons the BNP are so good at building a community support base is that they actually act like a community organisation: holding rallies; lunches and dances; listening to and articulating (albeit often very bigoted!) ideas. We politicos so often forget how important it is to engage people socially before we can gain privilege to their deepest insights.

There were two other areas not discussed in last week’s meeting.

The first, ironically given the Commission is being run by the Young Fabians, is that any policy that wants to rebuild communities needs to involve young people. A joint report released in June between ResPublica and Action for Children entitled Children and the Big Society had some exciting ideas on this note.

One project was simply getting to know the names of the children five houses to your right and five houses to your left. Similarly, it is hugely important to young people to get to know the officers patrolling their streets. The strategies used in projects like PREVENT, whereby officers enter youth clubs and chat to young people about their troubles and aspirations, get young people learning officers’ names for the right reasons. The police become heroes rather than enemies.

The Young Fabians is a wonderful way of getting young people involved in politics. But it could go further. Why not actually get young people from communities involved in these roundtables? Each of us involved could interview people from our community (and many of us work in education already) and ask them for ideas.

The second area we missed was the increasing importance of religious groups in community development. Over the last ten years this has often meant simply trying to outsource centrally defined services to religious groups. Instead the groups themselves could have a say in the services that are provided.

Working with religious groups saves money in the long run because religious groups are great fundraisers for their own projects. They also feel massively unrepresented at the moment so finding a way to actively engage them in policy formulation is extremely important.

Research by the Institute for Community Cohesion (ICOCO) suggests we are always thinking too small. We keep thinking of this or that policy idea but never think about the big picture of how to reactivate communities from the grassroots. Partly this is because we need to relearn how to be grassroots. Partly it is because we do not want to. Labour has become more conservative in how it formulates policy and in how it elects its representatives.

At last week’s Policy Commission, I was really enthusiastic to see how problems were being approached holistically with respect to, for example, housing, crime, and equality. But one of my chief worries is that in a roundtable about building stronger communities the talk so often turned to central policy and to how to create better networks between departments.

Most of those working on communities cohesion projects require government support (finance, resources, expertise) for local decisions. This is a difficult balance to strike.

Timothy Stacey is a member of the Young Fabian Building Stronger Communities Policy Commission.

• You can find out more about the Young Fabian 2011 Policy Commission work by clicking here.