Making use of unions in this time of opposition

Labour’s place as an alternative party is yet to be established. After the first four months out of power, Ed Miliband’s controversial win somewhat grounded the party and the new direction it will take. Having returned from paternity leave yesterday, Mr Miliband has given shadow Wales secretary Peter Hain just under a year to review the party’s policy.

Having described being in opposition “frankly crap” in parliament yesterday, to the glee of one Sky News presenter yesterday, the reformed new Labour under the younger of the Miliband brothers must come up with a new bank of policy – some of which is already causing a split, if political commentators are to be believed. Miliband, who appears to be steering away from the 20th century relevance of Tony Blair and New Labour, may have to leave some of his brother’s allies behind.

Votes from union members did help Ed to take the perhaps not so crap job of being the leader of the opposition. But contributions from unions are also useful when it comes to policy formulation. Unions represent a sizeable portion of the British workforce, as well as funding research and political campaigns away from the Labour Party.

The perpetual link made between ‘union barons’ and the leader may make good headlines but within the Labour camp, the importance and relevance of these links should not be misjudged – especially in the early period of being out of office.

This week, Unite the Union elected Len McCluskey as its new leader. Mr McCluskey notably heckled Ed Miliband at the Labour party conference in September, shouting ‘rubbish’ at Miliband’s comments on ‘irresponsible strike action’ in response to the coalition’s public service cuts.

Whilst reviewing the policy for a political era, Labour must not lose sight of what the government is doing. Holding the coalition to account whilst coming up with its own policy should be at the forefront of the opposition’s activity in these coming months and years.

Cutting connections with trade unions is not an option. How the party reacts and uses unions and think tanks must be reviewed if Peter Hain’s recommendations are to be useful for the uphill work.

The New Generation: how do we make the economy work for everyone, home and abroad?

Margaret Dantas Araujo, member of the Livelihoods and Resource Security Young Fabian Policy Development Group, uses the comprehensive spending review as a lens to look at arguments made in the just published Young Fabian pamphlet, The New Generation. We are very keen to hear what you think of the pamphlet – please let us know your thoughts by posting a comment. This is the fourth in a series of posts on ‘The New Generation’, which you can read by clicking here.

The ring-fencing of UK aid in the spending review is right and in the country’s interest. Right because even during these austere times we have a moral duty to help the world’s poorest people and in our interest because it plays an important role in making the world a more stable and prosperous place.

But that’s only half the story. The coalition has proposed a significant shift of focus in the aid budget towards failing and conflict-affected states. This approach risks ignoring the fundamental dilemmas of resource scarcity that underlie the real development challenges of the coming decade: the carbon intensive growth that underpins current development gains, the high inequalities present in many middle income economies and the huge increases in urban poverty.

Progressive development policy must begin with these dilemmas in mind, bridging development, environmental and distributive concerns. Failing to address these issues or the series of interdependent, systemic challenges they relate to – energy and food security, jobless growth, climate change, global governance – will leave the UK and developing countries more, not less vulnerable.

The most powerful way that the UK can lead in a changing world is by example. Domestic action towards sustainable development strengthens the moral and political foundations needed for a global role as catalyst and reformer, impacting positively upon the environment and the world’s most vulnerable. Cutting investments in UK renewable energy as the coalition government has done is short sighted and in the long run increases Britain’s dependence on energy imports and undermines our international efforts. Why should other countries invest in renewable energy if we do not?

The UK’s economy should be synonymous with sustainable products, design and construction, clean energy and technology, ethical consumers and attractive, green cities. These would be the true green shoots of a balanced British recovery and it is vital therefore that this moment is used to press for a new, greener, more equitable path to growth in Britain and overseas. The UK should push for the G20 to broaden its sights from the immediate and much needed reform of the global banking and financial system, towards green and equitable growth.

Without such leadership the $70 trillion held by investment funds ready to invest; such investment could help the least developed countries leapfrog dirty development by building low carbon energy infrastructure. Such investment could spur growth by investing in communications systems, such as broadband, that encourage entrepreneurship by enabling people to connect market information and local knowledge, enhance opportunities for civil society organisation and help in the provision of efficient and effective basic services.

This post originally appeared on Left Foot Forward.

The New Generation: what do we want workplaces and the economy to look like?

Chair of the Work and Families Young Fabian Policy Development Group, Josie Cluer, highlights key issues from her chapter in the just published Young Fabian pamphlet, The New Generation. We are very keen to hear what you think of the pamphlet – please let us know your thoughts by posting a comment. This is the third in a series of posts from the authors of ‘The New Generation’, which you can read by clicking here.

To win again, and win again soon, Labour needs to be seen as a party of government. Therefore, we need a compelling alternative economic strategy to address the economic reality. Anyone who opposes every cut in public spending is in denial of the economic situation. We must articulate how we would deal with the economic crisis differently from the current government. This must be based on fairness: cuts should be spread evenly across the income spectrum.

Perhaps in the past Labour has been agnostic about the kinds of industries and the kinds of jobs that we want in Britain: as long as the economy is booming, the reasons don’t matter. But the crisis in the banking sector showed that our economy was too dependent on the financial sector; and the cuts to be implemented will demonstrate that it is too dependent on the public sector. Similarly, our values should warn against an economy over-reliant on the grey, informal economy, which routinely exploits its low skilled, low paid workforce, and offers little progression or hope for them.

As we begin to recover from the recession and build the economy again, there is an opportunity to reshape the economy to be more resilient, as well as better for jobs and communities.

Our ambition should be for Britain to lead the world in the industries of the future. This does not mean “picking winners”; it requires a far more subtle approach. But all government actions – not just those in industry – contribute to the willingness of enterprises and industries to invest and develop in Britain.

Ed Miliband should consider:

• An inward investment review to understand fully the factors which drive investment in the kinds of high skill, high value industries we want
• Policies which incentivise parts of the economy we want to grow, like green industries, social enterprises and the creative economy.

Similarly, Labour should not be agnostic about the kinds of jobs we want. Our ambition should be for fair and satisfying workplaces.

New Labour’s vision of economic efficiency and social justice should remain our ambition. Faced with the challenges of an ageing population, emerging economies and globalisation, Britain’s economy cannot afford to have so many people out of work. At the same time, many who do not work are prevented by a labour market that is insufficiently flexible to enable them to juggle work with families and other responsibilities. Every mother who chooses not to work because she’s fed up of the inflexibility her employer gives her to look after her kids if they’re off school sick is a blow to the economy. And it’s unfair on her. Every older worker who is denied a job because the employer worries about him being a bit slow up the stairs is a blow to the economy. And it’s unfair on him. And every person whose employer cannot give him the flexibility to manage his mental health problems is a blow to the economy. And it’s unfair on him.

Ed Miliband should initiate a joint union-employer commission on “fair workplaces of the future” looking at:

• How unions can improve the workplace
• Parents working rights
• Technology
• Mental health at work
• Working hours
• Older workers

Labour has long won people’s hearts through its vision about the kind of society we want to live in. By being bold about the kind of economy we want, and the kind of jobs we want, we can win people’s heads back too.

This post originally appeared on Progress online.

The New Generation: how can we transform the Labour Party?

Chair of the ‘Transforming our Party’ Young Fabian Policy Development Group, Jessica Studdert, outlines the arguments she makes in her chapter in the just published Young Fabian pamphlet, The New Generation. We are very keen to hear what you think of the pamphlet – please let us know your thoughts by posting a comment. This is the second in a series of posts from the authors of ‘The New Generation’, which you can read by clicking here.

The election of a new Leader with a clear mission to set a new direction, for a new generation, gives everyone in the Labour Party the opportunity to consider how we operate and interact with each other and with our communities. 

As progressives, we are by our nature in a rush to get things done. We have a sense of mission and urgency, and we always strive for more. This is as it should be, but increasingly in the recent past our mission has been led and defined by an overweening centralised electoral machine, one that has taken us far from where we started as a political party that was an organic expression of the Labour movement’s values. 

The entire institutional dynamic of the Labour Party is best characterised as that of a marketing-professional company. Communication with the electorate focusses on extracting data and then pummelling people with information. The central party retains tight control over campaign method and message delivery, and defines only narrow measures of effectiveness such as voter ID volumes. 

The last election witnessed the limits of this approach. Now Labour must effect a cultural shift that allows us to become a community-embedded movement party. Since Obama surged to victory in the US two years ago, this concept has become very in vogue in Labour circles, but too often it is a tag applied to the old way of doing things and rendered meaningless.

We need to rediscover a relational sense of politics, that recognises and rewards interaction and dialogue with members, supporters and the public. Put simply, we need to turn identification and broadcast off, and turn conversation and reciprocity on. The top-down structure of our party needs to be turned on its head so that the focus of central party and regional office activity is capacity building locally. 

CLPs need to be given the freedom, and where needed the support, to develop a culture and practice of constant campaigning, building and sustaining links with the wider community. CLPs who recruit supporters, build relationships and develop networks of interest locally should be rewarded with more money, more independence, and greater weight in the policymaking process. 

CLPs should be supported to become effective campaigning organisations. Job descriptions for each officer post would enable individuals to understand what is expected of them and allow members to hold them to account. Term limits for officers of 2-3 years would better develop the talents and skills of those who hold positions and allow more opportunity to progress. Training and advice, peer support and shadowing opportunities, would help individuals develop their CLPs and realise their potential locally. 

The new Leader should consider initiating a strategic review of the Labour Party which would consider the functions and effectiveness of the party at all levels, and how they interact with each other – branch, CLP, regional, national, the PLP and the Leader’s office. This process could also analyse trade unions, affiliates and successful movement-based organisations such as Hope Not Hate to identify strengths, greater potential for coordination locally and to build capacity. 

The Labour Party can only ever prosper when it is an expression of a vibrant, diverse and active base that has high levels of visibility, trust and interaction with our communities, providing a channel through which individuals can express their values and a link between the leadership and the electorate.

This post originally appeared on LabourList.

The New Generation: what do you think?

Young Fabian Vice Chair and editor of ‘The New Generation’, Adrian Prandle, introduces the Young Fabians’ 50^th anniversary pamphlet, which was launched by Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP in the House of Commons. We are very keen to hear what you think of the pamphlet – please let us know your thoughts by posting a comment. This is the first in a series of posts from the authors of ‘The New Generation’.

When Ed Miliband, in his first leader’s speech, told Labour Party Conference that a new generation had taken charge, ears pricked up. He spoke of a new generation ‘idealistic about our future’ and ‘not bound by the fear or the ghosts of the past.’

The Young Fabians – and the four essays in our just published 50^th anniversary pamphlet – epitomise this new generation. We bring not just a new generation of ideas to the centre-left, but also an optimism, an ambition, and a determination about what government and society together can achieve. As Douglas Alexander, in his speech to launch the pamphlet, said: “Don’t underestimate the motivation, inspiration and insight that young thinkers, activists and participants have in our collective future.”

At a time when the potential of a mass membership movement is being recalled, the Young Fabians are ahead of the game. Our involvement in Labour politics may focus on ideas and participating in change, but in publishing this work we have also developed a highly participatory model of policy development.

The four Young Fabians policy development groups that have been meeting since May have utilised the heartbeat of our organisation: members. Members who individually, and collectively, are both doers and thinkers. The belief in collectivity, central to the movement, should never again allow us to forget the value of participation.

This is a key theme of our work on Labour Party reform. From participating in a functional policy-making process, and participating in driving change in our communities, to ensuring a boost in participation of the full diversity of Labour’s members, we must speed up in replacing command and control with listen and learn as the basis for action.

And so, Young Fabian members, involved and empowered, have presented their policy ideas in a variety of fora: meetings, magazine articles, blog posts; to politicians, to experts, and to each other. We have run wiki-policy experiments, and held online meetings bringing in passion, expertise and experiences from the breadth of the country, not just from within the Westminster policy world.

The policy development groups met in a unique context: with Labour out of power for the first time in most Young Fabian members’ political lifetimes, coalition government may well have brought ‘a new politics’, and, still in the aftermath of the global economic crisis, public services begin to feel the harsh impact of the new government’s extensive and ideological spending cuts. The results are impressive, and the pamphlet pushes for party reform and offers policy recommendations across a diverse set of areas.

Change starts at home, which is why Jessica Studdert, Chair of the Young Fabian special project group, Transforming our Party, argues for a vibrant, diverse Labour Party, utilising its members to respond to the issues of the modern world with relevance and innovation and to provide a link between leadership and wider electorate.  In The path to green and equitable growth, Adam Short presents the case for a holistic approach to dealing with the interdependent challenges of energy, global governance, and developing economies and livelihoods. Chair of the Young Fabian Work and Families policy development group, Josie Cluer, calls for a proper definition of the fairness Labour represents, a new economic narrative, and a willingness to transform workplaces and family life. In the final contribution, Young Fabian members Bren Albiston and Dan Harkin discuss the interrelation of aspiration and education, and look for a commitment of involvement and participation from beyond the education sector – in families, in communities, in trade unions and in business – with the support, not control, of government. Each chapter is packed with ideas.

Take these ideas to your CLPs, your union branch meetings, your community campaign groups. Write about them, talk about them – and let us know what you think.

This pamphlet presents new ideas for a new leader of the Labour Party – but also for the whole movement. Change is needed and together we must participate in that change. The new generation is ready and able.

A similar version of this post was published on LabourList.

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.

Strapping kids to a treadmill isn’t the answer

Building on his Health of the Nation post, Young Fabian Tim Nicholls takes another look at the importance of our relationship with food and argues that good habits need to start early.

In a previous post, I talked about the need for radical thinking to tackle increasing rates of obesity in the UK. Though I spoke in more general terms, particular attention needs to be paid to childhood obesity. This builds on the policy ideas in my last post: particularly vital is making good food cost less.

This is for two reasons. Firstly, if children grow up fit and healthy, they’re more likely to stay that way. Secondly, increasing rates of obesity in children are leading to rates of juvenile diabetes and other health conditions that are, in themselves, sufficient cause for action.

But what to do?

A great leap forward was made a couple of years ago. Say what you like about Jamie Oliver, he got school meals on the agenda and budgets were increased. Children were getting healthy food in schools and it was getting results. Already, there is news that this agenda is for the chop.

This would be a colossal mistake by the Government. This is not just because a move away from healthy school dinners will make our children less healthy; it is because the lessons you learn in early life are vital. If we can teach children about food – about what’s good for them and how much better you feel when you eat a balanced diet – half the battle is won.

Free school meals should be universal; ensuring that every child has one solid meal a day.

No school should be without a kitchen. Full stop.

Children should be involved in making dinners: not every day, but enough to give them a proper appreciation of what they are eating. This should not just be a schools agenda: we should be encouraging parents to cook with their children too.

But how do we do that when the work-life balance of many working families is so skewed and healthy food costs more? How does a single mother of three, who is working two jobs manage this? She would have to be Supermum. A living wage, childcare and flexible working should all tie explicitly into this agenda.

The point is that we should not just see child obesity as a health issue. It will not be fixed by strapping a child to a treadmill. To a child, life does not neatly split into home life and school life, it’s just life. A consistent message of healthy living has to span both.

Doing well by doing good: we need more Social Enterprises

As part of the Young Fabian Work and Families Policy Development Group‘s work looking at the future of labour markets, here PDG member Daniel Bamford argues that Social Enterprises present a perfect way of bridging the gap between hardcore capitalist and government provision.

In case you didn’t know, we are in a bit of a financial pickle. Whilst there is a clear and pressing need to continue Labour’s record of investment in public service provision, the coffers are empty. The tax take is down and likely to remain so according to IFS, OBR or any other oracular acronym we care to consult. Traditional methods of public sector procurement look increasingly unaffordable as we head into an austere winter but turning and fleeing nakedly to the markets to provide social goods is clearly not the answer.

Over the past 10 years a hitherto dormant giant has been asleep. Now it seems the Social Enterprise (SE) sector is waking up. The SE sector, broadly defined by a desire for both economic and social returns, encompasses all the space in the spectrum between hardcore capitalist provision and government provision.

The Social Enterprise sector represents a huge opportunity for us to radically and progressively re-shape our public service provision. We can save money, improve service delivery and create new meaningful jobs in an economy that needs an injection of dynamism.

Some Social Enterprises are for-profit and believe you can do well by doing good. Take Innocent Smoothies: responsible sourcing, 10% of their profits go to charity and the company makes money.

Other Social Enterprises are non-profits but may choose to generate significant income to further their social goals. The charity I co-founded, Business Bridge, sees income generation as a more sustainable than grant funding. Any income we earn is ploughed straight into broadening our social impact. We do good by doing well.

The success of organisations such as Cool2Care in child disability caring and Teach First in education show that innovative Social sector organisations deliver results as well as compelling arguments. There are currently more than 55,000 Social Enterprises active in UK. Together, they turn-over over £27bn and employ 5% of our workforce. Social Enterprise already makes a huge contribution to our economy but we really should be asking it to make a much larger one.

Labour’s creation of the Office for the Third Sector in 2006 is one of the prouder achievements of the UK civil society movement in recent years and should have been the start of something big. Unfortunately the Office is no more, only 4 years into its existence the ConDemers have, erm, condemned it.

New Social Sector legal and financial vehicles have led to innovation that should be placed at the heart of UK’s public service provision plans. And it is a shame that, at a time when it would make sense to expand the sector, it now faces a real struggle for survival. During the great recession we have seen that markets can be a force for bad. Now let’s see them unleashed as a force for good. For good.

If you would like to know more, please feel free to read a summary presentation I have recently put together on the third sector.

Daniel works for and co-founded Business Bridge, a charity helping entrepreneurs in South Africa, Ghana, UK and India.

Cutting Housing Benefit is a false economy

Earlier this month, the Young Fabian Work and Families Policy Development Group looked at the issue of housing, here PDG member Catriona Hatton finds that the arguments for and against cutting housing benefit all point towards the need for more housing.

In June George Osborne announced that a new housing benefit cap would be introduced in an attempt to slash the cost of housing benefit, which has risen sharply to £19.6 billion per year from approx £11 billion in 1997. The cap places an upper limit of £400 a week on a four bedroom house and £280 for a two bedroom property in rented private sector.

In favour of the cap, there is a strong argument that leaving housing benefit uncapped increases the housing benefit bill, since landlords effectively set the rate at which the benefit is paid. If Government willingly pays housing benefit at the price set by the market, landlords have incentives to set the rents as high as possible, since raising rents will not affect the tenant’s ability to live there. The result is tax payer’s money going to the benefit of private landlords in the buy-to-let market, an upward pressure on property prices for all, and an ever increasing housing benefit bill.

However the arguments against the cap, in my opinion, far outweigh the arguments for it. The impact of the cap will have devastating consequences for recipients, particularly in London and the South East where in many places it is simply not possible to find quality housing at the rate set by the cap. In addition any future increases in the cap would be linked to consumer price inflation rather than increases in rental prices, reducing the real value of the allowance.

Importantly the social mix of the London would be drastically changed, with thousands of families being forced out of inner London, causing greater disparity in wealth between different parts of London. Overcrowding will occur and new slum areas are likely to develop, resulting in the less well off being geographically cut off from the wealthy in society.

All evidence shows that separation in this way lowers life opportunities, for instance due to inferior access to education and employment opportunities and lack of connections. In addition there would be greater pressure on schools and social services in other areas as a result of a sudden influx and overcrowding.

It is argued that the cap will increase incentives to find work. However this is unfair on recipients who are not able to work such as pensioners, people with serious disabilities, and also on those recipients who are already in work but it is too low paid for them to cover their rent fully.

The root cause of the escalation in the housing benefit bill is the under supply of affordable housing and addressing this would be the most beneficial solution. The priority should be to create more affordable homes through the building of council housing, the expansion of housing association schemes, private investment through subsidies and through the expansion of shared ownership schemes. Only when the supply of affordable homes is increased will it be unnecessary for the tax payer to subsidise high private sector rent. Unfortunately the cap will only serve to worsen the problem as waiting lists for council housing and housing association homes lengthen, and ultimately it will push people into poverty.

The Diploma debacle

The September of 2008 was witness to a quiet revolution in British education. That month, the Diploma was launched, with the promise to offer “14 to 19 year olds practical, hands-on experience as well as classroom learning…designed to help young people develop the knowledge and skills employers and universities want”. These new semi-vocational, semi-academic qualifications were intended to challenge the virtual monopoly orthodox academic qualifications held over secondary education, and perhaps even eventually replace them as the qualification of choice among students nationwide. However, the promised revolution has not materialised. So, what went wrong? And how can the Diploma be made to work?

This is a real tragedy as Diplomas have the potential to remedy our outmoded qualifications system. The Tomlinson Report, published in 2004, announced that A levels lacked breadth and challenge, and proposed the introduction of an all-inclusive vocational and academic qualification, such as the Diploma, to combat their narrow focus. The education establishment’s adherence to the “safe” duo of the GCSE and A Level has, however, yet to be seriously challenged by the different conception of the Diploma that the Labour government introduced.

The Diploma has the potential to play a role in tackling the rising number of “NEETs” (young people Not in Education, Employment or Training) which reached one million for the first time last year, while a recent report revealed that Britain “ranked 25th out of 27 OECD countries in the proportion of 15-19 year olds in education”. Such figures are a source of national embarrassment, but also entail material costs. A report by the Prince’s Trust in 2007 signalled that NEETs “costs the economy upwards of £90m per week”- a financial expense incurred in the present to challenge the social expense faced in the future.

The means to transform the Diploma into a more effective qualification rest in the government’s hands.

Firstly, it can ensure that the Diploma is granted equal status with A Levels and GCSEs by universities. Time and again, the most prestigious universities have wilfully ignored the “tariff” that standardises qualifications for university entry, admitting students with academic qualifications in preference to those with vocational equivalents. It is the duty of the government to make such institutions play fair.

Secondly, the government should review the structure of the course to make the Diploma both simpler, and more cost effective. A report published last December by Kathleen Tattersall, head of England’s exams regulator Ofqual, suggested that “simplification” would make the Diploma more attractive to a larger number of schools and students.

Sadly, the government’s position on the Diploma remains ambiguous at best. In June, it pulled the plug on the Diplomas in humanities, language and science due to be launched next September. In July, the right of students to enrol in all the established Diploma courses was abolished along with the Extended Diploma – a prospective addition to the programme worth 4.5 A Levels. Nick Gibb said that students should “be able to sit the qualification that is right for them” and not “be told by government what they can and cannot take.” Under the guise of student choice, he has actually reduced young people’s options by abolishing their entitlement and reducing the range available.