Focus on the Creative Industries Series: The Coalition’s contempt for the arts isn’t pragmatic. It’s ideological.

By Alex Shattock.

In the latest instalment of our Focus on the Creative Industries Series, Alex Shattock argues the axing of the UK Film Council was an ideological decision for the Coalition Government.

Modern conservatism is so radical it can hardly be called conservatism at all. You can call it Thatcherism, neo-liberalism, Randism- whichever label you choose, it is dangerous and we need to be aware of it. The new intake of 2010 Conservative MPs are perhaps the most prominent example. ‘Britannia Unchained’, a book by five of the new bunch- Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss- argues that we need to roll back welfare, workers’ rights and the minimum wage in order to free the market and prevent “an inevitable slide into mediocrity”.

This isn’t the inclusive conservatism of Disraeli, or the house-building consensus politics of Churchill or Macmillan. This is ruthless, free-market fanaticism. And the proponents of it won’t be happy until we have a negligible state apparatus, the only purpose of which is to turn what little tax there is into business subsidy.

There are two strands of thought within their partisan philosophy that relate directly to the arts. Firstly there is the idea that the individual must pay for everything. The second, related idea is “if it doesn’t make a profit, it’s worthless”. Taking them both together: the state should not be funding the creative industries. And if the creative industries can’t support themselves, if they can’t sell themselves effectively enough to make a profit, then they don’t deserve to exist.

One victim of this philosophy was the UK Film Council, one of the Labour Government’s most popular and successful quangos. It funded over 900 British films between 2000 and 2010, including This is England and The King’s Speech. According to John Woodward, Chief Executive of the Council, the Coalition axed it “without notice or consultation”.

The Conservative right were happy to see it go. Julian Fellowes, writing in the Telegraph, berated the “anti-commercial mindset of the film élite”. To people like Fellowes, films that are profitable fund themselves, and films that aren’t profitable shouldn’t be made. “Show business is just that: a business,” he crowed. “Cut the Film Council and end this 1970s navel-gazing”. But the 1970s brought us films like A Clockwork Orange, Straw Dogs and Monty Python and the Holy Grail: films that weren’t commercial super-hits, but went on to become cult (and even mainstream) cinema classics. The 1970s was also the decade Margaret Thatcher carried out her threat to slash state funding to the UK film industry, which inevitably let it slide into mediocrity.

But most people in the industry knew that axing the Film Council would be a terrible loss. Many campaigned relentlessly to save it, like Julie Walters, Clint Eastwood, James McAvoy, and Pete Postlethwaite. Following the dismantling of the Film Council, the producer Tim Bevan (Bridget Jones, Notting Hill, Atonement, Frost/Nixon) has stated he will no longer work on films that are funded by the UK government. Last month, the cross-party Select Committee on Culture released a report damning the decision’s “deeply disturbing modus operandi”.

The death of the Film Council is just one example of the Coalition’s unremitting attack on UK arts and culture. Funding has been slashed repeatedly over the past three years. Budget cuts have forced local councils to sell off community artwork. Over 200 libraries were closed in 2012.

Many people say we can’t afford to keep funding the arts under austerity. It is understandable why, when faced with cuts of over twenty percent, local councils look at community artwork as the first thing to go. But in times of austerity, we can’t do away with our artistic and cultural heritage. We need it more than ever. Trips to art galleries and the cinema are among the few worthwhile, entertaining things a person can do on a small budget. Man cannot live on cut-price booze and branded cigarettes alone, however much the Coalition would like him to.

Alex Shattock is a Young Fabians Member.

Focus on Health & Society Series: It doesn’t really matter who provides your healthcare

By Adebusuyi Adeyemi.

In the latest installment of the Focus on Health and Society Series by the Health Network, Adebusuyi Adeyemi argues it doesn’t really matter who provides your healthcare.

A few weeks ago the Health Network held a debate around the ideology of private sector involvement in the NHS. The best compliment I can pay (and it is a compliment) is that I had such a massive headache afterwards. Rarely has my mind been so stretched, by so many sharp minds. Or maybe it’s all the daytime Judge Judy turning my brain into slush? Regardless, arguments for and against the motion of whether it matters if [more] private enterprise supplies healthcare were keenly exchanged, whilst the House of Lords voted for Section 75 down the corridor. Can you can guess what end of the spectrum I sit on…?

The NHS has always relied on private contractors. Many GPs are self employed and hold contracts, either on their own or as part of a partnership with the NHS. Dentists, Pharmacists and Opticians are nearly all privately owned. Similarly, it is private contractors who provide almost all of the IT equipment, build the hospitals and make the drugs. All our health related data is held on private companies’ machines. Heck, when the government tried to deliver a coherent IT vision, it failed. Admittedly because the private sector had already delivered on a lot of it and fought hard to maintain its share. Still, ‘privatisation’, strictly speaking should be viewed as what it is: the transfer to the private sector, of services which were previously provided by a struggling public sector.

Not sure where I stand yet? How about if we consider the hypothetical of owning a clothes shop. This is the only clothes shop in the city. Our clients/customers have no choice but to shop here, irrespective of the choice and quality of clothes we offer. If, however, we find that another shop is opening next door to us, providing nicer clothes for the same price or cheaper, with more choice, then that will force us to change the quality of the garments and the level of service that we offer; otherwise we’ll rapidly go out of business as our competitors will take customers away from us. If you haven’t figured it out yet, I support the idea that it doesn’t really matter who provides your healthcare, as long provided (and regulated) well it is.

Now, for all my spiel of corporate involvement, I don’t worship at the feet of the private sector, nor advocate the full disembowelment of the NHS. ‘Slippery-Slope’ arguments aside, regulating private providers properly in any sector is the responsibility of the government and this must be done, and done well. We can’t trust the Coalition Government to regulate private providers so that only people in the south are looked after, or that health inequalities increase. Still, we must give the principle of private-provider involvement a fair hearing.

The Health Network and guests recorded a draw for the motion on the night, which was in stark contrast to the votes counted from the wider community online. As a strong supporter for the motion, I was pleased to see a few people warm to the philosophy of increased private sector involvement, proving discussion is key to advancing thought in this space.

Introducing competition will mean the NHS will be forced to increase the quality of the work that it does otherwise an external provider delivering a better quality service may be appointed instead. From a business perspective (and the government’s perspective) this makes sense as it weeds out poor performing providers, replacing them with better ones (and if there are no better providers, then the current providers will remain in place).

There are many caveats to add to this piece that time (read word limit) doesn’t permit. From ensuring the principles of greater equality of power, wealth and opportunity are maintained, to detailing how our value(s) of collective action and public service do have a place alongside a more competitive NHS, there’s more I wish I could say. But this brief piece is only to stimulate thought, I hope it does.

What if only one chain of universities supplied doctors? Or only one drug company was allowed to make N-acetyl-p-aminophenol (paracetamol #Geek)? Unions, Socialist Medical Groups and others are right to assert the Health and Social Care Bill will result in increasing privatisation of the English NHS. In fact, this is in keeping with the “supply side” economic policies of this government, which promote privatisation throughout the entire public sector (Royal Mail, Urenco and the Met Office to follow soon).

However, there is an idea that needs to be considered seriously, that it doesn’t really matter who provides your healthcare.

Adebusuyi Adeyemi is Chair of the Health Network.

The debate was organised by the Secretary for the Health Network – Lauren Milden and chaired by Ivana Bartoletti of the Fabians Women Network.

Abu Qatada and the Two Minutes Hate

By Alex Shattock.

Open a newspaper, and what do you see? Yob villain beats up frail old man. House set on fire by welfare villain. Villainous dictator tries to obtain nuclear weapons.

The concept of the Villain, the incurably evil antagonist, is endemic in today’s political discourse. The right-wing press and the Tory-led government are obsessed with explaining the bad things in the world in terms of evil personalities rather than wider issues or events. Why do they do this? And what effect does it have on us, as the consumers of this discourse?

Talking about villains all the time has its benefits. For a start, everybody loves a villain. We like to read about personalities more than we do abstract issues, so a story is more likely to hold our attention if there are heroes fighting the good fight and villains trying to destroy the world. The idea of pantomime-ish heroes and villains also makes it easier for the majority of us who aren’t doctoral students in political history, anthropology or sociology to understand important events. It is far harder to get our heads around the internal mechanics of the National Socialist Party bureaucracy and power structure in Germany in 1939 than it is to say “One day Hitler (the villain) decided to invade Poland, and so he did.” The latter is, of course, what we learn in school. The concept of a “villain” is therefore a useful tool, both to keep us informed and to keep our attention.

But there are dangers with seeing the world only in terms of heroes and villains. One such danger is that the rhetoric of heroes and villains inevitably simplifies what really happens in the real world.

Simplistic explanations of the world can also be exploited to push a political agenda, and this is the greatest danger the concept of the Villain poses. The Villain is such a powerful figure that he poisons everyone and everything associated with him. So Mick Philpott, villain, the embodiment of over-breeding scrounger evil, can be gleefully described as a “VILE PRODUCT OF WELFARE UK” (Daily Mail). The Mail ran this headline to attack the welfare state, using the associated Villain as its tool. George Osborne was complicit in this shameless exploitation of a tragedy. Likewise, Len McClusky, villain (according to the right-wing press and the government), the embodiment of militant trade unionism, has been gleefully used to attack Ed Miliband with, because of Ed’s association with the Villain.

I want to talk about one particular villain, Abu Qatada, an anti-Western extremist who is currently being used by anti-human rights extremists in the Conservative party to attack the European Convention on Human Rights.

Abu Qatada is a suspected associate of terrorists. There is no evidence for this that can be relied on in court, and so he has never been charged or tried. And yet, he has been a prisoner in a government “safe-house” for over ten years, because the government of Jordan want him to be deported to their country to stand trial for terrorist charges there. The UK government has been prevented from doing this because the Jordanians regularly torture their suspects or convict them using evidence obtained by torture. Sending him to Jordan would therefore breach a number of Qatada’s human rights under the European Convention, and so the government, quite rightly, cannot do it.

You wouldn’t have guessed that this was the issue in question from watching the Parliamentary debate on Abu Qatada (for there was a parliamentary debate on the issue of deporting this one individual). The debate was like that harrowing scene in Orwell’s ’1984′, the ‘Two Minutes Hate’, in which the public are encouraged to focus all their anger and loathing against the image of one individual in order to distract them from totalitarian state they lived in. In the Abu Qatada debate, there was a cross-party consensus of indignation that this individual is being allowed to stay in the UK. The Conservatives and their media allies have poisoned public understanding of the issue so successfully, through simplification and outright fabrication, that Labour are helpless to say “actually, we shouldn’t deport this man, because we don’t believe in torture or imprisoning someone with evidence obtained by torture. We believe in human rights”.

And so the Tories and the right-wing press can use the Villain to attack with impunity the human rights Convention they hate so much. But importantly, they can only do so because of the pre-existing consensus that Abu Qatada is a monster, that he is ‘The Villain’.

I’m not suggesting Abu Qatada is an innocent man, or even that we shouldn’t be imprisoning him without trial. But we definitely shouldn’t treat him as a pantomime villain, we definitely shouldn’t hate him, and we definitely shouldn’t be eager to send him to Jordan where he will be tortured or convicted with evidence obtained using torture. The suffering inflicted on terror suspects by Jack Baeur’s special brand of crypto-fascism cannot be replicated in real life, because in real life you are dealing with people, not pantomime villains, and people have rights. If human rights weren’t universal, they wouldn’t be human rights at all.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote in ‘Slaughterhouse Five’ (a novel about the firebombing of Dresden by the RAF) that in the real world, there are no villains. I think it’s important to remember that. The concept of the Villain is ultimately a simplification, a half-truth and a smokescreen. Qatada will probably come to the end of his life like most ‘villains’ do in the real world: as just another frail old man.

Alex Shattock is a Young Fabians Member.

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.

Localism: an opportunity to restructure our economy?

By Richard Bell & Jack Stenner.

In the first of a series of blogs introducing the Young Fabians Policy Commissions 2013 Richard Bell & Jack Stenner outline how Labour needs to reconcile the findings of the Heseltine Review with the party’s values and a One Nation economic vision.

Localism is firmly back on the political agenda following the publication of Lord Heseltine’s No Stone Unturned report on economic growth and as increasingly-desperate policy-makers from all parties seek out innovative ideas to maximise the stimulative impact of public spending. As a result, Labour localists are faced with a unique and exciting opportunity to advance the agenda for the devolution of substantial political power away from Whitehall through economic and not constitutional arguments. Our policy commission will explore a localist approach to restructuring our economy and generating sustainable growth.

Ed Miliband has begun to flesh out Labour’s economic strategy. The recent proposal for a network of regional investment banks builds upon plans for a more redistributive approach to tax, intervention in failing markets like energy and a renewed focus on apprenticeships for young people who don’t go to university. There is still a notable reluctance within the party, however, when it comes to discussing the role of public spending in a One Nation economy.

This is partly as public spending is the aspect of economic policy which is most susceptible to changing financial circumstances, but also because Labour is in something of a catch-22 position. The two Eds rightly believe there is little public appetite for large spending commitments; and that the credibility Labour has begun to regain on economic policy might quickly dissipate at the first sign the party isn’t sufficiently committed to reducing the deficit. On the other hand, avoiding making firm public spending decisions isn’t a workable long-term strategy and the Prime Minister’s attacks on Labour’s ‘blank sheet of power’ resonate.

The result of this political paradox is that Labour is unable to articulate an economic vision with the clarity and strength of purpose required to reach swing and non-voters; and is unable to capitalise fully on the economic failures of the Coalition Government.

One issue this commission will seek to investigate is the extent to which placing a localist agenda at the center of Labour’s economic policy platform might represent a means of circumventing the policy constraints of the current political conversation on the economy. Localism isn’t, however, merely a tactic through which Labour might change the political mood music- it is an idea which has the potential to transform the foundations of the British economy.

In No Stone Unturned, Lord Heseltine recommends that presently ringfenced budgets for skills, employment, infrastructure, housing, transport, regeneration, research and business support – now thought to total up to £70 billion – should be transferred to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) through single funding pots. LEPs are public-private partnerships comprising local businesses and councils formed to identify local economic priorities and drive growth and employment policy in economic sub-regions.

Labour has broadly welcomed Heseltine’s report, but there has as of yet been little debate within the party as to how the former Deputy Prime Minister’s programme might be consolidated with Labour values and a One Nation economic vision.

There are some aspects of Heseltine’s model which plainly do not align with progressive principles:the proposal for single funding pots to be distributed via competitive bidding will sit uncomfortably with many Fabians; the lack of democratic accountability in LEPs as they are currently comprised has been raised as an area of concern by Labour local government leaders and think tanks; and there are questions as to whether the funding levels proposed by Lord Heseltine will deliver the economic impact the country needs. This commission will seek to formulate progressive solutions to each of these policy challenges.

Nonetheless, at its heart this is a One Nation idea. Heseltine’s proposals reflect a belief that spending decisions will generate more growth where they are made by local people who know how their economy works, have a stake in its success and understand residents’ priorities. A One Nation economic model must not duplicate New Labour’s reliance on the City of London, but must seek to build strong local and regional economies. Lord Heseltine’s plan represents a political and policy framework through which the party can begin to build that model.

There’s a lot of work to be done. We are planning to run events exploring these themes across the UK, but please feel free to contact us in advance with ideas for articles or events or to let us know if you are interested in contributing to the work of this commission.

Richard Bell & Jack Stenner are co-chairs of the Young Fabians Policy Commission on localism and the economy.You can sign up to be involved in the Young Fabians Policy Commissions here – http://bit.ly/11ulMLw.

Thatcher Found Current Banking Monopoly Intolerable

By Jonny Ross-Tatam.

Margaret Thatcher undoubtedly transformed the British financial sector. The City of London, which was previously stuffy and old-fashioned, became one of the most vibrant and affluent financial sectors in the world.

Thatcher’s then Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, helped achieve this by de-regulating the financial system in the mid 1980’s; a trend which continued under the New Labour government through Gordon Brown’s ‘light touch regulation’. This was driven by Thatcher’s belief in the Free Market, underpinned by an undying belief in the value of market competition.

But now the U.K banking system is a highly centralised monopoly, made up of a few very large financial institutions; the average asset holdings of the four major U.K banks is a whopping $3,100 billion. It is not only fair to assume that this railed against Thatcher’s belief in market competition, but there is concrete evidence for it. On the BBC2 programme HARDtalk today, Lord Saatchi, Thatcher’s campaign manager and a close aid, revealed her disaffection for the highly centralised nature of the current financial system.

‘Last year I asked Margaret if she knew the percentage of shares owned by the five biggest U.K banks  in housing, lending, assets, credit cards, everything. She said she didn’t know. I then told her that it was 80%. She stared at me, her eyes emblazoned with anger. She said it was impossible. I think she meant that it was intolerable’.

 Self-proclaimed Thatcherites and Free Market ideologues believe that Thatcher’s answer to this would have been to ‘roll back the state’ even further, letting the market solve the problem. But this is not strictly true. It is likely that she would have supported government intervention so long as it ensured greater competition in the financial sector. Though it may be hard for some Thatcherites to stomach, she may have supported the policies now proposed by the Labour Party.

In response to the recommendation from Labour’s Small Business Taskforce, Ed Milliband has backed a proposal for creating a network of local banks. This aims to target regional economic growth by lending to local businesses, something which the current banking system is failing to do: Bank lending has fallen by roughly £28 billion over the last three years. This new system of a greater number of smaller, local banks also aims to increase competition within the financial sector, by providing an alternative to the current, highly-centralised banking monopoly.

In the light of the strikes which brought down Ted Heath’s Conservative government (1970-4), Mrs. Thatcher said the power of the Trade Unions made Britain ‘ungovernable’. Perhaps, in the light of the 2008 financial crisis and the deepest recession since the 1930’s, she would have said the same of the current banking system.

As Lord Saatchi has revealed, she found the current banking monopoly, of a few very large institutions, intolerable. It is highly possible that, if an active Member of Parliament today, Thatcher would not have stood for a highly centralised and monopolistic banking system which stifles competition.

This is a reminder that politicians’ beliefs and actions are not set in tablets of stone. Even those who are certain in their convictions, like Thatcher, would have to respond to current situations. A long time has passed since the 1980’s. Situations have changed, circumstances have changed. It is time for her former party, particularly the Thatcherite backbenchers, to take note.

Jonny Ross-Tatam is a Young Fabians Member.

Focus on the Creative Industries Series: Sadiq Khan MP on the importance of the arts to London

By Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP.

In the latest instalment of  our Focus on the Creative Industries Series, Sadiq Khan MP discusses the importance of the arts to London.

Politicians discussing the arts and creative industries can often seem forced and contrived with little knowledge of the subject they’re talking about other than what they’ve been given on the latest zeitgeist crib sheet. I realise that I may set myself up for a fall immediately but the arts, and the fruits of the creative industries, is something that us Londoners are probably more exposed to than in most other cities in the UK.

But what does it mean to London? Across the UK, the creative and cultural industries have predominance in London and the South East. More than 40% people working in the industry do so in these regions.  25% of the people employed in these industries are in London, compared with 13% of the overall employed population based in London.

We see then that as an employer and revenue generator it’s a big deal for London. And it’s not just West End theatres or major art galleries that contribute to this. We have a wealth of smaller community based organisations, including in my own constituency TARA Arts, a theatre venue which hosts and presents theatre and other live performances, as well as facilitating the development of emerging young and mid-career artists. I’m also one of the patrons of the Polka Theatre in Wimbledon, which specialises in youth theatre. Alongside each show Polka have a learning programme which includes school visits and workshops and this helps children explore and develop creatively. This development and incubation of new ideas is something which the more community based groups do so well in London, for example the renowned Battersea Arts Centre (BAC) which, in its own words, ‘pioneers new practice in contemporary theatre’. They proved this to great effect with ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’ which having begun at BAC then moved to the Edinburgh Fringe and then to the West End and to the United States. This may be an obvious example but it is a good one.

Why are community organisations so important? It’s quite simple really, they are the ones who can be the first, and sometimes only, form of interaction between local people and the arts. It’s here and also in schools that the flame of creativity can be ignited. Whether that be by music, theatre, visual arts – it can be the thing that encourages the budding creative to investigate further. Young or old, the arts and creative industries can also bring people together across communities. The collective experience of taking part in arts based activities, or even just enjoying them as part of an audience can be something that is treasured, and also something that can open up debate. London’s cultural diversity also means that the range of art being created in the city is truly global, which in itself serves to promote understanding of the differences between us, and more importantly the similarities. This building of relationships through social interaction relates to what the social scientist Robert Putnam would call ‘social capital’, and the creation of social networks which in themselves have value. I agree that the creation of these social networks is undoubtedly a good thing as they bring people together who may not otherwise meet.

From a politician’s point of view then, I see the arts in London as performing a number of different roles. It’s an employer, a revenue generator, an educator, a community service and also something that can bring a great deal of pleasure to millions of people. It’s therefore important that politicians support the arts and creative industries where possible and make sure that they are available to all. It is essential in these tough economic times that we do not see a retreat of arts organisations away from the community level but that we try to nurture creativity as much as possible.

Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP is Member of Parliament for Tooting and Shadow Minister for London.

How Osborne abandoned social mobility

By Louie Woodall.

The words and deeds of this government have rarely been in alignment. However, the gulf between aims and actions is at its starkest when it comes to the goal of greater social mobility.

This mission is supposed to be at the heart of the Coalition’s strategy for creating a fairer Britain, one where a child’s life chances are not dictated by the class and income of their parents.

Yet this laudable policy was grossly absent in last week’s budget. Despite the bluster that this was a budget designed to reward hardworking people, the policy announcements that look like routes out of poverty at first, on closer inspection are nothing more than dead ends.

Take childcare. The government trumpeted its additional spend of £150 million on childcare vouchers as proof of its commitment to remove barriers into work for hard-up families. But an analysis of the distributional impact of the policy reveals that fully 80% of the earmarked funds will go to parents  already in the top half of the income scale. Worse, part time workers will receive nothing under the scheme.

What about Osborne’s celebrated help to buy mortgage guarantee scheme? This was the one part of his Budget speech he singled out as a means to boost social mobility:

“The deposits demanded for a mortgage these days have put home ownership beyond the great majority who cannot turn to their parents for a contribution. That’s not just a blow to the most human of aspirations – it’s set back social mobility and it’s been hard for the construction industry. This Budget proposes to put that right – and put it right in a dramatic way.”

Going beyond the strange idea that home ownership = social mobility in the first place, again the benefits are skewed in favour of the better off, (those earning above the median wage)- and even they will struggle to make use of it.

Housing charity Shelter explains that the mortgage guarantee fails to tackle the problem unaffordable homes at its roots, Robbie di Santos says:

“The trouble is, while this makes it easier to get a deposit, you’d be borrowing 95% of already very high house prices, which are way out of kilter with what ordinary people earn. Our calculations – again based on local house prices and local double income households – suggests that the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee would bring the average local home within reach of the average double income household in only 16% of the country.”

Are these the actions of a government committed to a fairer distribution of opportunity across the income scale?

It certainly doesn’t look like it to me. Some argue that faith in social mobility as a weapon against rising inequality is misplaced, and that we should measure our progress in becoming a fairer and more civilized society by how far apart the richest and poorest stand on the income scale rather than by how easy it is to get from one end of that scale to the other.

However, if we understand social mobility as a mechanism for empowering the very poorest to escape the poverty trap, than it does have the potential to change lives and transform society.

Sadly, in the Budget this government has proved it is far, far away from working towards such an end.

Louie Woodall is Editor of Anticipations.