On Monday, students, lecturers, and education activists the country over won a major victory when the government shelved its widely opposed plans to allow big business into the university sector.

As The Daily Telegraph reported, “the new legislation was designed to make it easier for private colleges, including big American education firms, to set up new universities in Britain.” Universities Minister David Willetts wished to ‘level the playing field’ in tertiary education, restraining public universities in the medium term while giving private providers a leg-up into the system.

The Coalition gambled that the storm of protest triggered by the tripling of tuition fees would satisfy students’ appetite for conflict, leaving the way clear for it to implement radical and far-reaching reform of the sector. It underestimated the ability of students to grasp what these reforms represented, and their ability to organise and agitate against them.

Students realised that by permitting private providers into the university sector, the government was allowing predatory businesses to undercut established public universities. As private competitors muscled into the market, a full scale battle for students would have been triggered. The most prestigious new establishments would be able to charge stratospheric prices for entrants, and the more metropolitan universities – those located in the cities that traditionally attract more working class students – would be forced into a race to the bottom as private colleges offered bargain-basement courses at bargain-basement prices. The right to a quality education would become just another commodity, readily available to the rich and forever out of reach to the poorest in society.

A foretaste of the incoming system was provided by A.C. Grayling’s New College of Humanities, which promises an Oxbridge-standard education for the astronomical cost of £18,000 a year. This College was founded not on the principle that education is a public good that every member of society is entitled to, but on the market principle that education is something to be purchased.

Private providers would also have been able to enter the university system by more insidious means. The White Paper promised to relax restrictions on degree validation agreements, thereby allowing businesses to strike deals with existing universities. Private companies would be able to produce their own degree programmes, have them approved by an established university, and sell them to various Further Education Colleges at a profit. Such a system promised to turn university courses into mass-produced products and public education institutions to business lackeys.

Opposition to these proposals came from all quarters. Independent experts stressed that the government was flying blind into unknown territory by unleashing private competition in the university sector. Students railed against the idea that companies could hijack popular courses that public universities could no longer afford to provide. Many were aghast to learn that the plans would allow private companies access to the student loan scheme, thus allowing big business to get their hands on public funds. Lecturers were incensed by the notion that their contracts would bind them to validate outside degree programmes, and perhaps even to lead seminars on foreign campuses where such programmes were to be taught.

However, it was action rather than words that defeated the government’s privatisation agenda. 10,000 students marched on November 9^th against the proposals, and in the weeks that followed dozens of universities played host to student occupations. Lecturers launched an offensive in the national press, with an open letter to the Telegraph attracting the signatures of nearly 500 professors.

This victory represents a battle won, but the war continues. The government has postponed the plans, rather than ejecting them completely, and the remaining sections of the HE White Paper will continue to make their way through the Commons, without the need for primary legislation to enact them. Liam Burns, President of the NUS, underlined the scale of the challenge to come, and told students that “there are many reasons for us not to celebrate.”

What can be celebrated, though, is the role that direct action and public pressure have played in the campaign against the reforms. Students and activists opposing government measures in new forums, such as occupations, flash mobs and social media, have achieved tangible results. By bringing the fight against the Coalition onto territory they are unfamiliar with, opponents to their plans gain an advantage over the Tory propaganda machine. Activists campaigning to protect other public services would do well to heed this lesson.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

In a new series of articles, Young Fabian member Alex Adranghi brings us the highlights from the 2012 US Presidential Election Race.

We’ve seen intriguing developments in the past week concerning the greatest non-candidate of the Republican presidential primaries, satirist Stephen Colbert.

Real-life Democrat Colbert, host of fake right-wing news show ‘The Colbert Report’, has been poking fun at federal laws concerning the funding of political campaigns.

While donations to candidates’ campaigns are regulated, two recent federal rulings have encouraged the rise of the so-called ‘Super Political Action Committees’ or ‘Super PACs’. These allow corporations to raise unlimited funds to campaign in support of a candidate- without the need for there to be regulated coordination between the actions of the ‘Super PACs’ and those of the official campaign itself.

What may seem bizarre to the British is that this ‘freedom’ stems from a 19^th century ruling of the Supreme Court which counts corporations as individuals in terms of freedom of expression. The ruling prohibits infringement on their ‘free speech.’ The power of corporations over elections was further reinforced in a 1976 ruling, which formally equated money with ‘free speech’.

Last week a poll in South Carolina placed Colbert at five percent, ahead of major candidate Jon Huntsman who subsequently dropped out of the running at the weekend. This led to Colbert’s announcement that he was exploring entering the race in South Carolina, placing his own ‘Super PAC’ into the hands of fellow satirist- and ‘Daily Show’ host- John Stewart.

This ‘Super PAC’ has already launched TV adverts in South Carolina portraying race leader Mitt Romney as a serial killer. This mocks the notion of corporations equalling people in terms of freedom of speech, using Romney’s career as a successful management consultant (where he liquidated troubled companies) to illustrate the point.

With no option in South Carolina to write-in names on the ballot, on Monday Colbert called for those who support him to place a vote for ex-contender Herman Cain who is ironically still on the ballot paper.

With wild media coverage of the faux possible candidacy, comes the real possibility of a ‘Colbert Effect’. There is speculation that Colbert could hurt libertarian Ron Paul due to their mutual appeal to younger independent voters.

We’ll just have to see if a protest vote materialises this Saturday.

Alex Adranghi is a member of the Young Fabians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

As economists and pundits alike predict the collapse of the Euro, you’d be forgiven for thinking the European project was doomed.  But look over to the Western Balkans and you’ll see a completely different story, as another nation-state is due to join the European Union.

In this part of the world, the EU is a driving force for change.  In ten years, the countries of the Former Yugoslavia have completely rebuilt their legal systems, parliamentary practices and political party laws all for the chance to join the largest and richest club in the world.  True, the level of success varies from country to county, but the hard work has paid off for Croatia, who was given the green light in December and is expected to join the EU in July, 2013.

Already we can see the repercussions of that decision: in neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina, for fear of being left behind a new state government has been formed after 15 months of stalemate.   Serbia, who has long battled for regional supremacy with Croatia, has handed over the last remaining fugitives to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and is making progress on the Kosovo question.   It is even possible that the SPS, the former party of Milosevic, will apologise for the part they played in the war of the 1990s.  This would have been unthinkable just 12 months ago.

It is easy to forget that 20 years ago this region was engaged in the bloodiest and most horrific war crimes seen in Europe since the Second World War.  It is fitting that the institution set up to prevent another conflict in Western Europe is leading the modernisation of states in the East.

We in the UK and elsewhere in Western Europe often take for granted the benefits of membership of the EU and criticise its bureaucratic procedures.   But the real change it has made to the Western Balkans is a welcome reminder of the values of the European project.  Rather than talk of ‘enlargement fatigue’ we should all celebrate the decision to invite Croatia to join the EU and look forward to the day that the rest of the region will follow.

Matthew Beevor is a member of the Young Fabians.

The issue arose when a British-American couple sought divorce in the country in which they were wed as they were unable to do so at home. In the Toronto court case Canada’s Conservative government argued that the lack of recognition in their countries of origin meant that they were never married in the first place, setting a very concerning legal precedent.

While the Netherlands, Spain and others recognise the legality of marriages between foreigners on their soil Canada’s actions have shocked LGBT communities across the globe – not least from those who married there and wake up today unsure of their status.

Given that the Canadian government was happy licensing such marriages at the time this retrospective move seems as hypocritical as it does discriminatory. Can one imagine Canadian law refusing to recognise an interacial marriage because the applicants’ countries of origin wouldn’t?

Canada does not inflict the death penalty on those from countries that use capital punishment, nor does it prevent Saudi women from driving along the roads of Ontario – yet the same correct standard is not applied to gay marriage that, even if not legally recognised in a home nation, should be fully respected by the country that wed them.

There are certainly valid arguments against foreigners relying on Canadian law to adjudicate divorce but deciding that after the marriage is surely too late?

Legal issues aside, the case argued by the Canadian Conservatives must be seen in the context of an administration that has been perceived as increasingly socially conservative. While native Canadians are not affected many activists in Canada fear that this action may be indicitive of their government’s future direction. Little wonder there is outrage from sea to sea.

In the UK the Labour Party achieved a real change in legislation and public attitudes to LGBT rights, a change that the British Conservative frontbench have eventually had to accept. With this on their watch now is the time to ask them to act, to prove that their gay rights credentials aren’t just soundbites for the ‘pink vote’. The British government cannot remain silent on this.

It has been commendable that the coalition has sought to promote gay rights in the ‘developing world’ but it is now imperative that it seeks to defend them in the West.

To that end I am waiting on confirmation of an e-petition that if accepted I implore you to sign; asking the government to condemn this action and seek to affirm the rights of gay British citizens and others to be legally wed in Canada. Update to follow.

The case for LGBT rights in Africa and beyond would be severely undermined if Britain cannot stand up for gay rights in the ‘developed world’.

The hackneyed charge of ‘imperialism’ and ‘interference’ would be dealt a blow by our being seen to challenge any country that infringes the rights of the gay community. This is a message to Canada as much as it is to the world at large. It’s an opportunity that the British government should not miss.

When the shock subsides one realises how important it is to avoid complacency. If this can happen in Canada it can happen anywhere. While I am confident Britain would never go down this route it is a reminder that we must never take our hard won rights for granted.

Labour enshrined LGBT rights into our laws and society, a lesson our Conservatives have had to learn – perhaps if we ask them strongly and often enough they can remind their brethren in Canada of that same important lesson.

James Hallwood is the Young Fabian Equalities Officer.

Ed Miliband is seeking to relaunch his leadership and confound his critics by unveiling a clear vision for the Labour party of 2012.

On Monday, he began a media blitz that outlined what a future Labour government would look like. His speech at the OXO Tower guaranteed that Labour would continue to promote fairness and social justice “even in tough times”, but made it abundantly clear that it would be “a different party from the one we were in the past.” At a stroke, Ed appeared to banish the ghosts of New Labour while allaying the fears of those critics who believe he wants to take party policy back to the days of tax-and-spend.

It was a forceful speech made by a leader with fire in his belly. Polling at the end of 2011 revealed that while the Prime Minister enjoys a +5 point personal rating on his job performance, Ed is burdened with a -17 rating, putting him just ahead of Nick Clegg on -19. Labour’s lacklustre support among the electorate has led some erstwhile friends of the leader to openly criticise his handling of the party. Ed needed to begin the New Year with a gutsy show of character that made clear where he stood on the policy spectrum- especially in regards to the economy.

However, while the delivery was impressive, the content revealed that there is still some way to go before Ed and the party can make a coherent case on where they stand. The references to “tough times”, and admittance that “whoever is the next Prime Minister will not have money to spend” suggest that Ed is adopting the doctrine of fiscal conservatism that underpins the Coalition’s support and was recently advocated by the authors of ‘In the Black Labour’. While Ed attempts a positive spin on this by arguing that he will co-opt the private sector in the mission to improve the living standards of the vulnerable, the underlying principle still resembles that which motivated New Labour. The rhetoric also contradicts messages coming from elsewhere in the Labour Party, especially from the Shadow Chancellor, who in previous months has argued that short-term stimulus is more important than immediate fiscal contraction.

Contracting-out the task of providing fairness and social justice to the private sector isn’t exactly what some on the left want to see Labour support. What is more distressing, however, is the lack of inventive policy positions or promising reforms that would get the electorate excited about a future Labour government.

This is where think-tanks like the Fabian Society step in. In the recent Fabian Review¸ society chair Andrew Harrop argued that Labour should move away from ‘short-term Keynesianism’ and Osbornomics alike by committing to spending, rather than prohibiting it, but only spending on investment and unemployment relief.  He also suggested that Labour could steal a march on the Coalition and reboot the economy with a stimulus programme based on short-term tax cuts. The promise of a fiscal stimulus that appeals to the electorate and outflanks the Right could put Ed’s name back in lights- provided he retains a commitment to strong infrastructure spending and the welfare state.

That last proviso is an important one. As Ed seeks to convey a clear message on what the Labour Party stands for and what policies it would implement, he has to be careful not to abandon the values and language of democratic socialism. He was right to state that “my Labour Party is not going to bow to the outdated idea that says that government cannot help”, and as the Left rallies for a new campaign against the misguided policies of the Coalition,  many look forward to hearing more about what a Miliband government would do to bolster the state’s ability to create a more progressive society.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

This year, the traditional race for Christmas Number 1 produced an unusual winner- ‘Wherever You Are’ by the Military Wives’ Choir.

The chart-topping success of this makeshift group did not come as a big surprise to most pundits. A stirring, if sentimental, ballad, ‘Wherever You Are’ was composed by the real life partners of British soldiers on active duty, under the guiding hand of BBC’s choral whizzkid Gareth Malone.

Some of the proceeds of each sale go to the Royal British Legion and Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen Families Association. In addition, the track provides the everyman with the opportunity to demonstrate solidarity with British fighting men and women overseas and their partners- at a time of year when their separation must feel that bit more painful. At £1.99, many patriotic Britons would regard it as an insult if not every man, woman and child bought a copy.

There is certainly something noble about raising awareness of military families in Britain today. The unusual strains placed on the partners and children of soldiers on active duty cannot be properly understood by the rest of us, and it will be interesting to watch how the government responds to this popular outpouring of support in the new year.

However, this campaign brings into focus a broader development that has less benevolent social consequences. I am talking about the mythologizing of the British Armed Forces.

Nation-states have always been proud of their military heritage, and Britain can boast one of the most historically successful armed forces of all time. Martial pride often goes hand in hand with patriotic fervour, but in this latter respect Britons express conflicting views. We are not all the flag-waving, anthem-singing brand of patriots so prevalent in America. Yet those who admit to being ashamed of our country’s actions throughout history, and uneasy about our role in the modern world, are still shouted down on the comment pages of newspapers and television talk shows. A survey by Demos revealed that 79% of respondents stated they were proud to be British citizens, and that over 50% of English people, 55% of Welsh and 46% of Scottish are proud of Britain’s role in the world.

Pride in one’s country is no bad thing in itself, but it can distort perceptions of right and wrong when a nation is at war. Before the first shots are fired, commentators and armchair analysts have free rein to denounce and decry its government’s decision to go to war, but once British citizens are put in harms’ way, a sort of populist patriotism demands that critics put up or shut up.

The media tapped into this culture during the 1980s. Richard Vinen notes that it was during the Falklands War that The Sun came out as ‘the paper that supports our boys’. Today, the same paper holds the annual ‘Military Awards’, where celebrities and figures from popular culture present trophies for various battlefield exploits to soldiers who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Glamorising the very serious jobs performed by servicepersons, and their violent actions in the field, seems at odds with the desire to promote peace over war. One prize- the ‘True Grit Award’ was given to one soldier “for heroically jumping from his tank and tackling a Taliban fighter.” The focus of the ‘Millies’ seems very much on incidences of individual exploit rather than on the wider context of the conflict. It takes recognition of actions beyond the call of duty up to the level of hero-worship, at which point those who buy into this myth begin to forget the reasons why servicepersons are sent into harm’s way in the first place- to promote national security.

As Simon Jenkins rightly points out, none of the foreign interventions British governments have embroiled themselves in the last ten years have had a direct bearing on our national security. Those who pedal populist patriotism are fond of saying “our boys are fighting for our country” but rarely ask why they are fighting for their country or whether their actions are making Britain more or less safe. The terrorist attacks of 7 July 2005 are a terrifying example of how conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country less safe. If the popular media continues to glamorise the work of soldiers with events like the ‘Millies’, or smother the debate on ‘just war’ with romantic sentiment- as in ‘Wherever You Are’- we may cease to ask these burning questions altogether.

Louie Woodall is a member of the Young Fabians and Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

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.

Louie Woodall responds to Stephen Boyle’s argument for a new economic strategy based on ‘fiscal conservatism’.

The question absorbing Labour leaders, activists, and think-tanks alike is how the party can earn back its economic credibility. Recently, a quartet of Labour thinkers published ‘In the Black Labour’ , which offers one answer to this question. However, the paper does little to advance a distinctive economic strategy that traditional voters and activists can relate to, and does even less to bolster Labour’s chances at the next election.

The fundamental problem with ‘In the Black Labour’ is that it does not provide the alternative narrative that an opposition is supposed to offer the electorate. The authors are essentially trying to sell the electorate the same product pedalled by the Coalition: austerity, a small state, and the fictitious ‘Big Society’.

By placing ‘fiscal conservatism’ at the heart of its strategy, ‘In the Black Labour’ cedes the moral argument on the economy to the Conservatives and attempts to move the party onto the Coalition’s turf. It is easy to see why this would be an attractive course to take in the current political climate. November polling revealed that some 30% of respondents still blame the debts racked up by the previous Labour government for the continued economic slump

However, it also revealed that 46% believe Osborne needs to slow the pace of austerity, and that 35% favour a programme of public works to create jobs. Labour needs to remember that by 2015, the Coalition will no longer be able to capitalise on the excuse that their failures originated in the actions of the previous government. Osborne would have had a full term to place the country on the road to economic recovery, something which many indicators suggest he is far from achieving. Telling the electorate that it favours the government’s strategy but disagrees on the tools to achieve it will make Labour look uninspired and shallow to the victims of the Coalition’s policies.

By promising rigid controls over future budgets, the authors miss the opportunity to excite the electorate with a positive vision of economic growth. It is difficult to convince people that by cutting the deficit, more jobs and higher wages will follow. Labour should instead promote a programme of public works, with a focus on housing and infrastructure, and continue to sponsor the ‘green industrial revolution’ promised in the last manifesto. The Coalition is making tentative steps in these areas, and Labour should steal a march on them by promising a much more extensive campaign. ‘Effective Keynesianism’ can be sold to the electorate without recourse to fiscal conservatism.

Labour should not shackle itself to the same ideology dictating the actions of the Conservatives by promoting macho fiscal discipline over the more desirable aim of a resurgent economy. It should not reject deficit spending outright just to win back the votes of the City. The very idea that any government could commit to producing a budget surplus within a fixed timescale- as suggested by the authors of this pamphlet- is ludicrous considering the volatility of national and international economies. Setting targets that cannot be realistically met is an own goal in politics- just look at Osborne’s current woes.

Labour is suffering a crisis of identity, and every centre-left thinker is casting around for a narrative it can adopt that fits with the party’s heritage, while accommodating the current economic reality we face. ‘In the Black Labour’ seeks to gain the party short-term popularity by copying the Coalition’s approach to the public finances and planting the red flag squarely in centre ground. The authors should remember that the centre ground is always in motion, and may be some way more to left by 2015 than it is now if Tory policies fail to achieve their objectives.

Louie Woodall is a member of the Young Fabians and Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Of course, we’re often told – after Bercow has hush hushed MPs – that the public actually rather enjoy the Yo’ Mama aspect of the spectacle. But in actual fact, about half say they enjoy it and half say they’d rather see something a little more… constructive. For the Westminster Village it’s the highlight of the week, so that leaves the rest of the viewers outside of the bubble scratching their heads week in, week out. But for politicos a certain degree of over importance is attached to it. Commentators often use it as a barometer for how the leader is performing overall; bloggers score the contestants based on whether they’ve “won” or “lost” over the six rounds of questions, and MPs pack themselves into the House for a bit of live theatre.

But the level of interest it generates has nothing to do with how valuable it is to our democracy. It’s the one time a week we know that David Cameron and Ed Miliband will come up against eachother, so the hype surrounding it has more to do with the people than the format.

Does the format even allow for effective scrutiny of the executive? Half of the questions come from the prime minister’s own side, and can any opposition leader effectively hold the prime minister to account when they’re so limited by time? The quick exchanges incentivise point scoring and render any depth to questioning pointless. As a consequence, the public are presented with a hotch-potch of messaging, lines and planted questions that do more harm than good if the desire is to instill trust in politicians and engage with voters.

Contrast the format of PMQs with the incredibly popular Question Time. It’s far less confrontational, but there are still lively debates, and without the shackles of parliamentary protocol the discussion feels a lot more natural. Instead of PMQs, why not have the main party leaders answering questions from the public for an hour in a television studio? Like the leaders debates, but every week.

The interest those debates generated superceded even Sky’s imagination, and they set the ball rolling. They showed that people are interested in politics, as long as it’s presented in the right way. So instead of being flies on the wall why can’t we be active participants in the scrutiny of the executive? We might even do a better job than MPs.

Matt Zarb-Cousin is the editor of the Young Fabians blog, and the Secretary and Press Officer for the Young Fabians.