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.

Lawyers Tackling Global Poverty

The spring issue of Anticipations will be hitting doorsteps in the next couple of weeks. In this issue we turn our attention to International Development. Here John Bibby, Head of Communications and Policy at Advocates for International Development, takes a look at the role lawyers can play in helping to tackle global poverty.

By John Bibby. 

Ask someone to say what they think people working to tackle global poverty look like and, in general, they will name someone distributing food aid in a famine or doctor treating cholera in a refugee camp. Or – in the run-up to the G8 they might focus on politicians. Rarely, though, would anyone think to mention a qualified solicitor sat at their desk in the offices of a City law firm or barrister in their chambers.

This is now, thankfully, changing. An increasing number of politicians, policy makers and development organisations are beginning to see that the law can be both a barrier to development, where it is poor or unenforced, and a weapon for development, where good laws are upheld. In turn, an increasing number of lawyers are seeing the contribution that they can make with their legal skills. At Advocates for International Development (A4ID), which was established by a group of UK lawyers in 2006, we have seen interest from lawyers offering their skills on a pro bono basis increase every year.

Much of the support that A4ID lawyers provide is not particularly glamorous. They are – by and large – sat at their desks in City offices or chambers. But the support that lawyers provide through A4ID does empower others to work in disaster areas by, for example, giving charities greater clarity about their liabilities and legal risks when sending employees and volunteers to hazardous environments or supporting them to open new offices in unfamiliar legal jurisdictions with different regulations.

This does not mean, however, that the support that lawyers can give in the fight against global poverty is just isolated to back office facilitation. Lawyers working with us are also making an impact on the world stage through, for example, supporting the ongoing and arduous negotiations on the International Arms Trade Treaty, advising governments in the developing world on bilateral investment treaties and providing the basis for campaigns for legal reform by conducting in-depth comparative research.

The value of this support goes beyond a mere pounds and pence donation, but it is also important to recognise that by doing it on a pro bono basis, lawyers are saving development organisations money. In fact, since 2006 lawyers working through A4ID have provided over £25 million of legal support to charities, organisations and developing country governments, which could instead be spent on making a difference on the frontline.

Despite the progress that has been made in changing perception, however, there is still much more potential for the law to be used to tackle poverty. Every single aspect of the fight against world poverty – from AIDS to fair trade and climate change to gender equality – has a legal perspective that deserves recognition and exploration. If lawyers continue to embrace this agenda then the solutions to seemingly intractable global problems will be easier to find, but if neglected then the work of otherwise well-meaning development organisations, donors and charities will only ever be a sticking plaster.

John Bibby is the Head of Communications and Policy, Advocates for International Development.

Interview with Double Oscar-Winner Glenda Jackson MP

Watch the video of the interview here:

Download Video

Drama and Politics.

By Marielle O’Neill.

Is drama necessary to politics and is politics necessary to all good drama? Is the ability to control drama the key to being a successful leader?

All good leaders are brilliant communicators. In order to be elected, candidates have to make you believe in them, believe in their political vision and believe they will best represent you. But would good politicians make good actors? Who better to ask than Oscar-winning actress and MP Glenda Jackson?

Glenda Jackson was, of course, a hugely successful actress in film, theatre and TV long before being elected to Parliament. Before making her mark in politics, she drew wide-spread acclaim doing everything from Shakespearean dramas to comedy sketches on Morecambe and Wise. In the course of a glittering career, Glenda won two ‘Best Actress’ Oscars- her first in 1971 for her performance in ‘Women in Love,’ and her second in 1974 for ‘A Touch of Class’.

But is a talent for the dramatic arts essential to politics? Glenda says; “There is a link. When I was first elected people said to me, ‘you’ve simply exchanged one form of theatre for another’ and I said rather glibly, ‘Well, if I have the Commons is remarkably under-rehearsed, the lighting is appalling and the acoustic is even worse.”

She adds; “But the link for me is that the best drama tries to tell the truth, tries to find and tries to tell the truth. Essentially the prime example, of course, is Shakespeare. It doesn’t matter where he sets the play, doesn’t matter what the story is. Essentially all he’s ever asking is who are we, what are we, why are we; admittedly in the most brilliant form ever known to man. I think that is what the best politics is trying to find.”

If there is one essential quality needed to be a successful actor or politician it’s charisma. Lack of charisma costs politicians elections- ask Mitt Romney or Gordon Brown. Similarly charisma can save a politician’s political life- ask Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Obama’s charisma likely gave him the edge over the bland and unappealing Romney. Bill Clinton is the perfect example of successfully using personal charisma for maximum political gain. It’s doubtful someone with less charisma and weaker persuasive skills could have survived the Lewinsky scandal.

However Glenda offers a different view on this most outrageous of political scandals, suggesting Clinton weathered the media storm around his infidelity by making a sincere apology. “I think that is something people recognise. There was a genuine antipathy, I don’t think it was limited to America, of what possible business is it of an electorate what goes on behind closed bedroom doors, even though in his case it wasn’t a closed bedroom door, it was an office door”.

Would good politicians make good actors? I can’t help but feel Bill Clinton would have made one of the finest actors America has ever seen. He deserved an Oscar for his ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky’ performance. Similarly Tony Blair’s ability to convince many sections of the public to go to war with Iraq on the basis Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction while in possession of desperately flimsy evidence, hints at great acting potential.

Fascinatingly, when asked if Blair would have made a good actor, Glenda said, “No because you would always know when he wasn’t telling the truth.” In regards to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, Glenda explained “They could both perform but there’s a difference between a performance and acting”.

I would personally argue Blair’s acting ability was an asset for the first part of his political career, as his performance skills enabled him to rise to the leadership of the Labour Party and become Prime Minister. However, his talents had a limited shelf-life and by the time of the Iraq War, many people had seen through his act.

Glenda Jackson is one of only twelve women in history to have won two ‘Best Actress’ Oscars. She keeps with illustrious company in gaining this distinction, claiming a place alongside Bette Davis, Elizabeth Taylor, Jane Fonda and Meryl Streep.

However, unlike most actors for whom winning an Oscar is the be-all and end-all, Glenda takes a most refreshing and modest attitude to having won the awards saying, “Well, it’s due to I didn’t win them, I didn’t do anything for them. There was nothing that I did, over and above what I’ve always done, I mean, you know, you do a film and you do the best you can, but you don’t win them. People who win I suppose in a sense are the people who voted for you because their choice is the one that had the biggest number.”

Glenda elaborated; “What do they mean? Someone said it’s like winning a gold medal. No it isn’t. At the Olympics everyone starts at the same point, they know exactly where the finishing line is and you either get there first or you don’t. Acting isn’t like that. If the part isn’t there, if that aspect isn’t there; you know we’ve all seen loads of stuff but there are people who should have got Oscars and never did. Because the part wasn’t showy enough.” Glenda added, “They certainly don’t make you act any better.”

Glenda Jackson says her decision to give up acting and stand for Parliament is not so shocking as it might first appear as she has been politically active all her life: “My political life, my political engagement if you like, didn’t just begin when I sat on those green benches.” I think as political activists we can all relate to this; you don’t have to be elected to Parliament to be fully committed to politics.

I asked Glenda if there were any acting roles she particularly identified with. “I didn’t identify in that sense,” she responded, “the point about every part you play; you can’t be judgemental, you have to see the world through that character’s eyes.” However when looking back at our work, we all have things we would like to have another go at. “The only two that I would have wanted to have another crack at was ‘The Three Sisters’ and probably ‘Anthony and Cleopatra’. You could mine them forever and never find it all.” I asked if this was because of the complexity of the roles. Glenda said, “Absolutely. And words are very ambiguous you know.”

In my experience there is nothing more dramatic than an Election Night. The most exciting political campaign I’ve ever worked on was Glenda Jackson’s own in 2010. The race in Hampstead and Kilburn was the closest in the country; Glenda won by only 42 votes!

Hampstead and Kilburn was one of the only constituencies where it was a genuine three horse race between Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Election Night was absolutely thrilling. Alfred Hitchcock himself couldn’t have conjured up a more suspenseful atmosphere. This was an election where literally every vote counted. I knew Glenda would win. Politics if nothing else makes a believer out of you. But this really was the stuff of great drama.

So, does Glenda feel that drama and politics are intertwined? “The real drama doesn’t come from politicians, it comes from the press, it comes from a 24/7 media furore. To go back to what Harold Macmillan said, when someone said to him what the big thing about being Prime Minister was, he replied: ‘Events, dear boy, events’. The events now are almost second by second.”

Marielle O’Neill is Editor of the Young Fabians Blog and Deputy Editor of Anticipations.

Originally published in the Winter 2012 editor of Anticipations, the Young Fabians magazine.

In Defence of Fabianism

By Louie Woodall.

As the Fabian Society prepares for their showcase New Year conference in January, now is a good time to ask what the oldest think tank in Britain can offer the Labour Party through 2013 and beyond.

How are the Fabians relevant today? In decades past, the organisation was associated with a distinctive brand of socialism; an evolutionary approach that opposed the violence and turmoil of the Marxist-Leninist model.

‘Fabianism’ championed such causes as the minimum wage, a national health service, and a welfare state in the twilight years of the 19^th century, ideas that formed the cornerstone of Labour policy from Macdonald to However, Fabianism seems to attract a bad press these days. Rendered outmoded and obsolete in the wake of trendy new ideologies like Blue Labour and One Nation, the Fabians are looked down on as the stuffy, statist grandfathers of the labour movement- a liberal elite as out of touch as Cameron’s conservatives.

Perhaps we are the victims of our own longevity. Founded in 1884, it is hard for the Fabian Society to expound modern ideas while weighed down by the shackles of history. The existing constitution proudly identifies us as a socialist society, while founding patrons Sydney and Beatrice Webb wrote a glowing report of Stalin’s Russia in the 1935 omnibus Soviet Communism, a New Civilisation.

Today, Fabianism has become indelibly associated with an obsession with the state and the centralization of power. New Labour is not impressed with the Fabian’s rejection of the market as the cure for social ills. Blue Labour, meanwhile, believes that Fabianism suffocates the ability of civic activists to provide local solutions to local problems.

Unfortunately, the Society does not seek to rebuff its detractors, and is in danger of surrendering Fabianism to its critic’s assaults. This year, it even commissioned a pamphlet on the Blue Labour theme of ‘relational politics’ by Jon Wilson, an academic intimately involved with the movement.

Perhaps this is an evolution in response to changing times. The Fabians fear that championing socialism in the 21^st century threatens its influence in the modern Labour Party. Redefining itself as a space on the left for all those with progressive ideas
might get around this stigma, but undermines the unique contributions Fabians have, and continue, to bring to the party.

Returning to One Nation, it would be a mistake to attribute all the good ideas it’s generated to Blue Labour. On themes like a national industrial policy, a revitalized welfare system, and intergenerational justice, the Fabians have just as strong an influence as the Friends of Glasman.

In addition, while the new philosophies agitating to direct Labour’s future bring a wealth of new ideas on how politics should be conducted, they have little to say on how a modern state should function. Important aspects of statecraft like the funding of public services, the redistribution of wealth and provision of benefits are sidelined by those who fear talking about spending money and see equality as more about mutual respect than a fairer allocation of resources across the population. Right now, Labour is in danger of losing any coherent statement on political economy in the blue fug of ‘radical conservatism.’

Furthermore, beneath the Blue Labour rhetoric on the importance of community, local politics and ‘institution building’ is a
thoroughly negative conception of the state as something to be pushed out of the mission to protect and provide for the vulnerable. The problem is that the state actually isn’t very good at promoting localism or institution building- just look at the recent PCC elections.

What it is very good at is moving money around- vast quantities of it. The redistribution of wealth is an imperfect, but effective, mechanism for cultivating social equality. More importantly, it is something that can be measured, quantified, and felt in society. The difficulty is in making a strong case for it, and justifying the transfer of private gains to public goods.

This kind of challenge occupied the Fabians intensely in years past.

It is time it did so again.

Louie Woodall is Editor of Anticipations, the Young Fabians magazine.

Responding to the riots – Insights from Brixton

Tony Blair asked us to reject the idea that Britain is broken. However, the Young Fabians – never to accept any one view without question, debate and a few committee meetings - thought that further investigation was and is necessary. Certainly, there was blatant opportunist criminality in the youth riots and, likely, a small minority who operate ‘beyond the pale’ involved. But the scale, spread and nature of the unrest does seem to indicate something more; something wrong with our society. A very large number of young people have demonstrated a lack of connection to, or investment in, their communities and a separation from the norms of society. It would be wrong to be complacent about this challenge.

Of course, the issues can’t be looked at in isolation. The roots are in education, in the economy, in housing, in public service provision, and elsewhere. But just because something is complicated isn’t a justification for giving up on constructive solutions.

Over the last five months, Joani Reid has been leading the Young Fabian “Securing the Future of the Next Generation” Policy Commission to provide analysis of the broader problems hitting British youth.

As part of the effort to analyse the issues, last week, the Young Fabians teamed up with A4e to visit Brixton to try and better understand the skills and employment challenges in the area. Myself, Joel Mullan, Vincenzo Rampulla and Joani Reid all took part in the site visit and held a series of interviews at the Brixton A4e training centre.

What follows is not an exhaustive analysis, but a short personal report from what felt like a very worthwhile visit – and something that the current Young Fabian Executive would like to repeat, with other partners and other areas.

Firstly – without comparing it to its competitors (because we didn’t visit any on this occasion) – I, for one, was very impressed by A4e as an outfit.

There was a huge amount of optimism and energy in the building. I suggested that a lack of jobs in the economy might be an insurmountable problem for the centre, but they went on to tell me about all the vacancy relationships they’d built up to secure job opportunities. For example, a recently secured relationship with WHSmith enabled them to link forthcoming major recruitment rounds with training programmes in local areas.

I was also impressed by A4e’s emphasis on making sure the people of an area benefitted from big investment projects. It was clear that they rejected the idea that high value added investment, like the Silicon Roundabout, are just opportunities for high skilled talent to move into the area, but advocated, with enough time, planning and upskilling, the opportunities for unemployed local people. This approach offers a stern challenge to those who are satisfied with mere trickle-down benefits for the local community from cleaning jobs and selling sandwiches.

At a broader level here are a five big insights for policy thinking that I took away from the interviews and meetings:

1. We need a tailored and sequenced approach to helping jobseekers.

People differ widely and so do their needs. In Brixton, the range was from job-hungry out of work professionals who had just been hit by the downturn, to those in need of skills training and with an appetite to learn, to those with much more severe health, drugs, drink, or housing problems. Particularly for those in at-risk categories, their issues need to be dealt with in the right order in order to be effective, and to reach sustainable and gainful employment as an end goal. One size doesn’t fit all. We shouldn’t talk as if it does.

2. Business, educators and jobseekers shouldn’t operate in isolation.

Our current general modus operandi – of employers wandering blindly into skills shortages, trainers training without a clear view of an end goal, and jobseekers floundering in the middle – indicates some room for improvement. It may make more sense to encourage as much communication and planning between: what businesses need, which they often know many months in advance of the time; what the educators can provide; and the aspirations and development-reach of the jobseeker. The free market is a brutally efficient model of clearing, but it is not perfection. There is value in thinking about the limits of a wage/price solution. Greater understanding and planning across the silos can help.

3. Culture matters and for-profit shouldn’t be a dirty word.

Organisational culture is of the utmost significance. It struck me very telling that A4e refer jobseekers as ‘customers’.

Public service in general should be very far removed from a tick-box process of ‘recipients’, and be, as far as possible, about enabling committed and motivated individuals to have a personal stake in the experience of public service ‘customers’. This is not to bash state provision, just a nudge to try and dislodge any automated revulsion to the concept of for-profit public service. At the very least, we should try and incorporate the motivation and innovation that ‘for-profit’ can, sometimes, demonstrate into all aspects of public service.

4. We should do everything we can to make work pay.

In interviews with ‘customers’, it was clear that there was an entrenched view out there that welfare can pay more than work can. We need to tread carefully here, maintaining the protection for the vulnerable, for mothers and for the down-and-out. But we must do all we can to make employment attractive. While it feels like there is some way to go on this challenging agenda, it is should be at the forefront of policy makers minds. Part of the solution must lie with a relentless effort to raise aspirations in all communities, especially the most deprived.

This is no easy feat.

5. We need bigger thinking on internships.

In an interview with a highly educated jobseeker with two degrees and ambitions in the fashion industry, who had been out of work for over a year, it struck that he was being led on a path that was corrosive to his sense of purpose and confidence, as well as being costly to the economy. His university careers advice centred on the importance of getting experience and an internship to make it in his career of choice. Many readers in the political world will, no doubt, be familiar with this advice. He was financial-capital poor, but human-capital rich. If he went on an internship, he claimed he would lose his housing benefit and employment benefit; a non-option without family support in London. If he took a minimum wage job, the option presented to him by the jobseeker system, he saw only the prospect of working very long hours just to keep his head above water, without any surplus income to save.

The unsympathetic might say he should take whatever job is coming, and be grateful. But surely it makes no sense to consign those who have benefitted from a high level of education to the near poverty trap of minimum wage jobs – not from the perspective of jobseekers self-worth, nor when trying to enable the greatest possible constructive contributions to society, nor when trying to make good on the state’s investment in education, and nor in our effort to encourage the flourishing of high value added employment in the UK.

A potential solution might be (with lots of weaknesses no-doubt, but also some merit): a one-shot universal jobseekers credit for, let’s say, a 6-month unpaid internship? Bolstering skills development, entrenching high-value added jobs and making the UK a more attractive place to locate business, all the while costing the state less (bearing in mind how long this category might otherwise be on welfare). Accepting internship exists rather than trying to wish them away, this could level the playing field for entry to high-skilled professions and be a significant boost for businesses.

‘One Big Chance’ internships – you heard it here first.

Policy Commissions and Young Fabian next steps: everyone should get involved

Joani and Joel are taking forward the thinking in the “Securing the Future of the Next Generation” Policy Commission. The next Anticipations edition will also have a heavy focus on the Squeezed Youth theme.

Tony Blair may be right about the need to focus on the hard to reach dysfunctional families. Or perhaps we do have a broken society and there are big ideas needed to address a lack of hope or prospects in communities up and down the country, hitting the young hardest.

Regardless, if you want to contribute to the thinking and the debate, there are plenty of opportunities with the Young Fabians. Stay tuned for information about a debate on what to learn from the riots.

Please get in touch if you would like to be involved, at any level.

Nick Maxwell is Partnerships Officer for the Young Fabians

Forward, not back

The Greek debt crisis has thrown into stark relief the challenges that lie at the heart of European integration.

As the Eurozone countries decide whether to endorse a second Greek bailout, many are asking whether the European project has fallen into serial decline. Eurosceptics are rubbing their hands in glee, citing the Euro’s current plight as proof of their earlier predictions.

Yet there is another way of reading current events. As former Foreign Secretary David Miliband argues in the essay in the latest edition of Anticipations, the nature of the crash that sparked Greece’s collapse demonstrates that global problems require global solutions. As China and America increasingly focus on domestic concerns, faced with a leadership transition and election respectively, Europe has an opportunity to take a lead on the world stage.

Europe is well placed to do this.

It is after all the only part of the world that has embraced the idea of shared sovereignty. While integration has not been a cost-free process it has brought with it significant opportunities. In an increasingly interdependent world, dominated by a handful of superpowers, the benefits of economic and political cooperation are more evident now than ever.

Taking advantage of this will not be easy.

Europe will first need to address the deep disconnect that currently exists between the process of greater integration and public support for the European project. This is the outcome of integration by stealth, as the public have grown weary of economic measures being used to promote a broader political goal. Few events more powerfully exemplify this phenomenon than the current crisis in Greece. We now have a single currency, which many in Europe saw as a route into federalism, undermined not only by the weakness of the Greek economy but also by widespread public antipathy towards the EU. Rarely has a strong multilateral Europe been more important or more difficult to sustain.

This has resulted in the widely held view that Europe is a distraction from more important national economic concerns.

However, as Nick Maxwell from Chatham House rightly argues in the latest Anticipations, domestic economic challenges and foreign policy priorities are far from mutually exclusive. Sound economics, just like effective politics, requires strong international cooperation.

In fact Maxwell goes a step further, arguing that the UK should be at the centre of efforts to build a more effective international framework for economic cooperation between nations. It is hard to argue with this position. As power increasingly shifts East, there is a closing window of opportunity for a country like the UK to take a global lead on such defining issues.

However, Britain’s ambitions should not be limited to economic concerns alone.

As Jim Murphy powerfully outlines in the latest edition of Anticipations, we also need to drive forward a coordinated approach to issues of defence. The Arab Spring has turned on its head established notions that non-democratic governments can be stable and sustainable. Security in the future will come not from bilateral relationships with autocratic rulers, but from strong multilateral alliances between democratic nations. This will require countries to facilitate peace abroad in order to protect their interests at home.

It is a challenging task, especially in tough economic times. However, it is one that we can rise to, especially if we are able to coordinate foreign policy at the European level.

As the crisis in Greece has shown, a more integrated Europe brings with it significant risks. However, in an interdependent world dominated by China and America surely these are risks worth taking. Now is the time for Europe to shed its image as a reluctant actor and assert its place on the international stage.

There is space in the world for another superpower. Europe must decide if it ready to become it.

James Green is Editor of Anticipations

• Read our online taster edition of the Summer 2011 edition of Anticipations here.
• The full edition of Anticipations is only available to Young Fabian members. Joining couldn’t be easier and six months membership costs just £5. Click here for more information regarding joining the Young Fabians.

Labour must ‘do God’

Reclaiming the Big Society – Winter Anticipations

One issue more than any other has dominated British politics since May. Cuts have been the order of the day, as the coalition has taken the axe to the public finances in its effort to bring down the deficit and shrink the state. In this tough political climate, Labour have played an important role in holding the coalition to account and opposing cuts, like those to housing benefit, that hit the poorest hardest. However, the party must be careful to avoid the temptation of riding the inevitable wave of public anger and opposing all cuts on matter of principle. The recently launched policy review provides a vital opportunity for Labour to develop a credible policy platform that is rooted in the political and economic reality of today.

That reality is a challenging one. Despite what the coalition may claim, the structural issues within the UK economy go far beyond financial services and alleged Labour profligacy. In fact the UK’s long-term debt has far more to do with our ageing demographic profile than with bankers bonuses and complex derivatives. Put simply, the taxes of those in work no longer cover the services and pensions of those who have retired. The problem is systemic and the only solution is a new conception of the state that reflects the complex realities of modern day Britain. Of course this must go beyond the rhetoric of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’. However, unless Labour understands its message – that the state needs to be reformed and that people want more power over the issues that affect their lives – the party will fail to offer the credible alternative that is so desperately needed.

This doesn’t require Labour to give up on its own political traditions. In the latest edition of the Young Fabians magazine, Anticipations newly ennobled Maurice Glasman makes a powerful case for Labour rediscovering its radical tradition of solidarity and cooperation. As he rightly argues, Labour has a rich history of grassroots activism and it is this that the party must tap into if it is to offer a new vision of government that goes beyond investment and centralised control. At a time when the public feel disempowered by an overbearing market and an often unresponsive state, now is the time for Labour to once again become the party of civil society. To win the next election, it is vital that Labour does not cede this ground to the coalition.

There is a lot of great work already being done in this area. As new MP Stella Creasy discusses in this edition’s interview many Labour activists are applying the principles of grassroots activism to their own constituencies, supporting local people to take power and influence the decision making process. As a participant of Citizens UK’s national community organising training – I share my experiences in Anticipations – I have seen for myself how effective these methods can be.

However, organising is only a small part of this agenda. Steve Reed, leader of Lambeth Council, writes in Anticipations about the groundbreaking work he is leading on to make Lambeth the country’s first cooperative council. Big ideas are vital, but implementation is equally as important and Lambeth are showing how Labour’s cooperative and mutual tradition – of which Greg Rosen provides a fascinating overview in the magazine – can be applied to the challenges of the modern world.

During the times of plenty, Labour’s instinct was to invest rather than to empower. Despite its shortcomings, this approach had a huge impact of which all on the Left should be proud. However, in today’s economic climate and with the long-term challenge of an ageing population, a new approach is required. Now is the time for Labour to rediscover its history as a grassroots movement and place community empowerment at the heart of a radical new approach to government. Cooperation, mutualism and community organising; these are old ideas whose time has come.

James Green is Editor of the Young Fabians magazine, Anticipations

An online taster edition of the winter edition of Anticipations is now available on the Young Fabians website here.

To full edition of Anticipations is only available to Young Fabian members. However, along with the online taster edition for all our supporters, we are offering a special rate of membership to celebrate our 50th year – £5 for six months membership. For further information and to join visit www.youngfabians.org.uk.

Carwyn Jones – my political hero

In a guest post to mark the election of Labour’s new leader, Carwyn Jones, Leader of Labour in Wales and Welsh First Minister shares his political hero, Nelson Mandela.

My political hero is without question, Nelson Mandela.

Mandela has dedicated his life to bringing peace, equality and freedom for his people – a vision that even twenty seven years in prison could not diminish.

In his quest to make South Africa the equal society it is today, Mandela never waivered from his principles. Even when offered his own personal freedom – a whole five years before actual release from prison – he declined the offer, as it would have meant the ANC would have remained a banned organisation under the apartheid regime. In his own powerful and inimitable words, he told the South African government, “only free men can negotiate.”

During the five years he served as President of South Africa, he remained committed to reconciliation within his country and building the multi-racial democracy we see today.

Mandela has showed all of us that hope will eventually triumph.

A new political economy

In this guest post, Young Fabian James Silverwood makes the case for a new political economy.

Any contribution to the ideals and values that will shape the 21^st century must inevitably deal with the economic and political fallout of the global financial crisis. We have just witnessed the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s. The coalition government have responded with a vision of political economy that resonates more firmly with Thatcherite laissez-faire policy than the progressive mantle they claim to hold.

A wealth of academic literature has arisen over the previous thirteen years assessing the policy implications of the New Labour project. Three main hypotheses have generally arisen. Firstly, that New Labour was a modernised version of social democracy in line with the sort of revisionism that has always been central to the social democratic project. Secondly, that New Labour was an abject capitulation to the political legacy of Thatcherism and Neo-Liberalism. And finally that New Labour had become a hybrid of both ideological positions.

Space won’t allow further exploration of this theme but the legacy of New Labour will shape the Labour Party’s response to the most pressing issue to shape the first few decades of the 21^st century: political economy. Whilst not adhering to the argument that New Labour was merely a continuation of Thatcherism, despite huge and much needed fiscal expansion in public services, events suggest that New Labour especially on economic matters was hugely influenced by the preceding years of Thatcherism and neo-liberal theories of the market. Gordon Brown’s much vaunted emphasis on monetary stability and fiscal responsibility was placed before the altar of the City of London and financial services. The risk-based approach to regulation of the financial services industry and the belief that they could be made to work in the public interest was repaid with economic instability, social injustice and electoral defeat.

In his book, the Spectre at the Feast, Andrew Gamble notes that the politics of recession often leads to the questioning of current orthodoxies and a ruthless reassessment of former beliefs and assumptions. If the crisis that unfolds is deep and long enough then it can result in major political turbulence. As Gamble notes, this happened in response to the Great Depression of the 1930s, leading to the New Deal and eventually the Keynesian Welfare State. Similarly, the crisis of the 1970s lead to the re-emergence of neo-liberalism as the dominant political ideology.

An interesting facet of the global financial crisis is the speed with which neo-liberalism has reasserted itself. The right have successfully dominated the narrative that has emerged from this recession. What should be considered as a failure of neo-liberalism and markets has been re-written as a crisis of over-extended government and fiscal irresponsibility. To beat the crisis and rebuild our economy, the right argue, we need to roll back the state and in so doing liberate the private sector. Yet this view isn’t borne our by the facts. In an economy of corporate and consumer indebtedness and a financial sector that is still paralysed by its own speculative activities it is a fanciful proposition to say the least.

However, Gamble notes that while recessions lead to the questioning of orthodoxy that does not necessarily mean that prevailing economic policy will be replaced. He is worth quoting at length,

“Forces arrayed against neo-liberal order look comparatively weak, and there is as yet no compelling alternative vision of how the global economy might be ordered, what the steps might be, and what an alternative political economy to neo-liberalism might look like”

Constructing an alternative vision of political economy is the most important task facing the Labour Party. To achieve this Labour must address the following issues:

• Labour must challenge the market excess, especially in providing a more thorough critique of how markets fail.
• We must reappraise the priorities of UK financial institutions, working to support a new era of economic growth built on investment in higher value added manufacturing and green and creative industries.
• We should make the case for new forms of public and private ownership models and redress the deficits in corporate governance regimes to focus on long-term growth potential, product and technical capabilities. This will lay the foundations for an increase in UK exports.
• We must increase UK exports by moving into higher value added production. This will not automatically lead to a fairer or more equal society and appropriate steps must be taken to distribute both resources and opportunity evenly as possible.
• We must press for the unilateral implementation of a financial transactions tax on the City of London whilst using influence abroad to extend the scheme internationally. Funds could be split 50-50 between domestic needs and those of developing countries. Domestically the funds raised could be used to provide capital to the new banking system, fund vital infrastructure investment and launch a sustained and concerted effort to eradicate poverty in the UK.

As Will Hutton noted in the summer of 2009 the £1.3 trillion Labour invested to support the banking system, “creates a once-in-a-generation political opportunity to challenge the terms on which Britain approaches both the structures of capitalism and its management.”

The political and economic impact of the global financial crisis will shape the 21^st century. The way we respond will define the future of the Left. Get it right and it could provide electoral success, economic renaissance and a more equal society. Get it wrong and it could be eighteen more long years of Thatcherite politics.