Global Labourhood Watch: a vision for the Labour Party

By Alan McDonald.

The second decade of the 21^st century has been characterised by growing inequality, diminishing standards of living and rising levels of poverty in the UK and further afield.  The chasm that exists between policy-makers, the drivers of business and those who endure the consequences of their dalliances has widened.

The Labour Party, in anticipation of electoral victory (one well within their grasp) should be formulating policy, with the resolute ambition of halting this regression of society.  Underlying issues that pick at the very fabric of a cohesive and socially just society must be tackled at home, while simultaneously presenting the UK as a beacon of equity on the global stage.

With these principles in mind, the focus should be on reining in exorbitant salaries that prevail in the city and the banking sector.  The link between performance and reward has long since been broken.  The principle of commerce, of taking a calculate risk using knowledge and instinct honed by experience to create a profit, has disintegrated.  In its place a nauseating culture of reward and more reward, where risk has become all but an irrelevant afterthought, has spread like a cancer decimating any semblance of fairness and moral justice that might have existed.

The result is that ordinary people are suffering, as national governments meekly bow to the banking sector, corporate shareholders and rampant capitalists.  The removal of risk, or rather the transferral of risk from the ‘wealth creators’ to the common man has left a rancid flavour in the mouths of those who hold fairness dear.

UK salaries have stagnated as inflation continues above the target rate.  Across the EU the story is grimmer still.  Governments, at the behest of the markets, enact structural reforms, slashing expenditure to deal with the pre-eminence of deficit reduction; where infrastructure spending would stimulate growth. Unemployment hanging uncomfortably in the double digits and declining real wages are symptoms of deep economic malaise, and the hangover from the most heinous economic savagery in memory.

The greatest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world is happening, in reverse, and it would appear no one is preventing it. The voices of reason and fairness are being drowned out by the din of those who profess a doom for all, if the vestiges of the capitalist monolith are not protected.  While public services are being cut, inequality is rising and relative poverty is significantly increasing.   Food banks have become a necessity for large numbers of people across Europe – a stinging indictment of the misguided nature of the political pilots.  This fallacy is being enacted to protect those who are ultimately responsible for the global downturn.

The financial crisis has been conveniently utilised by the Tories to enact their political ideology, setting in motion wheels of change, which, if left unchecked, will result in the dismantling of the existing welfare state.  The privatisation of the NHS and the introduction of a profit culture in state education are perhaps the most contentious – the legitimacy of which is tenuous at best and would further exacerbate inequality in the UK.   It is a grossly unfair scenario which the left must challenge.

Furthermore, Foreign Aid budgets are under threat as the ‘political elite’ scramble to support failed financial institutions. The Tory Party, the brethren of the conspirators who precipitated the crisis and the ensuing austerity, have the temerity to suggest that we should cease these aid payments, when spending on domestic public services is being ‘rebalanced’.  This is a characteristically flawed perspective of the neo-cons. It fails to recognise the stark reality of the abject poverty endured in many parts of the globe, a poverty that dictates that many billions of people view long term planning as simply planning how best they might feed themselves tomorrow.  The invidious suggestion that Britain should reduce its aid budget in order to protect the ‘elite’ is archaic.

The time of rampant neo-conservatism has passed. The all-consuming focus on profits must be extinguished.  Governments must lead an equitable and humanitarian development, bridging the gap between the haves and have-nots. This vision must be fulfilled at home, whilst supporting those in the poverty-stricken regions of the globe to develop sustainably. Reckless capitalists should be cut adrift and society should no longer be used as their life-support system.   With the benefit of hindsight and the accrued wisdom of past incarnations the Labour Party must be ready to ignite this process.

Alan McDonald is a Young Fabians Member.

Our unelected Queen must keep her views to herself

Nate Barker from ‘Labour for a Republic,’ on the Queen’s interference in affairs of state.

In this Age of Leveson, the media is keen to show how it can be a force for good and maintain its relevance in a world of ever-shrinking revenues. So I was heartily pleased to hear yesterday how the BBC had broken the news that the Queen had spoken to the Home Secretary in 2004 about Abu Hamza, telling him she was ‘aghast’ that he remained at large.

For years, republicans have been shouting about how the monarchy constantly lobbies to make known its thoughts and opinions on the matters of the day. This is despite being constitutionally-bound to remain neutral and above political affairs. Now, we had the authoritative voice of the BBC agreeing with us about the Queen’s attempts to influence policy.

I use the past tense because, in an utterly craven move, the Corporation has scrambled to assuage royal displeasure, issuing an apology for what they call a ‘breach of confidence,’ changing the focus of the story from a monarch overstepping their constitutional bounds to an apology for daring to draw attention to this. Make no mistake, I would rather the BBC had brought this to the public’s attention at the time, not eight years later – and I’m sure the Palace had a hand in its release – but it’s good to have evidence in the public domain of the Queen’s lobbying of government ministers.

Whether you agree with the Queen or not is irrelevant – constitutionally, there shouldn’t be any place in government for her views. Having grown up in palaces and castles with servants, never having to worry about money, it’s not a stretch to assume that her opinions may not be representative of the country at large. Yet, when she makes her opinions known to ministers, they carry considerably more weight than that of the average voter. We quite rightly have campaigned against media barons being able to influence the government, and there’s no reason why we should accept it when it comes from Buckingham Palace.

Instead of talking about whether the BBC should or shouldn’t apologise, we should be asking what else the Queen is talking to government ministers about and making it clear that, in a modern democracy, we simply won’t accept powerful unelected figures interfering in matters of state.

Nate P. Barker is Campaigns Officer for Labour for a Republic. You can find out more about the movement and sign up via www.labourforarepublic.org.uk or @Labour4Republic.

Fighting the far right

The battle appears to be won. In 2010, the BNP were routed in Barking and Dagenham. The number of BNP councillors has plummeted from a high of 56 to just 3. Britain’s most powerful, and most threatening, fascist party seems to be in a state of terminal decline.

Elsewhere, the English Defence League is also in retreat after a period when it seemed destined to replace the BNP as Britain’s foremost far right organisation.

The EDL’s appeal lies in its ‘anti-politics’ approach to campaigning. Members engage in marches and demonstrations, rather than debate and canvassing. However, leader Stephen Lennon is attempting to drive the organisation down the parliamentary route trod by the BNP in an alliance with the British Freedom Party. This has caused the movement to fracture and split as grassroots members rebel against the leadership’s striving to make the EDL a ‘respectable’ party.

However, while the threat of a fascist renaissance in Britain has subsided for now, the underlying attitudes and issues that nourish the far-right remain present in society.

Polling conducted by anti-fascist organisation ‘Hope not Hate’ revealed that 10% of the population can be classified as ‘latently hostile’ to those racially and culturally different from themselves, and 13% as exhibiting an ‘active enmity’ towards the ‘other.’

Insecurity about the future, and concern that British identity is being steadily eroded by a wave of foreign immigrants, are the key
drivers of such attitudes. While very few can summarise what Britishness means (besides drinking tea and queuing), it is something that is felt to be under attack by multiculturalism and the political doctrine of tolerance.

Cosmopolitan liberals may shrug their shoulders at this concern, rightly pointing out that ours is a nation of immigrants and that the freedoms Britons hold dear are protected by law and not about to wiped out by a radical Islamic agenda or a tidal wave of Polish plumbers. However, the fear that British society is evolving out of all recognition is deep-rooted in the sort of constituencies the BNP prey upon. One Londoner said:

“One of the problems of academics is that they don’t understand how local people feel…I get very wobbly when I get on a bus and there are fifteen people with burkhas on….[the growth of immigrant communities] does wind people up.”

Progressives would be foolish to ignore local people’s concerns and brand all those who fear immigrants as ignorant or racist.

Fortunately, Labour is in a unique position to help change attitudes and strengthen the campaign against fascism. Aimy Saunders, a campaigner with ‘Hope not Hate,’ says:

“The BNP has been more successful in areas where the Labour Party has taken people for granted. 49% of BNP voters used to vote Labour but felt disillusioned with the Labour party and what they stood for at that time.”

The rest are typically first-time voters or non-voters, who cast their ballot for the BNP out of despair that mainstream parties simply don’t understand their concerns.

Labour activists need to take to the streets- as they did in Barking and Dagenham- to win that 49% back for the party and prevent non-voters from supporting fascists at election time.

Local parties should also forge alliances with campaigning groups like ‘Hope not Hate’ to promote ‘community resilience.’

“[At ‘Hope not Hate’] we’re building community links so that when times are hard and the BNP comes
knocking local residents will be able to respond and not be as influenced as much by their ideas,” says Aimy.

This means linking local schools, clubs, and religious collectives together in community-wide projects designed to strengthen a sense of fellowship. In Luton, Dagenham, and Croydon where the BNP have made inroads in the past, ‘Hope not Hate’ has founded community newspapers and sponsored local meetings and events to inspire a spirit of neighbourliness.

Local Constituency Labour Parties and Trade Union branches are well positioned to support such work in areas susceptible to the economic and social pressures that lure people to the far right.

Ignoring the threat of fascism and claiming that far right parties have been routed once and for all is arrogant at best and dangerous at worst. Parties like the BNP may rise, fall, then disappear, but the values they stand for endure.

There is, therefore, a strong moral case for Labour to jointhe struggle against fascism. If we claim to be the party of inclusiveness, we cannot turn a blind eye when attitudes toxic to the ideal of a free and equal society are allowed to find political expression.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Future of Finance Network: reforming the banks

Injecting virtue into our banking industry is at the heart of a progressive response to the financial crisis.

Young Fabian members of the Future of Finance Network, alongside guest experts Rachel Reeves MP, Lydia Prieg of the New Economics Foundation, and Melora Jezierska of the Charity Finance Group, gathered at the House of Commons this month to answer the biggest questions posed by the incoming reforms.

What can be done to protect depositors’ money from being placed as bets in ‘casino’ investment banks? Which policies will serve to safeguard London’s status as a world financial centre and defend the wider British economy from bank failure? How do we make banks servants of society instead of society servants of the banks?

The answers are threefold. First, new regulation has to be calibrated to maximise the public good. Ringfencing the high-street arms of banks from their risk taking investment operations is sound in principle. However, the rules need to ensure that the protected element has enough cash in reserve to act as a buffer in the event of a crisis. It is also important that policy recognises the rights of certain groups that warrant protection to access the ringfenced business- like charities and small businesses.

Second of all, we need to build a banking system founded on social values. Banking relies on trust, on mutual respect between people and institutions, and cooperation. Neo-liberalism birthed a different collection of values- market values- that stripped these qualities from the financial sector and divorced the purpose of banking from the social good.

As a result, the industry was swallowed up by a small group of corporate giants and our banks destroyed more economic value than they created. In the post-crisis age, banks need to be more responsive to the needs of communities. We need to cultivate new ‘challenger banks’ to boost competition in the sector, encourage the growth of different types of financial institutions like credit unions and mutuals, and compel a devolution of power away from corporate multinationals and into smaller, local institutions.

Thirdly and finally, there needs to be a change of culture within the financial sector. This makes demands of society as well as banks. A powerful financial policing authority, established by the state, could patrol the sector for instances of white collar crime and corporate misconduct. Incentive structures that teach salesman to treat clients as cash cows can be ripped up and replaced.

However, citizens also need to take control of their own financial lives so that they can be more selective about where they put their money. Children should be taught about the different ways they can manage their money at school, while the government could sponsor a massive publicity drive to raise awareness of the various institutions apart from banks they can use to achieve financial peace of mind.

Changing the way banks operate and control their assets will be expensive. Estimates based on the Vickers Report suggest the economy will suffer by £600 million to £1.4 billion a year for the next 30 years. However, it’s important to remember that in 2007-2009 the crisis cost the UK £140 billion. If a transformation doesn’t occur, who would bet against an even more destructive crisis engulfing the world fifty years from now?

This is the question progressives ask of an industry reluctant to change its ways. Fabians, Labour members, and socialists must continue to ask it if reform is to be saved from becoming stuck in the mud.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Policy Commissions 2012: What is Community?

At our first roundtable policy discussion for the Better, Stronger, Closer Communities Policy Commission, we went – to borrow Sir John Major’s ill-advised phrase – back to basics.

 As part of the Young Fabians research on ‘Generation Crisis’, we’re exploring ways to try and strengthen our communities, ensuring they are places where different generations come together and integrate.

This is not so much Sir John’s infamous ‘country of long shadows on county cricket grounds, warm beer, green suburbs, dog lovers, and old maids cycling to holy communion through the morning mist’ (that would probably require the Doc’s DeLorean to recreate), more Tony Blair’s vision of a stakeholder society, ensuring everyone has a stake in their local community.

Before we could get on to questions of how to (re)create this, though, we had to establish what a 21st century community looks like, and how it has evolved over the past fifty years, fuelled by an increasing number of younger people moving away from home for education or employment, and aided by social media and the exorbitant price of property, which means many younger people are now well into to their thirties before buying their first home and settling down in one place.

The fact is, for whatever reason, communities have changed, and from our discussion, it was clear that the very concept of what constitutes a community has evolved. Whereas in decades past communities were traditionally based upon geographical links, that is not necessarily the case nowadays. As long as there is some sort of shared entity or passion amongst members – be that a sport, hobby, political party or band – communities can exist where members have no geographical ties.

Of course, some communities are still based upon where we live, but these tend to be very specific, and often dominated by one age group. Communities based on university friends, for example, whilst ostensibly set around a shared geographical link, lack the sort of inter-generational integration that would exist in many neighbourhood communities. Furthermore, communities established at university are prolonged with the advent of social media, so four friends who study together but end up in different parts of the country can ensure their community survives through Facebook, and Twitter, long after they have ceased living near one another.

Indeed, 21st century communities do not even require a physical presence. Some will have one, such as a regular meeting place or activity, but others might exist purely online, conglomerates of like-minded people united through their broadband cables.

What was also clear from our discussions, is that we all belong to many different communities, and these can overlap, and even clash, the reconciliation of which sometimes necessitates a member leaving a group – or being forcibly removed from it! Fluidity, though, is a key component to our communities, and means that people are constantly moving between different groups.

In certain communities, there are a clear set of rules which members must sign up to. Sometimes these will be written rules, sometimes merely implied. Sometimes the rules will dictate to what extent members can play an active role in the community, sometimes they will prohibit membership entirely if they are not adhered to. Sometimes the unwritten rules might preclude people from joining the community without them even knowing it.

Most communities will have one element that all members must subscribe to – one central belief, value, ideal or interest that unites all who are part of the community – but aside from that (and a regular monetary contribution to enable membership to continue in some cases) members can generally dictate their level of involvement in the community.

In the Labour Party, for example, there is an implicit rule that members subscribe to some form a centre left or left-leaning progressive politics, and members must pay their membership fee. After that, however, members can choose their level of involvement. If they can resist the constant cajoling of their CLP secretary, they can choose to do no more; they may decide to leaflet, canvass, run a street stall or hold a fund-raiser; they may seek elected office as a councillor, MEP or MP; they might even seek election as leader of the Labour Party. But it is their choice. As long as they adhere to the basic requirements, the level of involvement they have is entirely up to them.

At times, our discussion felt more philosophical than policy-based, but what was clear is that our attachment to groups within society remains as strong as ever, it is just that societal and technological change has shifted our concept of what constitutes a community, so most people could name numerous communities to which they belong without mentioning their own neighbourhood.

The challenge for policy makers is to harness this attachment to our own geographical communities, strengthening our neighbourhood communities and bringing different generations together in a way that few other communities do. These are the challenges our policy commission will be considering in forthcoming discussions.

Tobin Byers is a Young Fabians member and Co-Chair of the Better, Stronger, Closer Communities Policy Commission

Putting social care back on the agenda

Martin Edobor, Chair of the Young Fabian Health Network, on making social care a Labour priority. 

By 2030 the predicted number of older and disabled people with social care needs will grow to over 7 million.  Demand for hospital beds and end of life care will both increase dramatically.

The current system we have in place won’t be able to handle the predicted demographic change. Indeed, “Social care crisis” is a phrase best used to describe what is coming. In spite of this, social care remains a low priority issue for the Coalition government. We need a wholesale re-think of the way social care is structured in the UK; if we do not respond to the coming changes, we will truly have a crisis on our hands.

Over the past year the Young Fabian Health network, has been exploring the different ways we can respond to the health needs of the elderly and disabled. In March, the Health Network joined Andy Burnham MP at the House of Commons for a discussion on the future of social care policy. We looked at the specific ways in which Labour could respond and possible policies that could be implemented. One of the key ideas that came from the event is giving the NHS greater responsibility for social care. This could begin with handing NHS Trusts control over end of life care, shifting the burden from the individual to the state while simultaneously promoting further integration between personal at-home carers and the public health service.

Following this event, the Health Network started working on a social care policy output, a document that will present our ideas and vision on the future of  social care. In turning ideas into policy, we have harnessed the views of both members and experts to show that the Young Fabians can be a real force for good within the Labour party.

A steering committee, composed entirely of Young Fabian members, meets once a month to decide the activity of the Health Network . Membership is open to all Young Fabians. I chair this committee and we are currently planning our next series of events. If you want to have a say in the direction of the network, please feel free to come along to one of our meetings. If you want to find out more, e-mail healthnetwork@youngfabians.org.uk

Martin Edobor is Chair of the Young Fabian Health Network

Life in the Future of Finance Network

Alex Adranghi lets us in in what is involved in running a Young Fabian Network.

Since January I have had the privilege of serving as the Chair of the Future of Finance Network.

The Network, which is in its third year, is the special interest group for finance and economics, mixing the industrial, academic and political worlds into a delightful cauldron of ideas.

As with all three Young Fabian Networks, the work is planned and carried out by its Steering Group. These committees are open to all those who are interested in participating in the year’s activity.

While the Network’s Steering Groups have always put on their own events, this year the Networks have found their own centre of gravity, developing programmes under their own stream with oversight provided by the Young Fabians Executive Committee.

The Future of Finance Network has a very active core. We divide ourselves into topical groups that we call ‘threads’. The idea with threads is that they act as self-contained units that take on specific responsibility for a certain topic, and then develop events and activities around this set theme. These groups are themselves led by a Convenor who oversees the activities.

The group is very supportive of each other’s endeavours – we are an inclusive family. This wonderful culture means that there is always someone there to help out with a problem, whether it’s securing speakers, searching out interesting think-tank reports, or developing event formats. This makes each success the Network undertakes a true team achievement.

As Chair, my role is to facilitate the work of Steering, interface with the Executive Committee, and secure contributions from other individuals and organisations. My day-to-day role involves being there to help others overcome obstacles, provide alterative options, and advise on difficult decisions. In short, my job is to try and make the volunteers that put together our programme happy, and satisfied with their investment of personal time into our projects.

I am also facilitating training workshops and activities outside of London – keep an eye out for further announcements soon on both these fronts. Beyond that, I am a Convenor myself, running the new Anatomy series of interactive roundtables with the next one coming up soon.

We have a lot of exciting projects in the works including: developing fiscal rules for the Labour government, financing affordable and social housing, drafting strategies to keep the City internationally competitive, and discovering what young people desire from the financial industries. The Convenors – Melissa Higgs, Yoni Smith, Jonathan Orde and Lauren O’Toole, have been exceptional in developing their programmes and leading their teams and I encourage you all to keep an eye out for more of their events later in the year.

If you’re interested in participating in our programmes, I highly recommend you sign up to the Network mailing list. For the adventurous, you can join the Steering Group and help develop and run our programme – and you don’t have to be in London to do that!

To do so, get in contact with me at financenetwork@youngfabians.org.uk. Our next steering meeting will be held at Queen’s Ice and Bowl, London, W2 4QL on Tuesday 14 August, followed by a bowling social.

Alex Adranghi is a member of the Young Fabians

Why we need a Minister for the Internet

In the past decade Britain has experienced a revolution.

The scale of this revolution cannot be understated; it has altered the way we live our lives, the way our democracy works and the way our economy works. In this article, I will discuss how the internet has transformed these three areas and argue why it is time we had a dedicated Minister for the Internet.

For young people in Britain today, the internet is a vital part of their everyday lives. Through social networks we are able to communicate to, and stay connected with, our friends, family and communities. Indeed, we increasingly live our lives not with the internet, but through it.

On the face of it, Twitter is just a website that allows users to transmit messages of 140 characters to people who follow them. However, this simple idea has had a huge effect on society. For example, it arguably helped facilitate last year’s Arab Spring. The internet allows us to communicate our ideas and exercise freedom of speech in new ways. In the past, if we wanted information we would have to go to a library to look it up. Now we can Google for information instantly, or search for it on Wikipedia. This has allowed the public to have comparatively better informed debate on important issues than in years past. A better informed public openly voicing their opinions makes for a healthier and more open democracy.

Access to the internet has now become so important that it is registered by the United Nations as a human right. However, according to the Office of National Statistics, 16.1% of people in the UK have never used it. Many more are not able to make the most of the opportunities the web provides because of uneven broadband provision across the country. If the internet truly is a human right and a social good, then access must be distributed evenly across society.

Labour should start making bold plans to ensure that every citizen in our country has access to, and is able to use, the internet. A computer literate society is a more social, more accountable and more prosperous society. In 2011, the online giant Google made over $37.9bn in revenues, which is more than the GDP many countries produce. Businesses such as Valve Corporation and Apple have also generated enormous profits by making the most of today’s online economy. These businesses are unusual because Valve’s Steam and Apple’s iTunes facilitate a market in products which are not physical, but purely digital. The market for such products still has a lot of growing left to do, and so governments should grasp the opportunity to encourage investment in start-up web-based businesses. After all, no one knows where the next Google will come from.

However, not every development of the internet has been a positive one. When we put our information on Facebook, or when we Google something, we share personal information with these companies. It is not simply my family and friends who learn about what I’m interested in, but also the online businesses who facilitate these interactions. Most of us would not want the government to know personal things about us, so it is hard to understand why we acquiesce to businesses gathering the same information. The societal pressure for people to use and sign up to websites has undoubtedly given businesses an opportunity to take advantage of what we do online. This is why government must step in to ensure that users’ best interests are promoted at all times.

Legislation covering the internet is unevenly driven by private, not public, interests. Although copyright law may not seem like a salient issue to most people in Britain today, copyright legislation laws have inspired young people across the world to get politically active in order to stop acts such as SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. The success of Pirate Parties in elections across Europe is just an example of how mainstream politics has so far failed to engage with online issues properly.

This is why I advocate the creation of a Minister for the Internet. The internet is ultimately a public good and we must be properly represented in matters surrounding it. The online revolution has permanently changed our society, democracy and economy. Creating a specialist ministerial position would allow government to provide better access to information and facilities for citizens struggling to get to grips with the many issues surrounding internet use. The ministry would also be able to engage better and consult more widely on online issues. It would clearly set out the government’s online agenda, make its plans more transparent, provide a brief covering the right to internet access, and encourage the development of online businesses.

In years past we had a Postmaster General. In this online era, why can’t we have a Webmaster General?

Lewis Miller is a Young Fabians Member

Labour needs to remember its core values to help save the North East

In this member post, Daniel Robert Tye reports back from a panel debate where Young Fabians discussed how Labour could help secure the future of the north-east.

This week saw the Young Fabians host their first of many events in the north-east, titled ‘What about the north-east?’: a question-and-answer session discussing the economic and political future of the region. The event was attended by a group of around ten to fifteen people interested in discussing the future of the north-east with three panelists made up of Chi Onwurah MP, Shadow Business, Innovation and Skills Minister, Cllr Simon Henig, Leader of Durham County Council and Graeme Henderson, a research fellow at IPPR North.

The event kicked off with the three panellists discussing their own take on the economic and political issues that the  north-east faces. The argument was raised that if we don’t get the politics right, then we won’t get the economy right. The three panellists all agreed that the north-east had some positive economic stories, such as a thriving tourism industry (an estimated £4 billion of the north-east economy comes from the tourism sector alone) and pioneering low-carbon manufacturing with the new Nissan Leaf being built at the Nissan Plant in Sunderland.

Yet the feeling was that the region was going to go through a prolonged period of pain and struggle. It was raised by the panel that the Tory-led coalition was cutting spending in the north-east disproportionally compared to other regions in the UK – something that has been public knowledge since David Cameron’s infamous Paxman interview in 2010. With a fragile economy, the highest unemployment rate in the country and the ever growing chasm of the North-South divide, the panel agreed that the north-east would be the last UK region to come out of this Tory-driven double dip recession, and would suffer the greatest long-term impact as a result.

The panel then took a wide spectrum of questions from the floor, ranging from the impact of Scottish independence on the north-east to how to develop regional infrastructure, such as Newcastle Airport, to help the economy. One young member raised the issue that the north-east needs more access to capital to help support small, start-up businesses, along with a new culture within the education system to help develop and nurture the next generation of young entrepreneurs.

Discussion moved from the economic future of the north-east to the political, with questions such as how a Labour administration in 2015 can help local authorities in the north-east become stronger in dealing with local issues. It was felt that the Tory-led government has no real mandate to implement the cuts and disastrous economic policy on the region due to their lack of support and the dominance of Labour MPs in the region. This led to a question on whether the debate on regional assemblies should re-opened. Panellists were reluctant to endorse any new elected bodies because of a general feeling that there was no public appetite in creating a new home for more politicians, whose popularity is at an all-time low. A counter-argument was raised that people were not one hundred percent behind the idea of devolved government back in the late 1990s, but that now citizens are calling for further devolved powers to go to Holyrood and Cardiff. The groundwork may have been laid for regional devolution to become a reality, but the prevailing argument was that the North-east needed stronger local authorities rather than a further layer of bureaucracy and a separate legislature.

The event was wrapped up with final comments from the three panellists who all believed that in order for the north-east to succeed both politically and economically, the Labour Party had to regain a strong sense of its core values and identity. This process is already underway, with Labour seeking to address the widespread apathy towards politics felt by many in the region. Ed Miliband’s speech at the Durham Miner’s Gala was one clear attempt to re-engage the disillusioned core voters of the Labour party, and should encourage further efforts to revive interest in politics among the locals.

The key lesson learnt at the event was that for Labour to be truly effective in 2015, it must strike a balance between winning back the South and not forgetting about the north-east, and the  north more broadly. For a 2015 Labour manifesto, we must propose policies that will not only bring new voters into the fold but also those five million core voters we lost since 1997 as a result of disillusionment with New Labour.

Daniel Robert Tye is a Young Fabians member

Time for Under-30 Shortlists

There is one democratic deficit at the heart of Parliament that has gone unnoticed for far too long.

Yes, it is true that in both Houses women are still woefully underrepresented, as are black people, those belonging to ethnic minorities, and the LGBTQ community. However, most striking of all is the underrepresentation of young people in Parliament, despite the fact that the vast majority of legislation made in the two chambers directly affects young people’s present and future lives.

Following the 2010 election, just 14 MPs were elected to the Commons under the age of 30. This represents a mere 2% of the membership of the lower House, in a country where young people aged 16-34 make up 25% of the population.

In the upper chamber, the age bias is even more pronounced. Not a single Peer is under the age of 30, while an astonishing 373 of them are over the age of 70. This despite the fact that a Peer need only be older than 21 to qualify for a seat.

A number of arguments have been made to justify the effective barring of young people from Parliament. Unsurprisingly, many of them revolve around the suggestion that young people are incapable of performing the work of an MP or Peer, and lack the real-world experience necessary to navigate the hallowed halls of Westminster. Some would also no doubt claim that young people are politically incompetent, and pose an electoral liability to their parent party. David Cameron must have thought this after Chole Smith’s disastrous Newsnight interview (she was former ‘Baby of the House’, at 27, after her election in 2009).

However, similar arguments were made in decades past to justify excluding women from the franchise. Liberal PM Herbert Asquith claimed that there was no place for women in “the dust and turmoil” of the political world, and even as late as 1920- after they had been granted the vote- argued that they were “a dim, impenetrable lot, for the most part hopelessly ignorant of politics, credulous to the last degree, and flickering with gusts of sentiment like a candle in the wind.”

Compare this to some of the comments made in response to eighteen-year-old Kate Taylor’s challenge for a seat on Plymouth City Council this May. One stated that “she should be a tea-maker whilst learning the ropes. I’ll be amazed if anyone takes her seriously.” Such snipes are characteristic of the attitudes the wider electorate holds towards young politicians.  Seemingly anyone under the age of 30 who puts themselves up for election is denounced as a self-serving “career politician” by the media, held in contempt by the electors, and sneered at by everyone for their supposed pretentiousness.

Yet at the same time political scientists, MPs, and the more astute commentators in the media bemoan the lack of youth engagement in politics and agonise over the fact that our democracy is in danger of stagnating under the control of an ever-growing rump of “grey voters” over 60 years of age.

I believe that in order to inspire young people to vote, we need to offer them candidates who can truly represent them. An influx of young politicians at all levels of governance will provide a pantheon of role models who young people will want to connect with, and who will be capable of motivating them to get engaged in the political process.

Labour should lead the way by piloting under-30 shortlists in council wards where there is a high density of young people, and then expanding the scheme to encompass parliamentary selections in specially identified seats.

The party will have to take a leap of faith that other sections of the electorate will not be put off voting by the youthfulness of these candidates. Labour will need to make the case for their inclusion- perhaps starting by flagging up that current and past MPs well into their forties and fifties fiddled expenses, accepted bribes from lobbyists, and generally acted in an immature fashion when entrusted with the public good.

Women-only shortlists proved contentious in their time, and still do today. Under-30 shortlists will no doubt prove the same. However, it is up to Labour to bite the bullet and embrace them wholeheartedly if they truly want to become the party that bests represents the whole of Britain.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog