Anticipations - Spring 2007

Has Labour got the bottle?

INSIDEInterview with Ed Balls MPCoverage of the French electionExamining Labour’s policies on crime

Spring 2007Volume 10, Issue 4

We look at the progressive policies you think Labourshould have introduced, and ask why they haven’t

ANTICIPATIONS

photodiary

young fabians’ new members drinksthe old star pub, central london, thursday 15 march 2007

CONTENTS

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

Has Labour got the bottle?

6 | the case for charitable governmentUntil government can meet its public service ideals,charities should be encouraged to bridge the gap,argues Tamsin James

8 | tough on crime?Labour often claim credit for reducing crime, but could domore to prevent it, believes Emma Carr

10 | identity crisisBy developing a story of Britishness, Labour can reinvig-orate the Britishness debate, and reclaim British identityas an electoral asset, contends Sarah T’Rula

12 | the grass isn’t always greenerGreen taxes are for government, not opposition, writesAndrew Hanson

13 | on the war pathGordon Brown must make the declaration of war a thingof the past, believes Dan Whittle

17 | trimming the fatBritain’s higher education system needs further reform, argues Andrew Maloney

Other articles

22 | change to win?Both the Tories and Labour have forgotten that theConservatives are entirely capable of change, arguesEdward Robinson

24 | independence day?On the eve of elections to Holyrood, Scottish Labourstand in stark contrast to the SNP’s inconsistency, writesJoe Fagan

Regular items

4 | from the editora letter from Emma Carr

5 | from the chaira word from Conor McGinn

26 | calendar of eventsa diary of past and future events from the young fabians

centrespread interview: Ed Balls MPEmma Carr talks spending, poverty and football with Minister for the City andFinancial Services and Economic Secretary to the Treasury

president of the french? or president of france?The French Presidential election campaign has mirrored the ambiguity of the role, believes Alexander Barker

Page 20

tale awayLabour has lacked narrative in government, argues Mark Rusling

Page 18

anticipations | spring 2007

3

Anticipations, like all publications of the Fabian Society, and the Young Fabians, represents notthe collective view of the Society, but only the views of the individuals whose articles it comprises.The responsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of considerationwithin the Labour movement.

Published by The Fabian Society, 11 Dartmouth Street, London, SW1H 9BNTelephone: 0207 227 4900 | Facsimile: 0207 976 7153

Websites: www.fabian-society.org.uk and www.youngfabians.org.uk

Printed by Juma Printers, 44 Wellington Street, Sheffiel, S1 4HD

The editor would like to thank: Alex Baker and Angela Green.

W e lcome to your new and improvedAnticipations. Now, I’m of the set of peo-ple that likes to point out that a thingcannot be both new and improved, it

must surely be one or the other, but I think you’llagree that merely new or improved would not fullyencapsulate the wonder that is the new lookAnticipations. I am therefore allowing the phrase newand improved, just this once.

Anyway, I would like to thank Young Fabian mem-ber and design impresario Alex Baker for his help inredesigning. By help, I mean he did it and I saidencouraging things every now and again. Thank youAlex.

Ok, now that we’ve all been introduced to the mag-azine, its shiny new look and the genius behind it, onwith the show.

For this edition of Anticipations we asked you to tellus about the policies thata Labour Governmentshould introduce but has-n’t, can’t or won’t.

And you delivered, sothank you.

Some of the ideas sovehemently argued for inthe pub after a few pintsdidn’t quite make itdown on paper – 100%inheritance tax was one interesting idea, although mypersonal favourite was outlawing reality TV and C-list celebrities.

On balance, it’s probably a good thing that thesearguments have not made it to the pages of this mag-azine. Instead, we have articles on topics includinggreen taxes, education, crime policy and charities – allvery worthy but none designed specifically to keepJade Goody off the telly, unfortunately.

Despite this obvious and regrettable flaw, the arti-cles make interesting reading so please read on - espe-cially if you’re a policy maker, of course.

In addition to designing the policies of the future,Young Fabian members have contributed articles onScottish independence, the French Presidential elec-tion and the need for a Labour Party narrative.

Our main interview this month is with Ed Balls,Economic Secretary to the Treasury and MP forNormanton. The interview explores the key policyissues of health and social care funding, the gapbetween the rich and the poor, mixed gender footballin schools and offices the size of postage stamps.

We’ve also got some pictures from the New

Members’ Reception, which was one of our most suc-cessful receptions ever, not just because of the socialmagician either – although he was undoubtedly thebest socialist magician I’ve ever seen.

So, given the new design and all the hard-hittingterribly wonderful articles, I’m sure you’ll all agreethat this edition, despite being a little later thanhoped, has been worth the wait. However, that doesmean that there is a shorter turn around for the nextedition, so you need to write fast.

The theme of the next edition will be Labour Partyleadership. So, if you’ve got an opinion about thewho, how, when and where of Labour Party leader-ship, past, present or future, please let us know. Asever, email me your ideas as soon as possible. Thefinal deadline for contributions will be May 28th.

In addition, we’ll hopefully be interviewing all thedeputy leadership candidates. So, if you have any

questions for the candi-dates, please email them tome as soon as possible.

If you would like to con-tribute in any other way,please email me and let meknow. Help is always wel-comed.

So thanks again to every-one who contributed andkeep up the good work. If

you’d like to be more active with the society in otherways, please come along to one of our events andmeet other members and the exec.

Also, as if to prove that we in the Young Fabians areproperly ‘down with the kids’ we have set up a YoungFabian Facebook group.

If you’re a Facebook member, join the YF group andkeep up-to-date with all the events and campaigningthat’s going on. If you’re not a facebook member, youprobably think I’m talking gobbledegook right now.Go to www.facebook.com and sign up, put your profileup and then join the Young Fabian group.

So, once again, I hope to see you at the next YoungFabian event.

Oh, and don’t forget to book early for the boat partyand for the trip to Edinburgh festival this year asplaces are limited (for more information, see thefuture events section on page 26).

Emma Carr Editor, Anticipations

[email protected]

from the editor


4

Emma Carr

Given the new design and allthe hard-hitting terriblywonderful articles, I’m sureyou’ll agree that this edition,despite being a little later thanhoped, has been worth the wait.

A s we make our way steadily through one of themost important years in British politics since1997, the Young Fabians as expected are at theforefront of encouraging debate and discus-

sion about the future direction and policies of the Labourmovement.

Young Fabians know that it is vital for our generationof political activists to constantly strive for creative, inno-vative and sustainable policies that will continue theefforts that have been made in the last ten years toadvance progressive politics in this country. Every singlemember of the Young Fabians has their role to play inthat. Already this year we’ve employed various newmethods to ensure that our members can contribute tothis process, with telephone conferences, online discus-sion forums and of course our events with key membersof Government and party. Work is also well underwaywith a pamphlet that wehope to publish in theautumn and our reinvigo-rated Schools Project will actas a great tool for encourag-ing young people in schoolsto be politically aware andactive in developing andexploring their ideas.

There are also major elec-toral challenges that Labourfaces in the next couple ofweeks. It is absolutely essen-tial that the wreckers in theSNP and their allies in the opposition parties do notdestroy the massive benefits and progress that theLabour-led Scottish Executive has delivered forScotland, within the United Kingdom and working inpartnership with the national Labour government. Bythe same token the Tories and Plaid Cymru pose twinthreats to the achievements and progress that has beendelivered for Wales by the Labour administration inCardiff, again in cooperation with the Labour govern-ment. Young Fabians have been campaigning – as inprevious elections – in the key battlegrounds for Labourin both elections. As well as the test faced by Scottish andWelsh Labour, there are crucial local elections takingplace across England. Again, where there is a Labouradministration you will find stable, effective local gov-ernment. We must not let the Tories and Lib Dems gaina foothold anywhere in the country, something that theywould inevitably use as a springboard for any GeneralElection campaign in the next couple of years.

The Young Fabians continue to work closely with theFabian Society to examine some of the major issues fac-

ing our country. The themes of Britishness, constitution-al and party reform and democracy, the environment,Europe and international matters are all things that ourgeneration have a particular view on. It is important thatthese debates are not solely conducted and led by thosewhose views have been shaped by growing up in aworld that no longer exists, and who are, in many ways,completely removed from the formative experiences ofour generation. It is our generation that will have to dealwith the consequences of global terrorism, multicultural-ism, immigration, climate change, welfare reform andmany other issues.

We are also pleased to be working jointly with theFabian Society on a series of seminars to explore the keyissue of party reform. Young Fabians organised a verytimely debate on this and there is some really innovativethinking and new ideas emerging from Young Fabian

members to help shape thefuture direction of theLabour movement. We arealso continuing to buildpartnerships with ourfriends and colleagues inYoung Labour and LabourStudents. All three groupsare hoping to organise ajoint event later in the year,and are working closelytogether to ensure thatyoung members of theparty are catered for in

terms of activities and events.To finish on a personal note, it has been a fantastic few

months for the Northern Ireland peace process. Those ofus from there, and indeed many people born outsideIreland, understand the huge significance of what is tak-ing place in terms of the DUP and Sinn Féin workingtogether in a power-sharing devolved government.

It is due in no small part to the efforts of Tony Blair andthe Labour government that the Good Friday Agreementhas now been implemented in full, and when people talkabout the Prime Minister’s legacy they only have to visitareas like the one where I grew up – South Armagh - tosee the huge difference and improvement in people’slives.

So that’s my lot for on this occasion. I hope to see youat future events, and in the meantime don’t hesitate to letme know if I or any other member of the Executive canbe of use to you. Finally, please do come along to ourevents, contribute to the debates and let’s make sure thatwe have our collective voice heard and play our part inshaping the future.

from the chair

Young Fabians know that it isvital for our generation ofpolitical activists to constantlystrive for creative, innovativeand sustainable policies that willcontinue to advanceprogressive politics in thiscountry.


5

Conor McGinn

6


T he Charities Act of 2006was the first major legisla-tion on the Third Sector inthis country for four hun-

dred years. It seems almost indecentthen, to suggest that it needs lookingat again so soon. Yet lastNovember's act was not intended asa final definition, rather it has beenthe catalyst for a debate on the roleof charities in public life and quitehow we should define them.Whether it is enough simply to askthat a charity works for the benefitof the public.

Under David Cameron theConservatives have been presentinga new friendly face. There has been apush towards creating a new philan-thropy, imitating the US model,where it has always been the normfor the rich to make large donations,to set up foundations and to leavebequests to their alma maters.Labour needs to direct the debate inthe UK to the areas that fit with atruly progressive agenda, not allowthe debate to be reactively driven.

The 2006 Act defined a charity as abody that worked for the public ben-

efit and did not seek to make a prof-it. Yet the definition of 'public bene-fit' was left unqualified. This hasbeen left to the Charity Commissionto define, and a consultation is cur-rently underway. Clearly it is correctthat private benefit must be inciden-tal only and that the benefit needonly be for a section of the public

rather than the public at large. Moreimportant is the removal of the pre-sumption that educational or reli-gious organisations, or those work-ing to alleviate poverty, were auto-matically working to the public ben-efit, and therefore charitable.

There are a number of advantagesfor an institution that has gainedcharitable status. Not least amongstthese are the financial benefits, suchas a significant cut in business ratesand an exemption from VAT. But

serious financial incentives such asthese should be tied to a seriouspublic benefit. An institution or anorganisation has to prove itself wor-thy of receiving the financial helpavailable to charities. And surely thefurther they go to proving that theymeet the necessary requirements(such as access to all, whateverincome, and providing a beneficialservice) the greater the assistancethat they receive should be?

TheTimes' letters column in thelast year has seen much of the bitterbattle that the removal of the educa-tional presumption has caused. Ifeducational purposes are no longeran automatic passport to charitablestatus then private schools will haveto prove themselves to actually be inthe public benefit to retain charitablestatus and the financial advantagesthat this brings them. The fact thatthey charge increasingly high feesfor their services and so definitelydo limit the extent to which those ona low income can access them doesthem no favours if they wish toremain as charitable institutions.Indeed, any charity that charges for

Until government can meet its public service ideals, charities should be

The problems ofsocial exclusioncould be tackled byall charities.

the case

for

charitable

government

Tamsin James is a Young Fabian member

7


its services, whether it be to providemedical care or theatrical perform-ances, is going to have to prove thatit still deserves to be classed a chari-ty.

There is a strong temptation forprogressives to set increasingly hightargets for private schools to achieveto prove that they deserve charitablestatus. They should have more bur-saries available for poorer pupils,they should make their facilitiesavailable to state schools, theyshould interact to a greater extentwith the wider community. With aprogressive agenda one cannot helpbut acknowledge that incomeshould not act as a barrier to access-ing the benefits of a charity, whatev-er the services that it provides. Theguidelines that those seeking chari-table status will have to follow couldhelp us to open up institutions to amuch wider demographic. Theproblems of social exclusion couldbe tackled by all charities, whetherthey be in education or health, thearts or sports initiatives.

However, pragmatism shouldtemper our ideals. A recent letter to

The Times warned that asking toomuch of private schools would leadthem to forgo charitable status alto-gether and to simply raise their feesto make up any shortfall that theend of charitable rebates wouldmean for them. The so-called bas-

tions of privilege would close upeven more, which is surely not toanybody's advantage.

We know that in the US, charitablegiving acts to make up a massiveshortfall in the basic provision ofstate services. That is not a situationthat any Labour member could con-template occurring in the UK withequanimity. The party must be seento be supportive of charities. Just

because we believe that the state hasa role to play in people's lives, inworking towards a better and moreequal world where opportunities areopen to all, should not mean that weare automatically hostile to any ini-tiative from outside of governmentthat is also working towards a bettersociety.

We believe that the state should beable to provide a first class educa-tion and expert health care. That noone should go hungry or be withouta home. And our various policieswork towards that long term goal.But while that is still only a dream itshould not hinder anyone's chances.We can work to achieve as much aswe can for as many as possible, butthat should never lead to limitingpeople's horizons. We want equalityof opportunity but that should nevermean looking for less than the verybest.

And if, for the moment, it turnsout that charitable institutions inwhatever form they take are the bestway to break the barriers of socialexclusion, we should not be afraid toseize the opportunity.

encouraged to bridge the gap, argues Tamsin James

Just because webelieve the state hasa role to play shouldnot mean we arehostile to anyinitiative outsidegovernment.

8


N ew Labour is fond of tak-ing the credit for the fallin crime since 1997. TheBritish Crime Survey

reports that crimes experienced byhouseholds have indeed fallen byover a third.

It is debatable how much of thatfall is due to the Government. Whatis true is the rate of the fall hasslowed recently to a virtual stand-still. What should Government doin future to ensure crime continuesto fall?

Now is a pertinent time to debatethis. Gordon Brown is about tobecome Prime Minister yet he hasnever made a single speech aboutcrime in ten years. Tony Blair wascertainly tough on crime, but he haslargely failed to be tough on thecauses of crime. Like many Labourslogans, that one was written by MrBrown.

I will argue he has a prime oppor-

tunity to shift Labour thinking oncrime to prioritise preventing crimeover punishment.

Before setting out how, it is usefulto first show that punishment doesnot work. Study after study showstougher sentences do not deter

criminals. Common sense tells youthat simply increasing the length of

time you will spend behind barswithout actually increasing the like-lihood you will get caught will dolittle. Putting people in prison doesnot reduce crime much either. TonyBlair has presided over the greatestever rate of prison increase in Britishhistory.

However, theory and evidenceshow that once prison expansionstabilses (which tighter budgets willsoon demand) the rate of offendingsimply rises again. The statement“if they are in prison they can’toffend” is not true. Apart from thehuge rates of criminality in ourgaols, the vast majority of prisonerswill not spend a long enough timein prison to curtail their criminalcareer. Aside from locking peopleup until they are too old to commitcrime, ever more people on theinside will not solve our crime prob-lem.

So how should Gordon cut crime?

tough on crime?

Labour often claim credit for reducing crime, but could do more to prevent it,

The British CrimeSurvey reports thatcrimes experiencedby households haveindeed fallen byover a third. It isdebatable howmuch of that fall isdue to theGovernment.

Emma Carr iseditor of Anticipations

9


get a lot of press attention, but onlyaccount for around a quarter ofharm to individuals. Interventionsthat could divert people away fromcrime are therefore likely to be costeffective.

Evidence shows that many peoplewho exhibit risk factors (a problemor situation highly correlated withlater criminality) in their very earlyyears (0-2), such as weak parentalbonding and conduct disorder doend up becoming the very peoplewho revolve in and out of the justicesystem. However, it is also veryimportant to note that simply inter-vening in the early years will not beenough. At various points in peo-ple’s development up to a half ofthose displaying risk factors will be“new”. Interventions need to occurthroughout a child’s development.

Do the requisite interventionseven exist? I would argue they do.Evidence from other countries, par-ticularly the US, show that inten-sive, tailored schemes applied at theright time, do result in significantimpact later on in life. For example,the Nurse Family Partnership is anintensive two-year programme thatruns from pre-birth until the child istwo. At age twenty, an experimentalgroup had half as many convictionsas a control group. Critics point outthese are US based and cannot becompared to Britain. Aside from thefact our social pathologies are verysimilar, pilot schemes being run inEngland are already showing goodresults.

As important as having a good setof interventions for different needs(such as anger, social skills, parent-ing skills etc) is having a universalsystem of assessing risk. Attachingthis to current events where thestate assesses various features couldeasily be done. All parents have anurse home visit, children areassessed regularly during school:entering the system, key stage tests,moving to secondary school and soon. All would be ideal points to adda short social assessment.

Ideally this assessment of needand tailored interventions should bedevolved to local authorities. SureStart children’s centres would be anideal vehicle to deliver pro-grammes. Central Governmentwould provide advice and supportas well as rigorous evaluation ofschemes to ensure we know whatworks.

Delivering this, however, willrequire serious political commit-ment. Results from this approachwould take decades to be fullyrealised. Costs will initially out-weigh benefits. Reallocating fundsfrom our rapidly expanding prisonestate could be one way to kick-startinvestment. Yet, politicians are usu-ally of the belief the public favourtoughness and nothing shows thatbetter than longer and more sen-tences. We have a long way to go.

Second, Gordon Brown would bewise to put some effort into prevent-ing crimes by reducing opportunity.Again, there is an ideological ele-ment to this.

People need to be convinced as Iam that opportunity is itself a driv-ing force for crime. Crimes requireeffort. At the margin, if the rewardsare reduced or the effort increased,less crime will occur. These situa-tional crime preventions are aproven cost beneficial and pragmat-ic approach to crime reduction.

There are a number of ways theycan work: you can make it harder tocommit a crime (eg toughenedglass, locks and bolts); you canreduce the rewards of a crime (inktags on clothes, removable car stere-os); make the crime more risky(CCTV, street lighting); removeexcuses (remind people what is

criminal, litter bins); and removeprovocations (separate opposingfootball fans, taxi queue wardens).In direct contradiction to critics ofthis approach, they do not denycrime cannot or should not besolved by tackling its cause. It doesnot seek to blame the victim byshifting the onus to avoid the crime,and data show it does not signifi-cantly divert crime to another timeor place. Indeed, there was oftenfound to be a diffusion of benefits.One estate in Dudley given newstreet lighting saw crime fall, as wellas surrounding areas that did not.

There are a number of ways theuse of situational crime preventioncould be enhanced. Governmentcould set up a unit to work withbusinesses to design out crime intheir products (will the iPhone bethe next mugging crime wave?)Government could provide infor-mation and much needed trainingfor local authorities and the police toaudit crime in their areas and imple-ment the most appropriate solution.

Together, these two approaches ofassessing young people’s risk andproviding interventions, and situa-tional measures, can ensure there isa long-term sustained reduction incrime as well as many other benefitsto society these policies wouldbring.

What Labour needs to fully under-stand is that crime can be prevented.Two approaches are needed. First,there needs to be a significant shiftof mindsets and resources awayfrom a system that punishes andprotects to one that prevents andenables. Second, there needs to be amore directly managed effort toreduce the opportunity to commitcrime–so called situational crimeprevention. I shall address each inturn.

The adage that prevention is bet-ter than a cure holds true for crime.The costs of crime in England andWales are phenomenal – in excess of£36 billion per year (Home Officefigures, 2005). Violent and sexualcrimes are by far the most harmful,particularly in terms of the emotion-al and physical costs they incur, aswell as the cost of the criminal jus-tice system. Volume crime–theft,burglary and criminal damage–may

believes Emma Carr

There needs to be ashift of mindsetsaway from a systemthat punishes andprotects to one thatprevents andenables, and thereneeds to be a moredirectly managedeffort to reduce theopportunity tocommit crime

O ver a year ago, I satdown and wrote anAnticipations article onBritishness, following

the 2006 Fabian New Year’sConference of that name.

At the event, it was suggestedthat we might have a British Day,commemorating the 300 yearanniversary of the 1707 Act of

Union. Yet, as 1 May approaches,some of the most prominentLabour MPs in last year’s debateare now conspicuous only by theirabsence. Some might say this neednot be a problem, but this authordisagrees.

In my earlier article, I defendedJohn Denham’s notion of a “Britishstory” as a useful tool in a debate

which has found effete andfatigued terms like “multicultural-ism” moribund.

A “British story” was, I argued,conceptually potent since it wasboth neutral enough not to flip-pantly demarcate, thereby exclud-ing groups we would want toinclude in the process (e.g. Welsh,or Scottish, but also ethnic minori-

1 0


Imag

e: N

AS

A

By developing a story of Britishness, Labour can reinvigorate theBritishness debate, and reclaim British identity as an electoral asset,contends Sarah T’Rula

Sara T’Rula is Membership Officer and

Social Secretary of the Young Fabians

identitycrisis?

1 1


ties), and requiring an explicitopening up of the debate to includecitizens who may not normallyengage in political discourse, thuspreventing the debate from remain-ing the sole preserve of politiciansand others whose careers create forthem a vested interest in thedebate.

But now it seems that both theconcept of a “British story” and itscreator have disappeared from theBritishness debate.

Reflecting upon the course ofevents since the New Year’sConference, some of my earliercomments regarding the role ofpoliticians in crafting Britishnessare things that I, as a Labour Partymember, may well come to regret.

This article seeks to address twoissues: how the “British story” con-cept can lead to effective policymaking, while also providing astrong framework for debate by apublic increasingly unsure how toproceed within the boundaries ofpolitical (and historical?) correct-ness; and how the concept can pro-vide the Labour Party with an elec-

torally appropriate narrative whichcan successfully confront the newbrand of one-nation conservatismbeing espoused by Cameron’sConservatives, stemming it offbefore it has the opportunity todevelop into anything serious or ofsubstance.

Regarding the first issue, the“British story” could create a popu-lar relevance to the moves for con-stitutional reform, since the politi-cal system by which we are gov-erned is an integral component ofidentity, as research has clearlydemonstrated.

It would provide a link betweenwhat is often perceived to be aremote debate concerning onlypoliticians whose working lifewould be affected by reform, andthe public who will be most affect-ed (albeit indirectly) by any furtherreforms. In particular, the assumedproblem of asymmetry in the con-stitution could arguably be bestgrasped through the prism of aBritish story.

Furthermore, the concept, ifdeveloped, could inform policy inlocal government, health and edu-cation, as well as other areas. NickPearce (ippr) is not the only one tonote that, for example, the historyof local government policy hasbeen littered with boundarychanges which were unsuccessful

since they didn’t make sense to thepeople living under them; localityis a key component of English iden-tity (which itself feeds into Britishidentity) and ignoring this led tothe proposal of ultimately unsuc-cessful policies.

The Labour Government’sreforms in health and educationcould equally falter over this point.Additionally, the debate surround-ing how these services should beorganised (e.g. which type ofschools are provided for by govern-ment) is predicated upon what con-ception of Britain we want torealise in the future.

To engage in the debate withoutconsidering what we wantBritishness to become would be toneglect this fundamental observa-tion.

The promotion of British identityand, arguably, also English identity,may also be a prerequisite of tack-ling racism; studies have shownthat white youths feel that they areprevented from celebrating theirculture in the same way as is per-mitted for other groups in Britain

and, further, that this is a socialbasis of racist action.

It is important that politicians atall levels, and voluntary organisa-tions, involve themselves in thisarea; the ippr’s focus groupresearch has shown that many peo-ple want to celebrate their identitybut that they do not know how,with the result that many partici-pants felt Christian holidays oughtto be given more importance,despite the fact that they them-selves were not religious and didnot attend church even on theseoccasions.

Furthermore, the language usedin cohesion discourse, and in areassuch as immigration and asylum, isas important as the policies whicharise from it.

Various studies have shown thatEuroscepticism is deeply influ-enced by the terms of the debate,with individuals being likely to feelmore anti-Europe when Europeand Britain were counter-posedthan when they were described asbeing compatible.

The two identities were per-ceived as competing, not as poten-tially complimentary.

That the latter can obtain is illus-trated by research which clearlyfinds that ties to Europe are struc-turally similar to ties to the nationand, with Britain as an anomaly,

the more strongly one identifieswith one’s nation, the more strong-ly one identifies with Europe.

Likewise at home, the perceived(and in some cases real) neglect ofthe white working class by theLabour Party has created a spacefor extreme parties such as the BNPto claim identity for themselves.

We can either cede the nationalground to such organisations,attempt to meet them on their ownterms, thus forsaking Labour Partyideals, or provide an alternativethrough conceptual devices like a“British story.”

I am confident that we can dis-miss the first two as viable options;this entails actively immerging our-selves in the creation of identity.

The One-nation Tories of the1960s were themselves, arguably,derivative of Baldwin’s NewConservatism (and the earlierthoughts of Disraeli) which suc-cessfully employed the rhetoric of acultural England to gain supportfrom voters who were demograph-ically expected to be part ofLabour’s main cleavage.

Cameron’s initiatives, both inpolicy and in the rhetoric whichhas formed so large a part of hiselectoral strategy, have clearlyfailed to live up to the standards setby his predecessors, but acknowl-edging this is not incompatiblewith recognising that the one-nation strategy inhabits the samepolicy and discourse space as therecent Labour-initiated Britishnessdebate.

That he is pursuing this agendais clear from his concept of “com-passionate conservatism” and thecomponents of this concept: high-lighting the importance of the fam-ily unit, school choice, and theavoidance of harm, with an empha-sis on the role of the individual increating a society that the state, it isargued, cannot simply provide forthem.

Hence the slogan that theConservatives under Cameron arenot about rolling back the state, butrather about rolling forward socie-ty. Were this strategy to becomeeffective, making inroads into theworking class cleavage that is thefoundation stone of Labour suc-cess, and particularly prominent inthe north, the consequences for ourparty, and for the electorate, couldbe a decade or more ofConservative government.

The rise of this ‘new’Conservatism is not inevitable –Labour has initiated the debate inthis area and, if we can continue topush forward progressive andinnovative ideas, we will remaindominant.

But how that can happen withoutthe input of Labour MPs who, onceoutspoken on this very issue, havenow apparently moved on to otherconcerns, is difficult to tell.

The “British story” could create a popularrelevance to the moves for constitutionalreform, since the political system bywhich we are governed is an integralcomponent of identity, as research hasclearly demonstrated.

1 2


Green taxes are for government, not opposition, writes Andrew Hanson

When confronted with theability to make altruisticchoices with no regardfor immediate electoral

consequences, many Labour partymembers might feel a tweak of con-science as they think of greener taxa-tion and regulation; carbon emis-sions have risen 4.5% under Labour,while the green tax take has fallen.Yet properly presented and man-aged, green taxes can be good foryour economy and your party, aswell as saving the planet.

Take congestion charging. InStockholm, residents were given atrial period to experience such ascheme, including improved publictransport services, before having thefinal say on whether they wanted itin a referendum. They began torealise the benefits of more buses,lower congestion and pollution andgreater tourist appeal. This enabledattitudes to change, leading toapproval of the scheme last autumn.In Edinburgh, a less imaginativeapproach with weaker communica-tion led to scepticism and negativityundermining any initial enthusiasm.Trust, good communication andshowing people the tangible benefitsof green taxes are vital.

Building standards are anotherarea of debate. As Minister forCommunities and LocalGovernment, Ruth Kelly has recent-ly called for all new homes to be zerocarbon developments within tenyears. This is to be applauded, butthe government should not besheepish about taking action now. Inthe case of new homes built to

Ecohomes “Very Good” standard,significant savings in energy andwater use quickly pay for the extraconstruction cost of around 2%. Thegovernment should be making thisstandard mandatory now. Residentssee lower bills and affordablewarmth; what they don’t see is anaverage 32% reduction in CO2 emis-sions.

This leads me on to the secondkey point – where some of the bene-fits are not immediately obvious, likethe reduced contribution to climatechange, they need to be highlightedby the government.

There are more votes than ever infighting climate change, particularlyif people are made to feel good abouttheir own emissions reductions. A“star rating” system for new homesshould mention climate change aswell as running costs.

Thirdly, governments must treattaxpayers with more respect. If oneof the purposes of a tax is to reduceCO2 emissions, then the moneyraised should be hypothecated to dojust that, partly by providing taxpay-ers with low carbon alternatives.Gordon Brown has said that therecent increases in Air PassengerDuty will be used to improve publictransport. This hypothecation mustbe made public and transparent. Ifnational road pricing goes ahead, thesame principle should apply. Votersare far more likely to support newtaxes if they feel they are not simplyan extra levy by a greedy Treasury.

Green taxes will gain more credi-bility if they meet their goal; chang-ing people’s behaviour. An extra £5

on a return flight won’t have any realimpact, according to the CAA; a £30increase could reduce traffic onshort-haul leisure flights by as muchas two-thirds. It should be remem-bered wealthier people fly moreoften: the CAA states that 55% ofcheap flight passengers have house-hold incomes of more than £35,500.Slight increases are not going to beeffective.

A recent study from OxfordUniversity’s Centre for theEnvironment has suggested thatmodest price increases in the cost ofaviation and motoring will have lesseffect than personal carbon quotasand targeted campaigns. As DavidMilliband put it recently whilst talk-ing to the Guardian, personal carbonquotas have a “simplicity and beau-ty that would reward carbon thrift”.Significant direct tax increases andquotas combined should have theweight of impact needed.

Lastly, there is the issue of moralleadership. The premise that youcan’t implement green taxes forgetsthat in the medium term the publicrewards politicians who have thecourage to lead. Climate change willbe a catastrophe for the developingworld, the poorest suffering the mosteven though they have not causedthe problem. From a more venalpoint of view, the Stern Review tellsus that doing nothing will cost us atleast five times as much as actuallytackling climate change.

Greener taxation is a progressivenecessity, which if correctlyapproached will keep a politicalparty in power, not sink it.

Andrew Hanson is a Young Fabian member

thegrass

isn’talways

greener

1 3


I n the build up to the 2007 NewYear conference, Fabian GeneralSecretary Sunder Katwaladeclared that Gordon Brown

will need new ideas if he is to winover the public - and in areas like for-eign policy the need for change isnever more obvious.

Yet as the Chancellor spoke to theconference, lamenting the failure towin hearts and minds in the war onterrorism, President Bush was esca-lating that failure by ordering morethan 21,000 extra troops to Iraq.

As Gordon Brown gets set toenter Number 10 as Prime Minister,with President Bush’s "last-chance"presenting no workable plan, theexpense and tragedy of the war maynot even have peaked.

As leader, one of the primarychallenges Gordon Brown will haveto face is the perception of him as aman who stood shoulder to shoulderwith Tony Blair in his support for theIraq war and he will have to takeaction to restore faith among disillu-sioned Labour voters, who worryabout the prospect of future militaryaction.

There is no plan that can undo thedamage already done. But one of thebiggest military mistakes of the lastcentury demands a response.

The failure to adopt Clare Short’sArmed Forces (ParliamentaryApproval for Participation in ArmedConflict) Bill was a mistake – andGordon should reintroduce it. Andthat lessons learnt by the military inIraq should be followed by changesin the way we deploy our ‘hard’power.

Whilst Clare Short’s PrivateMembers’ Bill could be interpretedby some as her attempt to makeamends for her failure to resign overthe war. Since presenting it toParliament in 2005 she has hardlyspoken apart from to resign from theLabour party.

After resigning from theGovernment Clare was free to enterthe Bill ballot. The Bill would havetaken the power to declare war orcommit troops to military actionaway for the Prime Minister andgiven it to Parliament. It was drawnup and proposed by the PublicAdministration Select Committee.

But it hit the parliamentarybuffers in October of 2005. It wastalked out, and No. 10 said it wouldhave been impractical to implement.The argument was made that therehad been a vote on Iraq – but the cru-cial difference was that the PM couldhave overruled a “No” vote.

The argument was also made thatsuch a Bill would undermine themorale of troops. However, as a part-time member of Her Majesty's forcesmyself, I would welcome a debateand vote in Parliament to help under-stand the legality and legitimacy ofmy actions.

I was disappointed that theChancellor was unable to back the

Bill at the time. If he is to resurrect it,it should not be watered down. Infact, he should look at a higher hur-dle, perhaps that approval for warshould only be accepted with amajority of both governing party andofficial opposition voting ‘Aye’.

For people like me, who wishthey had done more to oppose thewar, or who agreed with the stated

intentions of the war (democracy anddevelopment) but opposed the strat-egy; supporting a Bill to change thePrime Minister's Royal prerogativewill be a way to make known ourintent that this should never happenagain.

For Gordon Brown, introducing itwill be his chance to show he feels thesame way.

Gordon Brown must make the declaration ofwar a thing of the past, believes Dan Whittle

Dan Whittle is MembershipOfficer and SocialSecretary of the YoungFabians

on the war path

1 4


Having just been led through thewarren of corridors and stairwaysthat is the Palace of Westminster, Iwalk into Ed Balls’ office. He imme-diately excuses the office’s size;roughly the size of a postage stamp -think janitor’s cupboard with wallpaper. It’s ok though; some geniushas managed to fit in a desk andchair, an arm chair, a sofa and a coffeetable – it’s a logistical miracle.

Laughing about his tiny office –although I’m sure he must have oneof those huge ministerial offices inthe Treasury somewhere with big,plush, red sofas, a giant desk andwalls covered in Government art –Ed Balls introduces himself.

Once all the hand shaking is overand we’ve sat down and I’ve refusedcups of tea and glasses of water, webegin. First topic: spending; after all,this is his area. I ask about futurespending commitments on health.Centenarians are the biggest growingage group in the UK and the Pre-Budget Report identified the chang-ing demographic as one of the fivekey policy challenges of the comingdecade. However, it then seemedwent on to basically ignore the futurehealth and social care budgets, andthere’s be little clarification since. So,I ask, is this a sign that a BrownGovernment will have a significantlyreduced emphasis on healthcare?The answer; an emphatic and repeat-ed ‘definitely not’, followed by atrumpet ringing for the NHS and theparty that introduced it. The Labour

Government raised the NationalInsurance rate by a penny in 2002 topay for the NHS up to 2008, he says,“and our commitment to a publicNHS is absolute”.

“The establishment of the NHS bythe 1945 Government was one ofLabour’s great achievements inGovernment and the challenge forour generation is to make sure thatit’s renewed in the twenty-first centu-ry so that in 50 years’ time fromtoday, at the hundredth year anniver-sary of the NHS, people can still saythat the we in Britain are leading theworld by showing that you can havea health service which is free foreverybody and which treats peopleon the basis of their needs not theirability to pay.”

But what about after 2008, whenthe recent high level funding growthfor the NHS is due to stop? How willthe NHS cope then? And what kindof post-2008 growth can healthcareexpect?

“We’ll have to wait for the spend-ing review details,” he replies to mylast point in enigmatic fashion. Ed

then goes on to explain how theWanless Review, which reported in2000, highlights a massive capacityproblem in the NHS in terms of doc-tors and nurses. Wanless also recom-mended increasing NHS funding.

“Over the last 30 years the moneygoing to the NHS had been low andwe needed a period of catch up.” Edexplains, Wanless proposed that “forthe first five years you had a reallystrong burst of spending. He thenproposed that after 2008 you sloweddown the rate of growth of spend-ing.”

“We went to the very limit of whatwe could do for the first five years.The historic spending on the NHShad been about 3% a year, in realterms we’re doing about 7.5% a year,10% in cash terms. The NationalHealth Service has had unprecedent-ed amounts of money in these fiveyears. It’s for the spending review towork out how much we can affordafter 2008, but we know in order tokeep going forwards in terms of NHSimprovements the money’s got tokeep flowing; there’s no point in ushaving a five year burst of spendingand then going back to the bad olddays of cuts and under-funding.”

Moving on from healthcare to therelated issue of social care, I askabout the reported under-funding ofsocial care. Is this something that wecan expect to be addressed in theComprehensive Spending Review(CSR)?

“One of the interesting things in

cityconfidential

INTERVIEW: Emma Carr talks spending, poverty and football withMinister for the City and Financial Services and Economic Secretary tothe Treasury, Ed Balls

Ed Balls was elected MPfor Normanton in West

Yorkshire in 2005. He wasmade Economic Secretary

to the Treasury.

The reality is thatthere is a lot ofconsistencybetween what theTories talk today and3 or 4 years ago..

1 5


the Wanless work on the NHS wasthat it pointed out the amount ofmoney which gets spent on your lifethrough NHS care tends to be con-centrated in the first six months ofyour life and in the last six months ofyour life. But if you have an agingpopulation that postpones the pointat which that extra NHS spendinghappens, so an aging populationdoesn’t necessarily mean a lot morespending for the NHS. What it doesmean is that people are living longerin retirement and therefore potential-ly have greater needs in terms ofsocial care. And so there’s no doubtthat the social care burden on the taxpayer is going to grow in the comingyears and we need to think reallyhard about how to address that.”

He goes on to explain that therehas been an increased focus on thisarea within government and exter-nally – The King’s Fund, the JosephRowntree Foundation and the ippr,to name but a few, have all producedreports on social care funding.

“I’ve been working very closelywith Ivan Lewis [the Department ofHealth’ Minister for social care]because we need to make sure wespend money in a way which isaffordable but also in a way which isfair. One of the consequences of theeconomy doing better in the lastyears is that people are tending toretire on higher incomes, more peo-ple are owning their homes, we needto make sure that we fund social carein a way which takes account of thatand adds up.”

Moving on to environmental poli-cies, I ask what he thinks is the rightbalance between cutting carbon andensuring that poorer people don’tbear the brunt of the environmentaltaxes?

“I think that the first thing to say,and I said this in my next decade lec-ture for the Fabians, is that you can’ttry to tackle climate change simplyby national governments actingalone. That the amount of emissionsthat the UK as a country produces isvery small compared the overallaround the world. And you need aninternational effort which involvesAmerica, China, India, the bigEuropean countries. Therefore inter-national cooperation has got to be atthe centre of what you do. It wouldbe very easy for us to come alongwith a whole series of individualmeasures which would look like wewere acting and as you said couldquite easily have a big impact uponnot just the British population but[more specifically] on people onlower incomes in our population.There’s no point doing that national-ly unless you’ve got an internationalagenda which is worked out. That’sactually critical to all this.”

Ed’s reference to his Fabian NextDecade lecture brings me nicely toDavid Cameron’s policies, some-thing he talked about in his speech(the full speech can be downloaded

from the Fabian Society website atwww.fabian-society.org.uk).

“I’ve looked hard at what theTories are talking about today, whatthey were talking about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5years ago. The reality is that there is alot of consistency between what theConservatives talk today and 3 or 4years ago. If anything, it seems to methat they are becoming more rightwing rather than less right wing.David Cameron as a party leader ismore anti-European and I think he’sactually in his instinctive heart moreanti-State, more anti-Government,more anti-collective. He wants to talkabout personal responsibility, per-sonal freedom and charity. He does-n’t really see the importance of thecommunity acting together, the col-lective. The environment is just onevery good example where no indi-

vidual alone, no matter how muchthey try to conserve energy or try tochange their lifestyle, can sort thisout; it’s got to be done not just acrossindividual countries, but [through]cooperation. I see collaboration inEurope as an essential first steptowards tackling climate change. Ithink the Conservatives have got ahuge intellectual problem in that theyare anti-European just at the timewhen climate change shows that pro-Europeanism is the only way for-ward.”

Moving on, I ask about the concen-tration of the UK’s economy growthin the south east of England. Edexplains that his constituency was 20years ago a coal mining community,15 years ago had above averageunemployment and now has belowaverage unemployment. All areas ofthe UK, he says, have benefited fromthe economic strength and stabilitythat have been achieved by theLabour Government.

“It’s true that the South East and

London have always been an impor-tant engine for our economy and I’mthe minister now for the City andfinancial services. We’ve got animportant financial services industryin Newcastle, in Birmingham, inEdinburgh in particular, but also inLondon. And London and the citydoing well - creating jobs, payingtaxes - helps the whole of the econo-my. So I don’t want to see Londonand the South East held back. What Ido want is to keep things stable andgrowing so that the whole countrycan continue to share in the rise inprosperity.”

One problem that the City plays ina big part in sustaining is the gapbetween the rich and the poor, whichhas either remained the same or,according to some figure, grown inthe past ten years. I ask if, as theMinister for the City, he’s comfort-able with these figures?

“I’m comfortable first of all withthe fact that we’ve been the mostredistributive Government

since the 1945 Government. Andthat for the previous 18 to 20 years,really since the late 1970s, inequalityin Britain and the gap between theaverage income and the poorest hadbeen growing year by year and weput a stop to that.”

The reasons for the halt in growthof the poverty gap, he says, areLabour introduced policies such asworking family tax credits, theMinimum Wage and the policieswhich have helped to reduce unem-ployment, especially among singleparents (a topic we pick up againlater in the discussion).

“But you’re right that in Britainand all around the world there’s beena trend to see the richest earning a lotmore than everybody else and I seethat in the City of London all thetime. This is an industry which isglobal; people come and work in ourfinancial services industries from notjust America and France andGermany but Spain and Italy andSouth Africa and Australia, fromChina, India, all around the worldand they come because this is the bestplace to work. They also comebecause the rewards are high. I thinkif we started saying that we weregoing to try and put some kind of capon what they could earn they’d justbe off taking the jobs and the taxesthey pay [to other countries]. So I’mafraid it’s a reality of global life in thiskind of industry. That doesn’t mean Ilike it. It doesn’t make me very com-fortable but I think we would dam-age our ability to tackle poverty if wewere to drive those kind of peopleand that kind of business to otherparts of the world.”

Returning to the question of wel-fare, I ask about the arguments thattargeted benefits undermine incen-tives and that universal benefits arethe way forward.

“If you look at our welfare reformsin the early part of the Government

1 6


we introduced a winter allowance forall pensioners and then raised theincome for all pensioners above infla-tion. In the first budget we raisedchild benefit for the first child quitesubstantially. So there’s always beena focus on raising universal benefitsfor pensioners and for families. But atthe same time, we are LabourGovernment, we want to pursue pro-gressive goals and therefore we’vealways said that we should try to domore for those families that need itmost, those pensioners that need itmost. The phrase we used was pro-gressive universalism, which meansthat you support everybody but yougive extra support to people whoneed it. So you can’t look at the pen-sion credit in isolation, you’ve got tolook at the pension credit alongsidethe basic pension. You can’t look atthe child tax credit in isolation,you’ve got to look at the child taxcredit alongside child benefit.

If you put all of your focus ontouniversal benefits, and you say we’regoing to give everyone the sameregardless of their need then youeither end up with a massive rise intaxation so that you can help thepoorest and raise everybody up bythe same amount, or you’re going toend up spending a lot of money onpeople who don’t need so much[while] leaving people who areworse off on the lowest incomes. Ifon the other hand, you go only fortargeted benefits and you withdrawall from people when they reach acertain income level, then you getinto problems with incentives. That’swhy I think any sensible policy is tocombine both, You need a universalelement, which is important in termsof incentives but is also important interms of politics; I like the fact that all

families get child benefit, all pension-ers get the basic pension, it makeseverybody part of the welfare state.But I also think we’re a Labour gov-ernment, we want to abolish povertyfor families and pensioners, weshould give more to people on thelowest income. I was really proud ofthe fact that the working families taxcredit has boosted take home pay of afamily on below average earnings byaround £3500 a year if they’ve gottwo kids. We could never afford to dothat for everybody, we’ve done thatfor families on lower incomes andmade a massive difference to theirlives.”

Moving on to some Labour Partyissues, I ask if the Government is per-forming well, with a good story totell, does it really matter if the LabourParty membership in the country isfalling so rapidly?

“I think it does matter and thatwe’re not going to win the next elec-tion without a strong membershipand activist base. The period whenour membership was at its highestwas when people saw that we had areal election to fight in 1997 and thatby being a member of the party, bycampaigning and working for it andhelping to finance it you can make adifference to getting rid of the Tories.The last two elections I don’t thinkthere’s been the same sense thatthere’s a fight on. There’s going to bea fight at the next election; I think wecan win it, but we’re going to need allour activists out there. So we need topersuade more people to come andjoin the Party because that’s the onlyway to make sure that you keep hav-ing the Labour approach to publicservices, to education, to the NHS, totackling poverty and to the econo-my.”

And how will the constituencyboundary changes affect Labour,given the fight that’s expected any-way at the next General Election?This is something which is affectingEd personally as his constituencywill not exist in its current form at thenext General Election.

“The boundary commission wasset up about 50 years ago and eversince then there’s been a fine tradi-tion of people in all parties who sud-denly find they have difficulties withtheir constituencies. John Smith, oursadly missed Labour leader, himselfhad problems with his constituencyboundaries because of the bound-aries commission. So there’s a longhistoric pedigree of people havingboundary problems. I’m not the first,I won’t be the last; it’s politics andyou deal with. And that’s what I’mtrying to do. In terms of the widerparty, it’s going to reduce our majori-ty at the next election on the basis ofif we had the same vote as the lasttime round people are estimatingthat it would reduce our number ofseat by 15 to 20. it means it’s going tobe tougher. I’m very supportive ofthe independent boundary commis-

sion but I think we need to keep aclose eye on the way in which theyare operating, and we are doing so.We need to make sure that it doesn’tbecome a pattern. But it will meanwe’ll have to fight hard at the nextelection.”

The Polls agree with Ed that thenext General Election will be a fight.Polls are consistently showing thatLabour are trailing behindCameron’s Conservatives. I ask Edwhat he think of this.

“I think at the moment these pollsare not telling us too much. I’m oldenough to remember what it was likein the early mid-1980s when we usedto be buoyed up by polls that said theThatcher Government was unpopu-lar and Labour was on the verge of agreat step forward. And that waswhat the polls were telling us in ’85,’86, ’87. Sadly it didn’t turn out to betrue at all.”

He goes onto say that the nextGeneral Election will be won on thebasis of who understands the waythe world in changing and has thepolicies to respond to those changes.

“I think David Cameron at themoment is trying make people listento him because for years theConservatives haven’t been listenedto by the British people. He may beopening people’s ears at the momentbut the question is then whether peo-ple like what he says. I think that theConservatives are still trying to cometo terms with the changing world.They’ve nothing to say about howthey would address issues of child-care, public services, climate change,security, terrorism, keeping the econ-omy strong. I don’t think they’ve gotanything to say at all at the moment.”

Finally, I tell Ed Balls about thetheme for this issue – the policies thatLabour should introduce but hasn’t.His reply sums up quite well the sen-timent of his answers to the previousquestions.

Throughout the interview Ed Ballshas focussed on three main issues:fairness, families and moving for-ward in response to a changingworld.

“I don’t what the Governmentposition is on this at the moment, butmy daughter is 7, she plays footballat school in a mixed team. And as Iunderstand it, once you get to about11 or 12, suddenly there are quiterestrictive rules about mixed footballgames. It seems to be completelyridiculous, the idea that you discrim-inate against women who are good atfootball simply to protect this malebastion of prejudice seems. To methat’s completely absurd.

“So I’m quite keen that my daugh-ter keeps playing football until she’sgrown up and if she wants to playgirls’ football she can and if shewants to play mixed football sheshould be allowed to. I have a feelingthat’s totally contrary to Governmentand FA policy but it seems to be to becompletely right.”

1 7


S low, sluggish and expen-sive. No this is not areview of an early peoplecarrier but rather a

description of our higher educa-tion system.

There are currently over twomillion students working towardsqualifications that will, for themajority, not be relevant to theirfuture employment. These stu-dents will leave their studies withloans averaging around £27,000and many will be unable to securethe job they think they’re studyingfor.

At the other end of the spectrum,some degree programmes are soaunpopular that the country isstarved of key professionals suchas engineers and teachers. Forsome businesses the only way theycan operate is to actively seek aworkforce from overseas.

On top of this it is becomingincreasingly common for studentsto endure years of extra study andtraining to become ready for workin the wider industry. Allow me togive an example. Prospectivechemical engineers must firststudy towards a Bachelors ofEngineering degree followed by aMasters of Engineering degree.They must then study to becomeindustrially recognised to practicein the field. Only then can the stu-dent begin working towards aChartered Engineer qualification.This system is long, tiresome andlargely unnecessary.

If the qualification was mademore specific to, in this example, aparticular type of engineeringprocess, the length of study couldbe reduced dramatically. Although

this would produce a less transfer-able qualification, it would simplybe a case of returning to study formaybe a year or two in order tochange career. This may seem to beasking a lot of the family man orwoman who simply cannot affordto be without income for even ashort while, but there are alwaysways around these problems: per-haps a family maintenance loan ofsome sort. But this is a differentissue. These proposals would inturn create a culture of continuousstudy and continuous develop-ment. This is a much more desir-able mindset than the current atti-tude of attending university at ayoung age and never even touch-ing a textbook in later life.

What our current system needsis a reform of the traditions ofstudy. With close discussion withthe major players of the Britishindustries we can create sets of‘industry specific’ qualifications.These degree courses of a shorterlength - perhaps only two yearsonce redundant modules havebeen removed and the timetable ofstudy compressed - will create aset of qualifications that can beused directly in the work environ-ment.

These qualifications would pro-vide the essential knowledgerequired to work in a particularindustry. Education can then befurthered gradually through eitherworkplace training or externaleducation. Extra qualificationswould take the form of ‘top-up’degree programmes that can bestudied as and when industrialrequirements change.

Essentially, this system would

give students the basic industrialeducational requirements neededfor a given workplace: a founda-tion upon which supplementary‘career furthering’ education canbe built. This will allow our stu-dents to enter the workplace earli-er than they otherwise would. Thiscould in theory reduce the averagestudent loan debt from £27,000 tojust £18,000. The average studentwould leave their studies withsubstantially less debt and agreater chance of gaining employ-ment in an appropriate field.Furthermore, universities wouldsee an increase in applications tothese generally low-cost courses.Arguably the greatest beneficiarywould be the British industry.They would gain access to a work-force with skills specific to theirneeds and with the ability to adaptto changing requirements.

As always, education is a politi-cal hot potato. Although we mustbear in mind the cost of reform, wemust also focus on the long-termcost endured from the lack ofreform. A simplified system wouldgive extra motivation to studentswho may be daunted by the cur-rent higher education system. Withso much of our economy restingupon professional services ratherthan manufacturing, horizontalincrease in Britain’s academicprowess should be targeted to givea greater boost to the economy.Like many great institutions, ourcountry has developed due to afocus upon academia and ingenu-ity. Let us reform and live up to thesocialist principles we stand for:chances for the many, not just forthe few.

Britain’s higher education system needs further reform, argues Andrew Maloney

Andrew Maloney is a member of the Young Fabians

trimmingthe fat

F or a government dubbed the‘sultans of spin’, NewLabour has been remarkablycoy about developing its

own overarching narrative to explainthe last 10 years.

To take the Dire Straits pun furtherthan it should possibly go, the Blairyears have been more ‘Money fornothing’ than ‘Brothers in arms’.Policies such as tax credits, whichhave benefited those most in need,have not been linked into an overalltheme which can explain whyLabour does what it does. Theyshould have been linked through thenarrative of equality of autonomy.

All governments bequeath a narra-tive to the political history books. Thenarrative is either one of their ownmaking, or one (almost inevitablymore cruel than those that govern-ments fashion themselves) that oth-ers have made for them. A glancethrough the chapter headings ofPeter Hennessy’s study of the post-War Prime Ministers attests to that.John Major is ‘The Solo-Coalitionist’,whereas Margaret Thatcher is ‘ATigress Surrounded by Hamsters’.

Thatcher was successful in fixing anarrative in the public mind (andthat of Peter Hennessy) of a self-helpgovernment with the Iron Lady at itshead. John Major was markedly lesssuccessful as his Cabinet could noteven decide on what that narrativeshould be. Despite an oppositioneven weaker than that faced byThatcher, and with an equally strongconviction politician at its head,Labour has been unable to fix a nar-rative in the public mind. Whetherthrough a lack of desire to developone, or through an inability to chooseone, New Labour has made the mis-

take of allowing others to decide thegovernment’s narrative for it. Do notbe surprised when that narrative isnot pretty.

The government should have cho-sen the theme of equality of autono-my to link its policies and explainthem to the public. The desire forequality of autonomy is the desire forevery person to have the same degreeof control over the important deci-sions affecting their lives. This relatesto all aspects of public policy andreflects the belief that people’s lifechoices and life chances should notbe determined by factors beyondtheir control.

This is not the same as a narrow‘choice’ agenda – it is much morefundamental than that. The choiceagenda argues that every personshould be able to choose which hos-pital they can attend for non-urgentsurgery. Equality of autonomy aimsto eradicate the inequalities, inlifestyle and in provision of health-care, which limit a person’s full con-trol over the direction of their life.Autonomy is concerned with all theinequalities which impede a person’scapacity to be truly in control of theirlife. Choice merely refers to the act ofexercising that control, ignoring theways in which a person’s capacity toexercise control might be negated.

Equality of autonomy is not indi-vidualistic. It recognises that thosewith strong social bonds are best ableto maintain true control over theirlives – autonomy does not mean iso-lation. Those social ties may be pro-vided by family, friends and volun-tary organisations – the importanceof which has often been overlookedby the left. However, theConservatives have traditionally

been – and continue to be – blind tothe role that the state can play in fos-tering these bonds.

David Cameron has sought to dis-tance himself from MargaretThatcher by declaring that, “there issuch a thing as society. It’s just not thesame thing as the state”. He is notwrong in saying this, but by failing tomention the role that the state playsas part of society, he omits the state’svaluable role in securing people’scontrol over their lives. TheConservatives believe that autonomyis provided through freedom fromthe state. In this, they are wrong – thestate can be the vehicle throughwhich people can achieve autonomy.Tony Blair has often talked about the‘enabling state’ in the context ofincreasing people’s capacity to takeindividualised decisions – the choiceagenda. Labour should instead haveembraced the concept of the‘enabling state’ as a means of remov-ing those inequalities which impacton people’s ability to truly exercisecontrol over their lives – equality ofautonomy.

This narrative could have beenvery powerful, if expressed in lan-guage that sounds less like it hasjumped straight out of a sociologytextbook. Tony Blair has been correctin identifying that people are nowmore likely to want a personalisedpublic service than they were twentyyears ago. However, his governmenthas been wrong in translating thatinsight exclusively into the choiceagenda, focusing on the need to givemiddle class people sufficientoptions in public services so that theydon’t all leave to go private. Ofcourse, generous public services arenot viable if they lose the support of

1 8


Labour has lacked narrative in government, argues Mark RuslingMark Rusling is

Vice-Chair of the Young Fabians

taleaway

1 9


the people who pay most taxes toprovide them. However, the desirefor better, more personalised, publicservices is not confined to the middleclass and represents a general desireamong all people for control over thedecisions that affect our lives.

The choice agenda is fine for peo-ple who already have that control;giving people true autonomyrequires addressing much more fun-damental inequalities. A narrativethat tapped into the general desire forcontrol over our lives – while stillacknowledging and addressing theinequalities which impede that con-trol – would have been compellingfor all members of Labour’s 1997coalition.

That narrative would have enabledLabour to explain the rationalebehind many of its policies betterthan it has in fact done. Universitytuition fees should have beenexplained exclusively on the basis ofincreasing the number of young peo-ple from all backgrounds who canattend higher education. The better aperson’s education, the more optionsthey have in life and the more ablethey are to take advantage of them –the essence of autonomy. Feesincrease the number of places forthose who wouldn’t have gone touniversity without those places, andimprove the standard of teaching forthose who would have gone anyway.Undoubtedly a massive over-simpli-fication, but such a narrative wouldhave addressed themes of providinga personalised high-quality educa-tion, along with issues of inequalityand autonomy.

Autonomy is not just a convenientlabel to place on the government’sactions – it should guide thoseactions. Adopting the ideal of equali-ty of autonomy would have pushed

Labour to introduce alternative poli-cies regarding social housing andchildcare. Policy regarding bothissues appears to have been con-strained by perceived political reali-ties. The government has pledged toestablish Sure Start children’s centresin 30% of the most disadvantagedareas in England by 2008. This is, ofcourse, welcome – a fine example ofthe enabling state in action. However,the timidity of this aim, and theabsence of Labour’s much-vauntedspin regarding Sure Start’s achieve-ments to date suggest that the gov-

ernment is not certain whether thistype of interventionist policy is avote-winner. Concerns about cost,and about allegations of ‘nanny-sta-tism’, appear to have trumped theextension of an innovative policywhich contributes to the empower-ment of those who currently have lit-tle control over their lives.

Labour’s housing policy appearsto have been determined by a desireto move further away from the tradi-tional model of local authority-pro-vided council housing. Policy hasbeen skewed towards extendinghome ownership at the expense ofincreasing the stock of decent socialhousing to serve those for whomownership is not an option. Again,Labour has set an admirable target –ensuring that all social housing meetsa decency threshold by 2010.However, again, the target has beenmarred by a requirement that no

local authority needing governmentfunding may retain ownership andcontrol of their housing stock.

This has reduced the control thatsocial tenants have over their proper-ty (Ruth Kelly has admitted thatthere are currently few tenant-runhousing associations). It has alsoshifted the focus of housing policyaway from investment in more socialhousing in areas where demandgreatly outstrips supply, particularlyin London and the South East. Theinvestments in improving the qualityof existing social housing have beenimpressive. However, the failure toalleviate the backlog of those requir-ing social housing has led to feelingsof disempowerment among some ofthe most vulnerable people in society,who do not perceive that they areable to influence the housing deci-sion-making process. Addressing themany inequalities in housing provi-sion is a key aspect of securing equal-ity of autonomy and, despite somesuccesses, the government has failedto do this.

Thus, the government has beenguilty of not fashioning its own nar-rative. It should have chosen the pur-suit of equality of autonomy, whichwould have been popular with allstrands of Labour’s election-winningcoalition. This narrative would havehelped the government to explain itspolicies more coherently. It wouldalso have prompted it to focus ondeveloping social housing andextending Sure Start – two policieswhich Labour has shied from fordubious political reasons. All toooften, Labour’s lack of an overarch-ing narrative has left voters thinking(in the words of Dire Straits) “Wheredo you think you’re going?” Equalityof autonomy would have providedthe answer.

Narrative wouldhave enabledLabour to explain itspolicies better than ithas done.


2 0

S uch is the anxiety aboutPresidential legitimacy, fol-lowing the social crises ofChirac’s last five years and

France’s current economic troubles,that centrist candidate Bayrou, cur-rently third in the polls, is proposingto replace the Fifth Republic with asixth.

Since 1962, the French Presidenthas been elected through direct uni-versal suffrage, bypassing the poli-ticking of Parliament or electoral col-leges to establish an unmediated linkwhich presents him as the legitimateembodiment of the will of the Frenchpeople.

However since FrançoisMitterand’s popularity started slid-ing in the early 1990s, and especiallysince the Le Pen-Chirac duel of thelast elections failed to offer most ofthe electorate a genuine choice, therehave been doubts over the truth ofthis conception.

On the 11th February, SégolèneRoyal unveiled her “pacte présiden-tiel” to a crowd of 15,000 supporters.Dressed in red, the Parti Socialiste(PS) candidate moved her campaigninto the next gear, ending what shecalled the “phase d’écoute” (listeningphase).

For almost three months followingher nomination as candidate,Ségolène had invited the nation todebate. Over 6,000 “participative

debates”, dubbed “cafés Ségolène”,were held by PS activists around thecountry, allowing les vraies gens –real people¬ – to contribute to thepreparation of Royal’s platform.

The “pépites” (nuggets) of thecafés Ségolène and over a hundredthousand online contributions werecollected and synthesised in a bookcalled Cahier d’espérances. This liter-ally means the notebook of hopes,but also evokes the cahiers dedoléances (notebooks of grievances)filled by the French subjects duringthe Ancien Régime, and especially atthe moment of the 1789 Revolution.Cahier d’espérances served as theinspiration for the candidate’s impas-sioned two-hour speech on the 11thFebruary, in which the Presidentiableenumerated France’s ills beforerevealing her 100-proposal pacte.Through this three-month exercise inparticipatory democracy, Ségolènehopes she has achieved a foundationof legitimacy.

The anxiety concerning presiden-tial legitimacy is evident in the preva-lence in the political conversation ofthe terms “pacte” (pact) and “con-trat” (contract). The trend startedwith environmentalist Nicolas Hulot,who challenged the presidentialhopefuls to sign his “Pacteécologique”, a list of environmentalpledges, and promptly obtained thesignatures of all the mainstream can-

didates. Ségolène named her 100 pro-posals her “pacte présidentiel”,describing it as a “contract with theFrench” before finding that Sarkozyhad simultaneously put forward arival “pacte républicain”. AC-Le Feu,an organisation active during the2005 banlieue riots, has just recentlyproduced a “social and citizen con-tract”; a list of housing, employment,and anti-discrimination pledges forcandidates to sign. With news just inthat the CNOSF – the FrenchNational Olympic and SportsCommittee – is announcing plans toproduce its own pacte, one wonderswhy the candidates bother with man-ifestos at all. Yet this is all quiteunsurprising; this proliferation ofcontracts is merely the concept ofunmediated legitimacy taken to itslogical extreme.

The trouble is that the Gaullist con-ception of the office of FrenchPresident is ambiguous. The direct-ness of the election seems to ensurethe proximity of the office-holder tothe needs of his or her citizens, butthe office is supposed to be almostmonarchical – the President is abovepolitics. In other words, the linkbetween the French President andthe French People is at once the mostdirect and the most distant in nation-al politics. The style of the campaignsbetrays confusion over what positionis being fought over. Is it President of

The French Presidential election campaign has mirrored the ambuigityof the role, believes Alexander Barker

Alexander Barker is a member of the

Young Fabians and is currently studying in

France

president of the french?


2 1

the French, who intuits the citizen’sneeds, or President of France, thestatesman who draws up the greatprinciples of the society?

The “participatory democracy”crystalised in Cahier d’espéranceclearly flows from the conception ofthe role of President as intuiting citi-zen’s needs. Indeed, this conceptionruns through Royal’s rhetoric andpractice.

In presenting her pacte, Royal pro-claimed “I want to achieve for eachyoung person what I want as a moth-er for my own children”, an attemptto exploit her own femininity to por-tray herself as naturally better-suitedto understand the French, their prob-lems and their needs.

Her use of the internet, whereSégolène’s supporters have beenextremely active, is a further exam-ple. Tangible display of Royal’spromise that “with me, politics willnever again be done without you,”the ségosphère – the name given tothe vast network of blogs supportingher – played an important part in hercampaign before nomination, allow-ing her to bypass the party machineagainst which she was competing.

She clearly hopes that her longconsultation of the peuple will simi-larly make her the natural Presidentof the French, giving her the edgeagainst Nicolas Sarkozy at nationallevel.

While the Sarkozists have alsoembraced the internet as a way toreach groups inaccessible by other

means, their candidate is seeminglyattempting to cross the party divideat the level of grand principles. As heput it to television viewers on the 5thFebruary, “I want to be the Presidentof political openness”.

His campaign is one which alreadysees the role of President as above thefray of petty parliamentary divisions.Such unlikely figures as pre-FirstWorld War pacifist Jean Jaurès and1930s Popular Front leader LéonBlum have found their ways into hisspeeches in his bid to “explode theleft-right cleavage”.

But the statesman view of the office

is not exclusive to the Sarkozy camp.Perhaps its most telling effect is theargument wielded by both campsagainst demands for “chiffrage” –making public the budgeting of theirproposals. Although Royal has cost-ed her programme at €35 thousandmillion, and Sarkozy his at €30 thou-sand million, the calculations remaina mystery.

The argument is often made that toask for a budget is to misunderstandthe nature of the President’s role.

Although Eric Besson, the PS nation-al secretary for economics, resignedin frustration, spokesmen simplyreply that presidential programmesdeal with principles, not details suchas costs. As his replacement, DidierMigaud, exclaimed, “we’re in a pres-idential campagne, not a budgetarydebate!”. This way of thinking surelycontributed to the situation in thefirst years of Chirac’s Presidency tenyears ago, where he tried to fulfil hiscampaign pledges of both reducinghigh unemployment and resolvingnational debt.

The crisis of national debt was anissue Ségolène chose to highlight inher speech on the 11th February, andwhich both sides pledge to deal with.Yet while both refuse to enter whatSégolène calls “logique de guichet”(ticket-office logic), there is little hopeof achieving more than Chirac on thisquestion.

Although such vestiges of thestatesman view conveniently remain,it is the other role – that of being closeto the people – which is defining thiselection.

Candidates from major and minorparties are warming to the idea of“real people”, and welcome the inno-vation – for France – of a televisionprogramme where candidates areasked unanticipated questions by apanel of citizens.

The campaigns in general havebeen criticised for concentrating ondomestic issues rather than worryingabout prestige in international affairs.But if the President is to be close tothe citizens, he or she must sharetheir concerns, and his or her propos-als will be concrete and detailed.

As Ségolène found during herthree-month search for a programme,the French are currently concernedabout education and employment. Itis therefore neither a surprise, nor ashame, that she proclaimed passion-ately “Avec moi, l'Education, encorel'Education, toujours l'Education, ellesera au cour de tout et en avant detout“ (“with me, education, moreeducation, always education, will beat the heart of everything and comebefore everything”).

At the heart of this election is thehistorical ambiguity in the role andlegitimacy of French President. It isunclear whether he or she should bedown-to-earth, embodying theFrench population, or whether he orshe should hold him-or-herself aloof,and make international affairs his orher preserve.

This election, proceeding as it isthrough participatory debates, andfocused as it is on domestic affairs,seems at first to be confined to thefirst category.

However, if a President is to comedown to the people’s level, and dealwith their day-to-day problems, he orshe cannot cling to the idea, legacy ofthe second view, that such things asbudgets are too vulgar for his or herconsideration.

At the heart of thiselection if thehistorical ambiguityin the role andlegitimacy of FrenchPresident.

or president offrance?


2 2

Many articles in this journalbegin with lines similar tothe following: ‘British pol-itics is on the threshold of

a sea-change’, or, the ‘political land-scape in Britain is entering previous-ly uncharted waters’. What is inter-esting is that neither of these analo-gies is true.

It is, of course, true that we areexperiencing one objective first; there-election of the Labour Party ingovernment. It could be argued,however, although not my me, thatthis political fact belies the perennial-ly static nature of British politics. Wemay have seen the re-election of aLabour government, twice indeed,but in New Labour we have not wit-nessed the re-election of a radicalgovernment. It is possible that thelast sea-change in British politicsoccurred with the election and re-election of Mrs Thatcher’sConservative Government. Few infact would disagree with this; I do.

The British Conservative Party is,perhaps, a unique entity in politicsand it is with due caution that Iattempt this brief extrapolation.Supporters of the Labour Party, orindeed, opponents of theConservative/Tory Party should notforget the record of that Party (theTory Party) in government. In short,the Conservatives have an astound-ingly successful electoral record,even if we forget the years beforeuniversal suffrage.

How is this so? Psephologists inBritain usually agree that if peoplevoted as they are often, or tradition-ally, believed to vote (i.e. along per-sonal or class interests) the 20th cen-tury Conservative Party shouldnever have won a general election.How has the Party been so success-ful at the ballot box? I think theanswer lies in the mentality of thepeople who join the Party and, moreimportantly, those whose rise up itsranks to hold positions of office.

Why do people join the

Conservative Party? Two reasons Isuppose – one good, one bad –power, and a desire to serve. Thebasic assumption of this article isthat there is, more often than not, acombination of both these reasons inthe signature on the back of the bluecard.

I can hear the cries – straw man!Could anyone be so daft as to thinkthat this hasn’t been just as true onboth sides of the divide down thedecades? Well, the obvious examplesto the contrary and HammerShawcross notwithstanding, Ibelieve that the ‘great’ change in con-temporary politics came not neces-sarily with Mrs Thatcher but withTony Blair and with New Labour.Politicians at the top of today’sLabour Party exhibit, now perhapsmore so than those in the opposition,all the signs of those who wish toserve their country but also of thosewhose desire for power isentrenched. Labour politicians arejust as naturally presumptive andambitious as those in theConservative Party; ambition hastrumped principle in Britain’s largestparty of opposition; that there is now

a New Labour ‘establishment’ is tes-tament alone.

What supporters of both majorparties have forgotten is that theConservative Party is more thancapable of change. It is in the blood-stream of Conservative politiciansthat change is necessary and thatchange is the very lifeblood of theirparty; theirs the pragmatic party, theparty of scepticism and of patriot-

ism. It was a Tory who repealed the

Corn Laws, a Tory who took Britainto war with Germany, a Tory whotook Britain into Europe, and a Torywho broke the Unions and took onthe Church of England, the House ofLords and the City. None of theaforementioned acts are in the slight-est bit traditionally conservativeand, thus, David Cameron’s call forfurther NHS investment and a seri-ous and sweeping legislative agendaon green taxes is by no means incon-sistent with Tory ‘principles’ butrather a long awaited return to elec-toral pragmatism from one ofWestern democracy’s most success-ful political parties. The repeal of theCorn Laws could have destabilisedthe British landed gentry, TedHeath’s decision to take Britain intothe EC surrendered parliamentarysovereignty and was seen by manyas unpatriotic; the less said about theNew Right to many traditional(social) conservatives the better. Forthe Conservative Party to continuetouting the lines of Hague, DuncanSmith and Howard would be anath-ema to British Toryism.

What does this teach us? The mostsuccessful Conservative politicianshave always been those who havebeen willing to embrace changewhen it has been necessary for victo-ry. Alec Douglas-Home, arguablyTed Heath and certainly John Majorcount as Conservative PrimeMinisters who failed, rightly orwrongly, to modernise their party inline with the popular spirit. BothDouglas-Home and Heath were upagainst Labour’s electoral maestro,Harold Wilson, and a cabinet ofLabour ministers and shadow minis-ters counting among it the very bestof post-war political thinkers – RoyJenkins, Tony Crosland, Denis Healyand Tony Benn to name a few.

It took an international currencycrisis, militant industrial action athome and a very cold winter to final-

Both the Tories and Labour have forgotten that the Conservatives areentirely capable of change, argues Edward Robinson

Edward Robinson is a Young Fabian member

Politicians at the topof today’s LabourParty exhibit all thesigns of thosewhose desire forpower is entrenched


2 3

ly topple Jim Callahan’s governmentand usher in the modernisedConservative Party under the leader-ship of a woman and completelyunrecognisable from the tripartitecorporatism of the post-war consen-sus years. Keynesianism was killed,nay murdered; it has never beenresuscitated.

Moreover, given the state of theBritish economy in 1979, it was nec-essary for electoral victory that theConservative opposition offered thecountry a fundamental change ineconomic outlook. That that attitudeturned out to be the manifestation ofpreviously marginalised, largelyintellectually based theories of theNew Right was unknown at thetime, not least I think by MrsThatcher herself.

In the late 1970s it was not theConservative Party itself that funda-mentally changed. The sea changethat Callahan spoke of was indeed asea change in terms of governmenteconomic policy but it certainly was-n’t one in terms of party politics.Similar paradigm shifts took place inDisraeli’s Tory Party over a hundredyears ago as a means to combatGladstone, albeit in reverse. This thesame Disraeli who had spent a largepart of his early career fightingLiberals like Cobbden and Blightand seriously falling out with RobertPeel.

Those who argue, therefore, thatwe are, today, experiencing a first inBritish politics, namely that theConservative Party has seen itselfneed to adopt a much more sociallyprogressive rhetoric to stand achance at the polls, do so with ashort-sightedness perhaps affordedby a rose tinted view of the successesof the New Labour Government.

The Tory Party of the past wouldalways move to where the voteswere or where they were perceivedto be. Upon taking office in 1997Labour had a duty; to shift the‘establishment’ as far to the progres-sive left as it could; it has had onlymarginal success in achieving this,partly as Labour now appears to

many electors to outflank the oppo-sition on the right on many issues(e.g. ID cards, detainment of terrorsuspects and student fees).

Why is it so that Labour has onlysucceeded in shifting the ground sofar and is now so unpopular with aliberal majority that the oppositionnow sees a chance to undercut it onsocial inclusiveness and environ-mental issues? The answer is in thenature of Labour politicians. The realsea-change came in 1994 when TonyBlair was elected Labour leader atthe same time as a very differentgeneration of Labour politicians wascoming of age. These politicianswere, and are, intent on power.

People say that media channels

control access to the political debateand, thus, to the actors who achieveprominence by it. This is true but it isonly true insofar as politicians allowthemselves to be acted upon by thisinvisible hand. Tory politicians havealways been guided by the hand ofthe establishment.

It hasn’t always been the printmedia monopolies or, specifically,the Daily Mail and the Sun newspa-pers, but was once the landed agrar-ian class and the aristocracy, then theurban capitalist middle class, thenthe trade unions and captains ofindustry, and now the media elites.Labour and the Liberals/Whigs,however, being traditionally made ofup of dissenters have, until NewLabour, been a lot less susceptible tobow to established pressure. Why?Because these groups of people hadvery little to lose; they neverbelieved they would achieve publicoffice and they always placed theirconception of the public good overtheir personal ambitions; this hasnothing to do with idealism or any

other sort of dogmatic unreasonable-ness, it is simply down to a majordifference in character and, often,background. The Labour Party hasalways been a party without a singleideology; New Labour is nothingnew in this sense.

With this in mind there willalways be voices on the left thatargue Labour has trodden a neces-sarily cautious path since 1997 andthat it is still more important toachieve small and obtainable targetsthan to fail in implementing sweep-ing reforms. Had this sentiment beenprevalent at the time of the People’sbudget or at the publication of theBeverage Report or indeed in theLiberal Party of Gladstone theConservatives would never haverepealed the Corn Laws, never hadpreserved health and safety in facto-ries and certainly never have left aNational Health Service in tact evenduring times of its most comprehen-sive tax cutting.

There is an oft repeated sentimentamong progressives that One NationConservatism is something that Torypoliticians resort to when they wantto win votes. This is probably truebut it is also true in the case ofThatcherism – just as much a votewinning formula in the inflation rid-den late 1970s.

What New Labour sympathisersare wrong to do is appease cautiontoo readily, they mustn’t forget thatLabour is now serving not its firstbut its third term in office. If Labouris to succeed in ‘renewing’ itself inpower over the coming years it willneed to remember why its membersjoined it. For all the warm heartedsentiments of those who rememberthe hardship of the Tory years therebelies the silent apathy of the ASBOridden delinquent, the alienated eth-nic minority and the indebted stu-dent, nurse and teacher.

If Labour cannot return its voice toprominence there will be two conser-vative parties fighting the next gen-eral election and not two progressiveones and I think we all know whoplays best at that game.

change towin?

What New Laboursympathisers arewrong to do isappease caution tooreadily.


2 4

A s the Holyrood electionsdraw near, the SNP cam-paign is being builtaround the notion that

they can be all things to all people. For every pre-election promise to

increase spending there is anotherto slash taxes.

Their jumbled mess of pre-elec-tion bribes would put a £5 billionblack hole in the budget of thedevolved government and that isbefore taking into account theirplans for independence and furtherextravagant spending commitmentswhich remain uncosted.

If the SNP are to be a crediblealternative then they must do morethan recycle mantra about breakingup Britain but commit to a roadmapfor achieving independence, decid-ing on a direction rather than pre-tending they can have it both ways.

The killer question which theSNP cannot convincingly answer israther simple; left or right?

Going left and imitatingNorway, for instance, depends onblack gold yet tax receipts from oilare shrinking. Production in theNorth Sea peaked in 1999 and out-put has declined ever since. Indeed,oil revenues barely plug half thestructural deficit Scotland wouldacquire upon achieving independ-ence let alone sustain a separateScottish state.

Only the Tartan Tories on theright of the SNP have acknowl-edged one essential truth abouttheir party’s core policy. Scottishindependence can only be achievedwith a seismic shift to the right.

Mike Russell, a prominent SNPcandidate, admitted as much inspelling out plans for a flat tax anddownsizing the publicsector…before he was gagged byAlex Salmond!

Behind superficial pledges tomeet the cost of PFI with the publicpurse and turn student loans intogrants, even Alex Salmond demon-strates certain sympathies with theNew Right. The Nationalist pledgeto reduce corporation tax by a thirdto mimic Ireland’s Celtic Tiger econ-omy is one of Salmond’s personalmistakes.

As a direct consequence ofreducing corporation tax, Irish taxa-tion was more regressive in the late1990s than in the 1980s. A substan-tial tax burden shifted from corpo-rate profits to labour; disincentivis-ing work and fuelling fears of job-less growth and rising inequality.

Growing the labour market is anecessity for Scotland given theaging profile of the working popu-lation. Bringing the long-termunemployed back into work andputting an end to youth unemploy-ment are challenges which Labouris rising to as a matter of principle.Revisiting Reagonomics wouldpush full employment out of reach.

If Scotland is to compete forinward investment and attractmajor employers then we must doso through generating a rich pool oftalent rather than giving up on theunion dividend which allows us todo just that. Divorcing Scotlandfrom the UK would be to break upthe marriage of market economicsand social justice north of the bor-der.

Labour has delivered and willcontinue to explore flexible workinghours, allowing parents with child-care responsibilities the opportunityto return to the workplace oracquire new skills.

Labour has pledged to createacademies offering a skills-basededucation for young people.

Labour has introduced the FreshTalent Initiative for Scottish-domi-ciled international students.

Labour will create a FullEmployment Agency.

Labour has promised a newEducation Bill within the first hun-dred days of the new Parliament.Salmond promised a referendum onindependence, then simply commit-ted to calling one, then obfuscated,then promised a White Paper.

The upcoming elections will bethe most challenging for ScottishLabour since the inception of devo-lution but a promising campaign onthe three ‘E’s – economics, employ-ment and education – will stand incontrast to SNP inconsistency.

The Labour agenda for Scotlandin 2007 and beyond is ambitious,robust and thoroughly progressivein the Fabian tradition.

On the eve of elections to Holyrood, Scottish Labour stand in stark contrast to the SNP’s inconsistency, writes Joe Fagan

Joe Fagan is a Scottish Young Fabian

member

The killer questionwhich the SNPcannot convincinglyanswer is rathersimple; left or right?

independence day?

young fabian executiveco-optees 2007

2 5


Kris BrownSchools Officer

David ChaplinExternal Affairs

Tom MillerRegions Officer

Sara T’RulaMembership Officer and Social Secretary

Dan WhittleMembership Officer and Social Secretary

Conor McGinn

Mark Rusling

Kate Groucutt

Rebecca Rennison

Tom Flynn

Emma Carr

Fred Grindrod

David Floyd

Patrick Woodman

Yue-Ting Cheng

Angela Green

Will Martindale

Chair ([email protected])

Vice Chair ([email protected])

Secretary ([email protected])

Treasurer ([email protected])

International and Embassies Officer ([email protected])

Editor, Anticipations ([email protected])

Policy and Publications Officer ([email protected])

Website Officer ([email protected])

Parliamentary Officer ([email protected])

Universities Officer ([email protected])

Publicity and Media Officer ([email protected])

Party and Trade Union Liaison Officer ([email protected])

Young Fabian Executive 2007

The Young FabianExecutive Committee co-opt five people eachyear

As External Affairs Officer I will be developing partnership opportunities for the Young Fabiansto enable future seminars, receptions and projects for the Young Fabian members. I will also bedeveloping and managing the Young Fabian Alumni Programme which will launch with analumni dinner later in the year. [email protected]

As Schools Project Officer I will manage and develop the project. I want the Young Fabians towork with schools in the most deprived communities but not just London. I intend to broadenthe project out to cities like Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle. [email protected]

In my role as regions officer I will help members to start their own regional groups and arrangeevents for their members. I will develop the relationship between the Young Fabians and theuniversities as well as with other regional Labour groups. [email protected]

As Membership Officer and Social Secretary I will work with Dan Whittle to encourage moreyoung people to become members and to get involved with the society. We will organise socialevents that encourage members to meet each other and the meet the executive and to get moreactively involved. [email protected]

I will be working with Sara T’Rula as Membership Officer and Social Secretary. The under-31sare the fastest growing section of the Fabian Society and we plan to further develop on this,offering our members more opportunities to be active in the society and to meet other YoungFabians. [email protected]


2 6

CALENDAROF EVENTS

Event in the North West: Celebrating International Women's Day at the Working Class Movement LibraryThe Working Class Movement Library, 51 The Crescent, SalfordSpeakers: Nes Brierley (active in direct action and environmental campaigns), Bernadette Hyland (active in Irish com-munity campaigns) and Imra Shoaib (President of Oldham Trades Union Council)

10

13 Renewal in Government: Mission Impossible?Committee Room 6, House of CommonsSpeakers: Harriet Harman MP, Stephen Twigg, Professor Philip Cowley, University of Nottingham and creator ofwww.revolts.co.uk Details: This seminar explored what renewal of the Labour Party really means - changes in policies, personalities orboth? Or is there a 'time limit' on governing which makes both irrelevant? Is it inevitable that Labour’s majority willbe eroded at the next election or can Labour succeed where other Governments have failed, and renew from a positionof power?

15 Young Fabian ‘New Members’ Event – including entertainment from the socialist magician The Old Star pub, 66 Broadway, London, SW1H 0DBDetails: Old, new and prospective members joined us at the Old Star in Westminster at our annual New Membersevent, which this year featured entertainment from a socialist magician. As always this event was a great way tosocialise, network and learn more about the Young Fabians and find out how to get more involved.

3 Theatre trip: Heartbreak House - a play by George Bernard Shaw, one of the founding figures of the FabiansWatford Palace Theatre Details: George Bernard Shaw's classic English comedy Heartbreak House is a funny, satirical and almost tragic lookat love, marriage and fidelity.

'Security and the Environment' - Lecture by Rt Hon John Reid MP, Home SecretaryClifford Chance, 10 Upper Bank Street, London E14 5JJDetails: With the reorganisation of the Home Office due in May, the focus of the Home Office is evolving. As this takesplace, Home Secretary John Reid set out his view on how at the heart of international security concerns, there frequent-ly lies a battle over natural resources - the Arab-Israeli conflict and water supply in the region being a key instance. Hespoke on how the environment interacts with security issues at a domestic level.

18

25 Lecture by Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland on “The State of the Union”Thatcher Room, Portcullis House, Westminster

april

march

Theatre trip: Whipping it upNew Ambassadors Theatre, WC2H 9NDDetails: Fully booked

17may

The Future of EuropeWednesday 30 May; Italian Embassy, 14 Three Kings Yard, W1K 4EHFor further information email Tom Flynn on [email protected]

Young Fabian Boat PartyThe Young Fabian Boat Party 2007 will be taking place onboard the Miyuki Maru from 7.00 - 11.30 departing fromWestminster Pier. Three's a Crowd are booked to play and tickets in advance are priced at £15 for members £20 fornon-members with a free glass of bubbly on arrival.To reserve your ticket please e-mail [email protected] and if you have any more questions please visitour website where you can find full details. Cheques are to be sent to the Young Fabians at the Fabian Society (11Datmouth Street, London, SW1H 9BN). Please note that no place is guaranteed until we receive payment.

Young Fabian Trip to Edinburgh FestivalThe annual Young Fabian trip to Edinburgh for the festival will once again be scheduled to coincide with not onlythe Fringe, Book and International Festivals but also with the Holyrood Festival of Politics at the Scottish Parliament.And again this year we are hoping to put on an event at the political festival. The cost of the trip will include accom-modation in the university halls of residence from Thursday to Monday and tickets to events at the Fringe Festival,the Book Festival and the Political Festival.

The trip will cost around £115 and you just make your own way to Edinburgh. We recommend you book early toavoid disappointment. For further information, please email Emma Carr at [email protected].

30

6july

august

in the next anticipations

LEADERSHIPSPECIAL

the man who

would be

king?

who should lead the party into the next general election? who should be their deputy? in what ways should their leadership differ from the Blair era?which past Labour leaders have most inspired you, and why?

email your articles to [email protected] | deadline for submissions: 28th may 2007

© The Young Fabians 2007www.youngfabians.org.uk

Anticipations - Spring 2007

Documents

fabian society

labour movement

issuehas labour

new lookanticipations

young fabian member

ed balls mpcoverage

design impresario alex

emma carr5