The New Progressives

FABIAN SOCIETY

The New ProgressivesVoices of Labour’s Future

Edited by James Green

Young Fabians | e-pamphlet

The Young Fabians

The Young Fabians are the under-31's section of the Fabian Society,Britain's foremost centre-left think tank. Set up in 1960, we remain the onlythink tank run by and for young people. Our Membership numbers over1,400 and includes young professional, students, parliamentaryresearchers, political activists and academics. The Young Fabians promotepolicy debate through seminars, conferences, pamphlets, and onlinethrough our website and blog. To find out more about the Young Fabians,visit www.youngfabians.org.uk.

The Fabian Society

The Fabian Society is Britain’s leading left of centre think tank and politicalsociety, committed to creating the political ideas and policy debates whichcan shape the future of progressive politics.

Fabian publications, events and ideas reach and influence a wideraudience than those of any comparable think tank. The Society is uniqueamong think tanks in being a thriving, democratically constitutedmembership organisation, affiliated to the Labour Party butorganisationally and editorially independent. For more information, visitwww.fabian-society.org.uk.

YOUNG FABIANSFABIAN SOCIETY

Fabian Society11 Dartmouth StreetLondon SW1H 9BNwww.fabian-society.org.uk

First published October 2009

This paper, like all publications of the Fabian Society, represents not thecollective views of the Society but only the views of the authors. Thispublication may not be reproduced without express permission of theFabian Society.

Young Fabians | e-pamphlet

The New ProgressivesVoices of Labour’s Future

Edited by James Green

YOUNG FABIANS

Candidates Network

iii

Contents

IntroductionJames Green

1 | The Progressive ChallengeRachel Reeves, Labour PPC for Leeds West

2 | A New ProgressivismJames Green, Labour PPC for Cheltenham

3 | Continuing the CrusadeDavid Boot, Labour PPC for Mid Sussex

4 | The Parent TrapEmma Reynolds, Labour PPC forWolverhampton North East

5 | The Value of LibertyAlan Strickland, Labour PPC forBerwick-upon-Tweed

6 | A Sense of BelongingKevin Bonavia, Labour PPC for Rochfordand Southend East

1

..............3

.......................9

..........

..... 15.............

.....21

................

................25

................

...........................32

................

................

................

................

7 | Back to the FutureRebecca Rennison, Labour PPC for SouthWest Wiltshire

8 | Furthering EducationGareth Gould, Labour PPC for SouthHolland and the Deepings

9 | Keeping it SimpleDarren Jones, Labour PPC for Torridgeand West Devon

10 | Capable GovernmentAdam Leeder, Labour PPC for SuffolkCoastal

11 | Being CooperativeIan Ross, Labour PPC for Worthing West

12 | A Sense of Fair PlayChris Ostrowski, Labour candidate for theNorwich North by-election

36...........................................................40.

..............

............43

............................

...........47

................

................

............51

................

............54

v

IntroductionJames Green

The Young Fabians Candidates Network was set up at the begin-ning of this year. Since then it has gone from strength to strengthand is now supported by young Prospective Parliamentary

Candidates from across the country. The network aims to foster debateand discussion amongst young PPCs, building links between YoungFabian Members and Labour’s politicians of the future.Over the past twelve years progressive ideas have been at the fore-

front of British politics. New Labour has changed the terms of the polit-ical debate, arguing for and implementing a raft of progressive policiesthat have made a real difference to the lives of people across the country.However, as the world changes, so politics must change with it. In poli-tics only one thing is certain; the challenges of the future will be verydifferent from those of the past.After twelve years of a Labour government, at a critical moment for

progressive politics, the Young Fabians have invited twelve of Labour’syoung Prospective Parliamentary Candidates to reflect on the party’srecord and outline their vision for the future. It will be the next genera-tion of Labour politicians that will need to develop new solutions tomeet the challenges of changed times. This pamphlet aims to sparkdebate amongst opinion formers and Young Fabian members about thefuture direction of progressive politics.For some like Rachel Reeves, PPC for Leeds West, an international

outlook is key, whilst Emma Reynolds, PPC for Wolverhampton North

1

East, focuses on gender equality, an issue much closer to home. ChrisOstrowski, who fought the Norwich North by-election, argues thatpeople demand a greater sense of ‘fair play’, whilst Alan Strickland,PPC for Berwick-upon-Tweed, makes the case that the public want amore liberal state.Twelve years of Labour government, twelve very different visions for

the future. The range of responses and wealth of ideas shows that, evenduring these challenging times, progressive politics continues to thrivewithin the Labour movement.If you are a young Prospective Parliamentary Candidate and would

like to join the Young Fabians Candidates Network please email me [email protected] find out more about the Young Fabians or how to become a

member, visit www.youngfabians.org.uk. From there you can also visitthe Young Fabians blog and post your views on this pamphlet.

2

The Progressive ChallengeRachel Reeves

Labour PPC for Leeds West

Progressive politics in ten years time will be more international inoutlook, as global warming and a more globalised economychange the political discourse. In this essay, I will map out what

it means to be a progressive; how progressive priorities have changed inthe last ten years; the importance of engaging people and communitiesin the debate about our shared future; and the direction of progressivepolitics in the next ten years. I will also look at the tools available toprogressives to achieve those ambitions – including through debate,dialogue and international institutions.Being a progressive means continually striving to make our commu-

nities fairer and more enriching places for people to live, allowingeveryone the opportunity to fulfill their potential. It is the emphasis oncommunities and on the means (as well as the ends), that makes the leftmore at home with a progressive value set or ideology than the right.Willing the means is about considering what opportunities, or capabili-ties, people and communities need to live fulfilling lives. That meanstackling material poverty, through taxation, benefits and incomes. Andit means tackling other causes of social exclusion and deprivation, likepoor housing, ill health and lack of skills. To be on the left meansbelieving the state can play an enabling role in helping people andcommunities achieve their potential. Whether through investing in

3

education, guaranteeing free entry to museums and galleries, or givingguarantees to patients, the state and society can help ensure people havethe opportunities to make the most of their talents and lead fulfillinglives – the progressive challenge.While these values are enduring, and define my own political outlook,

the circumstances in which we apply them changes over time aseconomic, political and social realities evolve. In the last ten years thechallenges and issues that politics and society has had to confront havechanged markedly, often in ways that were not or could not have beenforeseen. In the next ten years that will be true again.Before we consider the future, it is worth identifying how the back-

drop to political and economic debate has changed in the last ten years.In 1997 the priority was to address the legacy of a decade of under-investment in our public services. And it was obvious why. I was bornin 1979, three months after Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. Iwent to state schools in south London and saw firsthand the impact ofunder-investment in public services. We were constantly short of textbooks and my sixth form was a pre-fab hut in the playground. Ourplaying fields were a mile away, music tuition became the preserve ofthose who could pay and our library was turned into a classroombecause there wasn’t enough room for lessons. Coupled with threemillion people waiting for operations, many for a year or more, the chal-lenge for progressives was clear. Without access to decent healthcareand education it is impossible to fulfill your potential – so we set out toreform and invest in our public infrastructure and services.All around us we can see the results. In Leeds West, where I am

standing for Parliament, the standard of social housing has increased onthe back of the Decency Standard commitments, every primary schoolhas been either re-built or re-furbished since 1997, two new high schoolsopened their doors this month and we have two new District HealthCentres offering out-patient treatment in the community. Leeds West isnot unique in this respect, and across the country we can see theevidence and impact of Labour investment. This investment has helped

4

The New Progressives

create the environment where people can thrive and flourish.For three successive elections Labour has campaigned and won on a

platform of investment in public services and a strong economy.Progressive ideals that have extended opportunity and aspirations.But, I believe more could have been done to build a broad coalition in

favour of creating a fairer, more equal society, and that this would havehad the impact of better embedding progressive values and outcomes.What do I mean by that? I mean that we have sometimes tried to do

what we believe in without telling people. Our worries aboutharanguing Middle England with views of what the good society mightlook like prevented us from articulating what a society with fairness andopportunity at its heart really means. There is ample evidence that moreequal societies are ones where everyone, not just the worse off, ishappier and more fulfilled. More equal societies are associated with lesscrime, stronger communities and better schools – benefitting the middleclasses as well as poorer families. We could and should argue this caseto help build a fairer Britain.We have avoided this debate because with a strong economy income

tax has not had to go up to pay for progressive measures like tax credits,children’s centres and Sure Start. A strong economy, with buoyant taxrevenues has delivered the cash and taxpayers have not been asked tomake a trade-off between disposable income and the quality of publicservices because they have had increases in both. As we face in to morebinding constraints on what is affordable this is a danger. It is verypossible that if we had asked, people would have been willing to pay abit more – as with National Insurance Contribution increase in 2003 topay for higher NHS spending. If they had asked then Cameron andOsborne’s demands for broad-brush cuts might not have the same reso-nance with voters because it would have contradicted a conscious deci-sion voters had made previously.This gap in coalition building needs to be understood and learned as

we consider the progressive challenges and opportunities of the futureespecially if we want to make lasting change. As well as delivering

5

Voices of Labour’s Future

popular policies we must win the difficult arguments. We still need todo that on fairness, but we must also do it with issues that progressiveswill face in to in the next decade, such as global warming.Looking ahead, increasingly the challenges we face, including global

warming are international ones. Building a stronger and more sustain-able economy, tackling climate change and responding to the threats ofglobal terrorism and failed states have all moved up the agenda and willdefine the agenda in the next decade. And they all need policyresponses at a global level.What should the progressive political response look like? I believe it

will be defined in two ways. First, it must be global and second, it mustfocus on expanding opportunities, especially for the most marginalised,both at home and abroad, giving more people and communities oppor-tunities to realise their potential. But, if progressive values are going tosucceed against a temptation to retreat inwards and to raise barriersbetween communities then we – as politicians, activists and citizens -need to make the case for global cooperation and enlightened interna-tionalism. One lesson we must learn from our twelve years in govern-ment is that progressive politics by stealth cannot build a broad andsustainable coalition for progressive policies to endure.Global warming cannot be stopped by the actions of one country or

just through decisions made by politicians. Nor can we stabilise theglobal financial system or tackle terror plots hatched in far corners of theworld alone.Just and sustainable solutions to the challenges of global warming

means recognising the impact of the policies and lifestyles in onecountry, especially in the rich world, on the most vulnerable communi-ties and countries. A progressive agenda will involve remodeling ourglobal financial and trade rules so that they serve people not profits. Itmeans using the talents and energies of people from all walks of life. Italso means giving thought to inter-generational justice. If we do notprotect the planet then the quality of life of future generations will beimpaired, reducing the ability of our children and grandchildren to

6


realise their potential.And, unless we tackle climate change, it will be the poor who will find

it hardest to adjust. In the developing world it is hard to lead a fulfillinglive if your livelihood is destroyed and home flooded. In the developedworld it is hard to fulfill your potential if more of your income is spenton heating and travel as the price of non-renewable fuels increase.The challenges we face in relation to fixing the global economy simi-

larly require global solutions. Regulation in one country will not do thetrick; banks are internationally mobile, as we have seen through thecredit crunch. It is the poor and low skilled who suffer most fromeconomic instability – struggling to pay bills, being refused credit, orfacing unemployment – or failing, in the case of many school leavers, toget a job in the first place. Progressives must reform the global economywith solutions which allow more people and communities to determinetheir own futures and map their own destinies.Recognising that the challenges are global we must foster closer and

more productive relationships with our international partners – playinga central role in Europe, pushing for democratic reform of the IMF andWorld Bank and using our position in the G8, G20 and UN SecurityCouncil. We need to see international institutions as an opportunity nota threat and in the best traditions of British internationalism. It isthrough these partnerships that we will extend opportunities and capa-bilities – the progressive ambition – in the twenty-first century.The trend of globalisation will only intensify in the coming years.

Through trade, financial arbitrage, migration and information tech-nology, challenges, threats and opportunities will increasingly disregardnational borders. To keep pace, progressives need to find new solutionsin the emerging political, economic and social landscape. Workingcollectively, through international institutions and with new partners,we can find solutions that expand the set of opportunities, particularlyto the most vulnerable.But the debates will not always be easy, and if we are going to find

long-term solutions we must build a consensus for progressive values

7


and ideas. That is not a job that can be done just at internationalsummits and conventions, but must be happening in our communitiesand town halls. Through this dialogue we can make the case for a fairer,more sustainable society where people from any background andcommunity have the opportunity to map their own destiny and achievetheir ambitions. Harnessing progressive values to meet new challenges.

8


Abattle is raging over the future of progressive politics. It is abattle that has endured since the birth of the Labour Partyitself. Today it takes the form of a struggle between self styled

Old Labourites on the one hand and an emerging coalition of demo-cratic socialists and liberals on the other. The ideological fault lines ofLabour’s future are being drawn up; between those that argue for aplanning state and those that call for an empowering one. In this essayI will argue that the lessons of the past twelve years show that to reen-gage the public in the political process, Labour needs to move awayfrom the state-centred solutions of the past. Only by finding the rightbalance between liberalism and democratic socialism, extending indi-vidual liberty while defending social justice, can Labour renew itselfand rebuild public confidence in its progressive cause.So what does it mean to be progressive? For a word that has been used

so much in recent years it is strangely hard to define. Yet, despite that, itremains a powerful idea and one that continues to dominate Britishpolitics. From tax cuts to tax rises, from the stability of the state to theinnovation of markets, the term has been used to describe a whole rangeof policies; some related, many fundamentally contradictory. Its popu-larity is now almost total. Today, few politicians argue over the merits ofprogressivism. The real battle is over who can claim it as their own.In many ways the popularity of the word can be put down to its

9

A New ProgressivismJames Green

Labour PPC for Cheltenham

vagueness. A catch all term, it reflects the way that most of us see theworld. We all want to progress, move forward, build a better life forourselves. In that sense we are all progressive, albeit with a small ‘p’. Ina rapidly changing and often uncertain world, the language of progresshelps us feel optimistic about the future. It offers a positive worldviewwithout the complexities of party allegiance or policy detail. In doingthis it is able to bridge the political divide, engaging the left withoutalienating the right. For all three party leaders it has become the ulti-mate triangulating tool.Big ‘p’ progressivism is something all together different. It has deep

historical roots that reach back to the birth of the Labour movement. Ina recent article the historian David Marquand argued thatProgressivism a century ago described the overlap of the gradualistdemocratic socialists like the Fabian Society with the ‘new liberals’ whoprovided the ideological underpinning for Asquith’s government. Forthem the progressive mission was clear. Whether it was about reform ofthe House of Lords or the extension of the suffrage, to be progressivewas to be committed to a radical redistribution of power and opportu-nity across society. Progressivism described the belief that the goodsociety was an equal one, and that through collective action and activegovernment we could build our New Jerusalem.Since then the Labour Party has had a complex relationship with the

term, rarely more so than over the past twelve years. For over a decadean internal Labour struggle has been taking place between the self-styled New and Old parts of the party. For New Labour the language ofprogress was used as much to challenge its opponents within the party,as it was to attack its Opposition without. In his Leader’s Speech toLabour’s 1999 conference Tony Blair outlined this view,“For the 21st century will not be about the battle between capitalism

and socialism but between the forces of progress and the forces ofconservatism...The forces that do not understand that creating a newBritain as true equality is no more a betrayal of Britain’s history thanNew Labour is of Labour’s values.”

10


It is no coincidence that when thinking of a name for their pressuregroup the Blairite modernisers chose ‘Progress’.That battle still rages. Many in the Labour movement continue to chal-

lenge New Labour’s progressive claims. Yet New Labour’s vision ofprogressivism does share a great deal with the Progressives of the past.Its mission of redistributing power and opportunity to the many andnot the few, reflects the same guiding principle as those early Labourpioneers. In devolution the party drove through the most radical redis-tribution of power since women got the vote. Its anti-discriminationlegislation broke down barriers and gave a voice to many of the mostmarginalised in our society. Its investment and modernisation in educa-tion and health transformed life chances, giving people new opportuni-ties to fulfill their potential. Tax Credits, Sure Start, the New Deal, theMinimum Wage, Maternity Leave, the Winter Fuel Allowance, PensionCredit – all progressive policies that have given people greater powerand opportunity in their lives.Yet New Labour’s approach to reform was very much a product of its

time. State-centred solutions, managed from Whitehall, were requiredto tackle the challenges inherited from the Tories. Whether it was seri-ally underfunded public services, or millions of people marginalised bythe moralising policies of Thatcherism; clear and bold state action wasdesperately needed. However, while investment and modernisationfrom the centre transformed services, it also alienated many. TodayLabour finds itself behind in the polls and facing a resurgent Tory party.We are forced to ask ourselves why, when people are ‘small p’ progres-sive in their lives, are they increasingly rejecting ‘Big P’ progressivismfor their politics?In his recent John Smith memorial lecture David Miliband argued that

a deep ‘democratic pessimism’ had come to define British politics. Forall of us who have knocked on doors or pounded the streets for Labour,his conclusions ring true. How often have we heard people say that allpoliticians are the same, that we are all in it for ourselves, that ‘nothingever changes’. The message from the public is clear; people feel disem-

11


powered. They have come to see progressive politics as a barrier to indi-vidual progress, rather than as a facilitator of it. Yet, despite their reser-vations, they remain unconvinced by the Tories. The public still want tobelieve in a positive progressive vision for the future, they just don’tbelieve that any political party is articulating it. So what can Labour doto regain public confidence in its progressive cause?Some say that we need to return to the Old Labour policies of the past.

They argue that Labour’s current plight reflects a widely held belief thatwe have moved too far away from our founding values. Yet it seemscounterintuitive to argue that voters are returning to the Tories indroves because they feel Labour aren’t left wing enough. Rather, theyare calling for a new type of politics that reflects a fundamentallychanged world from the one that Labour inherited in 1997.To regain public trust Labour must not look backwards but must

instead offer a new type of politics that empowers individuals and givesthem greater control over their lives. The progressive politics of thefuture must be about the state giving up power, rather than reclaimingit. In the Liberal Republic Richard Reeves and Philip Collins outlinedtheir view, offering a challenge to Labour that is particularly pertinenttoday,“Trapped in his elevation of means over ends, the social democrat is

not sure what to do. The pattern of society seems oddly recalcitrant tohis reforms and yet he cannot see that his own ends – which are rightand good – can only ever be served by liberal means. Power to thepeople is in his gift if he holds the levers of power – but only by lettinggo, not by pulling them even harder.”It would be a mistake to use this argument to negate Labour’s many

successes over the past twelve years or reject democratic socialismentirely. Just as the first Progressive pioneers a century ago were a coali-tion of democratic socialists and liberals, so the new progressives mustbe too. While the liberal tradition can teach social democrats about theimportance of empowerment; social democrats can teach liberals that,without social justice delivered through an active state, empowerment

12


means little. Only by finding the right balance between liberalism anddemocratic socialism, extending individual liberty while defendingsocial justice, can Labour build the progressive coalition of the future. Sowhat would that mean in practice?If the new progressivism is about ensuring that the public have the

power to shape their lives, it is important to look at the institutions inwhich power resides. The obvious starting point is Parliament itself. Thefuror over MPs expenses has clearly shown that the public feel disem-powered by a political system that seems out of breath and out of touch.They demand a new type of politics in which the individual has greaterinfluence over the decisions that affect their lives. Yet, because of ourFirst Past the Post electoral system, the vote they cast at election time islikely to have no impact on the outcome. This has created a deep demo-cratic deficit between politicians and the people they claim to represent.The statistics speak for themselves. In the last General Election, 70 percent of the votes cast were wasted on losing candidates, or for winningcandidates above the level they needed to win their seats – that's over19 million ballots. The problem goes even deeper. Elections swing on asmall number of votes in a small number of marginal constituencies.That means that, even for the minority of votes that do count, somecount more than others.But beyond that, First Past the Post no longer represents the way that

most of us see the world. The simple ideological dichotomy between leftand right has lost relevance in an ever changing and increasingly inter-dependent world. We don’t experience life as a simple choice betweentwo competing visions. Rather, in life we collaborate, work together andcompromise to reach our goals. Politics should reflect that. If we are tolearn one thing from the furor over MPs expenses it is that the publicfeel disempowered by a political system that feels inward looking andinaccessible. Electoral reformmay not be a panacea, but it is certainly animportant symbolic starting point in the drive to pass power back to thepeople.But we need to go further. The new progressive’s goal must be to

13



14

redistribute power to the lowest possible level. That means strongerlocal government. The vast majority of constituency casework shouldbe dealt with by local councilors, not Members of Parliament. If coun-cilors had more access to central government and greater influence,they could become the strong and influential local voices that theydeserve to be. The public needs to have a greater say in the way thatpublic services are run. Choice is important, but even more important ismeaningful control. We should expand participatory budgeting andgive people greater opportunity to set priorities at the local level. Civilliberties must be protected, and in many circumstances extended, toensure that people know that power rests in their hands, and not in thelevers of the state.These are the policies that must define the progressivism of the future.

There are some who would look back. Progressives must always lookforward.

The next decade offers an array of challenges and opportunitiesfor the Labour Party; the emergence of new issues and the poli-cies needed to remedy them, the age-old balancing act of

renewing the party without abandoning its core values and adapting toa new political centre as opposition parties bend and alter to the times.One thing is clear; nothing is certain in politics. A global crisis alters thepolitical landscape like a new ice age. The Iraq War, 9/11 and the globaleconomic crisis are just some of the events that have shaped our politicsover the last decade. What is clear is that the Labour Party must retaina strong narrative about what it stands for and where it is going,meeting the challenges posed by Cameron’s Conservatives.The modern Conservative Party claims to be the only true progres-

sive force left in British politics, as Shadow Chancellor George Osbornehas recently insisted. This claim is utterly false. His party is progressivein some areas, such as the use of primaries to choose parliamentarycandidates and moves to devolve powers to local government, butprogressive means do not equate to progressive ends. TheConservatives still believe in hierarchy, regressive taxation and rabidEurosceticism. The party promotes stronger local government buteschews electoral reform; its anti-statism does not naturally equate toindividual empowerment. In Conservative eyes, the state is too big sothey aim to reduce it. They have no similar plans to increase the size of

15

Continuing the CrusadeDavid Boot

Labour PPC for Mid Sussex

the individual.The Conservatives have proposed inheritance tax cuts for the richest

estates in the country, have conceded that it will make bigger publicinvestment cuts than Labour, oppose organised labour and shy awayfrom any mention of the word equality. The party’s progressive veneeris a thin one. Just one look at their approach on Europe shows their truenature; they have created a European grouping including homophobesand bigots and yet they have just apologised for their role in Section 28at home. Actions most definitely speak louder than words.Recent Cameron statements show a return to old fashioned Toryism

as his party claims that only reform will improve public services. Inreality, the argument for better public services is more nuanced than thisand requires something that the Conservatives will not provide: invest-ment. A dual approach, encompassing reform and investment, is theonly true route to progress. One thing is clear; progressive politics in tenyears time will not be blue.The Labour Party is radical or it is nothing. Without this it ceases to

be the progressive force in British politics. From the creation of thewelfare state in 1945 to the pledge of devolution in 1997, the partychanges the shape of what governments do and how they do it. Small‘c’ conservatism is as much an enemy of the Labour movement as its big‘C’ equivalent. The party must retain its radicalism, not just for the nextten years, but for as long as forces of conservatism aim to restrict it.Radicalism for Labour’s next manifesto must show itself in the

spheres of the public services, the constitution and in the relationshipbetween the individual and the state. Greater personalisation in publicservices has been part of the government’s direction of travel over thelast decade and should inform Labour’s next ten years. However, thisnew relationship should not just be about the state and the individualand the shift of power from one to the other, but about the role thatprofessionals can play in the co-production of public services. The issueis not just about power; it is about the role of expertise in reforming

16



17

public services. The future of public services is better served by thistriumvirate than it is by the individual/state dichotomy and the ficti-tious fight the new right sees between the two.On the constitution, Labour needs to renew the radicalism

bequeathed to the party by John Smith and partly taken up by TonyBlair in 1997. Proportional Representation (PR), full reform of the Houseof Lords and the lowering of the voting age to 16 are just some ways thatLabour can pick up the mantle of 1997 and continue to change the wayin which we are governed. PR represents one of the biggest and fairestways to change how we choose our governments, finally breaking thecosy Westminster model we have at present. Too many votes cast in ourpolitical system are meaningless as political parties scramble over anumber of marginal seats to give them the required number of MPsneeded to form a workable government. The situation at present, wherewe have millions of votes cast that do not impact on the final result, hasto be tackled by Labour in its quest for a fairer society.A reformed second chamber should be a prerequisite for any future

Labour Government. How can it profess to champion fairness andequality when the House of Lords is created in the least fair way imag-inable? The lowering of the voting age is also part of a new constitu-tional radicalism Labour must embrace, helping to promote the activecitizenship of young people. Once again the question of fairness comesinto play as people question how 16 year olds can pay tax but not electthe government which administers those taxes. Radicalism, on theconstitution, is essential for Labour to build upon what it started in1997.Constitutional reform brings with it a new relationship between the

individual and the state, something that Labour must embrace over thenext decade. Personalisation in public services, including greater userchoice, as well as empowerment through a fairer constitutional settle-ment, helps bring about a new era for the relationship between the indi-vidual and the state. Moreover, shifts in green taxes to uphold the

polluter pays principle sees a greater personalisation in the realm oftaxation; payment being influenced by an individual’s actions.Individual responsibility, whether in areas of climate change, unem-

ployment and training and anti social behaviour, is not just a Torymissive. Indeed, the ‘rights and responsibilities’ rhetoric of 1997,mirroring much of the language of the party’s 1979 manifesto, fits intoone of Labour’s key values: that of community. In an ever globalisingworld, the values of community, including friendship, mutual respectand support, become ever more compelling.Greater personalisation in public services would be meaningless

without the knowledge that services are administered for a greaterpublic good and that one person’s interaction within it is just part of awider societal interaction. Labour’s reworking of the relationshipbetween the individual and the state goes beyond the phoney tinkeringproposed by the Conservatives; it sees a reimagining of the interactionbetween the two, including real empowerment, mutual respect throughthe values of community and real choice in relation to public servicesand the Government that administers them.Harold Wilson once remarked that ‘the party is a moral crusade or it

is nothing’. At the heart of policies must run the same set of values thatguided the party over a century ago. The next ten years will see nochange in these values of equality, fairness, aspiration and community.Issues that will dominate the political scene include climate change,poverty and internationalism.Despite Conservative claims to be green as well as blue, research into

Conservative PPCs shows that most see the biggest future threat to theUK to be terrorism rather than climate change. Even now, many on theright believe that the threat to the environment is over blown, faddishand even misplaced. The Labour Party must see climate change as anissue in which only its values can make a difference; the idea that onlyby acting together can we face the challenges to our planet. This is atime for individual and community action but also a time for strongstate leadership. It is not a time to shrink the role of the state as action

18


on all levels is the only way to address environmental challenges. OnlyLabour offers such action.On poverty, the current pledge to abolish child poverty by 2020 will

cast a long shadow over the next decade. What’s more, arguments aboutsocial mobility and aspiration will dominate political discourse oneducation and family policy. Labour must show that it is the only partythat will help improve social mobility in the UK, through investment ineducation and training, early year’s provision and careers advice andmentoring.The ‘Unleashing Aspiration’ report from the Panel on Fair Access to

the Professions highlighted the challenges faced in relation to socialmobility, including the stranglehold currently enjoyed by the privatelyeducated, the low aspirations of those in working class and lowermiddle class families and the availability of degree-level education. TheReport’s recommendations for ‘HE within FE’, investment in e-learningand the creation of a Lifelong Skill Account should all be pushed byprogressives.In addition, Labour has to be bold in challenging university admis-

sions policies which are skewed in favour of those who were privatelyeducated. Universities should be given a choice; prove that you are abenefit to the community or risk losing public funding. Only radical anddeliberate policies can address the current flat-lining of social mobilityrates, ensuring the next decade leads to higher mobility than thepreceding one.On internationalism, Labour must once again strive for an ‘ethical

foreign policy’ built around coalition building in the EU and UN.Moreover, a new economic order for the left must be articulated andpressed for, including greater economic regulation, corporate socialresponsibility, in all spheres including climate change, robust measuresto uphold human rights and the rule of law and aid policies that helpthe poorest nations develop their indigenous economies.Bold, progressive leadership on the global stage is the only way to

tackle globalised political issues such as climate change, poverty,

19



20

terrorism and immigration. Issues, and the politics to address them, willbecome ever more globalised over the next decade and beyond andLabour must adapt to this shift.It is clear that only Labour can offer the progressive solutions needed

to tackle the issues of today and those of the future. The party mustcontinue to produce radical solutions to tackle injustice, poverty anddisempowerment in order to create a fairer, more equal society. It’s truethat our party is best when it’s boldest. Over the next decade, we shouldnot forget this.

Iwas fairly recently a young woman in my twenties, so the hopeful,but false, impression that we live in a society in which men andwomen are treated equally is still fresh in my mind. However, after

my first decade in employment, the cracks in that façade are beginningto show.We celebrate the achievements of young girls at school (on average

they have been outperforming boys for some time) and at university, butthis differential is soon reversed when we consider the status of men andwomen in the labour market. A brief look at some key statistics acrossthe European Union gives us some food for thought.In some parts of Europe, there has been significant progress in

achieving higher participation levels of women in the labour market.However, this progress is unevenly spread and the disparity with men’semployment and earnings is still glaringly apparent. In the EU, theaverage female employment rate stands at 58% (all figures are from 2007unless otherwise stated), whilst over 72% of men are in employment. Inevery Member State the employment rate of men is higher than that ofwomen. In the UK, 65% of women compared to 77% of men are inemployment. Although the gender employment gap between men andwomen is narrowing (in 2002 it stood at 16% compared to 14.2% in2007), this gap is almost doubled when comparing men and womenwith children under the age of 12.

The Parent TrapEmma Reynolds

Labour PPC for Wolverhampton North East

21

Having children has huge implications for a woman’s employment,career prospects and life-time earnings. Recent statistics show thathaving children decreases the employment rate of women by as muchas 12.4% (compared to women without children), whereas it has thereverse affect of driving up men’s employment rates by 7.3%. Moreover,women with children are more likely to be in part-time work than menor women without children. One third of women with one child andhalf of women with three or more children work part time. However,the number of children has no perceptible affect on men working parttime.In addition to the employment gap, the gender pay gap remains stub-

bornly high in the UK and across the European Union. On average inthe EU, women earn 17.4% less for every hour worked than men, in theUK the gap stands at 21.1%. Ironically, the gap reaches higher levels incountries with higher participation rates. Even in the most gender-equalsocieties (Denmark and Sweden), women remain concentrated in low-paid sectors. Part-time employment also puts downward pressure onearnings and significantly more women are in part-time work.The progressive case for gender equality is usually articulated in the

language of social justice. It is socially just for women’s talents andskills to be valued and used to the same extent as men’s. We shouldtherefore act to narrow and eliminate the gender pay and employmentgaps. This argument usually falls on deaf ears because it comes upagainst complaints about the excessive costs of supplying childcare andfinancing generous leave entitlements.However, a powerful economic case can be made, particularly against

the backdrop of the demographic challenges which most Europeancountries currently face. In terms of economic efficiency, it simply doesnot make sense to waste the potential of half of the workforce.Moreover, an ageing population has huge implications for the publicpurse. Our economies and welfare states are becoming unsustainable asthe dependency ratio increases. It therefore makes economic sense to

22


continue to increase the participation rate of women but also to addressthe problem of falling birth rates.Most European countries have failed to resolve the tension between

these two apparently conflicting objectives. However, in Scandinaviancountries high levels of women’s employment go hand in hand withhigh fertility rates. Denmark and Sweden have long been the holy grailfor those of us who want to push the gender equality agenda. It is clearthat their generous provision of childcare and parental leave entitle-ments have helped women and men to combine work with parenthood.The key to a progressive vision for gender equality - on social justice

and economic grounds - is that the state should create the framework forwomen and men to balance the demands of the labour market withfamily responsibilities. There are three essential elements to this policymix: universal, affordable childcare provision, shared parental leaveand the changing role of men.For the purposes of this article, I would like to focus on parental leave.

The main sticking points are the length of parental leave and how thisleave is divided between mothers and fathers.It is too easy to assume that the best solution is to simply extend

maternity leave provision. The balancing act surrounding leave entitle-ments is more complicated than that. If parental leave is too long, thechances of discrimination against women increase and employers areunlikely to invest in the skills of women of childbearing age. If parentalleave is too short, this could act as a deterrent to starting a family or themother might decide to stay at home longer and thus lose her connec-tion with the labour market.Provisions in some countries have tried to encourage men to take a

greater share of parental leave. For example, in Iceland half the parentalleave will be lost if the father does not take it. However, even in thedeeply progressive and traditionally social democratic country ofSweden, only 15% of men take up parental leave. Moreover, a recentEurobarometer survey found that 75% of men were aware of their rightto take parental leave but 85% said that they would not take it. Various

23



24

factors account for this widespread reluctance. There is still a residualnotion of the male breadwinner. The lack or loss of remuneration is alsoa determining factor. The persistence of the gender pay gap intensifiesthis phenomenon because the majority of men earn more than women.There is a powerful argument that forcing each parent to take half of

the leave entitlement is the only way to fight discrimination in thelabour market. Women would no longer be disadvantaged becauseemployers would see men and women as equally likely to take parentalleave. However, as progressives, I believe that we should empower menand women to share their entitlement to the period of parental leaveequally if they choose to do so, given their individual circumstancesand preferences.Currently, in the UK, fathers are only entitled to two weeks paternity

leave. We need to address this imbalance and seek to overcome attitu-dinal obstacles to men taking longer periods of leave. If we are to live ina society which recognises men and women as truly equal, mothers andfathers should have the choice of equally sharing parental leave. We area long way from this. Our next manifesto should commit to this deeplyprogressive policy.

For progressives the next ten years need to be characterized by areconnection with ideology – not through a lurch leftwardstowards pre-war socialism, but by reconciling the cause of the

progressive left with the values of liberalism and principles of liberty.Like many left wing parties traditionally defined by class politics,Labour has enjoyed an uncertain relationship with concepts of liberty.Always more pragmatic than liberal centrists and with a much clearersense than the right of the real need for government to create strongpositive freedom, Labour’s stance on liberty has nonetheless sometimesbeen clearer in contrast than in its own right.One of the key challenges for the progressive left will be to prove a

genuine commitment to the intrinsic value of liberty and to demonstratethis in two key areas. The first is understanding fully that building afairer, stronger society that is truly sustainable requires effective stateinvestment not only in service provision but in developing the capacityof citizens to take control of their own lives and communities. Secondly,by demonstrating that in continuing the excellent work undertaken on arange of social policy issues, including tackling crime, progressives areclear that ‘civil liberty’ must be strongly protected. Throughout this itshould be clear that the importance of ‘liberty’ is not as some utopianconcept, but as something that can empower and protect us as citizensas we go about our day-to-day lives.

25

The Value of LibertyAlan Strickland

Labour PPC for Berwick-upon-Tweed

Progressives need to think about the relationships between the indi-vidual and the state in fundamentally different terms. Thatcher talkedabout moving the state from being a ‘provider’ to an ‘enabler’, whileNew Labour has talked more about ‘empowerment’. What’s needed issomething slightly different again. Thatcherite ‘enabling’ sounds fine,but in reality often meant the state doing less and leaving individuals tofend for themselves, rather than providing positive opportunities toallow citizens to take control. It missed the point that for citizens to beenabled, the state still needs to provide – it’s not a choice between oneor the other.Labour’s empowerment agenda has been far more meaningful, but

has focused too much on formal structures and high level local policy,to the exclusion of offering more genuine individual autonomy over thedecisions, many of them personal, which shape our lives. Formingcommittees and panels of local residents is a good step and providesmore control, but the opportunity to spend an evening at a local‘community stakeholder strategy forum’ isn’t what most people under-stand greater autonomy to mean.What the progressive left needs to advocate is greater autonomy for

individuals to take control of more aspects of their own health, educa-tion, training and other spheres of everyday life, shifting the boundariesbetween citizens, the public service professions and the state.Looking to the future of health and social care shows how this chal-

lenge is starting to be met. Citizens are increasingly being empoweredto exercise greater freedom over their own care, taking decisions thatwere previously the preserve of medical professionals. Organisationssuch as the Expert Patients Programme are leading the way. Individualswith long-term conditions such as arthritis and diabetes providetraining to fellow sufferers to help them to learn how to manage theircondition more effectively. An evaluation of the programme inNewham found that as a result of their improved ability to control theircondition and take preventative measures, 53% of participants madefewer visits to their GP and 47% required fewer visits to A&E. Such

26


programmes not only improve people’s health and well-being, butbuild sustainability into the health and social care system by spreadingknowledge widely, increasing patient autonomy and reducing depend-ency on medical professionals.What programmes like this also demonstrate is that enabling greater

self-reliance does not mean the state withdrawing and leaving citizensto fend for themselves. Some people will always need significant, costlysupport from the health service and the right to receive this freelyshould be inviolable. Also, where people’s capacity for self-direction canbe developed, this will still require the investment of time, money andstaff – the change is that more resources are invested in this capacitybuilding rather than purely in provision of direct services. This is notpublic services on the cheap and besides much of the innovation in thisarea has been developed outside of the public sector.Developing autonomy and enabling greater self-reliance is not just

about changing the way services are controlled, but about supportingcitizens to restore the fabric of their own communities. Geographicalmobility is increasing, the number of people living alone steadily rising- expected to reach ten million by 2026 - and family units are taking amuch more diverse range of forms. The effect of these demographicchanges has been to weaken the networks and ties that have fosteredmutual co-operation, shared support and sustainability in the past. Aprogressive vision for the future must include a commitment tobuilding the capacity of communities to enhance these intricate webs ofrelationships and contacts that define a cohesive, mutually supportivecommunity.The time-banking movement typifies the kind of approach that

should be encouraged. Providing a formal framework for distinctlyfriendly and informal actions, by harnessing the good will of individ-uals to support each other, it provides a modern twist on the building ofcommunities with sufficient mutual support to become increasinglyautonomous.

27


Time-banking works by allowing an individual or a group who helpsomeone else, to receive help themselves in return for their initialinvestment of time. Each hour spent volunteering time – to tidy anelderly neighbour’s garden, or help the children next-door with theirhomework – is deposited in the ‘time-bank’ and individuals can with-draw time from their account by asking for help from someone else.So the person who spends an hour running a football training session

in the local park can receive an hour of help with their decorating fromanother member of the bank. For volunteering an hour to help with thedecorating, that individual can then ask for an hour of someone else’stime. While it can sound bureaucratic, the system is actually incrediblysimple. Rooted in reciprocity, it creates a simple means to connect indi-viduals who otherwise may be isolated, and build friendships andnetworks across different parts of a community. It enables people to re-create the traditional neighbourhood networks that allow access to helpand support, but which all too often have disappeared. With 12,000people involved around the country, it’s also popular. Movements likethis free communities from some of their reliance on the state, becausethey tap into the genuine desire people have to help themselves andeach other where they can.A word of warning. In building the liberal autonomy of individuals,

we need to ensure that old bureaucracy is not simply replaced with newbureaucracy. How many times have reformers on left and rightproposed complex voucher systems for healthcare and intricate leaguetables of medical professionals? The progressive cause is not served byreforms that create even more bureaucracy and offer ‘efficiency’ bytransferring administrative burdens onto citizens. Also, the type ofactivities highlighted here work precisely because they are organic,voluntary and although supported by organisations, are essentiallybottom-up initiatives. They supplement state activity or replace aspectsof it for those who choose this. Let’s also remember the distinctionbetween choice and control. Being able to choose between waiting listsat a wide range of hospitals is a different way of using the current

28


system. It is not the same as being able to control more effectively one’sown treatment, and re-shape the way services are delivered, whichfundamentally alters the power balance between individual citizensand public services by creating co-production relationships.The second major aspect of liberty which progressives need to

develop a clearer belief in, and policy stance on, is the area of civilliberty. While citizens can choose whether to allow state interventions toimprove their health, government action to improve our safety oftencomes with little choice attached. Because of this, for citizens to enjoyautonomy, liberty needs to be much more strongly protected. Labour’scommitment to tackle crime, associated forever with Blair’s ‘tough oncrime, tough on the causes of crime’ speech, has led to ten major piecesof legislation since 1997, most in the name of terrorism prevention.Preventing terrorism is clearly very important, but the question theprogressive left has not been able to answer coherently is ‘at what pointdoes undermining terrorism start to undermine citizens’ rights? Whereis the line and how do we know if we’ve crossed it?’ The left needs astrong guiding principle and a clear instinct about how liberty shouldbe treated.Lacking a clear guide about where to draw the line, has sometimes led

Labour to pit itself against public opinion, for example by submitting anamendment to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2006, to proposeextending detention without charge for terrorist suspects to 90 days.This left many, even those keen to take much stronger steps to combatterrorism, deeply confused about the Party’s values. The progressiveleft must develop clear principles to ensure that any action by govern-ment which infringes privacy and liberty must be taken only whereabsolutely necessary and only where authorized by a court. Judicialoversight is crucial to ensure citizens are protected from bureaucraticexcess masquerading as security measures.An example of what progressives must stop is the expansive use of

powers designed to support crime prevention, to serve the expedienceof various public agencies. In 2008, Poole Borough Council admitted

29


using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, designed tocombat serious crime and terrorism, to deploy covert surveillance andundercover staff to track the movements of a family for two weeks. Thiswas because the council, far from fearing a terrorist attack beinglaunched from the family’s suburban semi, wanted to check whether theJoyce family were living in the correct catchment area for theirdaughter’s school. Other councils have admitted using surveillancetactics to monitor dog-fouling and wheelie bin use. The progressive leftshould be fundamentally opposed to such intrusions and stronglydefend the liberty of individual citizens against them. This means acultural shift but also institutional change to develop a strong civil liber-ties watchdog in government. The Equality and Human RightsCommission should be a strong campaigning voice, standing up for citi-zens and fighting against infringements in civil liberties. Given thatnone of its eleven key deliverables for next year relate to human rights,focusing instead on equality, it seems unlikely that the Commission willbe the champion of civil liberties that is badly needed.The progressive left also needs to ensure that as well as being guar-

anteed certain liberties, citizens are able to take clear steps to hold lawenforcement agencies to account when problems occur. Just as councilshave been misusing terrorism legislation, so in a strange twist somepolice officers have used the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 to punishmembers of the public taking pictures of them. The Act makes it anoffence to ‘elicit, attempt to elicit, or publish’ information ‘of a kindlikely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act ofterrorism’ about members of the armed forces, security services and thepolice.Despite the clear anti-terror intention of this clause, a plumber was

arrested and held for ten hours after taking a photograph of a policeofficer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police car.A photographer in Cleveland was questioned by police for takingpictures of local shipping, while the National Union of Journalists hascomplained about officers – illegally – forcibly deleting images from

30


cameras. Numerous similar examples have been reported across thecountry.Bystander film footage was crucial in revealing the circumstances

surrounding the death of Ian Tomlinson, who became caught up in theG20 protests and was a victim of police violence. Such tragic cases ofdeaths following police action, although very rare, demonstrate justhow important it is that citizens be able to photograph the activities ofthe police unhindered. Transparent, guaranteed rights to these basiccivil liberties must be a nonnegotiable element of the progressive future.We must be clear and confident that where new policies clash withfundamental civil liberties, it’s the policy that needs to change, not ourfreedoms – liberty is cheap to give away and expensive to win back.So, for progressives, the direction of politics over the next ten years

must be towards the development of autonomy in citizens in ways thatare ever wider and ever deeper. Crucially, this must be coupled with theentrenchment of the civil liberty that makes this autonomy possible. Indoing so, progressives will more accurately recognise that the bound-aries of what the state can achieve, and at last bring clarity to the shiftingsands previously undermining the left’s approach to civil liberties.Progressives need to be proud to talk about self-reliance, mutualsupport and ensuring that more and more citizens enjoy greater controlover their own lives. But we also need to be proud to defend civil liber-ties and ensure that our freedom is protected. We will do both notbecause the state should shirk responsibility, but because as progres-sives we know that some things are too valuable to be entrusted to thestate alone.

31


NewLabour came to power in 1997 determined to prove that itwas a false choice for government to prioritise either economicenterprise or social justice; these two goals went hand in hand

together. Hence the quick succession of New Labour economic policiescame to pass: Bank of England independence, the minimum wage, afreeze of income tax rates and tax credits. At the same time, New Labourachieved in its first three years of government constitutional changesthe size of which together had not been since the seventeenth century:devolution to London, Scotland and Wales; the massive reduction ofhereditary peers and the Human Rights Act.All of these measures can be shown to be progressive either in making

government more accountable or in improving the welfare of thosemost in need. Further progressive measures followed on later, includingthe National Insurance increase to pay for a massive NHS development;the Freedom of Information Act; equalisation of the age of consent andcivil partnerships. But these measures came amidst the backdrop of newexternal factors such as the aftermath of 11 September 2001 and theglobal financial crisis, which have made New Labour’s progressiveapproach much more difficult to maintain. While security concerns andthe financial crisis are likely to be great deterrents to progressive actionby government for the next decade, society itself will continue to adaptin the face of the information revolution.

32

A Sense of BelongingKevin Bonavia

Labour PPC for Rochford and Southend East

It is easier than ever before for more people to communicate with eachother, through better travel and phone and internet coverage. Thisought and does encourage a better understanding of different back-grounds and attitudes, but it also allows the spread of prejudice andbigotry. And whilst new broader but looser communities developthrough easier communication, more familiar communities of localityare less common with the effect that many people often do not evenknow their own neighbours. So, whilst Britain is, in general, a moreprogressive country than 12 years ago, at least in part to governmentaction, Labour’s progressive values will have to be applied by newmeans to face the challenges briefly outlined above.This is not a rejection of New Labour, but building on its successes

and learning lessons from its limitations, as New Labour did frombefore. There is no need for a new Clause 4, but rather a new interpre-tation of it, with the emphasis on “our common endeavour” and its callfor the creation of a fair “community”.In simple terms, a truly progressive government should seek to build

a stronger, more equal and fairer society, by encouraging the sense inindividuals that they each belong to wider society – that we each havean interest in what happens to our neighbour, our street, our town andto groups in society with different backgrounds.How might this approach be applied by government? Here are some

short examples.First, second and third, it comes back to oft-repeated New Labour

dictum: “Education, Education, Education.”First, schools need to be opened up to more children of different back-

grounds from the majority. This need not be an adherence to compre-hensive education, but it would mean that all schools - private,specialist or faith - would need to ensure that more children outsidetheir chosen criteria are admitted.Second, foreign languages need to be taught at a much earlier age in

all schools, ie at the point that most children have a decent grasp ofreading and writing in English, and no child should leave secondary

33


education without attempting to obtain a qualification in at least oneforeign language, just as in English and Mathematics.Government should also lay the groundwork for an ambitious system

of national community service for all education leavers, with a specificemphasis on individuals working with people from different back-grounds. Taken together, these measures would both better equip ourfuture generations with tools to improve their chances in life whilst alsoproviding them with an attachment to society and the wider world.Fourth, government should take steps to reduce the wealth gap

between the richest and poorest. The ideal outcome should be that allsocio-economic groups get richer, but those at the lower end of the scaledo so at a much greater rate relative to those at the higher end of thescale. The obvious tool is through fiscal policy, which needs to becomemore progressive. Targeted redistribution, such as tax credits, hasalready helped, but as the 10p tax rate debate showed, significantgroups can still miss out. Increases in the top rates of tax are now inprospect, but that on its own is not progressive. As far as possible thereshould also be corresponding reductions for those paying lower rates.Meanwhile the tentative steps towards a green tax regime shouldcontinue, ideally in concert with the European Union and the widerworld.Fifth, we need a general review of the balance of power between state

and individual. The constitutional reforms of this government will longoutlive it, but security concerns have led to a trend to more restrictivelaws rather than better enforcement of what already exists. These lawsneed to be revisited and amended wherever possible. Meanwhile,public confidence in Parliament and elected representatives in general isat dangerously low levels. Electoral reform that gives people moreinfluence in results and reduces the incumbency culture is crucial here.These prescriptions are non-exhaustive and come with political and

financial costs, but they fall within the progressive tradition of alwaysseeking improvement in the conditions that surround us.

34


Progressives are often disappointed that the truly progressive societyalways seems out of reach, but we have a proud record and a duty tomaintain it by adapting our means of getting there.

35


What do we understand by the term progressive? A quicksearch throws up words like change and modernising, asense of moving forward to meet an as yet unknown future.

In order to understand where Labour might fit in this future, we needto consider its role as a progressive party, and more widely, we need tolook at Labour as a party. Moving forward Labour must ensure boththat it sets out clearly its claim to the progressive mantle and also that itevolves as a party, enabling it to stay relevant to both members andvoters as time goes on.In a speech to Demos earlier this year, George Osborne laid claim to

the Conservatives being the Party of progressive politics. His argumentwas based on their commitment to reform public services, changes tothe electoral system such as primaries and opening up the state to indi-viduals. Ignoring the party political motivations for Mr Osborne’sspeech, it does pose a challenge to the left. It shows that Labour cannotassume the progressive mantle; rather it is something it has to fight for.There are two parts to this fight. The more obvious part is Labour

policy, we have to look closely at the ideas Labour is proposing andwork harder to understand how they are Labour and how they repre-sent progressive ideals. New Labour is a party focused very much onmeans, sometimes at the expense of ends. Taking welfare reform as anexample, the majority of employment support schemes, some forextremely vulnerable adults, have been contracted out to private

Back to the FutureRebecca Rennison

Labour PPC for South West Wiltshire

36

providers. Whilst this does bring the competitiveness of the market, theside product is individuals with more complex needs, those who aren’tgoing to help a company meet its targets, being sidelined. However, themantra continues to be ‘contract out’.Labour needs to develop greater confidence. Whilst part of New

Labour was laying to rest the goal of mass state ownership and recog-nising the role of the markets, as a party it seems to live in fear of doinganything that could be branded too left wing. Sometimes traditionalLabour approaches are the best, and Labour shouldn’t be afraid to sayso when this is the case.As Labour moves forward it needs to find a middle ground between

the Labour of the 1980s, caught up in ideals that left the electoratebehind and the Labour of the noughties, with its love of Private FinanceInitiatives and contracting out. We need a Party with a clear vision forhow to tackle issues such as healthcare, education and housing and thatis also prepared to take a stand when it comes to cutting our nuclearstockpile or introducing greater rights for workers.New Labour is a Party that is at times afraid to appear left wing. The

Labour Party of the future needs to mix New Labour’s pragmaticapproach to policy with a strong dose of classic Labour ideals.This leads to the second challenge for Labour, internal party structure.

New Labour has focused its resources on marginal and safe seats.Whilst a successful policy in the short term, the long term consequenceof this is local Labour parties across the country left to stagnate, with nomeaningful relationship with the rest of the Party. Labour needs to lookat how it manages the relationship between the central Party and localConstituency Labour Parties (CLPs) and work to ensure that member-ship of the Party is meaningful.Part of this involves changing the structure of Party Conference.

Whilst prior to 1997 changes were made to ensure that Conference wasworkable, these changes have now gone too far. Today, Conference is amaze of rules and debates with little meaning and purpose. It is truethat a balance must be struck between providing a platform for internal

37



38

debate whilst avoiding revealing bouts of in-fighting to the media andopposition parties. But lately Labour has erred too far on the side ofcaution.Conference needs to be opened up, it needs to be made accessible so

that everyone is able to understand and engage in the process. Platformdebates need to change, currently they are used to secure prime timenews slots for Ministers, or provide a succession of ProspectiveParliamentary Candidates with a chance to score points with theirconstituency. Labour needs to change the structure and enforce tougherchairing to ensure that debate is just that, a real discussion of the issues,not a quick soundbite to feature in the local members’ newsletter. It alsoneeds to address the stifling tight Conference schedule by allowing formore breakout sessions, creating more opportunities for members todiscuss their ideas and opinions. In short, Conference needs to go backto being about Party members.At a local level, we need to reinvent and revive the local Party. For too

many, membership of the Labour Party involves little more than amonthly meeting and a direct debit. Parties in areas without an MP (orany likely chance of getting one) hear little from their regional team orcentral Party, unless money is needed or volunteers wanted.Local parties in all areas have a key role to play in the Labour Party of

the future. Not much needs to be done to better support these localparties, just some investment in regional teams to enable greatersupport, the occasional visit by a Minister or MP and a real chance tocontribute to Party debate. Vibrant local parties have a key role to playin campaigning for local councillors, fundraising and, when needed,supporting the campaigning work of other CLPs. Investing in our localparties would help reverse the decline in party membership and in thelong run lead to a healthier and more stable Labour Party.To conclude, New Labour has become too detached from the ideals

that lie at the heart of the Labour Party. Going forward, we need to takethe best of New Labour, which to me is its pragmatic approach to poli-tics and campaigning, but ensure that embedded in this are core Labour


39

values. As part of this, we need to look at the role of Party members anddo more to ensure that every member feels engaged and included in theParty.New Labour forms another chapter in the evolution of the Labour

Party, but if it is to stay current and continue to succeed as a party,Labour needs to take the best of what’s come before, learn lessons wherethey need to be learned, and move on.

40

Weare all familiar with the considerable achievements of theLabour Government since 1997 in the field of education –from the substantial reductions in school class sizes to the

notable increases in access to higher education.The focus on the priority accorded to delivering on Tony Blair’s

‘Education, Education, Education’ mantra and addressing GordonBrown’s concerns over the UK’s skills gap has brought about tangibleimprovements in schools, many of whom are new or have been substan-tially or wholly refurbished in the dozen years of Labour in office. Moreand more students have received greater numbers of passes and highergrades at GCSE and AS/A2 Level, with schools diversifying theirteaching methods and subject specialisms in the pursuit of excellenceand preparing the next generation for their role in the twenty-firstcentury globalised knowledge economy.Yet life-long learning, I fear, has been the poor relation in successive

government’s education policy; schools and universities were alwaysinvited to the ball, yet colleges constantly have been confined to playingthe role of Cinderella. At least this is how it seems in the case of theLabour Party’s ownership of the issueGiven Labour’s proud tradition of championing life-long learning – as

most aptly demonstrated by Harold Wilson and Jennie Lee’s establish-ment of the Open University in the late 1960s – I am surprised how littlethe Party has publicised its achievements in the field since 1997. In

Furthering EducationGareth Gould

Labour PPC for South Holland and the Deepings


41

response to a Parliamentary Question of 15 May 2008 on the levels ofcapital expenditure on colleges, then-Universities Secretary JohnDenham was able to inform the House of Commons that,“£2.4 billion of capital investment has been made in the further

education sector, including investment for information and learningtechnology (ILT) in the last 10 years, compared to ear marked expendi-ture of zero pounds in 1997.”No money whatsoever for colleges even when there was no recession

in 1997 – yet another shining example of the legacy of neglect of theparty that currently aspires to form the next Government. For one thing,the Tories’ shameful record of neglect should not be lost on the elec-torate – and we should take every opportunity to remind voters of this.This, of course, would be easier if Labour took greater ownership of theissue itself. For me, life-long learning, as embodied by the FE sector, iscentral to Labour’s driving vision of enhancing peoples’ life chances.Or rather it should be.Yet where was the inspiring narrative linking the expansion of further

and adult education to improving life-chances, placing new dynamiccolleges at the centre of revived communities, fostering citizenship andenhancing academic, cultural and sporting creativity all too oftendrowned out and blunted by the obsessive materialism of the now-discredited laissez-faire market? In further education and life-longlearning, Labour has had the golden opportunity of carving out aprogressive narrative and clear red water with the opposition parties –uniting the themes of enhancing life-chances, building up communitiesand addressing the skills gaps both within the UK and vis-à-vis othercountries.If ever there was a ‘common good’ agenda that merited a holistic and

comprehensive social democratic approach which could have fostered asuccess for ‘joined-up’ government, this was it. Yet this appears to beone of several issues where Labour has not trumpeted enough its notinconsiderable achievements in this sector – and so we find ourselves


42

unable to receive the credit for concrete change in the eyes of the elec-torate. Voters feel little connection between political purpose and prac-tical policy.I hope that Labour seizes the opportunity afforded it by the fortieth

anniversary this year of the establishment of its creation, the OpenUniversity, to champion this progressive narrative to the electorate inthe run-up to the General Election.The Open University’s entry policy has proved to be a beacon of

shining light on hitherto untapped academic potential for over threemillion students, and with over 180,000 students currently enrolled(including over 25,000 studying overseas) it boasts the highest studentnumbers of any UK academic institution – and rated first for studentsatisfaction in 2005 and 2006 across England and Wales. We could doworse then than to place the Open University at the heart of our mani-festo vision to make further & adult education a core plank of Labour’sprogressive offer to the electorate.Life-long learning made available to all who wish it would be an

inspiring motif for a Party aspiring to enthuse the electorate to grant ita fourth term in office. Then voters may feel Labour more fully lives outits vocation as the moral crusade Harold Wilson would have it be andfor which the Government since 1997 has already done much to realise.

43

When I was asked to write an article for this publication anumber of thoughts came to mind. I’ll be honest - theyweren’t necessarily policy ideas or pearls of futuristic

wisdom.My first thought was “Wow – I’ve been asked to write an article as a

‘New Progressive’”, I immediately checked that the email was in factaddressed to me.Once I confirmed that it was indeed addressed to Darren Jones I then

thought “Wow – what do I know? Do I have anything useful to say?” Ibegan to panic somewhat. But then it came to me – keep it simple – andI think there is a lot that can be said for keeping things simple.So I sat down, with a piece of paper and a pen to try and mind map

what opinions I’d write about and in what format. The important wordhere is opinion. The opinions I was writing down were my own,composed in my own mind without any debate or application. Icouldn’t write about that, I’m supposed to be a representative!So instead, I spoke to some people. Constituents, friends, colleagues,

and my grandmother – the list continues, like an Oscar winning speech.It was hardly surprising what issues came up, they were the big issuesof the day as one might expect. But what was important, I thought, werethe general undertones about ‘politics’, what it actually means to beprogressive and ultimately, why Labour?

Keeping It SimpleDarren Jones

Labour PPC for Torridge and West Devon


44

We all know, only too well, the effects of the recent expenses scandalcoupled with a global recession and an already present distaste for poli-tics and politicians. In my mind at least, we’re at rock bottom. The greatthing about being at rock bottom, however, is that things can only getbetter.Back in 1997, the victorious Blair government proclaimed a New

Britain – I may have only been eleven at the time but I remember thehype, people were actually excited by politics! I was excited by politics!So what has happened?As an international community, with a recession and the effects of

climate change on the agenda (for example), the prospect of parliamen-tary reform is perhaps not in the top three. I’m disappointed that after12 years we haven’t reformed as much of the Parliamentary system aswe could have. I understand these processes take time, indeed JackStraw commented on the lengthy years it would take to fully reform theHouse of Lords in his speech to the group ‘Unlocking Democracy’ backin September, but I still think more could and should have been done.I of course take note of the introduction of devolution, of the Human

Rights Act, of Freedom of Information and the first stage of House ofLords Reform. But I feel so deeply that if we rely on the expensesscandal being just forgotten and no longer reported on in the media –without serious coupled reform – then we have missed a great oppor-tunity.It was back in 2007 that I was handed the green paper ‘The

Governance of Britain’ from the newMinistry of Justice. I thought it wasa great paper and felt that the opening paragraph of its forward nicelyput what it is I’m trying to say to you today,“Our constitutional arrangements fundamentally underpin how we

function as a nation. The nature of the relationship the Government haswith citizens, the credibility of our institutions, and the rights andresponsibilities of citizens all determine the health of our democracy”The key messages from this paragraph are about credibility and the

health of our democracy. Both of these issues, superimposed onto the


45

society of today still pose major issues. People feel that government,political parties and politicians aren’t credible, whilst aspects of ourparliamentary system – the mother of parliamentary systems – havebeen described, even bymembers of the House, as rotten. So how are wegoing to change this?Whilst it may take decades to reform governance structures and

processes, it takes only a fraction of the time to change the peoplerunning parliament. Forget the bureaucracy, forget the elections, evenforget the details if only for a second – keep it simple – politics is aboutpeople. So as we move forward, as the progressive party, we mustensure that the people are right. What do I mean by this?When everything in our world is changing so quickly and so drasti-

cally we risk taking the wrong pathway. Our parliamentary system risksbeing lead by an unrepresentative group of career politicians or thewealthy. Whilst both perhaps deserve a place in the system it does forgetthe actual demographic of our society. I’m not just referring to womenMP’s and peers or those from BME communities – areas where Labourhave done fantastically well, but still have much to do – but I’m refer-ring to the single mum, the young person, the OAP and the labourer aswell as the lawyer, the teacher and the career politician. Why can’t thesepeople be elected to represent their communities?I believe it to be because Parliament isn’t accessible. The debate over

whether MPs should have other jobs at the same time is valid, but hastotally missed the point. The debate shouldn’t be about wealthy Torieswith a handful of non-executive directorships but should be aboutpeople gaining access to the house whilst also having a life outside oftheWestminster bubble. I think an answer might be job share. Why can’twe have elected representatives who want to be MPs whilst caring fortheir children, or elected representatives who are still students, orelected representatives who choose to continue with their job in theirhome community but want to – and have an elected right to – travel toLondon for part of the time to represent their community?Why can’t wehave two MP’s job sharing for a particular constituency?


46

I’m sure that people would be much happier knowing that their taxesare being spent on financially supporting these types of credible politi-cians and knowing that the diversity of such a move will only addvibrancy to a pretty dull, unhealthy democratic system.House of Lords reform too might have an important part to play here.

Might reform, with the introduction of elected and accountablemembers, provide an upper House that is not about party politics orgovernment but is only about representing people’s needs? Reform ofthe Commons – in what ever form that might be – isn’t likely to happenfor a good while but we certainly have an opportunity with the Lords. Ihope that reform does take place, in some shape, to allow the diverserepresentation that is needed.The time has come for our parliamentary system to be reformed, to be

made relevant and to be made credible to its people. I’m confident thatthe only party who can do this with the right values base is the LabourParty, these types of reform would never happen under a Conservativegovernment! So let’s make sure we become the relevant and progressiveparty of an exciting political future – relevance to our people is the onlyway we can remain in power and by being so, to create a brighter futurefor us all.I understand that there are multiple threads of this argument that can

be pulled out for debate and that creating a vibrant, credible and healthydemocratic system is much more complex than can be communicated ina short article. But let’s forget the detail, if only for a second, and try tokeep it simple.

47

“Will the last one to leave Britain please turn out thelights”, the Sun’s famous pre-1992 election headline,was adapted to new ends by the media after the end of

Labour’s 2009 Brighton Conference. “The end of an era” and “the deaththroes of a party” argued the commentators.But this image simply doesn’t fit with the mood amongst the gaggle

(for want of a better collective term) of Labour’s young ParliamentaryCandidates as they waited for their chance to take to the stage of theconference hall on the Sunday of Labour’s annual gathering. The crack-ling optimism which filled every sinew of my fellow candidates left mewith the overwhelming sensation that the future is bright for Labour asa progressive movement. But what is that future?Here, I want to set out how Labour must respond to the two central

electoral problems it currently faces – the assertion that it is “time for achange” and the question, “what has Labour done for me?” – beforefleshing out a vision of how Labour can harness a significantlyexpanded role for the State as a positive force in society, movingforward.

Problem 1: “It’s time for a change”The phrase “the grass is always greener” is apposite for British politicsat present. People don’t like to be governed by the same party electionafter election. There must be something better out there, they assume.

Capable GovernmentAdam Leeder

Labour PPC for Suffolk Coastal


48

The key is not to read too much into this public attitude. The fact thatthe public want to rip-up the status quo isn’t necessarily the same thingas being dissatisfied with Labour.Take, for example, the recent focus group polling that the BBC’s

Newsnight has been conducting over the course of party conferenceseason. A typical exchange has been something like this:

Pollster: “So why wouldn’t you vote for Gordon Brown atthe next election?”Focus Group Member: “Because it’s time for a change.”Pollster: “And why is it time for a change?”Focus Group Member: “I don’t know…it’s just time for achange.”

My point here is that voters get itchy feet. Governments lose elections,oppositions don’t win them. Yet Governments don’t necessarily loseelections due to flaws within the governing party. This is a key distinc-tion. Therefore, Labour should not indulge too heavily in a period ofintrospection as a result of our current standing in the opinion polls.Calls for a wholesale shake-up and a reversion exclusively to Labour’s‘core’ values are tempting but misguided.

Problem 2: “What has Labour done for me?”We’ve all had it. Those words that ring in our ears at the end of anycanvassing session – “what has Labour done for me?” This article isn’tthe place to list the considerable amount that Labour has done forpeople during 12 years in Government so far. This critique will evencome from the mother who uses the Sure Start centre, the pensionerwho has benefited from free bus travel or the cancer sufferer who hasbeen made exempt from paying prescription charges.Why is this so? Put simply, it is because the public at large, who aren’t

(perhaps rightly) political junkies, will not easily ascribe favourablechanges in their personal circumstances, to Government action. The


49

Government must first establish a magnetic, easy to understand meta-narrative onto which the population can attach their positive individualexperiences. What should this meta-narrative be? One phrase – “it is theduty of the state to ensure equality of capability.”It’s worth a quick diversion into why equality of capability and not

equality of income should be Labour’s endgame, given that this debatehas coloured so many discussions about Labour’s progressive future.‘Equality of capability’ is the brainchild of political economist

Amartya Sen and has been popularised recently by James Purnellthrough Demos’ ‘Open Left’ project. In a Labour sense equality of capa-bility would cast the state in the role of removing the barriers to peoplefulfilling their aspirations. It places greater emphasis than equality ofopportunity on the State’s need to intervene to provide a level playingfield for the most deprived in society, but less emphasis on championingan equality of incomes.Those favouring a return to equality of income as Labour’s principle

raison d’etre – such as Roy Hattersley – are wrong to do so. Theirmistake is to conflate continued increases in UK income inequality withthe assumption that this will automatically be to the detriment of thepoorest in society. Income inequality has indeed risen in the UK since1997; rising from a Gini coefficient (the standard measure of incomeinequality) of 0.33 to 0.35. There is no getting away form this fact. Yet, toget the true picture, one needs to probe beneath the headline figures.As the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) points out, growth in income

inequalities has slowed significantly since Labour came to power. Thethere was an increase from 0.25 to 0.33 in Gini coefficient levels over thecourse of Margaret Thatcher’s reign, compared to the increase from 0.33to 0.35 under New Labour.Also, even more crucially, this continued growth in income inequali-

ties can largely be ascribed to the distorting effects of individuals in thetop 1% of the income scale. Income levels of the bottom 15% of societyhave increased.


50

The way forwardSo let’s flash forward a couple of years. Labour have eschewed thetemptation for overly prolonged naval gazing and rallied behind amemorable meta-narrative of it being the duty of the State to establishequality of capability. Where to now?Let’s take one specific example of where the role of the State can be

significantly expanded to clearly increase equality of capability insociety – education. Put simply, making the school day much longerwould significantly benefit children from the poorest households. Anexample of this model in action can be found in KIPP (Knowledge isPower Programme) schools in the US, where children attend between7.30am and 5pm. The premise is straightforward. Children from less-well-off backgrounds are comparatively less likely to receive academicstimulus outside of school hours and their educational developmentcorrespondingly suffers. At the 60 KIPP schools in the US, more than80% of their low-income students go on to further and higher education,four times the equivalent national average. There is no reason why thissuccess could not be replicated by lengthening the British school day,building on already positive developments from the Government in thefield of breakfast and evening clubs in schools.This is just one, small, positive, example of how expanding the state

to meet its duty to establish equality of capability, is the future ofprogressive British politics.

51

The public have been outraged by two main topics this year;parliamentary expenses and the greed of bankers in paying outbonuses. These are the two progressive reforms I believe need to

be addressed before anything else.MPs in all political parties let us all down in the way they abused the

parliamentary expenses system. At a time when many hardworkingfamilies and individuals are struggling to make ends meet, the actionsof someMPs demonstrated how out of touch they had become. If publictrust is to be restored in Parliament then a complete overhaul will berequired.Firstly, I would like to see criminal offences written into law, affecting

any elected member who knowingly provides false or misleading infor-mation in claiming an allowance. I am fully in favour of the introductionof custodial sentences for the worst cases. At the end of the day we aretalking about public money and everything must be done to preventfraudulent claims.Secondly, I believe any second home should remain the property of

the state. When an MP steps down or loses their seat their second homeshould be sold within one year and the proceeds returned to the publicpurse. Most members of Parliament enter public life so they can servethe public interest. MPs should therefore not benefit financially from thesale of a second home after retiring or losing their seat.

Being CooperativeIan Ross

Labour PPC for Worthing West


52

I am in favour of an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority,which should have the power to set an allowances and expenses systemwithout requiring Parliamentary approval. Transparency is crucial ifpublic trust is to be regained in Parliament.Amongst privatisation and deregulation, the Tories encouraged

building societies to be demutualised in the 1980s. Northern Rock,Alliance and Leicester, Bradford and Bingley, and the Halifax becameshareholder owned and run banks. None of these banks remain inde-pendent after the financial crisis; five are now partly or wholly ownedby the state. The financial crisis in the banking sector illustrates howdisastrous Tory demutualisation has been and emphasises why theseinstitutions should be put back into the hands of their customers.Mutuals are owned by their members, all of whom are customers,

rather than external shareholders, and are therefore incentivised towork in the interests of their members. They exist to provide a servicerather than generate profits. Profits are shared amongst members,which provide mutuals with an estimated cost saving of 35% ascompared to their plc rivals. These savings are passed on to savers vialower interest rates on borrowing and higher returns on savings.The Co-operative Party, which recently launched ‘The Feeling’s

Mutual’ campaign, has called for lessons to be learnt from the bankingcrisis and that future solutions look to put people before profit. Theyargue that mutually owned building societies demonstrate that respon-sible banking is best achieved in a democratic and accountable way. It isvital that we learn from our mistakes and re-build our banking systemso that it puts people first. The public will not want to see a LabourGovernment squander an opportunity to bring banks back into theircommunities, nor will they forget the enormous sums spent in bailingout the mistakes of plc banks – many of which continue to pay hugebonuses and encourage risk taking.The future of Northern Rock provides a starting point for action. The

Banking Act of 2008 allows for state-owned banks to be converted intomutuals. It is fundamental that any change does not leave taxpayers out


53

of pocket, the new organisation should act in the long term interest of itscustomers and the institution that emerges should be secure, respon-sible and add to the financial stability of the UK economy. Mutuallyowned building societies do not just benefit their members, they are alsosocially desirable to the economy as a whole.Once these two major challenges have been tackled then we need to

address the issue that more of us are living longer - life expectancy isgoing up and advances in medical science mean that people with adisability are living longer. This is worth celebrating but does mean weneed to radically change the way care is provided and paid for.Last year we all celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of Labour’s

National Health Service. Sixty one years later we are all living older andthis will continue to impose costs on the NHS and care budgets. Ibelieve Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, needs to act on his visionto build the first National Care Service in England - a service that is fair,simple and affordable for everyone.The proposals are some of the most fundamental reforms in this area.

The National Care Service will create a level playing field and end thepostcode lottery of care services. A National Care Service wouldcontinue the work that Aneurin Bevan and Clement Attlee started informing the NHS and the welfare state in 1948.After twelve years in government Labour need to demonstrate that

the Party isn’t old and clapped out but able and willing to address thebig long-term challenges ahead. I believe these three issues need to bepriorities for long-term stability.

54

Asprogressives, our values and principles are most needed atthe time when our electoral fortunes seem to be taking a turnfor the worse. Here in Britain we are struggling to make

headway against a rejuvenated Conservative Party and the Europeanelections showed a collapse in our vote with Labour voters staying athome or voting for minor parties.What we have learnt from the success of New Labour is that you have

to keep winning and keep offering voters a vision of why Labour is theparty to deliver the things that most matter in peoples’ everyday lives.The other thing we have to do is put ‘fairness’ at the centre of what westand for, and we have not always been so successful at that.There is a sense of unfairness that the average family income has

grown so wide. I do not believe this can be put down to petty jealousies.As a nation we celebrate success and entrepreneurship and I do notbelieve that a ‘levelling down’ mentality is particularly helpful – eitherpolitically or economically. My perception of what grates the Britishpsyche the most is that not everyone has ‘played by the rules’ and thosewho have ‘not played fair’ have been richly rewarded. The bankers’bonuses and the MPs’ expenses crisis exemplify this best.An increasingly globalised economy gives businesses the opportunity

to move capital, factories and services from one country to another andfrom one continent to the next. How can we ensure that employees,consumers and businesses are all being treated fairly? How can we

A Sense of Fair PlayChris Ostrowski

Labour candidate for the Norwich North by-election


55

ensure the ‘rules’ are fair? And how can we make sure that any rules wedo make are being adhered to at all?Strengthening environmental regulation, trade union rights and

closing tax loopholes will be of no consequence at all if the businessessimply move to a place where such rules do not apply. A co-ordinatedapproach is essential and the European Union is best placed to do this.It is only working with our European partners that our importers canensure that their products are protected from hijackings as goods areshipped to Britain. It is only by working together that we can ensure thatcarbon emissions are reduced to a level that makes a difference and, asthe recent crisis has shown most clearly, it is only working with ourneighbours that we can intervene effectively when the economiccircumstances require it.Internationalism and positive engagement with the EU is going to

become more important and this is where we as progressives have anopportunity to make the case for ‘fairness’ where the Conservatives cannot. Positively defining ourselves as internationalists will be an effectivepolitical argument if we show how it can help us to achieve the ‘fair-ness’ that people are looking for.In many areas we are more empowered than ever before. More people

ask for a second opinion from a doctor and want to see their medicalrecords than previously, and parents make full use of league tables tosee how their local school is performing. We need to bring this samedegree of empowerment to the private sector. We should have muchgreater transparency on how much tax is paid by companies – particu-larly multi-nationals, so their employees or anyone else can see howmuch tax is paid in each jurisdiction. The issue is not that some juris-dictions have lower tax rates than others, it is that we can not tell howmuch tax large companies pay. With greater transparency we will beable to see how much money directors are taking out of companies inthe form of pay and bonuses and how much they are investing infurther training, incentive schemes and pensions. In Britain, directorshave been taking more money out of large companies than is common


56

in Europe and the Far East. A league table which shows where acompany’s profits go would empower us all and allow us all to see thatthe rules are being adhered to.Ultimately, we want to see an economy which serves the people, not

a situation where we serve an economy that is not reflecting our values.Greater transparency, the closing of tax loopholes and better inwardinvestment from companies would help this.In a way, this is just an extension of the agenda that we have delivered

some successes on over the past twelve years; empowering people andinvesting in the services that can make the biggest difference in peoples’lives. At a local level, therefore, we need to keep making sure we are onthe right side of working class and middle class families. Are our poli-cies on schools delivering? Is public transport available, reliable, afford-able and safe? Do we have adequate childcare facilities and careprovision for the elderly?The equality agenda is probably the government’s greatest success

since 1997. Treating people with equal dignity regardless of disability,race, age, faith, gender and sexual orientation is now a given in Britishpolitics. There is always more to do to protect the most vulnerable insociety and we will always be there making the argument on how toachieve this.On both equality and public services we can take some pride in the

fact that the Conservatives are now using our language. The fact that theConservatives have to say they will put the NHS first shows that ourvalues and policies have become the norm. Though it will be interestingto see what happens if the Tories ever do form a government.The Green agenda, about which so much has been written, will also

dominate politics for the next generation. Though the policies may becomplex, the principles by which we can respond to the dangers thatclimate change presents can only be found in progressive politics. Wemust share fairly, we must act together and we must waste less.Finally, how we ‘do politics’ is an area where resilience, leadership

and determination are required as reform has proved to be so difficult.


57

There seem to be too many sacred cows and too many quaint traditions(“The other place” / “The Honourable member”) which are only knownto those who are in on the joke.I would like to see the Commons and Lords change beyond all recog-

nition – there are always opportunities to empower and involve thepopulation and these go beyond the rather simplistic calls for morereferendums and more proportional representation. I think deeperchanges are needed that will give us the opportunity to feel that – asvoters – this is our government, our parliament. There will be at leastone coronation over the next 20 years, there may be two; what do wewant from our Head of State, who do we want our Head of State to be?How do we want our representatives to act and behave? How can werelate to politicians and how can politicians regain the trust of the elec-torate? Better and more effective democracy is essential and this has tobe a priority.The Labour Party need to own these issues – ‘fairness’ and ‘fair play’,

through better internationalism and more transparency; we need tocontinue to be the party of equality and public services and we need toexpress our values and core beliefs when we tackle to complex issue ofclimate change and trust in politics.


JOIN THE FABIANS TODAYJoin us and receive two Fabian Reviews, plus ouracclaimed Fabian Special: ’The Change We Need:What Britain can learn from Obama’s victory’

Name

Address

Email

Telephone

Bank/building society name

Address

Acct holder(s)

Acct no.

Date of birth

Postcode

Postcode

Sort code

Signature Date

I understand that should at any time during my six-month introductorymembership period I wish to cancel, I will receive a refund and keep allpublications received without obligation. After six months I understand mymembership will revert to the annual rate as published in Fabian Review,currently £33 (ordinary) or £16 (unwaged).

I’d like to become a Fabian for just £9.95

I instruct you to pay direct debits from my account at the request of theFabian Society. The instruction is subject to the safeguards of the Direct DebitGuarantee.

Instruction to Bank Originator’s ID: 971666

Return to:Fabian Society MembershipFREEPOST SW 157011 Dartmouth StreetLondonSW1H 9BN

59

Documents

The New Progressives