Anticipations - Autumn 2009 by Young Fabians

YOUNG FABIANS With special guest article from Lord Mandelson

2009 CONFERENCE SPECIAL Volume 13, Issue 2 | Autumn 2009

ANTICPATIONS

YOUNG FABIAN CONFERENCE EVENTS 2009

Young Fabian 2009 Conference Reception @ JAM Supported by UNISON Monday 28th September | 6-8pm 9-12 Middle St, Brighton With special guest speaker Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Young Fabians/Fabian Society/Unions 21/Labourlist.org Fringe Next Labour: What next for progressives? Sunday 27th September | 3-4.30pm Regency Lounge, Royal Albion Hotel, Brighton With Jon Cruddas MP; James Purnell MP; Chair: Mary Riddell (The Telegraph)

Both events are outside the secure zone so you do not need a conference pass to attend.

CONTENTS

AUTUMN 2009 VOLUME 13, ISSUE 2

Published by: The Fabian Society 11 Dartmouth Street London SW1H 9BN T: 0207 227 4900 F: 0207 976 7153 Printed by: Caric Press Ltd Lionheart Close, Bearwood Bournemouth Dorset BH11 9UB Anticipations, like all publications of the Fabian Society, and the Young Fabians, represents not the collective view of the Society, but only the views of the individuals whose articles it comprises. The responsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement.

YOUNG PEOPLE IN A RECESSION

Guest article Rt. Hon Lord Mandelson

Young Fabian Summer School Adrian Prandle and Susan Nash

Social Networking Nick Maxwell

Financial Planning Jack Falkingham OTHER ARTICLES

Beating the BNP Dan Whittle, Sara Ibrahim and Tom Stoate

Costs and Benefits Rebecca Rennison

The Change We Need James Devine

The Feeling’s Mutual Ian Ross

Notes from Africa Adrian Prandle, Steve Race, Preth Rao SOCIETY NEWS

Policy Forums David Chaplin

The editor would like to thank: The office of Peter Mandelson, the Young Fabian Executive Committee.

Candidates’ Network Update James Green

Images used in this publication are royalty-free or are Creative Commons licensed. Copyright remains the author’s own.

Feminism Debate Preth Rao

www.fabian-society.org.uk www.youngfabians.org.uk

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

FROM THE EDITOR Alex Baker Editor, Anticipations

here is something rather scary about the billions and billions of pounds of debt governments accumulated to prop up otherwise ailing economies: we have to pay it back. That orgy of debt is likely to result in a terrible hangover. More sluggish growth in future; weaker employment prospects; higher taxes; and reduced government expenditure on social welfare programmes. Young people, who contributed little to the current economic crises, will be disproportionately affected by its consequences. History may judge today’s monetary and fiscal policymakers in a fair light. But only time will tell. In the meantime, action is needed to prevent the risk of excessive youth unemployment and its consequences. It is trivial to say that youth unemployment is affected by aggregate demand. Of more interest is why, historically, youth unemployment has been more severely affected by contractions in economic output. Firms tend to find young people cheaper to fire. They have less legal protection than those with more experience and may not qualify for redundancy payments. In addition, the opportunity cost of the investment in those with more experience is higher. Firms’ recruitment strategy matters too. Young people, who are more likely to be engaged in job search, will be disproportionately affected when firms opt

to stop hiring instead of firing staff. Human capital theory implies that if skills acquired during school and university aren’t used, or not augmented through additional training, then they will deteriorate. Over time, this will make finding a job harder. For some, set backs during job search may lead to them dropping out of the labour force altogether. These problems are challenging, but not insurmountable. Young people - due largely to fewer financial or family commitments - have a greater number of substitutes for employment or job search. Further study or gap years abroad are examples. These options allow young people to delay entering the labour force and could enhance their skill base. Government can help with well-designed schemes which focus on reducing the length of unemployment while simultaneously maintaining or enhancing skills. To that extent, the recent “Backing Young Britain” package of measures should be welcomed. However, its focus on unpaid work experience. In addition, experience from similar schemes in the 1980s, such as the Youth Training Scheme, suggests that the gains may zero-sum: those who gain from participation - typically the higher skilled do so at the expense of others. Inevitably unemployment is largely a counter-cyclical phenomenom. As such, we would expect it to fall as the economy recovers. But the impact on young people

of the current economic crisis may endure long after the unemployment rate starts to decline. Increased borrowing to fund broader stimulus measures will have to be repaid and this will occur over many years, possibly decades. Add in the cost of an ageing population - increased expenditure on healthcare and pensions, and reduced tax income as the working population retires - and the public debt problem may end up being unmanageable. At some stage we will have to work out how to manage public debt while preserving government services, assuming that we value all the things government does, and are prepared to pay for them through higher taxes. For young people, the future doesn’t look particularly bright. Perhaps it is about time we worked out what government is actually for? And, more importantly, how we pay for it.

LABOUR IN THE DIGITAL AGE In the next edition of Anticipations, we will examine the use of new media by Labour and those on the left. Why is it that the left has been so bad at exploiting the potential new media offers? Are digital campaigning techniques better suited to those on the right? What can the left do to bolster traditional campaigning techniques using digital media? How else can new media be used - either by institutions on the left, such as trade unions, or by government in the delivery of public service? Ideas in an email to the usual address by mid-November. n

Ballot papers for the 2009 Young Fabian Executive Committee Election will be distributed with the Conference edition of Fabian Review. Please take time to read the profiles of those standing and be sure to cast your vote.

YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE RECESSION

FROM THE CHAIR Kate Groucutt Chair, Young Fabians

his issue of Anticipations tackles an issue which gets to the heart of some of the debates between the left and right in Britain today. Wherever one attributes blame for the recession, and however one rates Gordon Brown’s strategy for dealing with it, no one can doubt that preventing the long term economic and social costs of the recession being felt by a generation of young people must be a top priority. Yet it reveals some of the ideological differences between Labour and the Conservatives which will determine the parties’ approach to this problem over the next few months and after the general election. The Government’s strategy to date has been to target resources at those youngsters most likely to be affected by the downturn, and to work with business to develop meaningful opportunities for young people. The headline is a pledge that young people aged 18-24 will be guaranteed a job if they have been unemployed for ten months. The Government’s Backing Young Britain initiative, launched at the start of September, includes measures such as job subsidies of £1,000 for employers who take on unemployed young people, more paid internships and work experience places for graduates. But whilst these measures will of course make a difference to the young people who are offered the support, Labour should also be making a wider case for the mainstream policies it has pursued, and using youth employment as a case study for how the Tory approach will differ to that taken by Labour. This is exemplified by suggestions

that the Tories would cut back on tax credits and be tougher on people who are claiming benefits. Whilst the on focus on improving skills and working with business to provide opportunities is quite similar between the parties, cutting tax credits suggests a ‘sink or swim’ approach whereby those who find themselves on a low income are left in poverty. Whilst the experience of the last few years shows how difficult it is to administer a system which adjusts to changes in income on a weekly basis, the alternative is for families to face a significant loss in income when one partner is temporarily out of work, or when their working hours are cut. The Tories claim to support Labour’s commitment to end child poverty, but have not said how they would do it whilst abolishing one of the central tools at the Government’s disposal. The Tory front bench have also been quick to condemn Labour’s record on welfare, and bemoan the millions of households where there is no-one in work. Yet by demonising whole communities and suggesting that more sanctions would be applied to those claiming benefits, they show little understanding of the complex social and economic problems that have proved to be so stubborn and difficult to tackle. For example, it is hard to see how scrapping Sure Start will help the families who rely on it for support and training. Dealing with the recession will clearly be one of the major themes of Labour conference. Labour needs to articulate why it is the best party to lead the country out of the recession. Tory arguments on cutting national debt are credible to a

population which is making cuts in their own household budgets. Labour needs to explain how continued public spending and an interventionist approach will help hasten the end of the recession. It is a different argument to the one that has been made for spending over the last decade, but it is needed lest Tory arguments about austerity and thrift seal the election victory that Cameron is sure is coming. This is why Labour needs to open up the debate about recovering from the recession to the country, and particularly those affected most, such as young people. There should be a debate about the sort of recovery that we want, and the way we want to structure our economy. It is clear that there will be less reliance on the housing market and financial services as engines of growth, but what will take their place? Which industries show potential for strong growth over the medium to long term and should therefore be targeted now for investment? Trade unions too should be involved in these discussions, and the whole Labour movement must have an honest conversation about the lessons we’ve learned from the recession, the mistakes which need to be avoided, and the priorities for the future. The Young Fabians need to play a part in this conversation, and I’m sure that over the next year there will be further opportunities for members to have their say on some of these questions. We know that our members are working in a wide range of sectors and some will have experienced the effect of the recession directly. They are therefore well placed to help formulate a distinctly Labour approach to economic policy. I hope the contributions to this issue of Anticipations will help kickstart that debate. n

ANTICIPATIONSâ&#x20AC;˘AUTUMN 2009

YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE RECESSION

In this edition of Anticipations, we examine the plight of young people in the current challenging economic environment. Articles range from tackling youth unemployment to opening up the professions, from educating the young on personal finance to them better understanding the banking system. We also update you on the discussions held at our Summer School in Leeds in July and welcome a special guest contribution from Lord Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE RECESSION

GUEST ARTICLE Lord Mandelson Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

On how Labour is helping young people in the recession

know that gaining your first job, finding the right Higher Education course or securing the right training place are major steps to take for any young person. But making these important moves during a recession is an even tougher prospect. It’s why we launched the ‘Backing Young Britain’ campaign earlier this year and recently celebrated the 150th company joining our call to create tens of thousands of new job opportunities for young people all over the country. We know that work experience, offering internships to graduates and investing in skills and training are vital to equipping young people and businesses with the tools to come out of the downturn stronger. The Conservative’s short-sightedness back in the 1980’s not only had a huge impact on young people’s lives for years to come, but impacted severely on the UK economy and labour market. The freefall in the economy has ended but the severity is not yet behind us. For all the fragile signs of economic recovery, we have not yet pulled out of the recession.

The economic imperative is the same in the longer term as it is in the immediate: growth. So we need growth to get out of the recession and growth for the future, and we need continued government action to spur this. As a country we must not make the mistake of previous recessions when government cuts in investment in our economic future reduced growth for years to come. Our investment in skills, training and apprenticeships is therefore critical. That is why I find it astonishing that the Tories plan to cut this investment now. To cut investment in our future would be damaging at anytime. But to do so, as David Cameron and George Osborne propose, in the middle of a recession is madness. Their proposed cuts would present a very real threat to the number of apprenticeships on offer as well as irreparable damage to frontline delivery across public services and investment in growth resulting, once again, in a crippling cost in human potential. This area of policy is, of course, not new to me. Back in the late 1970s I chaired the British Youth Council and whilst there

published what was then a relatively influential report: “Youth Unemployment: Cause and Cures”. I remember taking it to the Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, in Downing Street to discuss the issue of young people and their prospects.These discussions were also as common to my particular group of friends and collegues in the Young Fabians then as I am sure it is between all of you today. But if the problem has its similarities, the context and our policy prescription has changed with the times which is why the Backing Young Britain campaign is so important and timely. The Government cannot combat these issues alone so we are bringing businesses, public and the voluntary sectors together to ensure the valuable skills and experience of our young people will not be wasted. It really is a rallying call for the country to come together to ensure the talents of a generation are nurtured and given the opportunity to flourish, not squandered and written off as collateral damage in a time of global financial turmoil. There are many ways that we are investing in Young Britain today. A key part of the Labour Government’s contribution is our commitment to funding and growing

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

higher education. Labour unashamedly pledged that we would strive for 50% of our young people to go to University; and this year record numbers of people are going, taking advantage of the highest ever level of funded places. We also know that well over half of young people now state that they want to go, and with the Higher Education Framework and Skills Strategy - which we intend to publish this coming autumn - we’ll be exploring how we build on the success of Labour’s strategies of the last decade to help ensure that the range of academic and vocational options available to people in this country, particularly the young, are informed by the needs of our future economy. Our expansion of higher education is more important now than ever as we continue to invest in a highly skilled workforce to win the jobs of the future and it’s absolutely right that we have shifted away from a time in this country when higher education was the preserve of a small minority of young people. My Ministers and I are determined that we build on the progress made in widening participation, ensuring fair access and the promotion of learning as a key element of social mobility and its availability to the many and not the few. But for many graduates, the path into work at present is a hard one. We know this is a tough time trying to get a foot in the

door to employment or a further training opportunity. That’s why, through our interventions, Universities are now to offer around 14,000 additional postgraduate places, supported by 30,000 extra Career Development Loans next year. The opposition say we need more places, but refuse to commit to the funding that would deliver them. And our ambition is to provide 5,000 additional internship places through the Graduate Talent Pool. This is a new service matching employers with graduates and businesses such as Microsoft and Network Rail have already signed up. A generation of young people learnt the hard lessons of a Tory response to recession the last time around, but Messrs Osborne and Cameron’s retrenchment over the last year shows they’ve learnt nothing from the damage which was done by their predecessors. The Conservatives repeatedly will the ideology and talk the talk of prudent, progressive investment in our precious public services, but avoid committing to the means. As one commentator recently put it, the Tory position earns an A for audacity, but gets an F for credibility. They continue to refuse to back our 50% target of young people going on to HE, a target we know chimes with the aspirations of young people; instead they call it ‘social engineering’.

They call themselves progressives, yet side with the extreme far right in Europe and compare our country to ‘the Wire’ and it’s portrayal of a crime-ridden Baltimore. Their European spokespeople deride the NHS, their top priority on tax remains a break for the richest 3,000 estates in the country: not help for struggling families, help for British industry or policies to truly back Britain’s young people. Their stark inaction on the recession and the banking crisis hasn’t been progressive, rather it simply shows the gulf between the Tories’ instincts and the progressive outlook of the British people. Our determination has to be to put in place the conditions for Britain’s future economic success in a global economy that is changing rapidly, shaped by shifting demographics and rising prosperity; faster technology and communications; the spread of global supply chains, the world’s transition to low carbon and greater, more efficient use of precious resources. It would be profoundly irresponsible for us to simply sit back and hope the future looks after itself. We know that the UK’s ability to seize future opportunities is reliant on us nurturing our young people to become the highly skilled workforce of the future and our message from now until the election should be clear from our actions: Labour will not let them down. n

YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE RECESSION

YOUNG FABIAN SUMMER SCHOOL Susan Nash, Regions and Univerisities Officer, Young Fabians Adrian Prandle, International Officer, Young Fabians

AN ETHICAL ECONOMY FOR ALL

Dispatches from the Summer School held in Leeds in July

REFLECTIONS ON THE SUMMER SCHOOL

n a sunny weekend in Leeds, whilst others caroused in the park, Young Fabian members gathered together to discuss the challenges facing young people in the new economy. Packed with interesting and high profile speakers, including the Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Yvette Cooper MP, the two day event focused on the impact of the recession on young people, and what the Government has done, and what it will need to continue to do. The summer school also featured an extensive session on the policy forums. This year the policy forums are focusing on the decade ahead, looking at what challenges and opportunities there are for the next Government. Young Fabian members have been attending sessions in London, and submitting suggestions and ideas online.

The session in Leeds focused on the Economy and Prosperity policy group, allowing members from the regions to feed into the process. The final report from the Policy Forum process will be published soon. It’s easy to often meet and discuss policy in the abstract, free from the constraints of reality. That’s why we were pleased to have John Battle MP and Rachel Reeves, PPC for Leeds West, who gave a moving account of the challenges facing Leeds West, and how the economic downturn was affecting young people in their constituency. This was my first summer school, and it was great to host an event outside of London, to meet members from the region, and have great discussions. There is still a lot more to do, and we need to significantly build up our presence within the regions, hosting more one day events to discuss this and many more issues. I am pleased to see many of the things we talked about at the summer school reflected in the policy forum publication, and I hope others can utilise that document focusing on what we can do as Young Fabians, and in our wider lives to overcome the problems facing young people in these challenging economic circumstances. Susan Nash

n organising the Young Fabian Summer School, Susan Nash and I had intended not just to take a major YF event out of London, but to have the chosen region – through our local members and elected representatives – contribute to our policy work. Though the input to our discussions was local, a very British way out of the hard times we find ourselves in should be administrable from local to global levels. It struck me that we could frame our wants and needs through the pursuit of an ethical economy. Whilst remaining rooted to the conceivable, how might we define such a goal? Nicolai Peitersen and Adam Arvidsson, University of Copenhagen academics, have been arguing for a post-neoliberal economy based upon productivity driven by cooperation and community since prior to the global recession. But their concept of an ethical economy bears policy, ultimately a rejection of wealth being measured and sought in financial terms, which Government would find it nigh-on-impossible to introduce and society has not yet shown significant signs

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

of producing organically. There’s something exciting and dotcom about some proposals, but equally, something unsustainable. It also does little for those people living hand to mouth right here right now that we have a responsibility to help through and beyond the current crisis. Social capital is important but it does not necessarily buy a school uniform or put fresh fruit on the table. So, our ethical economy is different. It is a broad approach, driven by values but rooted in rational decisions and actions, to developing an equal basis for interaction and advancement. A weak economy restricts individual freedom – to choose the job one desires, for example. A strong economy can – but doesn’t always – facilitate freedom, aspiration and control. An ethical economy would ensure always that restriction is minimised and facilitation maximised. Not free choice for the lucky few but aspiration and control for the many, putting power into people’s hands. The ethical economy is necessarily progressive and necessarily about national and personal economies having mutual values. So if we ask of individuals a level of responsibility (assist in and support your children’s education, limit your personal debt, e.g.) then we must ask institutions of all kinds to also be responsible. The fair financial system of an ethical economy would be linked to the progressive goal of reducing inequality. It uses carrot when it can and stick when necessary. I believe in winning the debate. The left has lost confidence in recent years in its instinct to make the correct call on issues big and small. Rather than imposing our will on business – automatically reaching for the regulation button or enforcing a maximum wage – we should aim to convince them that we are right and it is in their interests to join us willingly. Government could incentivise the provision of childcare as an employment benefit. Financial institutions operating ethically and properly managing the risk they take with their customers’ money could benefit. Reward could come in the form of support from Government to reduce their carbon footprint or contribute to local economies upon which they rely. Those that don’t demonstrate they can operate to others’ interests alongside their own, face tighter regulation. Debt and financial management is not exclusively a low-income problem. In expecting personal responsibility, Government must facilitate it. Financial

education can be made available to all through SureStart Centres, local Government (e.g. libraries) and online. Those that undertake a programme would open up access to money they otherwise couldn’t secure. Our responsible financial institutions could provide ethical credit with traceable history. For meeting their responsibilities, banks get reliable customers, profits, and CSR impact. Individuals get short-term help or capability to invest in their family’s longterm future. Government gains financial stability, making in-roads into reducing poverty and increasing social mobility. Government must also set an example in its own spending. There should be honest communication that public services cost money and a commitment that Government is willing to find innovative ways to fund them. An ethical economy’s purpose is to tackle inequality: in very simple terms this means the provision of excellent services. So when money is short, it must be raised. This might mean linking tax revenue from financial or other institutions with tackling inequality; not necessarily initiatives offering short-term help such as tax credits but those which deliver difference both immediately and over generations. Labour was rightly ambitious in its child poverty target but failed to understand such drastic change would take time and needed early but long-term intervention in education. It’s not too late. We must shift away from teaching knowledge for tests to developing the skills needed to function in society, such as financial literacy or workplace cultures. Or put greater energy into initiating locally

provided information and advice services for young and old alike that help connect them with new educational or occupational possibilities. Information alone can help social mobility and raise aspiration. The responsible institutions could be invited to join an advisory committee to guide where tax revenue from them could be spent. Perhaps a local focus on schools one year, climate change mitigation or development issues, addressing global inequality, the next. In an ethical economy they could become stakeholders in our change. Our tax system requires simplification. Not a Tory axe operating brutally on the equation, less tax = less services = sink or swim, but the left turning recession to the advantage of the many not the few. Taking the opportunity to design a tax – and spending – system fit for the challenges of the 21st century. Simplified so everyone understands; so it’s fair to all. Prioritising green projects that strengthen job prospects and weaken inequality. Optimistic. Ethical. What makes us different to Conservatives is that we are active for those who need assistance, not just crossing our fingers. This is action for now and beyond the recession. We may change what we prioritise but the wants and needs we have now – economic security, good education and good health, the opportunity for ourselves and our families to achieve – are the wants and needs of the future. Young Fabians may be under 31 but the benefits of the change we want to see don’t have an age limit. It should know no boundaries. Adrian Prandle n

YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE RECESSION

CAREER SNAKES AND LADDERS Karl Pike Young Fabian Member

An argument for changes to how large companies recruit

he way people and businesses have reacted to the recession has added to our understanding of why a lack of social mobility in communities outside of urban centres is blighting young people’s hopes. In is in the competitive industries in particular that we need redress. Take media for instance – an industry based in Britain’s big cities, mostly London and Manchester. As a result of the economic downturn, there are fewer jobs, fewer chances to break into the industry and less funding available for bursaries. This exacerbates a problem that remains steadfast in competitive industries – a friend-of-afriend culture that limits opportunities to people from outside the sector. The difficulties facing local media have increased the rate at which local papers close. This reduces the opportunities for workexperience, and results in an increasing concentration of jobs in the big cities, with an associated increase in the domination by large media organisations within the sector. Alan Milburn’s review of social mobility is therefore very timely. The problems involving work placements, internships and other poorly remunerated entry routes, is that, while they provide an inlet to a career, they are plagued with symptoms of social exclusion. Unpaid internships, for instance, mean that someone living outside London who isn’t from an affluent family might not be able to afford to take it up. Instead someone from a more affluent family living in closer to central London may be able to accept it,

plug away for free for months and then gain access to a paid position. Work placements and opportunities that aren’t advertised offer an even more obvious block to many young people. Without social contacts or a convenient internship they won’t get to hear about a post, so they won’t get to apply. The recession has put pressure on recruitment budgets, thus potentially making such informal entry routes more attractive to employers. Milburn’s review has already reminded us of some interesting truths. Fewer people who grew up in families with average incomes took up work in a ‘professional sector’ from the 1970 birth generation compared to the 1958 generation. A new generation from the late 1980s is now preparing to enter the work force and social mobility looks set to contract further. Recruiters – who often seem to operate in a sphere that’s inaccessible to many – sift applications based on qualifications as far back as school, thereby removing some people who have improved academically since they were 15. Non-graduate entry is increasingly rare, particularly in a sector like journalism, where the reporter who grew up in the paper’s patch is replaced by a qualified graduate who, while capable, has changed the face of local journalism into a solidly middle class profession. Only 27 of the Times Top 100 Employers accept alternative (non-graduate_ entry routes. This is perfectly understandable, as more people get to go to university and

employers assume everyone now packs a degree. But that isn’t always the case, especially for working class males who have been under-represented among the rising number of graduates. Even if it was, why shouldn’t people who didn’t go to university be considered? All of these problems have been intensified by the recession – less money, fewer positions, and an even tighter sift. Added to which, why would employers spend time on a full recruitment process when previous interns could take up the job? As we’ve discussed, those interns will probably not contain many young people from less affluent families. The solutions should be based on guidance, and possibly legislative changes, to the way we consider the crucial entry level internships and work placements within the UK. Firstly, all of them should come with a living wage and include travel costs for interviews. I think there should be an exception for small charities and organisations that have very small numbers of staff and turnover. But media giants and other professional organisations shouldn’t be able get away with it. Secondly, more flexible entry criteria and support for people who would be willing to qualify if they had financial backing. That means more grants, and more Government money. Finally, there needs to be changes made to the way people learn about professions and vacancies within them. In a recession, issues like this are doubly hard to work with. But they have come to light extremely prominently and there should be no hiding from increasing people’s life chances in the coming months. n

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

BANKING ON CHANGE Pete Jefferys Young Fabian Member

On why young people should take an interest in bank ownership

hilst almost everyone can point the finger of blame for the recession at greedy bankers and dubious business models, the proposed solutions for the system seem to have been fuzzy at best, unattractive and unengaging at worst. It is difficult to spark much interest in banking ownership and regulation at all, let alone when the proposals are couched entirely in technocratic garble. There are those, however, who are making a clear and responsible case for banking reform and their voices should be heard; especially by young people whose stake in the future system is so great. Indeed, one pressing problem is that many young people are simply unaware that there are alternative models of banking ownership: alternatives that place power and accountability in the hands of members and customers rather than external shareholders. The alternative that young people should be engaging with is the mutual model of ownership: embodied by the Co-operative Bank and building societies amongst others. This ownership structure relies on individual members having an equal stake in the company, both in terms of ownership and voting rights. Mutuals are thus incentivised to work for their members, who are also their customers, rather than founded solely for profit generation. Plc banks, which are owned by shareholders, have generally fared worse in th current recession than mutuals. The Cooperative bank has posted strong results throughout the downturn. Critics will cite Dunfermline and West

Bromwich building societies which faced difficulties; the former eventually being bailed out by the tax payer. However, the crucial point is that these institutions failed to act as most building societies act – they diversified into markets that are normally the preserve of plc banks. Dunfermline ventured into sub-prime securities, West Bromwich into commercial property. So whilst the mutual model must be supported by mutual ideals, we can still argue that, overall, the mutual sector has performed more strongly than its shareholder driven rival. Consider also the recent and dramatic growth of other sections of the financial mutual sector. Credit Unions, Friendly Societies and mutual insurers are enjoying something of a renaissance with record numbers being attracted to their ethical business models and competitive rates. Credit Unions exist partially to provide sustainable community development, a value rarely shared by faceless plc banks. The best example of why the mutual model trumps shareholder ownership comes from Northern Rock. This institution was once a mutual (in this case a building society) and it was a pillar of the North Eastern community it served. After the 1986 Builing Society Act, mutuals could be sold by their members to private shareholders and in the 1990s, Northern Rock was demutualised. After decades of sound and safe banking, the Rock was taken by its chief executive, Adam Applegarth, into new markets – most notably sub-prime mortgages. Less than 15 years after the conversion to shareholder

ownership, Northern Rock collapsed and was rescued by the tax payer. A sound building society, led by co-operative, community principles, was reduced to a national liability that could have endangered the entire financial system. The mutual model is safer, more democratic and more likely to be community focused. Young people’s first engagement with banks normally involves simple saver accounts or student accounts. The draw for these is often the free gift that comes along with the account; student railcards and mp3 players being conspicuous examples. One sad truth is that many young people who are drawn to savings or current accounts by such cheap trinkets then stay with that bank for the rest of their lives. Young people should be aware that these gimmicks are not the only differentials between accounts. They should be aware of the moral practices, ownership structures and membership policies of banks. Such awareness could come from citizenship lessons in schools - all students should know about how the institution they entrust their money to is run. Equally the government should do more to educate about co-operative ownership, especially within the financial sector where the shareholder ownership model has been done great damage. I am currently involved with a campaign to re-mutualise Northern Rock, led by the Co-operative Party. As the campaign gains traction we should also be emphasising the need for young people to engage with bank practices and ownership structures. The problem, as is often the case, is with awareness. Mutuals, unlike plc banks, put people before profit and it is important that young people are aware of this distinction. n

YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE RECESSION

SOCIAL NETWORKING Nick Maxwell Young Fabian Member

Using networks to reduce youth unemployment and its social consequences

hat economy? What prospects? That would probably be the reply if you asked young people today about their economic prospects. Let’s be clear about how bad it looks. Unemployment usually lags the business cycle. What that means is that unemployment, which is hitting young people hardest in this recession, is likely to go up and remain high even as the headlines talk about ‘green shoots’ and rising GDP. The Princes Trust has said it expects the number of young people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance to double to one million. The social impact of such high unemployment is potentially huge. For those living in communities most affected by the recession, unemployment means more crime, it means mental health issues, it means enduring cultures of low aspiration. To its credit, the government seems to be trying to tackle these issues while the Conservatives are moaning about how much it might cost. The left is best placed to respond to the threat of a ‘lost generation’. We should be leading the charge as visibly as we can, as a matter of conscience and also a matter of politics. Providing we can articulate how the left can help young people and act upon it, committed action against youth unemployment and alienation will be a huge win against a resurgent Tory party. The right has a nasty history of denial and failure in measuring up to youth unemployment in previous recessions. We’re still dealing with the implications of

that failure today. The current Cameroons haven’t signalled much of a change. Before thinking about what we can do however, we should be clear about what we must not do. At all costs, given the lack of time the left has to turn the electorate around, Labour needs to avoid gimmickry. People see through it. What is needed is to build on the good work that’s been done and champion three things: an economy that gives people access to opportunities; a government that helps provides the skills they need; and a culture that raises aspiration, ambition and confidence amongst young people. Alan Milburn and his review of access to the professions was spot on in relation to access to the professions. In a downturn we need to be destroying the barriers to employment and opportunity that remain for certain jobs and sectors. This is the natural territory of the left. The government needs to make opportunity real. On investment, the government is doing the right thing. In ‘Backing Young Britain’ they’re investing £6.9bn to deliver learning opportunities for 16-18 year olds, and around £1bn in 2009/10 to create over 100,000 apprenticeships for 19-24-year-olds. More can be done to hammer this message home. On a culture of aspiration, the government and the left could be playing a smarter game. Giving people hope and confidence, no matter their social background, is at the heart of what modern socialism is all about. When we recognise that people are inspired

to be at their best through social connections and associations to other people, we cement the foundation of social values and the left. Too often, however, the left denies the fact that association drives opportunities. Prosperity and opportunity are intimately linked to who has helped you, who has inspired you, and who has supported you. This isn’t a right-wing conspiracy against the alienated, it’s a fact about how human beings function and operate. For the wealthy and well connected, creating the associations and connections that lead to aspiration and prosperity is easy. For those less fortunate, the state can level the playing field and, in doing so, improve the wider culture of aspiration. Responding to youth unemployment, this means tapping into the reservoir of socially minded successful people who can support young people when they need it most. In practice, this could mean government supported mentoring schemes, linking experienced professionals with those who would benefit from support and advice. Working with schemes already in place in the third sector to reach as many young people as possible, in a system that offers support for mental health issues and other difficulties, the state – and the left – has a key role to play. Overall by helping young people now – through improving access, increasing investment, and raising aspiration – this government can show its relevance to young people’s lives. Young people need the support. The left is best placed to provide it.. n

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

FINANCIAL PLANNING Jack Falkingham Young Fabian Member

Financial education should be at the heart of reforms

he recession has led to discussions of reform. Where do we take our financial sector? And how do we recover from alarming levels of debt? Such questions have been at the heart of many recent economic debates, and rightfully so. We must look at these core areas in order to plan the future of the financial sector, and reshape the way society deals with money. Even if this occurs, young people and education are likely to be low on the priority list. This young generation has been tagged with so many images – from the infamous yobs to the ‘iPod’. Yet this generation - in its entirety - represents the future. Whatever comes from discussions of reform will affect young people. Therefore they must be at the heart of reform, and they must be the focus in which to shape all talks and actions. In recent years, statistics have shown that in some cases more then ‘80% of this generation will by in debt by 21’. When examined more closely, these debts haven’t just evolved from student loans - a typical source of debt troubles – approximately ‘32% of debt was from issues with credit’. These are core problems that are facing this generation, and this is why reforms need to include an element of financial education. With the average debt of young adults now exceeding ‘£6,000’, schools must tackle the issues of managing money, and educating students on the financial sector and its processes.

The presence of compulsory citizenship in every secondary school should result in such motives taking shape within the curriculum. Secondary school students must be taught the difference between the early years of their life – the years of economic growth and consumer credit – and that of now. The need for education in monetary management is high, and cohesion is a necessity. Schools must work with the wider community, and tackle conceptions of: ‘living for the moment’ and ‘using cards and loans to enhance standards of living.’ There is little learning being provided by financial establishments - banks have been willing to provide credit to those that have had no support for too long. But where do we go for change? How do we prevent such styles of using credit, and yet maintain the needed benefits of such an option? The answer to these concerns lies within the actions of schools and the financial community. By working together they can achieve the balance and support for the future society. Economic wellbeing is a part of the national curriculum. Alongside the implementation of compulsory citizenship, financial capability should be high on the agenda. Accomplishing such aims requires a lot still to be done. Charities such as PFEG have promoted such schemes of financial education. With reports showing ‘90% of students worry about money,’ it is clear there is a need

for such action. In addition, the charity has highlighted how it is not linked to demographics. Such problems of handling credit, alongside the core lack of knowledge in finance, have been witnessed in all segments of society – in better off students and those less privileged. Therefore concluding this is an issue that must be tackled across the board. With liability being present in the hands of schools, they must act on providing that education. They must tackle the staggering figures of debt by ensuring young people are better educated. PFEG have reported that in some cases: ‘1 in 20 students thought they didn’t have to pay back their credit card debt.’ Schools must change these misconceptions, by facing up to the issues of their students not knowing basic financial processes. By teaching the future generation the differences between credit and debit, how to deal with loans and mortgages and general management of monetary activities, the future of finance could look brighter. However it cannot finish at schools. Financial establishments must work alongside such education in order to continue the prevention of ‘living for today.’ This ethos can be changed if education and the financial sector work in consort. Indeed, this generation could be looking into saving that pocket money rather than smashing the piggy bank. Debt will always exist, but in terms of better financial education, this recession could provide a much-needed opportunity for the reform. n

OTHER ARTICLES

OPEN ALL HOURS David Boot Young Fabian Member

On the need to open career opportunities to the masses

s the recession begins to bite, opportunities for young people to become socially mobile contract. Investments in social mobility should be made now to address the problem as well as to boost the economy. The problems of social mobility, as the ‘Unleashing Aspiration’ report from the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions made clear, is Britain’s ‘closed shop mentality’ on access to the professions. The report warns that: “tomorrow’s generation of talented young people will miss out on a new wave of social mobility” as law, medicine and journalism become increasingly closed off to children from low and middle income households. This is at a time when the number of professional jobs begins to rise - up from just 1 in 8 in 1951 to 1 in 3 today. It is estimated that a further seven million professionals are likely to be needed in Britain by 2020, showing the economic necessity of promoting social mobility. In the Report’s words, social mobility should be “the number one social policy priority for this and future governments”. One of the more shocking findings of the report was the prevalence of the privately educated in the professions, including 32% of all MPs, 45% of top civil servants and a whopping 75% of judges. And yet the report offers little in the way of policy proposals to address this unfair stranglehold - merely a name and shame exercise directed at universities. Privately educated pupils make up 4 out of 10 entrants to Oxford and Cambridge universities despite just 7% of pupils in the UK attending such schools.

It’s hard to disagree with Brian Roper, the Vice Chancellor of London Metropolitan University, who has warned that these institutions risk becoming ‘finishing schools’ for the privileged. His call to cut public funding to these universities if they don’t provide a public service function is a sound one, echoing the choice given to private schools to prove their benefit to the wider community or risk losing their charitable status. The Sutton Trust’s proposal for a percentage scheme, whereby bright pupils at disadvantaged schools are identified at fifteen and are given an offer to attend a local elite university after attending workshops and attaining minimum grades, is one that a future bill on social mobility must also consider. Any legislation must help widen opportunities to becoming socially mobile across a person’s life time, something that Labour has helped, and continues to help, deliver. From comprehensives in the 1960s to Sure Start in the last decade, Labour has led the way in improving life chances - previously the eleven plus and the school leaving age were the trigger points at which social advancement could take place. Moves to raise the school leaving age to 18, a focus on adult upskilling to level 2 and the Train to Gain initiative all increase the size of the social mobility trampoline beyond the artificial stages outlined, making the issue one of ‘cradle to grave’ social policy. The Lifelong Skill Account, recommended by the Panel, is a further policy initiative

that Labour should build on. Indeed, such an idea would fit into moves towards personalisation in public services and calls by the Leitch Report for a more demand-led training system. The Panel’s call for a model of ‘HE within FE’ envisages a greater role for FE colleges in awarding degrees, something the Government allowed from May 2008. Such a move is welcome as 56% of 17 year olds in full time education at FE colleges come from the bottom three socio economic groups compared with just 31% in sixth form colleges. Only by opening FE’s appeal and increasing its powers can diversity of intake be created, allowing its social mobility capability to be unleashed. Moreover, expanding routes into university, through apprenticeships and the Panel’s recommendation for 3,000 Apprenticeship Scholarships, are welcome proposals. The way in which degrees can be taught is also as important as where they can be taught. This year marks the fortieth anniversary of the Open University, Harold Wilson’s vision for a ‘University of the Air’. Recommendation 31 of the Unleashing Aspiration Report, advocating investment in e-learning, could help Labour unleash a modern version of Wilson’s technocracy. The removal of barriers between full and part time learning proposed by the Panel also helps instil flexibility within the training sector, promoting a learning culture. It is telling that only 13% of children whose parents are in semi-skilled occupations would contemplate a professional career, evidence of an ‘aspiration gap’. This gap needs to be addressed as the Report makes clear: ‘it is not ability that is unevenly distributed in our society. It is opportunity’. It’s now time for 24 hour opening at the closed shop - something that only a Labour economic policy can bring about. n

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

THE CHANGE WE NEED James Devine Young Fabian Member

Meeting the challenge of climate change

e are living in a time of climate change. Technology has given us an unparalleled ability to influence the world around us. Unfortunately, as rising temperatures and sea levels demonstrate, we have not yet developed the necessary maturity to bear such a responsibility. There is now a well established scientific consensus that even the most minor climate change will be highly destructive. If no action is taken to address our abuse of the environment, the end result is likely to be equal in every respect to the devastation of a nuclear holocaust. Fortunately, we have at least some ability to effect the outcome. The ‘environmental problem’ can be defined simply: our infinite human wants are incompatible with our existence on a finite planet. Given the rapid technological development and exponential economic growth which have come to define human progress, it is inevitable that we should collide with the fixed boundaries of our world. Whilst the final collision may still be a long way off, smaller impacts are already starting to be visible in the global economy. A growing number of scientists and academics are advocating the Peak Oil theory, which suggests that global oil production will only decrease in the future. There are also commodities shortages of minerals such as indium and helium, as our current consumption already exceeds the amount being mined each year. The acceptance of an inevitable collision with our environment brings two major implications for our understanding of

the coming political landscape. Firstly, all natural resources (both energy and raw materials) must at some point be rationed. The free market is an effective means of rationing resources in times of plenty. However, the market mechanism breaks down when the goods being rationed are essential, devoid of any substitutes and the market has no further means to supply them, regardless of any further investment in the means of production. Unlike a supermarket, once the shelves of our planet are bare they cannot be restocked. The last items of food will be at best sold to the highest bidder, or at worst taken by force. The free market may be the most effective economic system yet devised, but it does not function effectively when the goods are a necessity for human survival and the supply is limited. There are no substitutes for clean air, water and unpolluted soil. The second major implication is that the natural resources of our planet must be protected against those who would exhaust them in search of short term economic gain. In the current market context, the financial wealth of an individual corresponds directly to their ‘right’ to consume our shared natural resources and in many cases render them unusable for future generations. The liberty of the individual cannot be allowed to threaten the future health of our world. We must therefore re-appraise our understanding of personal property, when that property is part of our shared planet. Ownership cannot constitute a right to destroy natural resources, from now on nothing can ever be ‘thrown away’ again.

Everything that is made in the course of our human activity must be recycled. Our notion of ownership must be entirely replaced with the idea of stewardship, which is the only sustainable model for private property. However, the by far the biggest danger in implementing these necessary changes is that our democratic process will be undermined and subverted. As citizens and free market consumers, we each have a huge short term incentive to maximise our personal consumption. Equally, political parties who must compete in the democratic ‘free market’ for votes, will surely be eager to avoid potentially unpopular rationing and austerity measures. The temptation to manipulate policies and targets towards taking ‘soft options’ which claim to be workable solutions but do not deliver the required environmental improvements cannot be underestimated. Corporations, as economic profit maximisers, also have every incentive to cover products in ’Greenwash’ for sale to an under-educated market, whilst they continue with a business as usual model behind the scenes. As members of the progressive left, we have both a duty and a significant opportunity to shape the future of our society and protect our natural environment. We must find ways to take the initiative and sugar the bitter pill that is the end of our current consumer lifestyles. We must build a compelling vision of a sustainable future. Constructing a new model for economic ownership, alternatives to environmentally destructive industry, creating a fairer and more equal society, energising local communities and empowering individuals to protect the natural world on which we all depend, should be the natural territory of the left. The old free market vocabulary of greed, consumption and personal gain must be replaced with a new sustainable vocabulary of hope, meaning and a shared sense of ownership and responsibility. n

OTHER ARTICLES

THE FEELING’S MUTUAL Ian Ross Young Fabian Member

On how mutuals might help economic recovery

s part of a broader policy of 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 became shareholder owned and run banks. None of these banks remain independent after the financial crisis. Five are now partly or wholly owned by the state. The financial crisis in the banking sector illustrates how disastrous Tory demutualisation has been and emphasises why these institutions 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 to work in the interests of their members. They exist to provide a service rather than generate profits. Profits are shared amongst members, which provide mutuals with an estimated cost saving of 35% as compared to their plc rivals. These savings are passed on to savers via lower 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 banking crisis. It argues that future solutions look to put people before profit and that mutually owned building societies demonstrate that responsible banking is best achieved in a democratic and accountable way. It is vital that we learn from our mistakes and re-build our banking system so that it puts people first. The public will not want

to see a Labour Government squander an opportunity to bring banks back into their communities, nor will they forget the enormous sums spent in bailing out the mistakes of plc banks – many of which continue to pay huge bonuses 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 into mutuals. It is imperative that any change does not leave taxpayers out of pocket. The new organisation should act in the long term interest of its customers and it should be secure, responsible and add to the financial stability of the UK economy. Mutually owned building societies do not just benefit their members, they are also socially desirable to the economy as a whole. Between 1995 and 2002 consumer spending grew by 4.1% a year on average, the highest rate for any consecutive sevenyear period in the past 100 years. The increase in spending can be partly explained by the “wealth effect” associated with rising share prices and rising house prices. Rising home equity boosts consumer confidence and allows access to secured borrowing at advantageous rates of interest compared to those on unsecured loans. However, in a falling market consumers can end up owing more than their assets are worth. According to ‘neoclassical growth theory’, a higher saving rate in an economy raises capital and output per worker since planned saving equals planned investment. Both of these factors are crucial in enhancing productivity. The UK has traditionally had

poor productivity levels, lagging behind the USA, France and Germany. Studies undertaken by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research illustrate that the big factor explaining labour productivity (output per worker per hour) is simply the accumulation of modern machinery and skills - in other words, investment over the decades. In the wake of the financial crisis it is crucial we all start to save more. The mutuals model actively encourages consumers to save by offering a higher return on savings. Having acquired too much debt in the 1980s, consumers tried to put things right at the start of the 1990s. They saved a larger fraction of their incomes and paid down debt to bring it back to manageable proportions. In 1981 the UK household saving rate was 12% of disposable income, and this had fallen to 9% by 1996. In 2003 this rate had fallen further to 6% of disposable income. The ‘debt overhang’ resulted in consumer spending recovering very slowly in the 1990s and helps to explain one of the economic factors which led to the Major government loosing the 1997 election. The events of the last eighteen months clearly illustrates that people and Government have short memories. It is fundamental that consumers save more and do not live beyond their means. Economic theory assumes that consumers are greedy and always want more. However when they end up in debt and struggle to pay it off, it is easy for government to be used as a scapegoat. Major’s government paid the ultimate price in 1997 once the bubble had burst and it is imperative we learn the lessons from history to avoid this happening to a Labour Government. n

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

BEATING THE BNP Dan Whittle, Trade Union and Elections Officer, Young Fabians Tom Stoate, Parliamentary Officer, Young Fabians Sara Ibrahim, Officer Without Portfolio, Young Fabians

A compilation of articles on tackling the BNP

he victory of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons in the North West and North East in the June European Parliamentary elections has presented us with a new reality that cannot be tackled by ‘business as usual’ campaigning or government. It would be naïve to believe that at successive elections, after the opportunities presented by an EU Parliament office and budget, the BNP will be less of a threat than it was this year. To stop the momentum of the BNP, we have to think again. Following two Young Fabian roundtables on the issue, three members of the executive give their views on preventative action. Dan Whittle says Labour needs to find the guts to attack the BNP’s corruption of British identity and enable communities to express their Britishness. Sara Ibrahim criticises the failure of noplatform policies to counter-act the BNP message, and advocates giving activists the skills they need to challenge the BNP out in the open. Tom Stoate suggests the current constitution puts a pressure valve on grievances which encourages protest voting, and calls for change.

RECLAIMING BRITISHNESS

The ‘Stopping the Far Right’ Pamphlet published by the Young Fabians in 2007 was an unheeded warning. Now, never modest, the BNP electoral aim is “12 MEPs and 20 thereafter”. A notorious study by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust in 2006 found that a quarter of London voters and one in five across England would consider voting for the BNP, an unlikely but terrifying possibility. It is a Party willing to continue to soften its image to appeal to a broader section of the electorate.150 Council seats are at stake next year. Part of the way for the Left to beat them, is to challenge the BNP’s version of British identity, one based on loss and grievance. The BNP want to shut down the discussion on identity – we need to open it up and show that all British identity is complex and diverse. And we need to unashamedly put forward a progressive British identity, to add to the mix. Our institutions need to learn from the Hope Not Hate campaign, how to show people that BNP policies conflict with British values and traditions, and that their sums don’t add up. We can begin to win back the trust of wavering BNP voters by showing them we value the way they express their British identity. In February I was invited to take part in a debate on Britishness on behalf of the Young Fabians at the London studio of Muslim Television Ahmadiyya International (the world’s first global Muslim television station) which broadcasts 24 hours a day and is run entirely by volunteers. The other panel members and audience

were young men – all proud to have the dual identities of muslim and British. We discussed our British identities, different for everyone, but full of cross-overs between institutions, places, histories. There is no one set British identity, but an array of plural identities, this is our strength in a globalised and changing world. Any attempt to reduce it to a common set of values misses this essential point. In the same month I was campaigning for candidates hoping to win a by-election in the Downham ward of Lewisham, a borough with a proud history of anti-fascism. Thirty years ago a mass demonstration of around six thousand people stopped the fascist party of the time, the National Front, who wanted to march from New Cross to the centre of Lewisham. Three decades later, the BNP are peddling the same sour and resentful version of British identity, a narrative built around the myth of a marginalised and declining indigenous white culture, oppressed by multi-culturalism. A senior activist had said in his speech to Greenwich BNP that white people will be “in the minority in 50-60 years time”, a statistic used and exaggerated time and again on the doorstep. BNP demographic predictions are loosely based on current trends, whereas levels of immigration and fertility change over time. The BNP were trying to close down the debate on British identity, to define it narrowly and to take ownership of it. The charge against Labour was that we were preventing people from being who they really are. There was a mood that local people wanted politicians to do more to help them express their Britishness. So the two Labour Party council candidates pledged to ensure the union flag was flown more often above the Town Hall, a policy endorsed by Lewisham Mayor

OTHER ARTICLES

Steve Bullock. This was useful in opening a doorstep dialogue on the issue of British identity, which led to more space and time with some dissaffected voters to talk about the more important issues like education and health. When the results came in, it was clear the BNP vote had been suppressed and one of their senior activists subsequently made a speech to a local meeting calling Lewisham a no-win area for the BNP. In Lewisham Labour was showing it was on the side of people who wanted to express their British identity. But the Government’s Britishness agenda has not yet yielded the kind of clear policy on British identity or how it should be expressed, that could be useful in replicating this nationally. Now is the right time to kick-start the Britishness agenda, and not just in the Ministry of Justice but across government. The department for culture should be creating the opportunity for communities to celebrate their British identity and the Labour movement should take the opportunity to put forward a new patriotism built around institutions and heroes who embody our traditions. We need to hear about the proud history of the co-operative movement; the solidarity of the Tolpuddle Martyrs; the internationalism of the anti-apartheid movement. Unions should be at the forefront of putting forward a new progressive identity, drawing from their rich history and using their organisation to promote it: One fifth of BNP voters claim to be union members. Alongside this we need to undermine the BNP narrative. We can learn from how Hope Not Hate presented the electorate with the juxtoposition of a BNP policy, and the British institution or value it opposed: Hope Not Hate highlighted how BNP repatriation policy undermines the NHS. They produced figures showing that 16% of nurses are from minority ethnic communities, as are 40% of new dentists and 58% of new doctors. So why didn’t the Department of Health campaign on this with the same intensity as it now campaigns against US republican criticism of the NHS? The repatriation policy conflicted memorably with the public mood on the Ghurka campaign. It resulted in the BNP appealing to its own supporters in a statement to “refrain from further

politicising the matter”. Nick Griffin went as far as saying that the party did not have an official position on the Gurkhas, but that “I have no doubt that the topic will most certainly be debated at our next conference”. When that conference comes around, our Veterans Minister should be ready. To re-engage this most disengaged of sections of the electorate Labour has to meticulously address the material concerns of housing, jobs and community. But it also has be the defender of the right of those people to express their British identity, and should be ready to attack those, like the BNP who seek to impose a twisted version of Britishness. Dan Whittle

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The recent election of Nick Griffin and Andrew Broons as BNP members to the European Parliament has re-opened the debate of how to combat the surge of support for far right parties. Whilst their election was met with almost uniform opprobrium across the political spectrum, a strategy to defeat the BNP has not been so forthcoming. It is clear that the BNP are benefiting from the growing public dissatisfaction with politicians. Many traditional Labour voters have altered their allegiance to vote BNP. I will seek to argue that one of the key tools in our arsenal to combat the BNP is free speech. Democracy has always created a paradox. The freedoms inherent in a democracy allow groups who fundamentally disagree with its basic tenets to say so. Often words can whip up a strength of feeling that manifests itself in violence against others. Resistance to freedom of speech arguments is usually rooted in the desire to protect vulnerable groups from verbal attacks. However, freedom of speech in the UK is already curtailed in myriad ways by incitement to racial or religious hatred legislation, public order offences and defamation laws. Incitement against racial hatred was first criminalised by the Public Order Act in 1986 which resulted in 44 convictions by 31 January 2005. Historically convictions have been hard to achieve as the prosecution

used to have to prove that the speaker or writer intended to stir up racial hatred or that it was likely that that was going to be the effect of their words. Indeed on 10 November 2006 Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP and one of his associates Mark Collett were found not guilty at Leeds County Court for incitement of racial hatred as the jury were not convinced that the case against them had been made out. Following problems with obtaining convictions, the government passed the Religious and Racial Hatred Act 2006 which came into force on the 1 October 2007. The Act had a rocky passage through the House of Lords and was amended so that the prosecution have to prove any incitement was intentional and the language used was threatening. It is generally viewed as too early to tell if these new incitement laws are effective but there are still vocal complaints about the loopholes in the law. Recently, high profile lawyers such as Peter Herbert, the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers and a part-time judge, have complained that the high threshold for proving incitement to racial hatred offences have allowed the BNP to disseminate offensive leaflets including one carrying a photograph of a woman in a niqab making a ‘V’ sign towards the camera. Often the leaflets can contain factually inaccurate information but this is not enough to mount a criminal prosecution. It should not all appear doom and gloom, as on 10 July 2009, again in Leeds County Court, two men were convicted of inciting racial hatred through use of US controlled websites. In an amusing twist, the two tried and failed to evade conviction in the UK by attempting to invoke their right to political asylum in the US. Campaigners often point to the perceived deficiencies in the law against racial hatred to suggest that a ‘no platform’ stance towards the BNP is the only way forward. This strength of feeling was evident at the Unite Against Fascism demonstration in July this year when Nick Griffin was pelted with eggs and unable to hold his press conference. Is ‘no platform’ a long term solution? I would argue strongly that it is not. The ‘egging’ incident appeared to be bourn out of frustration as opposed to anything else. One of the first hurdles that left wing supporters need to overcome is to accept that working class voters (among others) feel that the BNP is trying to accommodate their concerns on housing

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

and unemployment. Luring voters back from the BNP will require more than merely condemning their politics as ugly and racist. Margaret Hodge has already argued that we need a more convincing narrative on the BNP. She seems well placed to get to grips with the issue as her own East London constituency has a growing BNP presence. Further, the demonstrations that started in Lincolnshire at the Lindsey oil refinery based around the slogan “British jobs for British workers”; show there is a growing sense of dissatisfaction amongst the traditional Labour hard core. How can ‘freedom of speech’ help defeat the BNP? Quite simply by persisting in our ‘no platform’ approach we are failing to curtail their influence. Many activists have become deskilled. Most would not be able to articulate proper arguments against the BNP. Why should they be able to? The vast majority of left wing supporters and sympathisers are unaware of what the current BNP policies actually are. Few would probably be aware that it advocates policies including a free and fully funded NHS and the abolition of fees for university students studying ‘real subjects’. The appeal of these policies is unlikely to be undermined by merely applying the tagline ‘racist’ to the BNP. It is apparent that the BNP is trying to capitalise on a breakdown of communications between the electorate and the government. Given the funding and resources at the fingertips of the main political parties in this country, we should be able to explain why considerable parts of the BNP’s manifest promises are completely unworkable. Like all other political parties, they should be expected to explain where the extensive funds required for their policies would come from given the prevailing economic climate. This is especially the case as they are promising to encourage immigrants to return to their home countries’ by offering resettlement packages. These are just a handful of the many examples that could be used. However, to date the BNP have not been asked to account publicly for where the money will be found. The current attitude towards the BNP means we often allow false pre-conceptions to go unchallenged. Reports like that undertaken by IPPR for the Equality and Human Rights Commission on social housing should receive more press. It sets out that less than two per cent of all social

housing residents are people who have moved to Britain in the last five years and that nine out of ten people who live in social housing were born in the UK. These arguments need to be made more forcefully to discredit the notion that immigrants are jumping the queue when it comes to social housing. This is not to say that all constituencies will need to address the issues raised, the concerns will be more palpable in some areas that others. That is to say a proportional response needs to be adopted. One thing is clear. A national debate is required that acknowledges why the BNP appeals if we are to reclaim the left wing supporters who have been peeled away from their traditional base. Perhaps the best way to finish is to echo the words of John Stuart Mills, a famous advocate of free speech when he wrote ‘On Liberty’ [1859]. He said “It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce…this pretension…However positive anyone’s persuasion may be… yet if, in pursuance of that…judgment, though backed by the public judgment of his country or contemporaries, he prevents the opinion from being heard in its defence, he assumes infallibility. And so far from the assumption being less objectionable or less dangerous because the opinion is called immoral or impious, this is the case of all others in which it is most fatal.” John Stuart Mill’s sentiment is as true today as when it was written. If we fail to hear contrary arguments on the basis that they do not have the wider public support, we undermine the force of our own arguments, no matter how convincing they may be. Sara Ibrahim

ELECTORAL REFORM

The time to reform our system is now. Back in June, the evidence of people’s discontent with the way we do politics in Britain manifested itself in the lowest turnout in record at the European election. This allowed the racist BNP to gain a publicly funded platform in Brussels, to spread their

politics of division and hatred. David Cameron has shown the Tories’ true colours on democratic renewal. “Let me be clear about what we think of electoral reform,” he said at Prime Minister’s Questions earlier this year: “we want to keep the existing system.” How can this be right? Recent opinion polls show that BNP do not take their support from the apathetic or inactive residents; nor do they represent some deprived underclass that has previously had no democratic voice. Their support came from attracting engaged but disillusioned people, who had usually voted in the past. Around a fifth of BNP voters say they are using their vote as a protest. These people are politically active – but they must be engaged in new political ways, that lead them away from the BNP. Our constitutional settlement not only lacks proper ‘pressure valves’, through which people can express their occasional and often understandable dissatisfaction with the British political mainstream or its political class: it actively contributes to the build-up of this pressure. In a number of ways, it stifles meaningful civic participation – and people are drawn to the far right in frustration. In the current political climate, and in the future, this status quo is unsustainable. And while constitutional reform – no matter how radical – is never the whole answer to the problems posed by the BNP, it is a good place to start. The ‘expenses crisis’ coincided with the European elections, and certainly played a part in its outcome. It gave the BNP sometimes unstoppable ammunition, and caused many people to cast their votes for the party in protest. What, then, might proper political ‘pressure vales’ look like? Automatic recall elections for MPs who really did contravene the standards we expect (which should be independently decided) might remove the genuinely bad apples without tarring whole parties. More widely, imagine if people’s grievances about housing or public services could be aired in a Parliamentary debate triggered by popular petition. As online organisation and campaigning become more sophisticated, Parliament must adapt too. A crucial part of this pressure release might also be found in the way we select and elect our representatives. Just 1 in 88 of British voters, less than two percent, belongs to a political party – down from 1 in 11 in the

student-direct.co.uk

OTHER ARTICLES

1950s. And the average constituency Labour party (CLP) has fewer than 300 members – or half a per cent of the local electorate. Too often, our selection system seems biased toward insiders and time-servers, and against underrepresented groups like women or those from ethnic minorities. I believe we must now move to a system of primary elections to select Parliamentary candidates. Party membership cards would no longer be the prerequisites of meaningful political participation. Frustrating backroom stitch-ups and decisions by tightlyknit party cabals have acted as barriers to entry into politics for too long. Run properly, with a registration system as in the USA, a primary election can build a movement, a sense of ownership behind a candidate. And if coupled with mandatory reselection primaries, those MPs not doing the hard constituency work – as so many of the BNP’s councillors have already discovered – would soon be found out. Of course it is vital that Labour members continue to be valued. Those who want to be active members of the Labour party should be the ones who select the candidate shortlists that go to a constituency. Members should also have a greater say in our policy formation. But a more vibrant Labour party, drawing from a much wider pool of talent, experience and background, is surely the first answer to the threat of a far-right political fringe which tells a frustrated electorate that politicians ‘don’t understand us’. It is also time to have a real debate about the future of the wider electoral system. The first-past-the-post system (FPTP) means that all parties scramble to appeal to a mythical ‘Middle England’ – a handful of voters in a handful of marginal constituencies. In many Labour heartlands, this has led to a profound sense of injustice;

a sense that politics does not speak to or for ‘ordinary people’. This is the vacuum the BNP has become very effective at exploiting. Indeed, the BNP often describes itself as ‘Old Labour’ – albeit a politics portrayed as a competition for housing and public services, soured by bitterness and racial hatred, and with no real community solidarity. Of the alternatives, the Alternative Vote (AV) system – where people rank candidates in order of preference, rather than selecting only one – has much to commend it. AV would allow people a choice closer to their own political opinions. Under AV, MPs are elected with over 50% of the vote – something only 34% of British MPs can claim – meaning greater democratic legitimacy, and one less weapon in the BNP’s arsenal. AV also preserves the vital link between an MP and their constituency. Recent surveys have shown that BNP voters often describe the party as “understanding the problems facing my area” – a problem hardly alleviated by the distant party lists of Proportional Representation. A more contentious option is a written constitution. Labour’s great constitutional changes – devolution, the Human Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act – were piecemeal, and had no overarching direction or vision, allowing them to be picked off one by one by the rightwing press. Even Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, recently admitted that the Human Rights Act is seen as a ‘villain’s charter’ by many of his constituents. They have also been too complex, living only in court rooms or lawyers’ text books rather than out in the community or in the popular imagination. We deserve to know our rights and duties, and what to expect of our political system. People who are clear about what they

are entitled to expect from society are less likely to be frustrated by it, and seek solace in extremist politics. Constitutions are often the product of great upheaval – written as bulwarks against past tyranny, as in South Africa. But we are, right now, experiencing a crisis. And it is being exploited by the BNP: just look at Nick Griffin, MEP. We cannot simply ‘muddle through’, or wait for things to get worse. Now, a long deliberative process – perhaps by a large ‘citizen’s jury’, drawn by lot – must begin to define what these rights and duties are, then write them down in a way that everyone understands. Adding to the confusion and frustration is the House of Lords – a mish-mash of hereditary peers, bishops and appointments by unseen Prime-Ministerial edict. However expert, however good at scrutinising legislation some of our current Peers might be, their unaccountability cannot continue. And in the Commons, fewer ministers on the payroll, and less power and patronage in the hands of party whips might go some way to neutralising the anti-mainstream, anti-politics rhetoric of the BNP – which has some resonance when Parliament seems unintelligible, or beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. Breaking open politics in this way might, in the short-term, produce results which are at odds with the party-political advantage and traditional establishments of all main parties. Undoubtedly these changes would represent an historic shift in our politics, and will require the widest possible debate to achieve consensus. But it has never been more pressing to make these arguments. The long overdue process of increasing public engagement and enthusiasm for progressive politics must now begin anew. n Tom Stoate

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

COSTS AND BENEFITS Rebecca Rennison Secretary, Young Fabians

On replacing Incapacity Benefit

veryone can agree that Incapacity Benefit is not working. It writes people off for life and whole generations are living with its legacy. Labour’s reforms to the welfare state have sought to address this. However, in their current form these changes risk both failing to deliver the support needed by those facing the greatest barriers to accessing the workplace whilst also penalising those who simply don’t understand the system. The Government is currently in the process of replacing Incapacity Benefit with Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and will soon begin to move current Incapacity Benefit claimants across to ESA. The new benefit involves a reformed medical assessment and requirements that almost all claimants attend regular ‘Work Focused Interviews’ to help in their job search, with the risk of cuts in benefits if they fail to comply. It also aims to reduce the number of people receiving benefits due to ill health or disability. This is all part of the Government’s “something for something” approach, a rational argument that for the majority, it is only right that they do something in return for their benefit payment. However, at the moment, the Government has introduced the heavy stick of sanctions, whilst for its part not yet investing enough in the support people on Incapacity Benefit and ESA need to move into work, nor introducing sufficient safeguards into the system. The programme tasked with supporting people on Incapacity Benefit or ESA into work is known as ‘Pathways to Work’. In

some areas this is delivered by Jobcentre Plus but in others it is delivered by private companies or third sector organisations. Private organisations brought in to run these programmes have a focus on profit, they will support the bare minimum of people to secure payment and then, for them, the job is done. Furthermore, business logic dictates that those you support into work first are those people you will make the most money out of, which in this case will be those already close to the labour market. As for those who require more intensive support, if you only need to help, for example, 40% of your clients into work to get paid, then why bother with those with more complex needs? When it comes to back to work support, we need to adopt an approach more consistent with the work other Government departments are doing. In health and social care the focus is very much on the individual and the personalisation of services. No one person is the same and everyone faces different barriers to finding work. We address these levels of need in social care, why not do it for employment support, empowering people by giving them their own “back to work” budget and a range of providers to choose from? Contrary to popular opinion, the majority of people on Incapacity Benefit want to work, they just need to be given the right support to enable them to do so. We have also yet to do enough in terms of safeguards. The Government has offered assurances that sanctions will only be used

in a small number of cases but the reality is that with a system as complex as ESA, many claimants risk incurring sanctions simply through not understanding the system. The Government is trialling safeguards in the form of written warnings in place of initial sanctions but surely something aimed at protecting vulnerable members of society from a sudden cut in their income should be rolled out straight away, not debated for another three to four years? Safeguards are needed in the form of better training for those staff delivering Pathways to Work and enforcing sanctions, written warnings in place of initial sanctions and clearer communication to ensure that people are not penalised for simply failing to understand the system. The idea that people should not be written off and left to live a life on benefits is sound. But the majority of benefit claimants want to work. Rather than focus on the few who choose to deliberately not engage with the support on offer we should be focusing our efforts on those that want a job and just need the right support and opportunity to do so. We need to fully sign up to the “something for something” approach and in return for the mandatory activities and threat of sanctions that accompany ESA, invest in world class support for those who want to work whilst at the same time ensuring that sanctions really are only used as a last resort. A Labour Government should be about ensuring opportunity for everyone, ESA and Pathways to Work provide us with an opportunity to help achieve that, let’s be sure we don’t waste it. n

OTHER ARTICLES

TELLING TALES James Green Candidates Network Officer, Young Fabians and Labour PPC for Cheltenham

The importance of narrative in politics

uring its Annual Conference in 2007 the Labour Party was riding high. Leading the Conservatives in the polls, those five days in Bournemouth were dominated by speculation about a snap General Election. The Cameron project was seemingly on the rocks with commentators questioning whether the Tory leader could survive. A month later and Gordon Brown had called off the election. It would be the turning point in his premiership. In an interview from Downing Street he gave the reasons for his decision. He argued that he wanted to be judged on his vision for Britain rather than his competence at dealing with crises. “What I want to show people”, he said, “is the vision I have for the future of this country.” Since then ‘the vision thing’, as it has become termed, has hung over Gordon Brown. Commentators and politicians have persistently attacked him for lacking vision, for not having a convincing narrative for the future. Such criticisms are about more than policy. They reflect our need for politicians to be able to speak to the country, to construct meaningful stories about who we are and where we are going. That’s not to say that policy is not important. It is the meat of what politics must always be about. But a strong story, or to use the modern terminology, a narrative, can make a political party more than the sum of its policy parts. Credible political narratives are less about spin and more about creating an authentic voice that speaks to people’s values. Academics have long acknowledged

the central role that stories play in shaping our understanding of the world. Our own sense of identity and community requires us to associate ourselves with shared stories about who we are and where we came from. In Britain, as elsewhere, these shared stories play a crucial role in binding us together. They form the basis of a national identity that connects us to millions of people we will never meet. The political theorist Benedict Anderson termed this our “imagined community”. He argued, “It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” I was reminded of the crucial role that stories play in our understanding of experiences when I interviewed my grandmother for a book about her escape from Nazi Germany. Born in Dresden in 1921, she witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of the Nazis’ rise to power on Germany’s Jews. The interviews threw light not only on the terrible events that occurred during that period, but also on the way that we remember the experiences that define our lives. The events that so deeply affected the way that my grandmother saw the world were remembered not simply as dates and key actors, but rather as a succession of stories, each imbued with profound meaning. One particularly arresting example of this was my grandmother’s story of

Kristallnacht, ‘the night of broken glass’ in which Jews were assaulted, their homes ransacked and their synagogues burnt down. For my grandmother her experience that night shaped the rest of her life. Following an attack on her home, she was told by her parents that she would be put on the Kinderstansport alone out of Germany. The next morning, after walking the streets all night and seeing Dresden’s synagogues aflame, she returned to her house to gather a few possessions before she left for Britain. As she was leaving her childhood home for what would be the final time, she was approached by her neighbour, an elderly Christian woman who had been a close family friend for many years. The woman told my grandmother presciently, “Today your synagogues burn, tomorrow our churches will burn”. For my grandmother the decision by the allies to bomb Dresden in February 1945, destroying most of the town’s centre including many of its churches, was not simply a military action, it was the symbolic end to her story of Kristallnacht. David Aaronovic discusses the important role that stories play in our understanding of the world in his recent book, Voodoo Histories. He quotes the British biologist Lewis Wolpert who in 2006 theorised that the compulsion to create stories to explain our experiences may actually be biological. According to Wolpert, “Once there were causal beliefs for tool use. Then our ancestors developed causal beliefs about all key events.” To avoid the anxiety that resulted from our failure to find causes for our experiences, human beings evolved with “a strong tendency to make up a causal story to provide an explanation... ignorance

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

about important causes is intolerable.” For my grandmother the traumatic experiences that she faced in Germany could not simply be reduced to events and bigotry. For her they were better explained by stories that were both tragic and profound. If Wolpert is right, his theory goes some way to explaining why stories have always played such an important role in politics. Successful politicians are able to speak to nations by constructing meaningful stories out of the disempowering and often confusing events that influence our lives; the more challenging the events the greater the need for stories to explain them. Winston Churchill understood this only too well. On August 20th 1940, at the height of the Battle of Britain, he gave a rousing speech to the chamber of the House of Commons. At arguably the most dangerous phase in the entire war, faced with a seemingly unstoppable Nazi war machine, Churchill spoke of the sacrifice of the RAF pilots. “Never in the field of human conflict”, he said, “was so much owed by so many to so few”. Two months later the British won the battle and Churchill’s speech became part of our national narrative. My grandmother remembers it well. The role of politician as communicator continues to be important. In today’s increasingly complex and interdependent world, our politicians have a crucial role to play in making the social and economic forces that define our lives meaningful and comprehensible. An important part of Barack Obama’s appeal was his ability to shape complex and challenging circumstances into a story about the ‘American Dream’ and the ability of the country to renew itself. He argued that his election was a central part of this process; a point encapsulated in the first line of his victory speech,

“If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dreams of our founders are alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.” This offers an important lesson for Labour. To win the next General Election the party must communicate a meaningful story about itself that reconnects Labour with the values and aspirations of the British people. So what is that story and how can Labour shape it? Successful stories evoke the past and political narratives are no exception. It is no coincidence that the word ‘narrative’ derives from the Latin verb narrare, to recount - a synonym of to remember. To gain gravitas and authenticity political parties need strong historical foundations; they need a story that encapsulates the history of the people they claim to represent. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm once said of nationalism, “Nations without a past are contradictions in terms. What makes a nation is the past.” The same is true of successful political parties. Rarely has this been more important than today. Faced with unprecedented economic challenges and a political class that seems out of touch; the public feel both disempowered and alienated. They demand reassurance from their politicians that they have the authenticity and gravitas to understand and deal with fundamentally changed times. Labour has a good story to tell here. We have always been the party of change. We are the progressives, and we have a history that reflects that. From the ashes of the Second World War, at a time of near unparalleled economic and social upheaval, Labour built the modern welfare state. Sixty years on and the National Health Service reminds us all of what can be achieved under a Labour

government. But of course evoking the past is not enough in itself. To win the next General Election Labour also needs to make the case for what it has achieved over the past twelve years. This is the only way that the party can counter the argument, posed by the Tories, that 2010 marks the ‘time for change’. However, we need to find a new way to defend our record. The public are simply turned off by the lists of statistics that are too often our stock in trade. We insult people by asking them to buy into a simple dichotomy between Labour investment and Tory cuts. To win back public trust we need to get rid of the managerial language and oversimplified sound-bites that continue to pit ourselves against a Tory government long forgotten. What makes us different from the Conservatives is our values; values that have guided our successes over the last twelve years and chime with those of the British people. We didn’t invest at record levels in health simply to improve government statistics and better the Tories. We did it because we believe in the NHS and we always have. We didn’t create Sure Start to add a line on a pledge card or to simply gain votes. We did it because we believe that every child, irrespective of their background, deserves the best start in life. Labour is, and will always be, the party of the common good; the party that believes that good government has a crucial role to play in building a better and more equitable society. When I stood for selection as Labour’s Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Cheltenham I did so because I believe in the Labour’s Party’s values. I wanted to play a small part in a proud history that began with Keir Hardie and the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) and will continue long after Gordon Brown and New Labour. It is a story that is as old as the twentieth century and one that will outlive the twenty first. Labour’s attempts to articulate a vision have floundered not because they contain the wrong policies, but because they have failed to convey a meaningful story about who we are and where we are going. Now is the time to change that and tell Labour’s story in a way that resonates. In a way that reminds people that Labour is as relevant today as it was when the LRC was first formed in 1900. We are the party of collective action, of social justice and a fairer society. We are the party for our times. n

OTHER ARTICLES

BENEATH THE BURQA

Yan Boechat. Flickr.

Stewart Owadally Young Fabian Member

Sarkozy raises questions about how women are treated in society

he comments of Nicholas Sarkozy regarding what he perceives as the imprisoning dress code of the Islamic faith has added to a long-running debate which is somewhat avoided awkwardly here in Britain. It raises many issues about religious tolerance and basic practicality. At it’s heart is a debate on the progression of women in today’s society. Firstly, it is probably worthwhile considering that President Sarkozy was delivering his opinions during a “state of the nation” speech which was given to both houses of the French parliament. This is something not done since 1873 for the good of the upkeep of the separation of powers. His proclamations are extraordinarily problematic. He stated that the burqa, “... will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic”.

Of course, he masked his statement as an attempt to give women more freedom, but he seems to be saying that women’s choices are not welcome on the territory of the French Republic. France’s President embodies the attitude that subjects women to the subservience he insists he wishes to eradicate. Sarkozy apparently fails to separate private and public life. Clearly this is because he wants rule over all areas of life. We must be careful in Britain not to abandon our own principles. There is an argument for not allowing the full burqa in the courts and in schools, especially when teaching younger children. To be able to see the expressions of a teacher is essential at an early stage and, arguably, right through educational life. However, this does not solely apply to the burqa or

to women’s clothing. There is a strong argument that all religious symbolism should be banned in schools, thus creating what we could truly call a “uniform”. In addition to the practical argument is the right of women to choose. Sarkozy asserted that “the burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement”. I hope that it is my “Britishness” that leads me to gasp in disbelief at such a patronising comment. If it was such a sign of debasement, it is extraordinary how so many women still choose to wear their burqa in Afghanistan despite the ousting of a Taleban government which seemed to enjoy imposing subservience on its subjects. Women in Afghanistan say they feel safer in their burqa. A professor from Kabul University commented that “a woman on the street without a burqa is seen as fair

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

game for any sort of male overtures”. Observe men in a city centre after midnight and you can see the point. If women want to be themselves and not allow men to subject them to the dehumanisation which accompanies objectifying them and their bodies, then that is something that must be encouraged. It is patronising in itself that we need this debate as we are conceding that image is important to women and their progression towards equality with men. The pay inequality gap is astounding, bewildering and downright farcical. Late last year Britain was confirmed at 81st in a list of 130 nations on a list based on equal pay. The World Economic Forum, which published the list, created an overall ranking of economies as well, based on everything from pay to educational and employment attainment; Britain came 13th on this list. New Zealand, the Philippines and Sri Lanka all do more for female progression than Britain. The actual pay gap was said to be around 17% i.e. men earn 17% more than women on the whole. That in itself is ridiculous, but the situation is even more worrying when you divide up sectors. This year, the Economic and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) found that women working full-time in the financial

sector earn 55% less than their male counterparts. Further evidence of a lack of progression can be seen when we consider that although the amount of men and women working in the financial sector is roughly equal, only 11% of senior managers are women. Women, the EHRC found, are mainly concentrated in administrative and secretarial jobs. It is clear that these figures represent a problem far more profound and alarming than what women should or should not be allowed to wear; something which was apparently acknowledged by Barack Obama in response to Sarkozy’s comments. The Commission also found that Britain dropped from 12th to 21st on a list based on political empowerment due to the decline in female ministers, and this was before Caroline Flint’s dramatic walkout. This, in itself, is a troublesome issue. Positive discrimination is to the detriment of all, especially those that it seeks to empower. This is absurdly counterproductive. It gives the impression that women cannot advance and progress on their own without the help of the system: the patriarchy. Many people, many women indeed, say that the progression of women is continuing at a steady pace. The argument is that since women only achieved equal voting rights in 1928, the gradual improvement until

now has been good. However, the speed and scale of human progression and development since that time has been astronomical. The fight for human advancement continues at an alarmingly quicker speed than the fight for female advancement. President Sarkozy’s proposal, like his attitude, is archaic. In Britain we must deal with the issues that really matter for the continued advancement of women in society. It needs a total attitude overhaul that must begin with government. Belittling positive discrimination rules must be scrapped. The men’s club culture could also do with a dressing down. It also extends to the big industries in this country where a chauvinistic culture and attitude must be culled by bosses. Of course, that would require responsible bosses; something hard to find in the financial sector in particular. A debate must also extend to schools where the continuity of single-sex schools should be called into question. A society with a media that lambasts young and single mothers must also change. The problem, like all the other problems, lies in the minds, attitudes and actions of men. It will take a generation, but we must be the first to take real action, abandoning the superficial concessions that we have seen since 1928. n

OTHER ARTICLES

THE POLITICS OF AID Veronica Oakshott Young Fabian Member consuming and costly for developing countries and the UK. The Conservatives recognise this when they talk about finance

A critique of ‘One World Conservatism’

sk MPs of all parties what they think of Department for International Development (DFID) in private and in my experience a word crops up time and time again. Proud. With a few caveats of course, but still – proud. The winter edition of Anticipations looked at the Millennium Development Goals and though many are off track, authors didn’t by and large blame DFID but the gargantuan task facing it. It’s been interesting therefore to see the shadow DFID team challenge what some would see as a cosy consensus, with an overtly political green paper for development. The shots come thick and fast: ‘The official aid system suffers from a chronic lack of feedback’; ‘Too little of DFID’s aid is rigorously assessed for impact and outcomes’; DFID ‘lacks business sense’; ‘too many policy decisions… are made without a solid base about what works and what doesn’t’ . The paper, called ‘One World Conservatism’, pulls no punches. There are many aspects of the paper those in development policy and working for NGOs will welcome; three year rolling contracts with NGOs to help them plan long-term delivery of their programmes; and the promise of more information extracted from international organisations such as the UN and the World Bank about where our money goes. There are also some interesting proposals for young people linking the Tories’ proposed National Citizen Service with

volunteering for international development charities. The focus of the paper, however, is value for money and fostering a better connection with the British public. This is not surprising when finances are tight and taxpayers are asking questions about what their money has achieved. It is important that they too can feel proud of DFID. However the accountability revolution proposed by the Conservatives will not come without its costs. What the public wants and what the recipients of aid want or need may be two different things. If development is going to be bottom up rather than top down, it needs to respond to the needs articulated by local people rather than by DFID or Joe Bloggs on the British High Street. The proposed MyAid programme, which will see the public voting on causes for DFID to fund, may generate a lot of spending on Donkey Sanctuary projects in Bangladesh and rather little on programmes that limit the spread of HIV amongst injecting drug users. These types of programmes may not be cuddly but they are critical. The MyAid programme does have a limited budget at £40million (just under 1% of DFID current expenditure). It is hardly an ‘evidencedbased’ approach to funding but some may argue it’s a price worth paying if engaging the electorate leads to increased private generosity and an interest in DFID’s work. Accountability personalised to an individual donor government is also time-

ministers of developing countries spending more time reporting back to donor missions than on managing their own economies. Will the Conservatives be able to resist asking for feedback beyond the globally aligned reporting formats? And how is the new DFID watchdog compatible with the Conservatives proposed bonfire of the QUANGOS? These issues reflect a fundamental question that all parties must face about how much control we expect to get for our DFID spending. Do we relinquish some control to empower countries to make their own decisions about spending or do we ensure our spending reflects the instincts of the British taxpayer or, more fairly, the best research at DFID? Do we free recipients from onerous reporting requirements so they can get on with the job or do we increase the requirements so that we can be sure the money is being spent well? All the signs are that a Conservative-run DFID would opt for more control over the tax-payer pound. More control means more information for those of us trying to work out what is happening on the ground but also more politics – something which DFID, unlike its Whitehall neighbours, has thus far been relatively free. The test for the Conservatives would be whether they can maintain an enlightened approach – funding programmes not just for AIDS orphans but also for sex workers where they are driving the epidemic. With the Millennium Development Goal dates around the corner and a global recession biting hard, it is more important than ever we make decisions based on evidence, not just popularity. n

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

POLICY FORUMS David Chaplin Vice Chair, Young Fabians

An update on the Young Fabians’ policy forums

he Young Fabians are about to launch a new collection of essays on the future of progressive politics. Our pamphlet titled ‘Fast Forward: The Next Generation of Progressive Politics’ is our contribution to the policy debate ahead of the upcoming General Election. Most Young Fabians were in their teens when New Labour came to power 12 years ago. Many were still at primary school. We’re a generation whose formative political years have been spent under a Labour government. Much has been achieved in the past 12 years – including the national minimum wage, vital investment in core public services and policies to help society turn the corner on inequality and life chances – but much is left still to do, and we must be the generation to do it. Our society continues to be one in which 4 million children live in poverty. Over 60,000 young workers under 22 earn less than the minimum wage in jobs with little prospect of progression. It is our generation that must pick up the tab for a

200-year old carbon legacy and forge the route to a carbon-free future. And it is we who must seek to re-invigorate democracy both at home and internationally to find just solutions to injustices. If we are to have any hope of addressing these and other challenges, we must move the progressive agenda forward, and fast. With an election imminent in the next ten months and a change in the prevailing political winds, the term progressive will be challenged from new quarters of the political landscape. In this context it’s vital that we, the next generation of young progressive voters, activists, citizens and politicians, make our voices heard in the coming debate. With this in mind, the Young Fabians set out two years ago to begin a conversation with our members which ranged across the full spectrum of policy. It has been an opportunity for Young Fabian members and non-members alike to engage in an open and passionate debate about the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead and the role of progressive politics in shaping this future.

Over the last 12 months, many of you will have taken part in our four ‘Policy Forums’ which were established to theme our discussions. These covered: • International & Security Policy • The Economy & Prosperity • Democracy & Communities • The Public Realm In our new pamphlet the chairs of the Policy Forums provide their summaries of each of the groups – the problems identified, the solutions offered, the disagreements and real choices facing us. The contributors do not attempt to set out a single ‘Young Fabian platform’, but rather, as an organisation that exists to provide a forum for debate and discussion among young progressives, the chapters reflect the need for serious thought about our choices and priorities in a time of global economic instability. And the discussion goes on. As we enter an election year, the Young Fabians continue to host and advertise a varied programme of events and seminars, run by young people for young people, and giving members and non-members alike access to the thinkers and politicians who are leading the progressive charge. To find out more about us or how to become a member, visit www.youngfabians.org.uk. n

YOUNG FABIAN NEWS AND EVENTS

CANDIDATES NETWORK James Green Candidates Network Officer, Young Fabians and Labour PPC for Cheltenham

An update on the Young Fabian’s Candidates network

he Young Fabians Candidates network was set up at the beginning of the year. Since then Labour Prospective Parliamentary Candidates from across the country have signed up. From Bristol to Berwick, from Worthing to Wiltshire, the network has provided a valuable forum for Labour PPCs to develop their campaigns and share their ideas about the future of progressive politics. Below are a few excerpts from the contributions we have received from PPCs in recent months. Later in the year the network will publish a major policy pamphlet. It will analyse the future direction of progressive politics in Britain through contributions from Labour’s young Prospective Parliamentary Candidates. If you are Labour Prospective Parliamentary Candidate and are interested in joining the network please email the Young Fabians Candidates Network Officer, James Green, at jgreen@youngfabians.org.uk.

MAY 2009: DEBATING THE BUDGET Rebecca Rennison, PPC for South West Wiltshire For many, Budget 2009 was D-Day for Labour, either Alistair Darling would pull a rabbit out the hat and allow the Party to regain the edge over its critics or we could remain on the defensive, retreating against a rising tide of angry criticism and negativity. I think that the budget, in particular the 50% tax, has ignited an ideological spark for both Labour and the Conservatives, but I suspect this will only catch the interest of those already ensnared in the lair of Westminster. For those outside the capital’s political bubble, the budget’s impact will have been little noticed beyond the day’s news cycle, and the realisation that there is no silver bullet for our economic woes.

Kathryn White, PPC for Aylesbury I don’t want to see a budget which repeats the mistakes of the past, and which – in seeking to plant ‘green shoots’ in the housing market – artificially props up a sector which may not yet have corrected itself appropriately.

of the banking sector, which began with her government’s 1986 Financial Services Act, has contributed to the most significant global economic crisis since the Great Depression. The impact of the economic downturn on British politics cannot be underestimated.

Young constituents in Aylesbury (who cannot afford to buy still) are particularly concerned about the lack of affordable housing in our area, and I will be looking to Mr Darling to show them that Labour understands their concerns.

The battle lines, so bitterly contested and carefully crafted over the last thirty years have been irrevocably altered. Coupled with the crisis over MP’s expenses, economic events have conspired to create one of those rarest of political moments - a significant ideological shift within mainstream British society.

JUNE 2009: DEBATING THATCHER’S LEGACY Ian Ross, PPC for Worthing West I was recently on the train making a regular journey to Cardiff. The train crawled along at a snail’s pace, those standing with their faces squeezed in between other passengers’ armpits. The sheep in the neighbouring fields appeared to be walking quicker as they grazed. I was experiencing what many of us often experience; track and signalling problems. As I became more and more infuriated I thought to myself “bloody Thatcher for privatising the railways”. As we mark the thirtieth anniversary of Thatcher being elected, when you next get incensed with train operators and utility companies for their lack of understanding the concept of customer service, just blame Thatcher. You’ll certainly feel a lot better for it. James Green, PPC for Cheltenham Almost symbolically the anniversary of Thatcher’s rise to power has coincided with the systemic failure of the economic orthodoxy that she pioneered. Thatcher’s dogged, almost fundamentalist, belief in the ability of markets to correct themselves, has been dramatically undermined by recent events. The ideologically driven deregulation

JULY 2009: DEBATING CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM Adam Leeder, PPC for Suffolk Coastal A legislature separate from the executive carries many benefits for the battle-hardened backbencher. First it deprives the Government of carrots and sticks, reducing the executive’s ability to seduce/beat backbenchers into submission through promises of ministerial positions. Second, it removes the break of selfinterest on effective scrutiny. Currently, Governments can threaten dissolution if laws are not passed (Major on Maastricht in ’93) or be felled by an effective backbench rebellion. The result – Government collapses, MPs from that Governing part lose their seats; 1979 all over again! In short, where no separation exists, if the executive falls it takes down the legislature with it. Correspondingly backbenchers are disincentivised from challenging Government legislation in the division lobbies out of self-interest. A legislature separate from the executive could change this. Through having its own, independent, electoral mandate, the legislature would be in a stronger position to barter, scrutinise, reshape and improve legislation. n

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

NOTES FROM AFRICA Adrian Prandle, International Officer, Young Fabians Steve Race, School’s Project Officer, Young Fabians Preth Rao, Equalities and Diversity Officer, Young Fabians

Reflections on a trip to Africa

n June 2009, three Young Fabians joined a delegation to southern Africa organised by Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA). Working for peace, democracy and development across the region, ACTSA is the successor organisation to the Anti-Apartheid Movement, and campaigns with the people of Southern Africa as they strive to build a better future. The delegates visited South Africa and Swaziland and met youth and student leaders from the two countries and also Zimbabwe. They learnt more about how the struggles of the past have brought these countries to the struggles of the present and also met with representatives from the South Africa government, the British government, the EU, and the UN, as well as seeing the work of NGOs and civil society in the region.

STAYING IN SWAZILAND

Swaziland, it turns out, is something of a problem for the aid-giving world. Economically it ranks as a middle-income

country and so does not qualify for direct aid. The economy is relatively diversified, and as a member of the Southern African Customs Union, Swaziland is part of a large free trade area. Despite this, 69% of the population lives below the poverty line, and Swaziland is experiencing the highest rate of HIV infection in the world, with 26.1% of adults infected, and 38.8% of tested pregnant women infected with HIV. From our time in Swaziland, meeting trade unionists, student leaders and other opposition groups, united under the name of Swaziland United Democratic Front, the overwhelming conclusion is that the dire economic and health situation is due in the main to the bad governance which is endemic throughout the country. Swaziland is ruled by Africa’s last absolute Monarch, King Mswati III. The Swazi Parliament, with many members appointed by the King, acts merely as a rubber stamp for the wishes of the King. In this way, in April 2009 Swaziland spent around US$4million on an event to celebrate the 40th anniversary of independence and the King’s 40th birthday. In 2004, the King asked for US$15million to redecorate his three Royal Palaces. As recently as May this

year he bought 20 armoured Mercedes Benz at a cost of US$300,000 each. The last of these is just one of several requests for armour and arms that causes concern to the Swaziland United Democratic Front. At our time of meeting, two of their leaders were being held in jail for ‘acts of sedition’, under anti-terrorism legislation enacted by the King. So it may be a surprise to know that Britain in 2005 closed its Embassy in the Swazi capital Mbabane, leaving the nation with UK representation working out of the British High Commission in Pretoria, South Africa. For a country so troubled, and with historical ties to the UK, it seems unconscionable that the UK should have no representation directly involved in everyday Swazi politics, and raises questions about our commitment to smaller nations that have little impact on our own national interests. The problem may be that Swaziland is not a particularly fashionable country to talk about. Relatively small, with around 1.2 million people, there is virtually no reporting from the country, aside from the odd article about the King’s fanciful spending. Though an Embassy in Swaziland would perhaps be nothing more than a token, the British Government having very little influence over the Government due to the lack of direct aid, it would be received as a gesture of confidence by the fledgling

YOUNG FABIAN NEWS AND EVENTS

democratic movement. If democracy is to come to Swaziland, more important and effective would be the positive engagement of South Africa under President Zuma. Sadly, President Zuma, though making encouraging speeches during his electoral campaign, appears to have rowed back on the issue; as an ethnic Zulu, like King Mswati, President Zuma is seen now to be sympathetic to King Mswati’s position. Furthermore, President Zuma, who already has four wives and various fiancés, has indicated his intention to marry a sister of the King, who is a fellow polygamist. It is perhaps interesting to note that of the three nations from which Britain withdrew embassies in 2005, Swaziland has severe problems, Lesotho experienced an attempted coup and Madagascar saw its Government overthrown by the military this year. If as a country with a Labour Government we wish to promulgate democracy and encourage equality and good governance, it would seem prudent to have a fixed and active presence in all those countries that would benefit from our support, regardless of size or influence. Steve Race

THE RAINBOW NATION

human rights and the constitution of their country. This was brought to life wandering around Constitutional Hill in Johannesburg where cases of the highest order are heard in the animal print decorated constitutional court, next to the eerie Old Fort Prison complex. This has been turned into a museum but historically was a site of hideous racial degradation. Our guide told us that this juxtaposition ensured that the judiciary and others never forgot the past in making judgements about the future of South Africa. Moving stuff. However, the ‘xenophobia exhibition’ next door which photographically documented the 2008 attacks on Zimbabwean refugees and undocumented migrants in which 62

over the last 15 years has been essential to stability and sustaining certain benefits, such as free housing as well as wider development in the region through the South African Development Community (SADC). However for most people the Black Economic Empowerment strategy has not succeeded fast enough. Voluntary agreements for White landowners to sell some of their land back to the state for redistribution has had low take up. It remains to be seen what Zuma’s approach will be. From a short trip it was hard to form conclusive opinions about many things, particularly the degree to which the racial barriers physically and psychologically constructed by apartheid have dissipated in South Africa. Communities forcibly

people were killed revealed the fragility of these norms and rhetoric. Poverty remains an acute problem in South Africa, where unemployment stands intransigent at approximately 25%. As we have seen with the rising popularity of the BNP,a lack of opportunity often mitigates people’s generosity and tolerance of the other. It is in this context that the people tired of Mbeki and assisted by the powerful Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) brought Zuma to power to make the ANC vision developed during apartheid, a promise and reality.Indubitably the Economic Development of South Africa

segregated by the apartheid regime remain. However, it was heartening to hear about continued efforts to open opportunities and make South Africa’s institutions more representative. Such as the elite and formerly White University of Cape Town’s ‘equity marking’ system and re-allocation of school funding. It is important that the past is not forgotten and continued efforts in the name of social justice are made. I was similarly encouraged to read a newspaper article by a 16-year old girl with a mixed group of friends,confused and bemoaning her literature teacher’s obsession with race. The post 1994 generation may well be the best test-bed for the progress

Fifteen years since the end of apartheid and Mandela’s vision of a ‘Rainbow Nation’, I was keen to see the reality on the ground. I wanted to understand how past injustices were being rectified whilst ensuring that South Africa remained an inclusive and vibrant democracy. Avoiding destabilising factors associated with post-colonial and post-conflict countries, such as neighbouring Zimbabwe. In conversations with young people in South Africa, civil society organisations, and institutions such as the UN, DFID, FCO and the South African Human Rights Commission I gained a relatively broad but brief insight into the reality of the Young South Africa, its hopes, aspirations and impediments. Working for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, one stark but refreshing comparison with the UK was the extent to which people talked proudly about their

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

over the one-party political system and his misappropriation of the country’s financial resources, the distinction is significant. However, the language in each seemed controlled. Interest is as much in the stories chosen as any explicit editorial comment. On the day I picked up a copy of each, ToS choose to highlight a somewhat heated dispute between two Cabinet members in parliament, whilst its counterpart led with ‘King tours Robben Island: HMK hailed for Swaziland’s contribution to ending apartheid’. Each paper carried different stories on the Swaziland National Association of Teachers – one implicitly critical, the other more sympathetic to the union. Swazi Observer’s article ‘“Being gay is a human right”’, which quotes UN staff, is not directly critical but one may infer the

of the modern South Africa. Preth Rao

CHALLENGING MEDIUM

Whilst South Africa has had free and fair elections for 15 years now, Swaziland remains under the control and whim of its King. Despite the gulf in democratic development, each society has a fight still to be won on human rights. The English language papers I read reflected the different worlds that exist within, and between, the two neighbouring countries. Tweet Tweet – it’s snowing! Given our own predilection for talking about the weather it was amusing to see South Africa’s The Times carry a front page picture of partially-snow-covered fields, under the heading, ‘Send us your cold weather picture’. It was apparent from this tabloid (pitched somewhere between our red tops and broadsheets) quite how similar the daily read is to our own. There were stories on swine flu, the latest Apple technology, and the obligatory centre page spread on the rise of Twitter. And readers know what they’re getting with the BBK in the house column: ‘His reputation

precedes him, controversy is sure to follow’. Football, inevitably, had a lot of coverage on TV and in the press. South Africa’s oldest newspaper, The Star, a broadsheet, bumped the start of the Confederations Cup up into its main news, and The Times counted down the days to World Cup 2010. The pressure that exists on a distinctly average national team was immense and drew clear comparison with the hype and expectation that surrounds England’s appearances in international tournaments.A Perhaps this tells us something about globalisation and convergence of identity? Probably not. Whilst Twitter is triumphed and swine flu exaggerated, these are at the bottom of the list of concerns for much of South Africa’s population. A population with a high HIV/AIDS prevalence (18.1% of the adult population according to a UNAIDS/ WHO report in 2008), many of whom have extremely sub-standard housing, has different worries and struggles to the typical Guardian or Metro reader in the UK. Democracy is aided by a free and aspirational media but true freedom for South Africans comes only with further development. Serving the nation? Swaziland has two newspapers – privately-owned Times of Swaziland and state-controlled Swazi Observer (“We serve the nation” its banner proudly declares). Given King Mswati III’s control

view is leftfield. The newspapers convey an aspirational angle demonstrated by their front-page photos of big winners in the ‘Top Million’ lottery. But the aspirations of the nation are somewhat hampered by the absolute monarchy. The population can very crudely be split into three. Those close to the royal family, perhaps have a government job, and are well looked after; those active in the prodemocracy movement; and those who know of no better life than the poverty and illhealth they live with whilst unable to exercise properly their democratic rights. The real limitations ToS faces, exemplifies one of the problems the pro-democracy movement, led by the Swaziland United Democratic Front – a fragile but forceful coalition of unionists and PUDEMO (the banned opposition party) – that of actually communicating the benefits in itself of a multi-party system, but also communicating the benefits that that may deliver to the whole population. Challenge South Africa and Swaziland face very different challenges. What role the media can play in overcoming the real difficulties of each remains to be seen. Adrian Prandle

More information on ACTSA’s work can be found at www.actsa.org. If you are interested in taking part in their youth and student delegation in 2010, please contact Adrian Prandle, Young Fabian International Officer, aprandle@ youngfabians.org.uk, in the first instance. n

YOUNG FABIAN NEWS AND EVENTS

FEMINISM DEBATE Preth Rao Equalities and Diversity Officer, Young Fabians

A summary of our recent debate on feminism

n the 15th July I organised an event on whether feminism remains relevant in current

times. The panel, comprising all women (something which was remarked on by some in attendance), included excellent speakers from varying fields. Sarah Veale, a senior figure within the TUC, started by expressing her exasperation at the posed premise that Feminism had died. She drew upon the importance of gender equality in employment and existing inequalities, such as the gender pay gap, which remains at 17% in the private sector. However, she painted a positive picture of women starting to make greater demands of their unions - such collective action is susceptible to democratic swell. Dr Kate Mclean from Kings College London, a feminist researcher in development, spoke about how a gendered analysis in development was a mainstream paradigm. However, progressive thinking did not always lead to desirable outcomes. For example, in the field of micro-finance, which often focuses on women. Microfinance has led to many women selling sexual services in order to make sufficient money to pay back loans and uphold their reputation. What may have intended to empower had the opposite effect. This example highlighted the pitfalls of women and men in NGOs and Governmental

agencies, largely based in the developed world defining other women’s agendas, without understanding their daily experience and cultural norms.. Finn McKay, a self-described radical lesbian feminist, talked incredibly passionately and eloquently about the persisting problem of sexual exploitation and violence against women. She challenged the audience on our complacency in allowing society to take our oppression and then to sell it back to us, for example, with children dressed as women. Some elements of Finn’s argument provoked debate. A question from the floor challenged the pathologising of ‘prostitutes.’ Perhaps women chose to be involved in the sex industry and so should be assisted by the movement to achieve working rights. Finn’s fierce rebuttal highlighted the fact that the average woman becomes involved in such work at the age of 14, so they are usually girls. They also face much higher risk of death. Ellie Levenson talked more broadly on what feminism meant to her as illustrated in her recent book – “The Noughties Girl Guide” to feminism. She talked about the problem of the feminist label, which may put off many people who are indeed feminists. In contrast to Sarah, Ellie believed that Feminism is ultimately about choice. She stated that she believed that someone who believed in a particular religion and was against abortion as a consequence could

still call her or himself a feminist on other issues. In defining feminism Finn talked about second wave Feminism leading to the liberation of women and society: it was a resistance movement and created space for dissent. However, it remains to be seen whether Finn and others could accept dissent on certain issues. This particular point brought into question whether the movement can survive when different types of women may want very different things. However, if we do rely on the common ground alone so as not to offend others, are we left with something that is bland and would be more appropriately termed gender equality? Ellie professed that she hoped that feminism in the noughties had more in common than opposite. However, she recognised that culture and wealth intersects with your feminist identity. The exact differences between gender equality and feminism were alluded to but not addressed in the limited time available for questions. Sarah stated that feminism is more nuanced. Perhaps gender equality is a consideration, approach and outcome whereas feminism is an overt political movement with a rich history? Finally, Finn stated that men could not be feminists but can be pro-feminist men. It would have been interesting to have put this premise to the full panel. From the general feeling in the room, questions asked and the feedback forms it seems that there is still plenty of room for debate on this issue and an appetite for it, which was fantastically encouraging. n

ANTICIPATIONS•AUTUMN 2009

DIARY

A LOT DONE...

June 23 29 July 1 3 15

Fair Access to the professions roundtable With Alan Milburn Chinese Embassy Reception New Members’ Reception Young Fabian Boat Party River Thames Is Feminism Relevant in the 21st Century?

A LOT STILL TO DO...

Sept 14

Revisioning Democracy Young Fabian, Fabian Women’s Network and Downing Street Project Event SOAS, 6.30 to 8.00pm

Young Fabians/Fabian Society/Unions 21/Labourlist.org Fringe Next Labour: What next for progressives? Regency Lounge, Royal Albion Hotel, Brighton , 3.00 to 4.30pm

Young Fabian 2009 Conference Reception @ JAM Supported by UNISON 9-12 Middle St, Brighton, 6.00 to 8.00pm

Oct 15

Why Labour can win – and why the country needs a centre-left government Committee Room 6, House of Commons, 6.00 to 8.00pm with Steve Richards, The Independent, Stephen Twigg, Rachel Reeves and Chris Ostrowski RSVP to aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk or dchaplin@youngfabians.org.uk

Nov 13

Young Fabians’ Annual Dinner

Young Fabians’ AGM

For up to date information on all of our events, sign up to or email list at www.youngfabians.org.uk

IN THE NEXT ANTICIPATIONS

LABOUR IN THE DIGITAL AGE Email your article idea to anticipations@youngfabians.org.uk by mid-November

ÂŠ Young Fabians 2009 www.youngfabians.org.uk