The New Progressives

FABIAN SOCIETY

The New Progressives Voices of Labour’s Future Edited by James Green

Young Fabians | e-pamphlet

FABIAN SOCIETY

YOUNG FABIANS

The Young Fabians The Young Fabians are the under-31's section of the Fabian Society, Britain's foremost centre-left think tank. Set up in 1960, we remain the only think tank run by and for young people. Our Membership numbers over 1,400 and includes young professional, students, parliamentary researchers, political activists and academics. The Young Fabians promote policy debate through seminars, conferences, pamphlets, and online through our website and blog. To find out more about the Young Fabians, visit www.youngfabians.org.uk.

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

Fabian publications, events and ideas reach and influence a wider audience than those of any comparable think tank. The Society is unique among think tanks in being a thriving, democratically constituted membership organisation, affiliated to the Labour Party but organisationally and editorially independent. For more information, visit www.fabian-society.org.uk.

Fabian Society 11 Dartmouth Street London SW1H 9BN www.fabian-society.org.uk

First published October 2009 This paper, like all publications of the Fabian Society, represents not the collective views of the Society but only the views of the authors. This publication may not be reproduced without express permission of the Fabian Society.

Young Fabians | e-pamphlet

The New Progressives Voices of Labour’s Future Edited by James Green

YOUNG FABIANS Candidates Network iii

Contents Introduction James Green

1

1 | The Progressive Challenge ..............3 Rachel Reeves, Labour PPC for Leeds West ...........

2 | A New Progressivism ............9 James Green, Labour PPC for Cheltenham ..........

3 | Continuing the Crusade David Boot, Labour PPC for Mid Sussex 4 | The Parent Trap Emma Reynolds, Labour PPC for Wolverhampton North East 5 | The Value of Liberty Alan Strickland, Labour PPC for Berwick-upon-Tweed 6 | A Sense of Belonging Kevin Bonavia, Labour PPC for Rochford and Southend East

..... 15 ............. .....21 ................ ................

25 ................ ................ ...........32 ................ ................ ................ ................

7 | Back to the Future Rebecca Rennison, Labour PPC for South West Wiltshire 8 | Furthering Education Gareth Gould, Labour PPC for South Holland and the Deepings 9 | Keeping it Simple Darren Jones, Labour PPC for Torridge and West Devon 10 | Capable Government Adam Leeder, Labour PPC for Suffolk Coastal 11 | Being Cooperative Ian Ross, Labour PPC for Worthing West 12 | A Sense of Fair Play Chris Ostrowski, Labour candidate for the Norwich North by-election

36 ................ ................ ................ ...........40. .............. ............43 ................ ............ ...........47 ................ ................ ............51 ................ ............54

v

Introduction James Green

T

he Young Fabians Candidates Network was set up at the beginning of this year. Since then it has gone from strength to strength and is now supported by young Prospective Parliamentary Candidates from across the country. The network aims to foster debate and discussion amongst young PPCs, building links between Young Fabian Members and Labour’s politicians of the future.

Over the past twelve years progressive ideas have been at the forefront of British politics. New Labour has changed the terms of the political debate, arguing for and implementing a raft of progressive policies that have made a real difference to the lives of people across the country.

However, as the world changes, so politics must change with it. In politics only one thing is certain; the challenges of the future will be very different from those of the past.

After twelve years of a Labour government, at a critical moment for progressive politics, the Young Fabians have invited twelve of Labour’s young Prospective Parliamentary Candidates to reflect on the party’s record and outline their vision for the future. It will be the next generation of Labour politicians that will need to develop new solutions to meet the challenges of changed times. This pamphlet aims to spark debate amongst opinion formers and Young Fabian members about the future direction of progressive politics.

For some like Rachel Reeves, PPC for Leeds West, an international outlook is key, whilst Emma Reynolds, PPC for Wolverhampton North

1

East, focuses on gender equality, an issue much closer to home. Chris Ostrowski, who fought the Norwich North by-election, argues that people demand a greater sense of ‘fair play’, whilst Alan Strickland, PPC for Berwick-upon-Tweed, makes the case that the public want a more liberal state.

Twelve years of Labour government, twelve very different visions for the future. The range of responses and wealth of ideas shows that, even during these challenging times, progressive politics continues to thrive within the Labour movement.

If you are a young Prospective Parliamentary Candidate and would like to join the Young Fabians Candidates Network please email me at jgreen@youngfabians.org.uk.

To find out more about the Young Fabians or how to become a member, visit www.youngfabians.org.uk. From there you can also visit the Young Fabians blog and post your views on this pamphlet.

2

The Progressive Challenge Rachel Reeves

Labour PPC for Leeds West

P

rogressive politics in ten years time will be more international in outlook, as global warming and a more globalised economy change the political discourse. In this essay, I will map out what it means to be a progressive; how progressive priorities have changed in the last ten years; the importance of engaging people and communities in the debate about our shared future; and the direction of progressive politics in the next ten years. I will also look at the tools available to progressives to achieve those ambitions – including through debate, dialogue and international institutions.

Being a progressive means continually striving to make our communities fairer and more enriching places for people to live, allowing everyone the opportunity to fulfill their potential. It is the emphasis on communities and on the means (as well as the ends), that makes the left more at home with a progressive value set or ideology than the right.

Willing the means is about considering what opportunities, or capabilities, people and communities need to live fulfilling lives. That means tackling material poverty, through taxation, benefits and incomes. And it means tackling other causes of social exclusion and deprivation, like poor housing, ill health and lack of skills. To be on the left means believing the state can play an enabling role in helping people and communities achieve their potential. Whether through investing in

3

The New Progressives education, guaranteeing free entry to museums and galleries, or giving guarantees to patients, the state and society can help ensure people have the opportunities to make the most of their talents and lead fulfilling lives – the progressive challenge.

While these values are enduring, and define my own political outlook, the circumstances in which we apply them changes over time as economic, political and social realities evolve. In the last ten years the challenges and issues that politics and society has had to confront have changed markedly, often in ways that were not or could not have been foreseen. In the next ten years that will be true again.

Before we consider the future, it is worth identifying how the backdrop to political and economic debate has changed in the last ten years.

In 1997 the priority was to address the legacy of a decade of underinvestment in our public services. And it was obvious why. I was born in 1979, three months after Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. I went to state schools in south London and saw firsthand the impact of under-investment in public services. We were constantly short of text books and my sixth form was a pre-fab hut in the playground. Our playing fields were a mile away, music tuition became the preserve of those who could pay and our library was turned into a classroom because there wasn’t enough room for lessons. Coupled with three million people waiting for operations, many for a year or more, the challenge for progressives was clear. Without access to decent healthcare and education it is impossible to fulfill your potential – so we set out to reform and invest in our public infrastructure and services.

All around us we can see the results. In Leeds West, where I am standing for Parliament, the standard of social housing has increased on the back of the Decency Standard commitments, every primary school has been either re-built or re-furbished since 1997, two new high schools opened their doors this month and we have two new District Health Centres offering out-patient treatment in the community. Leeds West is not unique in this respect, and across the country we can see the evidence and impact of Labour investment. This investment has helped

4

Voices of Labour’s Future create the environment where people can thrive and flourish.

For three successive elections Labour has campaigned and won on a platform of investment in public services and a strong economy.

Progressive ideals that have extended opportunity and aspirations.

But, I believe more could have been done to build a broad coalition in favour of creating a fairer, more equal society, and that this would have had the impact of better embedding progressive values and outcomes.

What do I mean by that? I mean that we have sometimes tried to do what we believe in without telling people. Our worries about haranguing Middle England with views of what the good society might look like prevented us from articulating what a society with fairness and opportunity at its heart really means. There is ample evidence that more equal societies are ones where everyone, not just the worse off, is happier and more fulfilled. More equal societies are associated with less crime, stronger communities and better schools – benefitting the middle classes as well as poorer families. We could and should argue this case to help build a fairer Britain.

We have avoided this debate because with a strong economy income tax has not had to go up to pay for progressive measures like tax credits, children’s centres and Sure Start. A strong economy, with buoyant tax revenues has delivered the cash and taxpayers have not been asked to make a trade-off between disposable income and the quality of public services because they have had increases in both. As we face in to more binding constraints on what is affordable this is a danger. It is very possible that if we had asked, people would have been willing to pay a bit more – as with National Insurance Contribution increase in 2003 to pay for higher NHS spending. If they had asked then Cameron and Osborne’s demands for broad-brush cuts might not have the same resonance with voters because it would have contradicted a conscious decision voters had made previously.

This gap in coalition building needs to be understood and learned as we consider the progressive challenges and opportunities of the future especially if we want to make lasting change. As well as delivering

5

The New Progressives popular policies we must win the difficult arguments. We still need to do that on fairness, but we must also do it with issues that progressives will face in to in the next decade, such as global warming.

Looking ahead, increasingly the challenges we face, including global warming are international ones. Building a stronger and more sustainable economy, tackling climate change and responding to the threats of global terrorism and failed states have all moved up the agenda and will define the agenda in the next decade. And they all need policy responses at a global level.

What should the progressive political response look like? I believe it will be defined in two ways. First, it must be global and second, it must focus on expanding opportunities, especially for the most marginalised, both at home and abroad, giving more people and communities opportunities to realise their potential. But, if progressive values are going to succeed against a temptation to retreat inwards and to raise barriers between communities then we – as politicians, activists and citizens need to make the case for global cooperation and enlightened internationalism. One lesson we must learn from our twelve years in government is that progressive politics by stealth cannot build a broad and sustainable coalition for progressive policies to endure.

Global warming cannot be stopped by the actions of one country or just through decisions made by politicians. Nor can we stabilise the global financial system or tackle terror plots hatched in far corners of the world alone.

Just and sustainable solutions to the challenges of global warming means recognising the impact of the policies and lifestyles in one country, especially in the rich world, on the most vulnerable communities and countries. A progressive agenda will involve remodeling our global financial and trade rules so that they serve people not profits. It means using the talents and energies of people from all walks of life. It also means giving thought to inter-generational justice. If we do not protect the planet then the quality of life of future generations will be impaired, reducing the ability of our children and grandchildren to

6

Voices of Labour’s Future realise their potential.

And, unless we tackle climate change, it will be the poor who will find it hardest to adjust. In the developing world it is hard to lead a fulfilling live if your livelihood is destroyed and home flooded. In the developed world it is hard to fulfill your potential if more of your income is spent on heating and travel as the price of non-renewable fuels increase.

The challenges we face in relation to fixing the global economy similarly require global solutions. Regulation in one country will not do the trick; banks are internationally mobile, as we have seen through the credit crunch. It is the poor and low skilled who suffer most from economic instability – struggling to pay bills, being refused credit, or facing unemployment – or failing, in the case of many school leavers, to get a job in the first place. Progressives must reform the global economy with solutions which allow more people and communities to determine their own futures and map their own destinies.

Recognising that the challenges are global we must foster closer and more productive relationships with our international partners – playing a central role in Europe, pushing for democratic reform of the IMF and World Bank and using our position in the G8, G20 and UN Security Council. We need to see international institutions as an opportunity not a threat and in the best traditions of British internationalism. It is through these partnerships that we will extend opportunities and capabilities – the progressive ambition – in the twenty-first century.

The trend of globalisation will only intensify in the coming years.

Through trade, financial arbitrage, migration and information technology, challenges, threats and opportunities will increasingly disregard national borders. To keep pace, progressives need to find new solutions in the emerging political, economic and social landscape. Working collectively, through international institutions and with new partners, we can find solutions that expand the set of opportunities, particularly to the most vulnerable.

But the debates will not always be easy, and if we are going to find long-term solutions we must build a consensus for progressive values

7

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

8

A New Progressivism James Green

Labour PPC for Cheltenham

A

battle is raging over the future of progressive politics. It is a battle that has endured since the birth of the Labour Party itself. Today it takes the form of a struggle between self styled Old Labourites on the one hand and an emerging coalition of democratic socialists and liberals on the other. The ideological fault lines of Labour’s future are being drawn up; between those that argue for a planning state and those that call for an empowering one. In this essay I will argue that the lessons of the past twelve years show that to reengage the public in the political process, Labour needs to move away from the state-centred solutions of the past. Only by finding the right balance between liberalism and democratic socialism, extending individual liberty while defending social justice, can Labour renew itself and rebuild public confidence in its progressive cause.

So what does it mean to be progressive? For a word that has been used so much in recent years it is strangely hard to define. Yet, despite that, it remains a powerful idea and one that continues to dominate British politics. From tax cuts to tax rises, from the stability of the state to the innovation of markets, the term has been used to describe a whole range of policies; some related, many fundamentally contradictory. Its popularity is now almost total. Today, few politicians argue over the merits of progressivism. The real battle is over who can claim it as their own.

In many ways the popularity of the word can be put down to its

9

The New Progressives vagueness. A catch all term, it reflects the way that most of us see the world. We all want to progress, move forward, build a better life for ourselves. In that sense we are all progressive, albeit with a small ‘p’. In a rapidly changing and often uncertain world, the language of progress helps us feel optimistic about the future. It offers a positive worldview without the complexities of party allegiance or policy detail. In doing this it is able to bridge the political divide, engaging the left without alienating the right. For all three party leaders it has become the ultimate triangulating tool.

Big ‘p’ progressivism is something all together different. It has deep historical roots that reach back to the birth of the Labour movement. In a recent article the historian David Marquand argued that Progressivism a century ago described the overlap of the gradualist democratic socialists like the Fabian Society with the ‘new liberals’ who provided the ideological underpinning for Asquith’s government. For them the progressive mission was clear. Whether it was about reform of the House of Lords or the extension of the suffrage, to be progressive was to be committed to a radical redistribution of power and opportunity across society. Progressivism described the belief that the good society was an equal one, and that through collective action and active government we could build our New Jerusalem.

Since then the Labour Party has had a complex relationship with the term, rarely more so than over the past twelve years. For over a decade an internal Labour struggle has been taking place between the selfstyled New and Old parts of the party. For New Labour the language of progress was used as much to challenge its opponents within the party, as it was to attack its Opposition without. In his Leader’s Speech to Labour’s 1999 conference Tony Blair outlined this view, “For the 21st century will not be about the battle between capitalism and socialism but between the forces of progress and the forces of conservatism...The forces that do not understand that creating a new Britain as true equality is no more a betrayal of Britain’s history than New Labour is of Labour’s values.”

10

Voices of Labour’s Future It is no coincidence that when thinking of a name for their pressure group the Blairite modernisers chose ‘Progress’.

That battle still rages. Many in the Labour movement continue to challenge New Labour’s progressive claims. Yet New Labour’s vision of progressivism does share a great deal with the Progressives of the past.

Its mission of redistributing power and opportunity to the many and not the few, reflects the same guiding principle as those early Labour pioneers. In devolution the party drove through the most radical redistribution of power since women got the vote. Its anti-discrimination legislation broke down barriers and gave a voice to many of the most marginalised in our society. Its investment and modernisation in education and health transformed life chances, giving people new opportunities to fulfill their potential. Tax Credits, Sure Start, the New Deal, the Minimum Wage, Maternity Leave, the Winter Fuel Allowance, Pension Credit – all progressive policies that have given people greater power and opportunity in their lives.

Yet New Labour’s approach to reform was very much a product of its time. State-centred solutions, managed from Whitehall, were required to tackle the challenges inherited from the Tories. Whether it was serially underfunded public services, or millions of people marginalised by the moralising policies of Thatcherism; clear and bold state action was desperately needed. However, while investment and modernisation from the centre transformed services, it also alienated many. Today Labour finds itself behind in the polls and facing a resurgent Tory party.

We are forced to ask ourselves why, when people are ‘small p’ progressive in their lives, are they increasingly rejecting ‘Big P’ progressivism for their politics?

In his recent John Smith memorial lecture David Miliband argued that a deep ‘democratic pessimism’ had come to define British politics. For all of us who have knocked on doors or pounded the streets for Labour, his conclusions ring true. How often have we heard people say that all politicians are the same, that we are all in it for ourselves, that ‘nothing ever changes’. The message from the public is clear; people feel disem-

11

The New Progressives powered. They have come to see progressive politics as a barrier to individual progress, rather than as a facilitator of it. Yet, despite their reservations, they remain unconvinced by the Tories. The public still want to believe in a positive progressive vision for the future, they just don’t believe that any political party is articulating it. So what can Labour do to regain public confidence in its progressive cause?

Some say that we need to return to the Old Labour policies of the past.

They argue that Labour’s current plight reflects a widely held belief that we have moved too far away from our founding values. Yet it seems counterintuitive to argue that voters are returning to the Tories in droves because they feel Labour aren’t left wing enough. Rather, they are calling for a new type of politics that reflects a fundamentally changed world from the one that Labour inherited in 1997.

To regain public trust Labour must not look backwards but must instead offer a new type of politics that empowers individuals and gives them greater control over their lives. The progressive politics of the future must be about the state giving up power, rather than reclaiming it. In the Liberal Republic Richard Reeves and Philip Collins outlined their view, offering a challenge to Labour that is particularly pertinent today, “Trapped in his elevation of means over ends, the social democrat is not sure what to do. The pattern of society seems oddly recalcitrant to his reforms and yet he cannot see that his own ends – which are right and good – can only ever be served by liberal means. Power to the people is in his gift if he holds the levers of power – but only by letting go, not by pulling them even harder.”

It would be a mistake to use this argument to negate Labour’s many successes over the past twelve years or reject democratic socialism entirely. Just as the first Progressive pioneers a century ago were a coalition of democratic socialists and liberals, so the new progressives must be too. While the liberal tradition can teach social democrats about the importance of empowerment; social democrats can teach liberals that, without social justice delivered through an active state, empowerment

12

Voices of Labour’s Future means little. Only by finding the right balance between liberalism and democratic socialism, extending individual liberty while defending social justice, can Labour build the progressive coalition of the future. So what would that mean in practice?

If the new progressivism is about ensuring that the public have the power to shape their lives, it is important to look at the institutions in which power resides. The obvious starting point is Parliament itself. The furor over MPs expenses has clearly shown that the public feel disempowered by a political system that seems out of breath and out of touch.

They demand a new type of politics in which the individual has greater influence over the decisions that affect their lives. Yet, because of our First Past the Post electoral system, the vote they cast at election time is likely to have no impact on the outcome. This has created a deep democratic deficit between politicians and the people they claim to represent.

The statistics speak for themselves. In the last General Election, 70 per cent of the votes cast were wasted on losing candidates, or for winning candidates above the level they needed to win their seats – that's over 19 million ballots. The problem goes even deeper. Elections swing on a small number of votes in a small number of marginal constituencies.

That means that, even for the minority of votes that do count, some count more than others.

But beyond that, First Past the Post no longer represents the way that most of us see the world. The simple ideological dichotomy between left and right has lost relevance in an ever changing and increasingly interdependent world. We don’t experience life as a simple choice between two competing visions. Rather, in life we collaborate, work together and compromise to reach our goals. Politics should reflect that. If we are to learn one thing from the furor over MPs expenses it is that the public feel disempowered by a political system that feels inward looking and inaccessible. Electoral reform may not be a panacea, but it is certainly an important symbolic starting point in the drive to pass power back to the people.

But we need to go further. The new progressive’s goal must be to

13

The New Progressives redistribute power to the lowest possible level. That means stronger local government. The vast majority of constituency casework should be dealt with by local councilors, not Members of Parliament. If councilors had more access to central government and greater influence, they could become the strong and influential local voices that they deserve to be. The public needs to have a greater say in the way that public services are run. Choice is important, but even more important is meaningful control. We should expand participatory budgeting and give people greater opportunity to set priorities at the local level. Civil liberties must be protected, and in many circumstances extended, to ensure that people know that power rests in their hands, and not in the levers of the state.

These are the policies that must define the progressivism of the future.

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

14

Continuing the Crusade David Boot

Labour PPC for Mid Sussex

T

he next decade offers an array of challenges and opportunities for the Labour Party; the emergence of new issues and the policies needed to remedy them, the age-old balancing act of renewing the party without abandoning its core values and adapting to a new political centre as opposition parties bend and alter to the times.

One thing is clear; nothing is certain in politics. A global crisis alters the political landscape like a new ice age. The Iraq War, 9/11 and the global economic crisis are just some of the events that have shaped our politics over the last decade. What is clear is that the Labour Party must retain a strong narrative about what it stands for and where it is going, meeting the challenges posed by Cameron’s Conservatives.

The modern Conservative Party claims to be the only true progressive force left in British politics, as Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has recently insisted. This claim is utterly false. His party is progressive in some areas, such as the use of primaries to choose parliamentary candidates and moves to devolve powers to local government, but progressive means do not equate to progressive ends. The Conservatives still believe in hierarchy, regressive taxation and rabid Eurosceticism. The party promotes stronger local government but eschews electoral reform; its anti-statism does not naturally equate to individual empowerment. In Conservative eyes, the state is too big so they aim to reduce it. They have no similar plans to increase the size of

15

The New Progressives the individual.

The Conservatives have proposed inheritance tax cuts for the richest estates in the country, have conceded that it will make bigger public investment cuts than Labour, oppose organised labour and shy away from any mention of the word equality. The party’s progressive veneer is a thin one. Just one look at their approach on Europe shows their true nature; they have created a European grouping including homophobes and bigots and yet they have just apologised for their role in Section 28 at home. Actions most definitely speak louder than words.

Recent Cameron statements show a return to old fashioned Toryism as his party claims that only reform will improve public services. In reality, the argument for better public services is more nuanced than this and requires something that the Conservatives will not provide: investment. A dual approach, encompassing reform and investment, is the only true route to progress. One thing is clear; progressive politics in ten years time will not be blue.

The Labour Party is radical or it is nothing. Without this it ceases to be the progressive force in British politics. From the creation of the welfare state in 1945 to the pledge of devolution in 1997, the party changes the shape of what governments do and how they do it. Small ‘c’ conservatism is as much an enemy of the Labour movement as its big ‘C’ equivalent. The party must retain its radicalism, not just for the next ten years, but for as long as forces of conservatism aim to restrict it.

Radicalism for Labour’s next manifesto must show itself in the spheres of the public services, the constitution and in the relationship between the individual and the state. Greater personalisation in public services has been part of the government’s direction of travel over the last decade and should inform Labour’s next ten years. However, this new relationship should not just be about the state and the individual and the shift of power from one to the other, but about the role that professionals can play in the co-production of public services. The issue is not just about power; it is about the role of expertise in reforming

16

Voices of Labour’s Future public services. The future of public services is better served by this triumvirate than it is by the individual/state dichotomy and the fictitious fight the new right sees between the two.

On the constitution, Labour needs to renew the radicalism bequeathed to the party by John Smith and partly taken up by Tony Blair in 1997. Proportional Representation (PR), full reform of the House of Lords and the lowering of the voting age to 16 are just some ways that Labour can pick up the mantle of 1997 and continue to change the way in which we are governed. PR represents one of the biggest and fairest ways to change how we choose our governments, finally breaking the cosy Westminster model we have at present. Too many votes cast in our political system are meaningless as political parties scramble over a number of marginal seats to give them the required number of MPs needed to form a workable government. The situation at present, where we have millions of votes cast that do not impact on the final result, has to be tackled by Labour in its quest for a fairer society.

A reformed second chamber should be a prerequisite for any future Labour Government. How can it profess to champion fairness and equality when the House of Lords is created in the least fair way imaginable? The lowering of the voting age is also part of a new constitutional radicalism Labour must embrace, helping to promote the active citizenship of young people. Once again the question of fairness comes into play as people question how 16 year olds can pay tax but not elect the government which administers those taxes. Radicalism, on the constitution, is essential for Labour to build upon what it started in 1997.

Constitutional reform brings with it a new relationship between the individual and the state, something that Labour must embrace over the next decade. Personalisation in public services, including greater user choice, as well as empowerment through a fairer constitutional settlement, helps bring about a new era for the relationship between the individual and the state. Moreover, shifts in green taxes to uphold the

17

The New Progressives polluter pays principle sees a greater personalisation in the realm of taxation; payment being influenced by an individual’s actions.

Individual responsibility, whether in areas of climate change, unemployment and training and anti social behaviour, is not just a Tory missive. Indeed, the ‘rights and responsibilities’ rhetoric of 1997, mirroring much of the language of the party’s 1979 manifesto, fits into one of Labour’s key values: that of community. In an ever globalising world, the values of community, including friendship, mutual respect and support, become ever more compelling.

Greater personalisation in public services would be meaningless without the knowledge that services are administered for a greater public good and that one person’s interaction within it is just part of a wider societal interaction. Labour’s reworking of the relationship between the individual and the state goes beyond the phoney tinkering proposed by the Conservatives; it sees a reimagining of the interaction between the two, including real empowerment, mutual respect through the values of community and real choice in relation to public services and the Government that administers them.

Harold Wilson once remarked that ‘the party is a moral crusade or it is nothing’. At the heart of policies must run the same set of values that guided the party over a century ago. The next ten years will see no change in these values of equality, fairness, aspiration and community.

Issues that will dominate the political scene include climate change, poverty and internationalism.

Despite Conservative claims to be green as well as blue, research into Conservative PPCs shows that most see the biggest future threat to the UK to be terrorism rather than climate change. Even now, many on the right believe that the threat to the environment is over blown, faddish and even misplaced. The Labour Party must see climate change as an issue in which only its values can make a difference; the idea that only by acting together can we face the challenges to our planet. This is a time for individual and community action but also a time for strong state leadership. It is not a time to shrink the role of the state as action

18

Voices of Labour’s Future on all levels is the only way to address environmental challenges. Only Labour offers such action.

On poverty, the current pledge to abolish child poverty by 2020 will cast a long shadow over the next decade. What’s more, arguments about social mobility and aspiration will dominate political discourse on education and family policy. Labour must show that it is the only party that will help improve social mobility in the UK, through investment in education and training, early year’s provision and careers advice and mentoring.

The ‘Unleashing Aspiration’ report from the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions highlighted the challenges faced in relation to social mobility, including the stranglehold currently enjoyed by the privately educated, the low aspirations of those in working class and lower middle class families and the availability of degree-level education. The Report’s recommendations for ‘HE within FE’, investment in e-learning and the creation of a Lifelong Skill Account should all be pushed by progressives.

In addition, Labour has to be bold in challenging university admissions policies which are skewed in favour of those who were privately educated. Universities should be given a choice; prove that you are a benefit to the community or risk losing public funding. Only radical and deliberate policies can address the current flat-lining of social mobility rates, ensuring the next decade leads to higher mobility than the preceding one.

On internationalism, Labour must once again strive for an ‘ethical foreign policy’ built around coalition building in the EU and UN. Moreover, a new economic order for the left must be articulated and pressed for, including greater economic regulation, corporate social responsibility, in all spheres including climate change, robust measures to uphold human rights and the rule of law and aid policies that help the poorest nations develop their indigenous economies.

Bold, progressive leadership on the global stage is the only way to tackle globalised political issues such as climate change, poverty,

19

The New Progressives terrorism and immigration. Issues, and the politics to address them, will become ever more globalised over the next decade and beyond and Labour must adapt to this shift.

It is clear that only Labour can offer the progressive solutions needed to tackle the issues of today and those of the future. The party must continue to produce radical solutions to tackle injustice, poverty and disempowerment in order to create a fairer, more equal society. It’s true that our party is best when it’s boldest. Over the next decade, we should not forget this.

20

The Parent Trap Emma Reynolds

Labour PPC for Wolverhampton North East

I

was fairly recently a young woman in my twenties, so the hopeful, but false, impression that we live in a society in which men and women are treated equally is still fresh in my mind. However, after my first decade in employment, the cracks in that façade are beginning to show.

We celebrate the achievements of young girls at school (on average they have been outperforming boys for some time) and at university, but this differential is soon reversed when we consider the status of men and women in the labour market. A brief look at some key statistics across the European Union gives us some food for thought.

In some parts of Europe, there has been significant progress in achieving higher participation levels of women in the labour market.

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

21

The New Progressives Having children has huge implications for a woman’s employment, career prospects and life-time earnings. Recent statistics show that having children decreases the employment rate of women by as much as 12.4% (compared to women without children), whereas it has the reverse affect of driving up men’s employment rates by 7.3%. Moreover, women with children are more likely to be in part-time work than men or women without children. One third of women with one child and half of women with three or more children work part time. However, the number of children has no perceptible affect on men working part time.

In addition to the employment gap, the gender pay gap remains stubbornly high in the UK and across the European Union. On average in the EU, women earn 17.4% less for every hour worked than men, in the UK the gap stands at 21.1%. Ironically, the gap reaches higher levels in countries with higher participation rates. Even in the most gender-equal societies (Denmark and Sweden), women remain concentrated in lowpaid sectors. Part-time employment also puts downward pressure on earnings and significantly more women are in part-time work.

The progressive case for gender equality is usually articulated in the language of social justice. It is socially just for women’s talents and skills to be valued and used to the same extent as men’s. We should therefore act to narrow and eliminate the gender pay and employment gaps. This argument usually falls on deaf ears because it comes up against complaints about the excessive costs of supplying childcare and financing generous leave entitlements.

However, a powerful economic case can be made, particularly against the backdrop of the demographic challenges which most European countries currently face. In terms of economic efficiency, it simply does not make sense to waste the potential of half of the workforce.

Moreover, an ageing population has huge implications for the public purse. Our economies and welfare states are becoming unsustainable as the dependency ratio increases. It therefore makes economic sense to

22

Voices of Labour’s Future continue to increase the participation rate of women but also to address the problem of falling birth rates.

Most European countries have failed to resolve the tension between these two apparently conflicting objectives. However, in Scandinavian countries high levels of women’s employment go hand in hand with high fertility rates. Denmark and Sweden have long been the holy grail for those of us who want to push the gender equality agenda. It is clear that their generous provision of childcare and parental leave entitlements have helped women and men to combine work with parenthood.

The key to a progressive vision for gender equality - on social justice and economic grounds - is that the state should create the framework for women and men to balance the demands of the labour market with family responsibilities. There are three essential elements to this policy mix: universal, affordable childcare provision, shared parental leave and the changing role of men.

For the purposes of this article, I would like to focus on parental leave.

The main sticking points are the length of parental leave and how this leave is divided between mothers and fathers.

It is too easy to assume that the best solution is to simply extend maternity leave provision. The balancing act surrounding leave entitlements is more complicated than that. If parental leave is too long, the chances of discrimination against women increase and employers are unlikely to invest in the skills of women of childbearing age. If parental leave is too short, this could act as a deterrent to starting a family or the mother might decide to stay at home longer and thus lose her connection with the labour market.

Provisions in some countries have tried to encourage men to take a greater share of parental leave. For example, in Iceland half the parental leave will be lost if the father does not take it. However, even in the deeply progressive and traditionally social democratic country of Sweden, only 15% of men take up parental leave. Moreover, a recent Eurobarometer survey found that 75% of men were aware of their right to take parental leave but 85% said that they would not take it. Various

23

The New Progressives factors account for this widespread reluctance. There is still a residual notion of the male breadwinner. The lack or loss of remuneration is also a determining factor. The persistence of the gender pay gap intensifies this phenomenon because the majority of men earn more than women.

There is a powerful argument that forcing each parent to take half of the leave entitlement is the only way to fight discrimination in the labour market. Women would no longer be disadvantaged because employers would see men and women as equally likely to take parental leave. However, as progressives, I believe that we should empower men and women to share their entitlement to the period of parental leave equally if they choose to do so, given their individual circumstances and preferences.

Currently, in the UK, fathers are only entitled to two weeks paternity leave. We need to address this imbalance and seek to overcome attitudinal obstacles to men taking longer periods of leave. If we are to live in a society which recognises men and women as truly equal, mothers and fathers should have the choice of equally sharing parental leave. We are a long way from this. Our next manifesto should commit to this deeply progressive policy.

24

The Value of Liberty Alan Strickland

Labour PPC for Berwick-upon-Tweed

F

or progressives the next ten years need to be characterized by a reconnection with ideology – not through a lurch leftwards towards pre-war socialism, but by reconciling the cause of the progressive left with the values of liberalism and principles of liberty.

Like many left wing parties traditionally defined by class politics, Labour has enjoyed an uncertain relationship with concepts of liberty.

Always more pragmatic than liberal centrists and with a much clearer sense than the right of the real need for government to create strong positive freedom, Labour’s stance on liberty has nonetheless sometimes been clearer in contrast than in its own right.

One of the key challenges for the progressive left will be to prove a genuine commitment to the intrinsic value of liberty and to demonstrate this in two key areas. The first is understanding fully that building a fairer, stronger society that is truly sustainable requires effective state investment not only in service provision but in developing the capacity of citizens to take control of their own lives and communities. Secondly, by demonstrating that in continuing the excellent work undertaken on a range of social policy issues, including tackling crime, progressives are clear that ‘civil liberty’ must be strongly protected. Throughout this it should be clear that the importance of ‘liberty’ is not as some utopian concept, but as something that can empower and protect us as citizens as we go about our day-to-day lives.

25

The New Progressives Progressives need to think about the relationships between the individual and the state in fundamentally different terms. Thatcher talked about moving the state from being a ‘provider’ to an ‘enabler’, while New Labour has talked more about ‘empowerment’. What’s needed is something slightly different again. Thatcherite ‘enabling’ sounds fine, but in reality often meant the state doing less and leaving individuals to fend for themselves, rather than providing positive opportunities to allow citizens to take control. It missed the point that for citizens to be enabled, the state still needs to provide – it’s not a choice between one or the other.

Labour’s empowerment agenda has been far more meaningful, but has focused too much on formal structures and high level local policy, to the exclusion of offering more genuine individual autonomy over the decisions, many of them personal, which shape our lives. Forming committees and panels of local residents is a good step and provides more control, but the opportunity to spend an evening at a local ‘community stakeholder strategy forum’ isn’t what most people understand greater autonomy to mean.

What the progressive left needs to advocate is greater autonomy for individuals to take control of more aspects of their own health, education, training and other spheres of everyday life, shifting the boundaries between citizens, the public service professions and the state.

Looking to the future of health and social care shows how this challenge is starting to be met. Citizens are increasingly being empowered to exercise greater freedom over their own care, taking decisions that were previously the preserve of medical professionals. Organisations such as the Expert Patients Programme are leading the way. Individuals with long-term conditions such as arthritis and diabetes provide training to fellow sufferers to help them to learn how to manage their condition more effectively. An evaluation of the programme in Newham found that as a result of their improved ability to control their condition and take preventative measures, 53% of participants made fewer visits to their GP and 47% required fewer visits to A&E. Such

26

Voices of Labour’s Future programmes not only improve people’s health and well-being, but build sustainability into the health and social care system by spreading knowledge widely, increasing patient autonomy and reducing dependency on medical professionals.

What programmes like this also demonstrate is that enabling greater self-reliance does not mean the state withdrawing and leaving citizens to fend for themselves. Some people will always need significant, costly support from the health service and the right to receive this freely should be inviolable. Also, where people’s capacity for self-direction can be developed, this will still require the investment of time, money and staff – the change is that more resources are invested in this capacity building rather than purely in provision of direct services. This is not public services on the cheap and besides much of the innovation in this area has been developed outside of the public sector.

Developing autonomy and enabling greater self-reliance is not just about changing the way services are controlled, but about supporting citizens to restore the fabric of their own communities. Geographical mobility is increasing, the number of people living alone steadily rising - expected to reach ten million by 2026 - and family units are taking a much more diverse range of forms. The effect of these demographic changes has been to weaken the networks and ties that have fostered mutual co-operation, shared support and sustainability in the past. A progressive vision for the future must include a commitment to building the capacity of communities to enhance these intricate webs of relationships and contacts that define a cohesive, mutually supportive community.

The time-banking movement typifies the kind of approach that should be encouraged. Providing a formal framework for distinctly friendly and informal actions, by harnessing the good will of individuals to support each other, it provides a modern twist on the building of communities with sufficient mutual support to become increasingly autonomous.

27

The New Progressives Time-banking works by allowing an individual or a group who help someone else, to receive help themselves in return for their initial investment of time. Each hour spent volunteering time – to tidy an elderly neighbour’s garden, or help the children next-door with their homework – is deposited in the ‘time-bank’ and individuals can withdraw time from their account by asking for help from someone else.

So the person who spends an hour running a football training session in the local park can receive an hour of help with their decorating from another member of the bank. For volunteering an hour to help with the decorating, that individual can then ask for an hour of someone else’s time. While it can sound bureaucratic, the system is actually incredibly simple. Rooted in reciprocity, it creates a simple means to connect individuals who otherwise may be isolated, and build friendships and networks across different parts of a community. It enables people to recreate the traditional neighbourhood networks that allow access to help and support, but which all too often have disappeared. With 12,000 people involved around the country, it’s also popular. Movements like this free communities from some of their reliance on the state, because they tap into the genuine desire people have to help themselves and each other where they can.

A word of warning. In building the liberal autonomy of individuals, we need to ensure that old bureaucracy is not simply replaced with new bureaucracy. How many times have reformers on left and right proposed complex voucher systems for healthcare and intricate league tables of medical professionals? The progressive cause is not served by reforms that create even more bureaucracy and offer ‘efficiency’ by transferring administrative burdens onto citizens. Also, the type of activities highlighted here work precisely because they are organic, voluntary and although supported by organisations, are essentially bottom-up initiatives. They supplement state activity or replace aspects of it for those who choose this. Let’s also remember the distinction between choice and control. Being able to choose between waiting lists at a wide range of hospitals is a different way of using the current

28

Voices of Labour’s Future system. It is not the same as being able to control more effectively one’s own treatment, and re-shape the way services are delivered, which fundamentally alters the power balance between individual citizens and public services by creating co-production relationships.

The second major aspect of liberty which progressives need to develop a clearer belief in, and policy stance on, is the area of civil liberty. While citizens can choose whether to allow state interventions to improve their health, government action to improve our safety often comes with little choice attached. Because of this, for citizens to enjoy autonomy, liberty needs to be much more strongly protected. Labour’s commitment to tackle crime, associated forever with Blair’s ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ speech, has led to ten major pieces of legislation since 1997, most in the name of terrorism prevention.

Preventing terrorism is clearly very important, but the question the progressive left has not been able to answer coherently is ‘at what point does undermining terrorism start to undermine citizens’ rights? Where is the line and how do we know if we’ve crossed it?’ The left needs a strong guiding principle and a clear instinct about how liberty should be treated.

Lacking a clear guide about where to draw the line, has sometimes led Labour to pit itself against public opinion, for example by submitting an amendment to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2006, to propose extending detention without charge for terrorist suspects to 90 days.

This left many, even those keen to take much stronger steps to combat terrorism, deeply confused about the Party’s values. The progressive left must develop clear principles to ensure that any action by government which infringes privacy and liberty must be taken only where absolutely necessary and only where authorized by a court. Judicial oversight is crucial to ensure citizens are protected from bureaucratic excess masquerading as security measures.

An example of what progressives must stop is the expansive use of powers designed to support crime prevention, to serve the expedience of various public agencies. In 2008, Poole Borough Council admitted

29

The New Progressives using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, designed to combat serious crime and terrorism, to deploy covert surveillance and undercover staff to track the movements of a family for two weeks. This was because the council, far from fearing a terrorist attack being launched from the family’s suburban semi, wanted to check whether the Joyce family were living in the correct catchment area for their daughter’s school. Other councils have admitted using surveillance tactics to monitor dog-fouling and wheelie bin use. The progressive left should be fundamentally opposed to such intrusions and strongly defend the liberty of individual citizens against them. This means a cultural shift but also institutional change to develop a strong civil liberties watchdog in government. The Equality and Human Rights Commission should be a strong campaigning voice, standing up for citizens and fighting against infringements in civil liberties. Given that none of its eleven key deliverables for next year relate to human rights, focusing instead on equality, it seems unlikely that the Commission will be the champion of civil liberties that is badly needed.

The progressive left also needs to ensure that as well as being guaranteed certain liberties, citizens are able to take clear steps to hold law enforcement agencies to account when problems occur. Just as councils have been misusing terrorism legislation, so in a strange twist some police officers have used the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 to punish members of the public taking pictures of them. The Act makes it an offence to ‘elicit, attempt to elicit, or publish’ information ‘of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’ about members of the armed forces, security services and the police.

Despite the clear anti-terror intention of this clause, a plumber was arrested and held for ten hours after taking a photograph of a police officer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police car.

A photographer in Cleveland was questioned by police for taking pictures of local shipping, while the National Union of Journalists has complained about officers – illegally – forcibly deleting images from

30

Voices of Labour’s Future cameras. Numerous similar examples have been reported across the country.

Bystander film footage was crucial in revealing the circumstances surrounding the death of Ian Tomlinson, who became caught up in the G20 protests and was a victim of police violence. Such tragic cases of deaths following police action, although very rare, demonstrate just how important it is that citizens be able to photograph the activities of the police unhindered. Transparent, guaranteed rights to these basic civil liberties must be a nonnegotiable element of the progressive future.

We must be clear and confident that where new policies clash with fundamental civil liberties, it’s the policy that needs to change, not our freedoms – liberty is cheap to give away and expensive to win back.

So, for progressives, the direction of politics over the next ten years must be towards the development of autonomy in citizens in ways that are ever wider and ever deeper. Crucially, this must be coupled with the entrenchment of the civil liberty that makes this autonomy possible. In doing so, progressives will more accurately recognise that the boundaries of what the state can achieve, and at last bring clarity to the shifting sands previously undermining the left’s approach to civil liberties.

Progressives need to be proud to talk about self-reliance, mutual support and ensuring that more and more citizens enjoy greater control over their own lives. But we also need to be proud to defend civil liberties and ensure that our freedom is protected. We will do both not because the state should shirk responsibility, but because as progressives we know that some things are too valuable to be entrusted to the state alone.

31

A Sense of Belonging Kevin Bonavia

Labour PPC for Rochford and Southend East

N

ew Labour came to power in 1997 determined to prove that it was a false choice for government to prioritise either economic enterprise or social justice; these two goals went hand in hand together. Hence the quick succession of New Labour economic policies came to pass: Bank of England independence, the minimum wage, a freeze of income tax rates and tax credits. At the same time, New Labour achieved in its first three years of government constitutional changes the size of which together had not been since the seventeenth century: devolution to London, Scotland and Wales; the massive reduction of hereditary peers and the Human Rights Act. All of these measures can be shown to be progressive either in making government more accountable or in improving the welfare of those most in need. Further progressive measures followed on later, including the National Insurance increase to pay for a massive NHS development; the Freedom of Information Act; equalisation of the age of consent and civil partnerships. But these measures came amidst the backdrop of new external factors such as the aftermath of 11 September 2001 and the global financial crisis, which have made New Labour’s progressive approach much more difficult to maintain. While security concerns and the financial crisis are likely to be great deterrents to progressive action by government for the next decade, society itself will continue to adapt in the face of the information revolution.

32

Voices of Labour’s Future It is easier than ever before for more people to communicate with each other, through better travel and phone and internet coverage. This ought and does encourage a better understanding of different backgrounds and attitudes, but it also allows the spread of prejudice and bigotry. And whilst new broader but looser communities develop through easier communication, more familiar communities of locality are less common with the effect that many people often do not even know their own neighbours. So, whilst Britain is, in general, a more progressive country than 12 years ago, at least in part to government action, Labour’s progressive values will have to be applied by new means to face the challenges briefly outlined above.

This is not a rejection of New Labour, but building on its successes and learning lessons from its limitations, as New Labour did from before. There is no need for a new Clause 4, but rather a new interpretation of it, with the emphasis on “our common endeavour” and its call for the creation of a fair “community”.

In simple terms, a truly progressive government should seek to build a stronger, more equal and fairer society, by encouraging the sense in individuals that they each belong to wider society – that we each have an interest in what happens to our neighbour, our street, our town and to groups in society with different backgrounds.

How might this approach be applied by government? Here are some short examples.

First, second and third, it comes back to oft-repeated New Labour dictum: “Education, Education, Education.”

First, schools need to be opened up to more children of different backgrounds from the majority. This need not be an adherence to comprehensive education, but it would mean that all schools - private, specialist or faith - would need to ensure that more children outside their chosen criteria are admitted.

Second, foreign languages need to be taught at a much earlier age in all schools, ie at the point that most children have a decent grasp of reading and writing in English, and no child should leave secondary

33

The New Progressives education without attempting to obtain a qualification in at least one foreign language, just as in English and Mathematics.

Government should also lay the groundwork for an ambitious system of national community service for all education leavers, with a specific emphasis on individuals working with people from different backgrounds. Taken together, these measures would both better equip our future generations with tools to improve their chances in life whilst also providing them with an attachment to society and the wider world.

Fourth, government should take steps to reduce the wealth gap between the richest and poorest. The ideal outcome should be that all socio-economic groups get richer, but those at the lower end of the scale do so at a much greater rate relative to those at the higher end of the scale. The obvious tool is through fiscal policy, which needs to become more progressive. Targeted redistribution, such as tax credits, has already helped, but as the 10p tax rate debate showed, significant groups can still miss out. Increases in the top rates of tax are now in prospect, but that on its own is not progressive. As far as possible there should also be corresponding reductions for those paying lower rates.

Meanwhile the tentative steps towards a green tax regime should continue, ideally in concert with the European Union and the wider world.

Fifth, we need a general review of the balance of power between state and individual. The constitutional reforms of this government will long outlive it, but security concerns have led to a trend to more restrictive laws rather than better enforcement of what already exists. These laws need to be revisited and amended wherever possible. Meanwhile, public confidence in Parliament and elected representatives in general is at dangerously low levels. Electoral reform that gives people more influence in results and reduces the incumbency culture is crucial here.

These prescriptions are non-exhaustive and come with political and financial costs, but they fall within the progressive tradition of always seeking improvement in the conditions that surround us.

34

Voices of Labour’s Future Progressives are often disappointed that the truly progressive society always seems out of reach, but we have a proud record and a duty to maintain it by adapting our means of getting there.

35

Back to the Future Rebecca Rennison

Labour PPC for South West Wiltshire

W

hat do we understand by the term progressive? A quick search throws up words like change and modernising, a sense of moving forward to meet an as yet unknown future.

In order to understand where Labour might fit in this future, we need to consider its role as a progressive party, and more widely, we need to look at Labour as a party. Moving forward Labour must ensure both that it sets out clearly its claim to the progressive mantle and also that it evolves as a party, enabling it to stay relevant to both members and voters as time goes on.

In a speech to Demos earlier this year, George Osborne laid claim to the Conservatives being the Party of progressive politics. His argument was based on their commitment to reform public services, changes to the electoral system such as primaries and opening up the state to individuals. Ignoring the party political motivations for Mr Osborne’s speech, it does pose a challenge to the left. It shows that Labour cannot assume the progressive mantle; rather it is something it has to fight for.

There are two parts to this fight. The more obvious part is Labour policy, we have to look closely at the ideas Labour is proposing and work harder to understand how they are Labour and how they represent progressive ideals. New Labour is a party focused very much on means, sometimes at the expense of ends. Taking welfare reform as an example, the majority of employment support schemes, some for extremely vulnerable adults, have been contracted out to private

36

Voices of Labour’s Future providers. Whilst this does bring the competitiveness of the market, the side product is individuals with more complex needs, those who aren’t going to help a company meet its targets, being sidelined. However, the mantra continues to be ‘contract out’.

Labour needs to develop greater confidence. Whilst part of New Labour was laying to rest the goal of mass state ownership and recognising the role of the markets, as a party it seems to live in fear of doing anything that could be branded too left wing. Sometimes traditional Labour approaches are the best, and Labour shouldn’t be afraid to say so when this is the case.

As Labour moves forward it needs to find a middle ground between the Labour of the 1980s, caught up in ideals that left the electorate behind and the Labour of the noughties, with its love of Private Finance Initiatives and contracting out. We need a Party with a clear vision for how to tackle issues such as healthcare, education and housing and that is also prepared to take a stand when it comes to cutting our nuclear stockpile or introducing greater rights for workers.

New Labour is a Party that is at times afraid to appear left wing. The Labour Party of the future needs to mix New Labour’s pragmatic approach to policy with a strong dose of classic Labour ideals.

This leads to the second challenge for Labour, internal party structure.

New Labour has focused its resources on marginal and safe seats.

Whilst a successful policy in the short term, the long term consequence of this is local Labour parties across the country left to stagnate, with no meaningful relationship with the rest of the Party. Labour needs to look at how it manages the relationship between the central Party and local Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) and work to ensure that membership of the Party is meaningful.

Part of this involves changing the structure of Party Conference.

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

37

The New Progressives debate whilst avoiding revealing bouts of in-fighting to the media and opposition parties. But lately Labour has erred too far on the side of caution.

Conference needs to be opened up, it needs to be made accessible so that everyone is able to understand and engage in the process. Platform debates need to change, currently they are used to secure prime time news slots for Ministers, or provide a succession of Prospective Parliamentary Candidates with a chance to score points with their constituency. Labour needs to change the structure and enforce tougher chairing to ensure that debate is just that, a real discussion of the issues, not a quick soundbite to feature in the local members’ newsletter. It also needs to address the stifling tight Conference schedule by allowing for more breakout sessions, creating more opportunities for members to discuss their ideas and opinions. In short, Conference needs to go back to being about Party members.

At a local level, we need to reinvent and revive the local Party. For too many, membership of the Labour Party involves little more than a monthly meeting and a direct debit. Parties in areas without an MP (or any likely chance of getting one) hear little from their regional team or central Party, unless money is needed or volunteers wanted.

Local parties in all areas have a key role to play in the Labour Party of the future. Not much needs to be done to better support these local parties, just some investment in regional teams to enable greater support, the occasional visit by a Minister or MP and a real chance to contribute to Party debate. Vibrant local parties have a key role to play in campaigning for local councillors, fundraising and, when needed, supporting the campaigning work of other CLPs. Investing in our local parties would help reverse the decline in party membership and in the long run lead to a healthier and more stable Labour Party.

To conclude, New Labour has become too detached from the ideals that lie at the heart of the Labour Party. Going forward, we need to take the best of New Labour, which to me is its pragmatic approach to politics and campaigning, but ensure that embedded in this are core Labour

38

Voices of Labour’s Future values. As part of this, we need to look at the role of Party members and do more to ensure that every member feels engaged and included in the Party.

New Labour forms another chapter in the evolution of the Labour Party, but if it is to stay current and continue to succeed as a party, Labour needs to take the best of what’s come before, learn lessons where they need to be learned, and move on.

39

Furthering Education Gareth Gould

Labour PPC for South Holland and the Deepings

W

e are all familiar with the considerable achievements of the Labour Government since 1997 in the field of education – from the substantial reductions in school class sizes to the notable increases in access to higher education.

The focus on the priority accorded to delivering on Tony Blair’s ‘Education, Education, Education’ mantra and addressing Gordon Brown’s concerns over the UK’s skills gap has brought about tangible improvements in schools, many of whom are new or have been substantially or wholly refurbished in the dozen years of Labour in office. More and more students have received greater numbers of passes and higher grades at GCSE and AS/A2 Level, with schools diversifying their teaching methods and subject specialisms in the pursuit of excellence and preparing the next generation for their role in the twenty-first century globalised knowledge economy.

Yet life-long learning, I fear, has been the poor relation in successive government’s education policy; schools and universities were always invited to the ball, yet colleges constantly have been confined to playing the role of Cinderella. At least this is how it seems in the case of the Labour Party’s ownership of the issue Given Labour’s proud tradition of championing life-long learning – as most aptly demonstrated by Harold Wilson and Jennie Lee’s establishment of the Open University in the late 1960s – I am surprised how little the Party has publicised its achievements in the field since 1997. In

40

Voices of Labour’s Future response to a Parliamentary Question of 15 May 2008 on the levels of capital expenditure on colleges, then-Universities Secretary John Denham was able to inform the House of Commons that, “£2.4 billion of capital investment has been made in the further education sector, including investment for information and learning technology (ILT) in the last 10 years, compared to ear marked expenditure of zero pounds in 1997.”

No money whatsoever for colleges even when there was no recession in 1997 – yet another shining example of the legacy of neglect of the party that currently aspires to form the next Government. For one thing, the Tories’ shameful record of neglect should not be lost on the electorate – and we should take every opportunity to remind voters of this.

This, of course, would be easier if Labour took greater ownership of the issue itself. For me, life-long learning, as embodied by the FE sector, is central to Labour’s driving vision of enhancing peoples’ life chances.

Or rather it should be.

Yet where was the inspiring narrative linking the expansion of further and adult education to improving life-chances, placing new dynamic colleges at the centre of revived communities, fostering citizenship and enhancing academic, cultural and sporting creativity all too often drowned out and blunted by the obsessive materialism of the nowdiscredited laissez-faire market? In further education and life-long learning, Labour has had the golden opportunity of carving out a progressive narrative and clear red water with the opposition parties – uniting the themes of enhancing life-chances, building up communities and addressing the skills gaps both within the UK and vis-à-vis other countries.

If ever there was a ‘common good’ agenda that merited a holistic and comprehensive social democratic approach which could have fostered a success for ‘joined-up’ government, this was it. Yet this appears to be one of several issues where Labour has not trumpeted enough its not inconsiderable achievements in this sector – and so we find ourselves

41

The New Progressives unable to receive the credit for concrete change in the eyes of the electorate. Voters feel little connection between political purpose and practical policy.

I hope that Labour seizes the opportunity afforded it by the fortieth anniversary this year of the establishment of its creation, the Open University, to champion this progressive narrative to the electorate in the run-up to the General Election.

The Open University’s entry policy has proved to be a beacon of shining light on hitherto untapped academic potential for over three million students, and with over 180,000 students currently enrolled (including over 25,000 studying overseas) it boasts the highest student numbers of any UK academic institution – and rated first for student satisfaction in 2005 and 2006 across England and Wales. We could do worse then than to place the Open University at the heart of our manifesto vision to make further & adult education a core plank of Labour’s progressive offer to the electorate.

Life-long learning made available to all who wish it would be an inspiring motif for a Party aspiring to enthuse the electorate to grant it a fourth term in office. Then voters may feel Labour more fully lives out its vocation as the moral crusade Harold Wilson would have it be and for which the Government since 1997 has already done much to realise.

42

Keeping It Simple Darren Jones

Labour PPC for Torridge and West Devon

W

hen I was asked to write an article for this publication a number of thoughts came to mind. I’ll be honest - they weren’t necessarily policy ideas or pearls of futuristic

wisdom.

My first thought was “Wow – I’ve been asked to write an article as a ‘New Progressive’”, I immediately checked that the email was in fact addressed to me.

Once I confirmed that it was indeed addressed to Darren Jones I then thought “Wow – what do I know? Do I have anything useful to say?” I began to panic somewhat. But then it came to me – keep it simple – and I think there is a lot that can be said for keeping things simple.

So I sat down, with a piece of paper and a pen to try and mind map what opinions I’d write about and in what format. The important word here is opinion. The opinions I was writing down were my own, composed in my own mind without any debate or application. I couldn’t write about that, I’m supposed to be a representative!

So instead, I spoke to some people. Constituents, friends, colleagues, and my grandmother – the list continues, like an Oscar winning speech.

It was hardly surprising what issues came up, they were the big issues of the day as one might expect. But what was important, I thought, were the general undertones about ‘politics’, what it actually means to be progressive and ultimately, why Labour?

43

The New Progressives We all know, only too well, the effects of the recent expenses scandal coupled with a global recession and an already present distaste for politics and politicians. In my mind at least, we’re at rock bottom. The great thing about being at rock bottom, however, is that things can only get better.

Back in 1997, the victorious Blair government proclaimed a New Britain – I may have only been eleven at the time but I remember the hype, people were actually excited by politics! I was excited by politics!

So what has happened?

As an international community, with a recession and the effects of climate change on the agenda (for example), the prospect of parliamentary reform is perhaps not in the top three. I’m disappointed that after 12 years we haven’t reformed as much of the Parliamentary system as we could have. I understand these processes take time, indeed Jack Straw commented on the lengthy years it would take to fully reform the House of Lords in his speech to the group ‘Unlocking Democracy’ back in September, but I still think more could and should have been done.

I of course take note of the introduction of devolution, of the Human Rights Act, of Freedom of Information and the first stage of House of Lords Reform. But I feel so deeply that if we rely on the expenses scandal being just forgotten and no longer reported on in the media – without serious coupled reform – then we have missed a great opportunity.

It was back in 2007 that I was handed the green paper ‘The Governance of Britain’ from the new Ministry of Justice. I thought it was a great paper and felt that the opening paragraph of its forward nicely put what it is I’m trying to say to you today, “Our constitutional arrangements fundamentally underpin how we function as a nation. The nature of the relationship the Government has with citizens, the credibility of our institutions, and the rights and responsibilities of citizens all determine the health of our democracy” The key messages from this paragraph are about credibility and the health of our democracy. Both of these issues, superimposed onto the

44

Voices of Labour’s Future society of today still pose major issues. People feel that government, political parties and politicians aren’t credible, whilst aspects of our parliamentary system – the mother of parliamentary systems – have been described, even by members of the House, as rotten. So how are we going to change this?

Whilst it may take decades to reform governance structures and processes, it takes only a fraction of the time to change the people running parliament. Forget the bureaucracy, forget the elections, even forget the details if only for a second – keep it simple – politics is about people. So as we move forward, as the progressive party, we must ensure that the people are right. What do I mean by this?

When everything in our world is changing so quickly and so drastically we risk taking the wrong pathway. Our parliamentary system risks being lead by an unrepresentative group of career politicians or the wealthy. Whilst both perhaps deserve a place in the system it does forget the actual demographic of our society. I’m not just referring to women MP’s and peers or those from BME communities – areas where Labour have done fantastically well, but still have much to do – but I’m referring to the single mum, the young person, the OAP and the labourer as well as the lawyer, the teacher and the career politician. Why can’t these people be elected to represent their communities?

I believe it to be because Parliament isn’t accessible. The debate over whether MPs should have other jobs at the same time is valid, but has totally missed the point. The debate shouldn’t be about wealthy Tories with a handful of non-executive directorships but should be about people gaining access to the house whilst also having a life outside of the Westminster bubble. I think an answer might be job share. Why can’t we have elected representatives who want to be MPs whilst caring for their children, or elected representatives who are still students, or elected representatives who choose to continue with their job in their home community but want to – and have an elected right to – travel to London for part of the time to represent their community? Why can’t we have two MP’s job sharing for a particular constituency?

45

The New Progressives I’m sure that people would be much happier knowing that their taxes are being spent on financially supporting these types of credible politicians and knowing that the diversity of such a move will only add vibrancy to a pretty dull, unhealthy democratic system.

House of Lords reform too might have an important part to play here.

Might reform, with the introduction of elected and accountable members, provide an upper House that is not about party politics or government but is only about representing people’s needs? Reform of the Commons – in what ever form that might be – isn’t likely to happen for a good while but we certainly have an opportunity with the Lords. I hope that reform does take place, in some shape, to allow the diverse representation that is needed.

The time has come for our parliamentary system to be reformed, to be made relevant and to be made credible to its people. I’m confident that the only party who can do this with the right values base is the Labour Party, these types of reform would never happen under a Conservative government! So let’s make sure we become the relevant and progressive party of an exciting political future – relevance to our people is the only way we can remain in power and by being so, to create a brighter future for us all.

I understand that there are multiple threads of this argument that can be pulled out for debate and that creating a vibrant, credible and healthy democratic system is much more complex than can be communicated in a short article. But let’s forget the detail, if only for a second, and try to keep it simple.

46

Capable Government Adam Leeder

Labour PPC for Suffolk Coastal

“W

ill the last one to leave Britain please turn out the lights”, the Sun’s famous pre-1992 election headline, was adapted to new ends by the media after the end of Labour’s 2009 Brighton Conference. “The end of an era” and “the death throes of a party” argued the commentators.

But this image simply doesn’t fit with the mood amongst the gaggle (for want of a better collective term) of Labour’s young Parliamentary Candidates as they waited for their chance to take to the stage of the conference hall on the Sunday of Labour’s annual gathering. The crackling optimism which filled every sinew of my fellow candidates left me with the overwhelming sensation that the future is bright for Labour as a progressive movement. But what is that future?

Here, I want to set out how Labour must respond to the two central electoral problems it currently faces – the assertion that it is “time for a change” and the question, “what has Labour done for me?” – before fleshing out a vision of how Labour can harness a significantly expanded role for the State as a positive force in society, moving forward.

Problem 1: “It’s time for a change”

The phrase “the grass is always greener” is apposite for British politics at present. People don’t like to be governed by the same party election after election. There must be something better out there, they assume.

47

The New Progressives The key is not to read too much into this public attitude. The fact that the public want to rip-up the status quo isn’t necessarily the same thing as being dissatisfied with Labour.

Take, for example, the recent focus group polling that the BBC’s Newsnight has been conducting over the course of party conference season. A typical exchange has been something like this: Pollster: “So why wouldn’t you vote for Gordon Brown at the next election?”

Focus Group Member: “Because it’s time for a change.”

Pollster: “And why is it time for a change?”

Focus Group Member: “I don’t know…it’s just time for a change.”

My point here is that voters get itchy feet. Governments lose elections, oppositions don’t win them. Yet Governments don’t necessarily lose elections due to flaws within the governing party. This is a key distinction. Therefore, Labour should not indulge too heavily in a period of introspection as a result of our current standing in the opinion polls.

Calls for a wholesale shake-up and a reversion exclusively to Labour’s ‘core’ values are tempting but misguided.

Problem 2: “What has Labour done for me?”

We’ve all had it. Those words that ring in our ears at the end of any canvassing session – “what has Labour done for me?” This article isn’t the place to list the considerable amount that Labour has done for people during 12 years in Government so far. This critique will even come from the mother who uses the Sure Start centre, the pensioner who has benefited from free bus travel or the cancer sufferer who has been made exempt from paying prescription charges.

Why is this so? Put simply, it is because the public at large, who aren’t (perhaps rightly) political junkies, will not easily ascribe favourable changes in their personal circumstances, to Government action. The

48

Voices of Labour’s Future Government must first establish a magnetic, easy to understand metanarrative onto which the population can attach their positive individual experiences. What should this meta-narrative be? One phrase – “it is the duty of the state to ensure equality of capability.”

It’s worth a quick diversion into why equality of capability and not equality of income should be Labour’s endgame, given that this debate has coloured so many discussions about Labour’s progressive future.

‘Equality of capability’ is the brainchild of political economist Amartya Sen and has been popularised recently by James Purnell through Demos’ ‘Open Left’ project. In a Labour sense equality of capability would cast the state in the role of removing the barriers to people fulfilling their aspirations. It places greater emphasis than equality of opportunity on the State’s need to intervene to provide a level playing field for the most deprived in society, but less emphasis on championing an equality of incomes.

Those favouring a return to equality of income as Labour’s principle raison d’etre – such as Roy Hattersley – are wrong to do so. Their mistake is to conflate continued increases in UK income inequality with the assumption that this will automatically be to the detriment of the poorest in society. Income inequality has indeed risen in the UK since 1997; rising from a Gini coefficient (the standard measure of income inequality) of 0.33 to 0.35. There is no getting away form this fact. Yet, to get the true picture, one needs to probe beneath the headline figures.

As the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) points out, growth in income inequalities has slowed significantly since Labour came to power. The there was an increase from 0.25 to 0.33 in Gini coefficient levels over the course of Margaret Thatcher’s reign, compared to the increase from 0.33 to 0.35 under New Labour.

Also, even more crucially, this continued growth in income inequalities can largely be ascribed to the distorting effects of individuals in the top 1% of the income scale. Income levels of the bottom 15% of society have increased.

49

The New Progressives

The way forward

So let’s flash forward a couple of years. Labour have eschewed the temptation for overly prolonged naval gazing and rallied behind a memorable meta-narrative of it being the duty of the State to establish equality of capability. Where to now?

Let’s take one specific example of where the role of the State can be significantly expanded to clearly increase equality of capability in society – education. Put simply, making the school day much longer would significantly benefit children from the poorest households. An example of this model in action can be found in KIPP (Knowledge is Power Programme) schools in the US, where children attend between 7.30am and 5pm. The premise is straightforward. Children from lesswell-off backgrounds are comparatively less likely to receive academic stimulus outside of school hours and their educational development correspondingly suffers. At the 60 KIPP schools in the US, more than 80% of their low-income students go on to further and higher education, four times the equivalent national average. There is no reason why this success could not be replicated by lengthening the British school day, building on already positive developments from the Government in the field of breakfast and evening clubs in schools.

This is just one, small, positive, example of how expanding the state to meet its duty to establish equality of capability, is the future of progressive British politics.

50

Being Cooperative Ian Ross

Labour PPC for Worthing West

T

he public have been outraged by two main topics this year; parliamentary expenses and the greed of bankers in paying out bonuses. These are the two progressive reforms I believe need to be addressed before anything else.

MPs in all political parties let us all down in the way they abused the parliamentary expenses system. At a time when many hardworking families and individuals are struggling to make ends meet, the actions of some MPs demonstrated how out of touch they had become. If public trust is to be restored in Parliament then a complete overhaul will be required.

Firstly, I would like to see criminal offences written into law, affecting any elected member who knowingly provides false or misleading information in claiming an allowance. I am fully in favour of the introduction of custodial sentences for the worst cases. At the end of the day we are talking about public money and everything must be done to prevent fraudulent claims.

Secondly, I believe any second home should remain the property of the state. When an MP steps down or loses their seat their second home should be sold within one year and the proceeds returned to the public purse. Most members of Parliament enter public life so they can serve the public interest. MPs should therefore not benefit financially from the sale of a second home after retiring or losing their seat.

51

The New Progressives I am in favour of an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which should have the power to set an allowances and expenses system without requiring Parliamentary approval. Transparency is crucial if public trust is to be regained in Parliament.

Amongst privatisation and deregulation, the Tories encouraged building societies to be demutualised in the 1980s. Northern Rock, Alliance and Leicester, Bradford and Bingley, and the Halifax 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 and that future solutions look to put people before profit. They argue 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 fundamental that any change does not leave taxpayers out

52

Voices of Labour’s Future of pocket, the new organisation should act in the long term interest of its customers and the institution that emerges 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.

Once these two major challenges have been tackled then we need to address the issue that more of us are living longer - life expectancy is going up and advances in medical science mean that people with a disability are living longer. This is worth celebrating but does mean we need to radically change the way care is provided and paid for.

Last year we all celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of Labour’s National Health Service. Sixty one years later we are all living older and this will continue to impose costs on the NHS and care budgets. I believe Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, needs to act on his vision to build the first National Care Service in England - a service that is fair, simple and affordable for everyone.

The proposals are some of the most fundamental reforms in this area.

The National Care Service will create a level playing field and end the postcode lottery of care services. A National Care Service would continue the work that Aneurin Bevan and Clement Attlee started in forming the NHS and the welfare state in 1948.

After twelve years in government Labour need to demonstrate that the Party isn’t old and clapped out but able and willing to address the big long-term challenges ahead. I believe these three issues need to be priorities for long-term stability.

53

A Sense of Fair Play Chris Ostrowski

Labour candidate for the Norwich North by-election

A

s progressives, our values and principles are most needed at the time when our electoral fortunes seem to be taking a turn for the worse. Here in Britain we are struggling to make headway against a rejuvenated Conservative Party and the European elections showed a collapse in our vote with Labour voters staying at home or voting for minor parties.

What we have learnt from the success of New Labour is that you have to keep winning and keep offering voters a vision of why Labour is the party to deliver the things that most matter in peoples’ everyday lives.

The other thing we have to do is put ‘fairness’ at the centre of what we stand for, and we have not always been so successful at that.

There is a sense of unfairness that the average family income has grown so wide. I do not believe this can be put down to petty jealousies.

As a nation we celebrate success and entrepreneurship and I do not believe that a ‘levelling down’ mentality is particularly helpful – either politically or economically. My perception of what grates the British psyche the most is that not everyone has ‘played by the rules’ and those who have ‘not played fair’ have been richly rewarded. The bankers’ bonuses and the MPs’ expenses crisis exemplify this best.

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

54

Voices of Labour’s Future ensure the ‘rules’ are fair? And how can we make sure that any rules we do make are being adhered to at all?

Strengthening environmental regulation, trade union rights and closing tax loopholes will be of no consequence at all if the businesses simply move to a place where such rules do not apply. A co-ordinated approach is essential and the European Union is best placed to do this.

It is only working with our European partners that our importers can ensure that their products are protected from hijackings as goods are shipped to Britain. It is only by working together that we can ensure that carbon emissions are reduced to a level that makes a difference and, as the recent crisis has shown most clearly, it is only working with our neighbours that we can intervene effectively when the economic circumstances require it.

Internationalism and positive engagement with the EU is going to become more important and this is where we as progressives have an opportunity to make the case for ‘fairness’ where the Conservatives can not. Positively defining ourselves as internationalists will be an effective political argument if we show how it can help us to achieve the ‘fairness’ that people are looking for.

In many areas we are more empowered than ever before. More people ask for a second opinion from a doctor and want to see their medical records than previously, and parents make full use of league tables to see how their local school is performing. We need to bring this same degree of empowerment to the private sector. We should have much greater transparency on how much tax is paid by companies – particularly multi-nationals, so their employees or anyone else can see how much tax is paid in each jurisdiction. The issue is not that some jurisdictions have lower tax rates than others, it is that we can not tell how much tax large companies pay. With greater transparency we will be able to see how much money directors are taking out of companies in the form of pay and bonuses and how much they are investing in further training, incentive schemes and pensions. In Britain, directors have been taking more money out of large companies than is common

55

The New Progressives in Europe and the Far East. A league table which shows where a company’s profits go would empower us all and allow us all to see that the rules are being adhered to.

Ultimately, we want to see an economy which serves the people, not a situation where we serve an economy that is not reflecting our values.

Greater transparency, the closing of tax loopholes and better inward investment from companies would help this.

In a way, this is just an extension of the agenda that we have delivered some successes on over the past twelve years; empowering people and investing in the services that can make the biggest difference in peoples’ lives. At a local level, therefore, we need to keep making sure we are on the right side of working class and middle class families. Are our policies on schools delivering? Is public transport available, reliable, affordable and safe? Do we have adequate childcare facilities and care provision for the elderly?

The equality agenda is probably the government’s greatest success since 1997. Treating people with equal dignity regardless of disability, race, age, faith, gender and sexual orientation is now a given in British politics. There is always more to do to protect the most vulnerable in society and we will always be there making the argument on how to achieve this.

On both equality and public services we can take some pride in the fact that the Conservatives are now using our language. The fact that the Conservatives have to say they will put the NHS first shows that our values and policies have become the norm. Though it will be interesting to see what happens if the Tories ever do form a government.

The Green agenda, about which so much has been written, will also dominate politics for the next generation. Though the policies may be complex, the principles by which we can respond to the dangers that climate change presents can only be found in progressive politics. We must share fairly, we must act together and we must waste less.

Finally, how we ‘do politics’ is an area where resilience, leadership and determination are required as reform has proved to be so difficult.

56

Voices of Labour’s Future There seem to be too many sacred cows and too many quaint traditions (“The other place” / “The Honourable member”) which are only known to those who are in on the joke.

I would like to see the Commons and Lords change beyond all recognition – there are always opportunities to empower and involve the population and these go beyond the rather simplistic calls for more referendums and more proportional representation. I think deeper changes are needed that will give us the opportunity to feel that – as voters – this is our government, our parliament. There will be at least one coronation over the next 20 years, there may be two; what do we want from our Head of State, who do we want our Head of State to be?

How do we want our representatives to act and behave? How can we relate to politicians and how can politicians regain the trust of the electorate? Better and more effective democracy is essential and this has to be a priority.

The Labour Party need to own these issues – ‘fairness’ and ‘fair play’, through better internationalism and more transparency; we need to continue to be the party of equality and public services and we need to express our values and core beliefs when we tackle to complex issue of climate change and trust in politics.

57

The New Progressives

JOIN THE FABIANS TODAY

Join us and receive two Fabian Reviews, plus our acclaimed Fabian Special: ’The Change We Need: What Britain can learn from Obama’s victory’

I’d like to become a Fabian for just £9.95 I understand that should at any time during my six-month introductory membership period I wish to cancel, I will receive a refund and keep all publications received without obligation. After six months I understand my membership will revert to the annual rate as published in Fabian Review, currently £33 (ordinary) or £16 (unwaged).

Name

Address Email

Date of birth Postcode

Telephone

Instruction to Bank Bank/building society name Address

Acct holder(s)

Originator’s ID: 971666

Postcode

Acct no.

Sort code

Signature

Date

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

Return to: Fabian Society Membership FREEPOST SW 1570 11 Dartmouth Street London SW1H 9BN

59