Session 1: Rebuilding our economy
Winner: ‘Break up the banks’, Varun Chandra (Work Foundation)
Runners-up: Michael Stephenson (Co-operative Party), Simon Fanshawe, Will Straw
Winner
‘Break up the banks’
Varun Chandra – Work Foundation
It is imperative that the Left offers voters a clearly articulated strategy on how it proposes to reform the financial services industry. Not only is this is prime political hunting ground in a time of huge public anger – particularly given the Shadow Chancellor’s perceived weakness and lack of understanding of the relevant issues – it is a matter of moral compunction. Never again should ordinary savers be put at risk, or the taxpayer be billed to the tune of millions, by the greed and recklessness of a few. And never again should anyone – executive, trader, advisory banker – be able to create for themselves an asymmetric risk profile that rewards them in the good times whilst shielding them when things take a turn for the worse.
But rhetoric and stern words on bonuses is simply not enough – the issue is systemic. Risky parts of banks are closely tied – indeed cross-subsidised – by ‘safer’ parts of banks. The size and corresponding interconnectedness of institutions (both domestically and internationally) means that malaise spreads extraordinarily quickly, and the complexity of the products in question is such that no regulatory body can be expected to effectively manage the risk within the current structure (it will take accountants nigh on ten years to dismantle Lehman Brothers’ structural apparatus – and this was one the smaller banks!). Particularly when the advisers on such reforms are drawn from banks on short term contracts – their incentives are entirely misaligned with ours.
The point sorely missing from the debate thus far is that investment – and by inference commercial, given the above – banking is a cartel. There is no way that in a truly competitive market the profits generated by these companies could exist. Even 16 year olds studying GCSE economics know this – and the irony of a situation where the very symbols of free market capitalism do not practise what they preach is appreciated even by the bankers themselves. Cartels are generally bad things – people can pay themselves what they want, and when they are as strategically important as banks, generate significant moral hazard. Of course in some industries – the utilities for example – such oligopolies are difficult to break up for practical reasons (a water reservoir can only really be managed by one or two entities) and are therefore a necessary evil. This is absolutely not the case in banking, where for consumers, taxpayers and the government, a truly competitive market is the only way to protect the interests of the broader polity. Unfortunately the wool has been pulled over the eyes of policy makers for years (or they have been financially incentivised to turn a blind eye) by banks, who obviously champion the need for ‘universal banking’ and ‘economies of scale’. This is utter rubbish – and given what has happened in the last two years – needs to be urgently addressed.
All we have done in policy terms is make the problem worse. Banks are bigger than before, more interconnected, and we have done nothing to curb extortionate pay. Bonus taxes are short term, relatively meaningless, populist fixes. The only way to truly address the fundamental issue here – that everyone but the bankers themselves suffer when things go wrong – is to break up the banks into constituent parts, each entity with dedicated capital requirements calculated according to their stated activity, risk management capabilities and crucially the ability to fail without risking the entire system. Smaller, more competitive entities simply could not generate the profits they currently do, therefore bonuses would have to be compressed – as a happy by-product addressing the inequity that pervades our capital city in particular.
This is an international issue. But the UK – rather than reacting to whatever comes out of the Obama administration – could take a lead on the matter. Despite pressure from the lobbyists from Wall Street and the City, every government would jump on the opportunity to tap into general sentiment and castigate the banks. And in the current climate I cannot think of a more popular policy. However such an approach is not merely a vote driven strategy; it is absolutely the correct, and the only, thing to do. But the best thing of all is that if the Left took a lead on the issue, given the aim is to make the market more competitive, no one on the Right could argue with it without appearing to disown their own ideological heritage. For all of these reasons, it would appear that making such a commitment in the manifesto would appear to be a sensible thing to do.
Runners-up
‘Mutualise the nationalised banks’
Michael Stephenson – Co-operative Party
The ‘feeling’s mutual’ campaign began in early 2009. We advocate that failed banks be converted to mutuals. Mutuals are different – they are fundamentally differently to Public Limited Companies as they are geared for their own members, not external shareholders, with OMOV, so there is less risk. Mutuals are important. Every building society that demutualised went under or was bailed out. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to return them to the mutual sector. Why?
First, the credit crunch has shown us that people care about the values that run the economy, not just the money in the economy. Remutualising shows people that we believe in more than just profit. It is the perfect policy for New Labour in the post-credit crunch world. Second, there is a civilising influence on the banking sector. Lately, building societies have done much better than the banks, and have not had to go cap in hand to the government. Third, remutualisation is a good deal for the taxpayer. Take Northern Rock, for example. It would be bad to sell this now or rush into a sale; mutualise it and we’ll have it for longer. Now fourth, demutualisation was a Tory policy and it reflects their values, not ours.
‘Local mayors to run local development companies’
Simon Fanshawe – Broadcaster and writer
Over the last 13 years Labour has recognised the importance of, and invested in, cities as the drivers of local economic success. What we need to take that further and build out of the recession are Local Leaders implementing Local Choices.
Directly elected mayors with greater financial freedom at a local level will drive prosperity and achieve three major advances:
Increased accountability
Elected mayors and cabinets on a fixed term will stand or fall on their performance. We should legislate for mayors in all cities, towns and country areas. Do it and legislate for it and don’t fuss about with paving referendums.
Increased flexibility
Return the business rate (there will have to be some kind of equalising system across the country – a percentage of the business rate) The Tories nationalised it in 1990, we should re-establish the link between what businesses pay for and what they get. We should add some for local tax raising power. This will enable local investment on local economic and social needs. We could use it as an opportunity to reinvent local mutuals. It will enable local Accelerated Development Zones, and community trust ownership of vital developments. Universality is not always best. Local flexibility will aim investment where it is needed locally and improve local accountability.
Improved performance
There will be an incentive to grow the business base. Political success will follow from local economic success. Investment will be accurately prioritised.
‘Make reducing inequalities in income, wealth, power and capabilities a specific requirement of the government’
‘Make reducing inequalities in income, wealth, power and capabilities a specific requirement of the government’
Will Straw – Left Foot Forward
I am glad the voting system today is AV as they are all good ideas! Think of the Cameron conference speech last year, which was hectoring in its attitude to Labour and our record on poverty. They distorted Labour’s achievements in the first two points he made. But in the third point, he wasn’t entirely wrong. Due to globalisation and the way the world has changed, as Ed mentioned, inequality does get greater as a result. But reducing inequality has not actually been a direct aim of Labour. There were more mentions of equality in the 2005 than in 1997 or 2001 manifestos, but not once of inequality. So there is little wonder that the Gini coefficient and other measures have got worse over the period.
Income and wealth are interesting factors because, as the Wilkington and Pickett research shows, inequality is correlated to a variety of problems. James Purnell has been looking to Amartya Sen who shows that greater equality leads to greater capabilities. This is important but we mustn’t forget income and wealth inequalities. In practice, it should be in the manifesto and we should make it front and centre of what we do. Lastly, Ed asked ‘whose side are you on?’ and this has much to do with communitarianism. Philip Blond claims that a more rolled-back state leads to a greater community. We don’t buy that; community comes from equality.
Session 2: Educating for excellence
Winner: ‘Every school to have peer-to-peer careers mentoring’, Jake Hayman – FutureFirst
Runners-up: Jessica Asato (Progress), Oli De Botton, Conor Ryan
Winner
‘Every school to have peer-to-peer careers mentoring’
Jake Hayman (FutureFirst)
Future First is a grassroots initiative working to revolutionise careers advice for young people at state schools. We work with schools to build networks of former students to advise, inform and inspire current students about their futures. Set up in the face of stagnating social mobility in the UK, Future First works to provide young people with relatable role models whose advice and support can empower them to open doors into fulfilling careers.
In 2008 Future First asked young people how they wanted to receive their IAG. They told us they wanted it from people in jobs, not just professional careers advisors, from an interactive web platform and from ‘people like me’ – people they could relate to. Answering these demands from young people, we built the Future First model. We partner with schools to build an in-school and online alumni community to give young people real life careers advice and a network of contacts and opportunities that can support them as they make the transition into work. Pupils are introduced to the scheme at 14, but remain part of the network after they leave. Eventually they can become role models too.
Supported by the Sutton Trust, businesses and school teachers, Future First wants every young person to have access to the information, support and opportunities that an engaged alumni network can provide. By adding inspiration to information, advice and guidance we can unleash the potential of today’s young people.
Runners-up
‘National Civic Service’
Jessica Asato – Progress
There are two main reasons for a National Civic Service. First is our situation as a country, which is in a crisis and needs social change. Second, we need a unifying narrative as a country that lends itself well to Labour. A lot of rot is talked about the crisis of youth, most of whom have good lives and good qualifications. But there are groups who don’t get the chance to develop ‘character capabilities’, show empathy in teams, who take knocks but find it hard to get back up again. A broken Britain resonates not because it’s true, but because the pace of economic change can create a feeling of insecurity. I think there is something in the British character that is stoic, that is about pulling together.
Some say the National Civic Service smacks of authoritarianism. But remember that John F Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” And Cicero, going back much further said, “We are not born for ourselves alone, but our country claims for itself one part of our birth, and our friends another.” Obama has shown us the importance of civic service. He made a huge part of his manifesto the expansion of the Peace Corps into community organisation and it worked. The National Civic Service is not something that should necessarily be compulsory, but something where the government funds a year of service to serve in the country or to go abroad while youth are in compulsory education and aged 18 or at a university. A National Civic Service is not about volunteering. A National Civic Service is about giving something back because you feel it is your duty to do so.
‘Admissions Lotteries’
Oli de Botton – Labour PPC
In the next few minutes I want to do three things:
• Set-out what, in my view, is a major problem facing our schools system
• Explain how allocating more school places by ballot might help
• Deal with the political difficulties this policy could pose and show how we can overcome them.
So, the problem.
In our country, today, the most disadvantaged children cannot get into the best school. Professor Simon Burgess of Bristol University has estimated that poorer children are 17 percentage points less likely to go to a good state school than their richer peers.
This is a matter of serious concern. Unlike in the 60s and 70s, the evidence is now telling us that schools can decisively overcome the weight of poverty. An outstanding school, which becomes so with an inspirational head, well trained teachers and excellent parental engagement, narrows the achievement gap and acts as an engine for social mobility. A poor school blights life chances.
One of the ways of addressing this problem rests in increasing the number (and size) of good schools, and decreasing the number of bad ones. And we are doing this. New academies, the national challenge, school federations have all helped. However there will always be some better schools and some worse ones. What’s more opening and closing schools is notoriously hard and time consuming. Almost all attempts to shut schools are met with strong protests – however bad their levels achievement. And to open new ones you need to negotiate your way through tomes of planning restrictions and entrenched local interests and politics. In the meantime swathes of poor children continue to miss out on the best provision. So I propose that we should make it easier for poor kids to get into good state schools by allocating more places by ballot and fewer places by distance to the school.
I think we all know how allocating places by distance plays out in reality. Richer families buy houses near good schools and send their kids to them. House prices go up, further excluding poor families from the area. Looked at in purely self-interested terms, this is a rational thing to do. 86% of schools use proximity as a way of determining entrance when there is over-subscription (which there always is at good schools). The result, however, is that the opportunity of going to a good local school can effectively be bought.
The flip side of this situation is that poorer families are often stuck with no choice if their local school isn’t good enough. And they are shut out from the best schools outside of their area (which are naturally oversubscribed). This might be bearable if there were more good schools in poor areas. However the sad truth is that pupils eligible for Free School meals have a 44% chance of living near a good school compared to 66% for richer peers. In other words poor kids have less than a 50/50 chance of going to a good school. We need to change those odds.
So how do we tackle the problem?
We need to extend real choice to everyone in the system – so that when schools are not good enough, parents from all social classes can go elsewhere. Choice is something governments of all shades have been promising since the 90s but no one has been brave enough to shape the rules of the game so that choice is both genuine and fair.
So in practice we should break open school catchment areas – either expanding their size considerably or abolishing them entirely – allowing parents to apply to a much wider range of schools (ranking their top choices). Where schools are oversubscribed, they should be able to give priority to siblings and looked after children (for reasons of family ties and equity). However, beyond this, places at oversubscribed schools should be determined by ballot. Where parents do not gain a place at their first choice school they would then follow the same process at their second choice and so on. The result would be far more choice for all families but crucially, a far greater chance of poor children going to the best schools.
Now I can see why this might be a tricky political sell. Implying that a child’s education is essential based on a lottery will probably not help us win any votes. So that’s why we need to combine the reform of admissions with a supply side agenda too. We need to make it simpler to open new schools and close bad ones, and invite in new not-for-profit providers who have a track record of success. That way we can tackle the problem from the supply and the demand side. Expanding the number of schools that parents can apply to, but making the admission to them fairer. What’s more there is some good evidence that when using ballot based systems the vast majority of parents would get a place for their child at either their first or second choice – as they do now.
So to sum-up: we need to give more access to the best schools for the children who need them most. Allocating places by ballot, whilst breaking open the supply of education at the same time, would mean we would be radically distributing choice to people who are priced out of it at the moment.
‘More freedom for good schools’
Conor Ryan – Education Consultant
We need a very clear message to parents in the manifesto, including not hiding Labour’s record and making clear we will develop it in the future. That’s why I’m talking about freedom for good schools. This is a Labour achievement and we need to stop the Tories from stealing it.
Our record includes 300 academies (from Sept 2010). They have half the level of inequality of other schools and improve students’ life chances with twice the rate of GCSE improvement. The Mossborne academy in Hackney is an important example of this. But we’re not getting that central message across. The Tories are talking about them as their own, and will be using Labour legislation to achieve their ambitions. But the Tory plans don’t have spending guarantees behind them, they have no baseline targets in the National Challenge, nor guarantees on Building Schools for the Future. Yet Labour’s success in education has been hampered by a reluctance to celebrate academies.
So Labour should go on a positive programme of expanding academies into primaries, and allowing good schools that partner weak schools the right to academy status. We should stop pretending that academy independence hasn’t made a difference, and celebrate the success that our freedoms have brought in academies and trust schools. We should highlight our legislation that allows parents to set up schools and requires competitions for new schools, but leave decisions to the Schools Adjudicator not the local authority. We should promote not-for-profit school chains as a success of academies. And we should recognise that the best way to improve children’s welfare is when schools can choose partnerships rather than have them forced on them. We must stop selling ourselves short.
Session 3: Health and social care
Winner: ‘Create and fund a national care service’ Stephen Burke (Counsel & Care)
Runners-up: Paul Corrigan, Peter Kyle (ACEVO)
Winner
‘Create and fund a national care service’
Stephen Burke – Counsel & Care
Ed Miliband spoke about the need to improve social care for older people, and he did so passionately. About one million older people are not getting the care and support they need, and that number will grow with our ageing population. The current care system is confusing and complex; it is a postcode lottery and paying for care is seen as unfair; it is also hugely underfunded. The system is both broken and unsustainable. It needs to be simple, flexible, consistent and fair, and transparent in terms of what you get and what you pay. A National Care Service would be universal, something everyone can use and access with an emphasis on prevention; personalised, building on quality care, and providing support for family carers. The manifesto pledge itself would be about offering free personal care to people who need it. How will we pay for it? One way is through taxation and it’s not huge sums in the grand scheme of things, £2-3 billion. Another way is a care duty on people’s estates, which would be progressive and simple. The National Care Service would one of the last bits of unfinished business in building the welfare state of this country. We also know that half the people actually voting at the general election will be aged 60 or over, so if you include their family and carers that is a lot of votes!
Runners-up
‘Refine and expand the foundation hospital model’
Paul Corrigan – Health Consultant
Whilst hospitals will be very important in the foreseeable future in the near future hospitals will shrink and change as more and more work is done outside main hospital sites. For the public to retain their faith in NHS hospitals through these changes it is important that the public have faith in hospitals and this will need very good far sighted leadership of hospital
This is why the foundation model can help. The public ownership model that we all got used to after the Second World War was nationalisation, while mutuals lost out. In people’s minds public ownership, because this was the only model in town, equalled nationalisation, which is a bad thing for the Labour party and for public ownership. We need another model which is genuinely owned by the public. We need public NHS hospitals that are not owned by the Secretary of State.
Good leaders do want to run organisations where the secretary of state can tell them what to do. They want some autonomy and FTs provide this.
We need to refine and expand the model.
Now we have 1.5 million members of foundation trusts; this should be grown and people have even more say. Just as the hospital is regulated around its money so it needs to be regulated on how it manages its membership. We need to refine the membership relationship.
NHS foundation trust hospitals need to be able to borrow in the same way that universities do.
The politics of this is clear. Whilst every single Tory MP voted against this in parliament, they are pretending that this is their policy.
The Labour party needs to enter the next election celebrating the success of its new form of public ownership and attacking the Tories for being against this success.
‘Open up health franchises to the third sector’
Peter Kyle – ACEVO
There’s been a large growth in use of the independent sector over last decade for providing public services. It’s largely worked and driven up standards. The relationship between state and providers has become sophisticated. But we’re at the point now where services are commissioned and designed within departments focusing on their own patch, and designing things in often quite a blinkered way. There is little scope for departments to look across boundaries. This will only grow as an issue. For example, if a local authority wants to tackle an issue like mental health or obesity you farm these out to tools which sit in different departments. But you don’t think about how one service could join all of these things up. That is hard to do. Innovation is mostly done at the bottom but power – money – is kept at the top. My idea is therefore the ‘right to deliver’. If a charity thinks it can deliver a service cheaper and more effectively then it should be imposed on whichever authorities are deemed relevant. For example, BTCV and Green Gym, 46 per cent of volunteers are unemployed, 44 per cent from ethnic backgrounds, and they take part in health and in environmental activities. It is highly structured and focused by experts to make sure the exercise is of a clinically moderate standard. As a result heart attacks and strokes risk have been reduced by 50 per cent. Preventative health, mental health, skills, management of green and rural spaces, obesity – all these things can stem from this. But they wouldn’t have done so from a single service commissioner. This scheme doesn’t run nationwide because it doesn’t have the power to go into local authorities, even if there are many benefits. I want the power to be given to force their innovation upon local authorities this is the right to deliver.
Session 4: Justice and communities
Winner: ‘Protect and invest in frontline policing and youth services by devolving budgets to local councils to jointly commission services across police, probation and prisons’, Steve Reed (Lambeth Council)
Runners-up: Austen Ivereigh (London Citizens), Jonathan Heawood (English PEN), Hannah McFaull (Howard League for Penal Reform)
Winner
‘Devolve policing budgets to local councils so they can jointly commission services with the police, probation and prison services to tackle local crime priorities’
Steve Reed – Leader of Lambeth Council
We long ago abandoned the idea that crime is a right-wing issue. Poorer communities are hit hardest by crime, and by youth crime in particular. By investing in youth services we can cut offending and give young people a better chance to succeed in life.
Crime has gone down but fear of crime has gone up and it’s perception that drives voting behaviour. If we invest in youth services that prevent just one in ten young offenders from reoffending we’d save about £130 million a year. We can make that investment despite tighter public funding by pooling budgets and bringing services together across the police, probation, the voluntary sector and council-run youth services. We must never allow a repeat of the 1980s when drastic cuts in youth services led to an increase in youth crime later on. Mandatory youth services and an integrated youth offending service under democratically accountable local authority leadership offers the way to achieve this.
Runners-up
‘An earned amnesty for undocumented migrants’
Austen Ivereigh – London Citizens
Strangers into Citizens is a campaign by London Citizens, the capital’s largest civic alliance, for a conditional amnesty for irregular migrants who have put down roots in the UK and are unlikely ever to be forcibly removed. Numbers of visa overstayers and failed asylum seekers who fall into this category are estimated at around half a million. We say that if someone has been here more than five years then they should be allowed to work their way into citizenship. Spain did it in 2005, regularising 700,000 and similar conditional amnesties have been granted by most countries in Europe at various points. The state’s right to deport erodes over time; this is a well accepted principle in law. Evidence – not least in an LSE report commissioned by London’s mayor, Boris Johnson – points to such amnesties not only not acting as a green light to further illegal immigration but, because they dry up the shadow economy, help to enforce border controls. Other advantages are: it creates a level playing-field for British workers; it brings an estimated £3bn into the Treasury in unpaid tax revenue; it helps the state to concentrate on deporting undesirables such as people-traffickers; it brings thousands of people out of the shadows into the light, allowing them to obey the law and report crimes. Our campaign, launched in 2006 with support from faith, trade union and civic leaders, demands not only proof of five years’ residence but also language and other qualifications. This is not only a pragmatic, humanitarian proposal that brings huge benefits not just to the migrants themselves but to British society as a whole; it is also the only realistic alternative to allowing a large shadow population to exist in modern Britain.
‘Reform libel laws so that the wealthy are unable to use their financial muscle to silence critical and dissenting voices’
Jonathan Heawood – English PEN
My motion is long but it is a major social justice issue. Libel is very technical area of common civil law. It is perhaps unlike most other issues that we deal with on the left, but common law affects us enormously even if we don’t talk about it often. This law dates back to the twelfth century and acts as a bindweed on government innovations such as the human rights act. It enshrines very contrary -Tory – values. It allows for gentlemanly agreements preventing the ordinary people talking about what people in power get up to. The human rights act and the freedom of information act put duties and responsibilities on to the state. But they do nothing regarding the super-rich, religions and private bodies. The use of our libel law by the super rich has been notorious. Ukrainian oligarchs come to London to shut down Ukrainian opposition newspapers. An Icelandic Bank tries to shut down a Danish newspaper which exposed malpractice. A South African businessman took the Guardian to court for the newspaper saying his proposed vitamin pills has no effect on AIDS, as he had claimed. The Guardian stood up to him and won the case but still had to spend £200,000 just to win, and it would have been millions if it had lost. These actions are only open to the rich. It’s clearly a social justice issue. We can’t let this ancient stranglehold continue.
‘Abolish women’s prisons’
Hannah McFaull – Howard League for Penal Reform
Labour has a proud history helping those in need. It should do the same here. This policy will affect not just women but their families and their children. Maria Eagle should be praised for cutting women’s prison places. She recently set out to remove 400 and fought tooth and nail to show civil servants in the Ministry of Justice that it is good for all. The next stage is to abolish women’s prisons altogether.
Most women are not imprisoned for violent offences, but for drugs, shoplifting, and these are often crimes born of desperation. Their profile is very different to that of male prisoners; they often have drug or alcohol problems, or have been victims of domestic violence. When I say we should abolish prison for women I mean custody as it is provided for men. For the minority of women who truly present a danger then small specialist units should be established. For most women a community response is more appropriate and allows women to stay with their families. It is still the case that kids in care are very unlikely to go to university; we should not disrupt families in this way. Women respond well to community sentences. This is an argument for common sense, humanity and good. Women make up 5% prison population but half of self-injury cases in prisons. It is continuing the status quo that is the soft option.
Session 5: Families and work
Winner: ‘Make all jobs good jobs’, David Coats (Work Foundation)
Runners-up: Kate Bell (Gingerbread), James Gregory (Fabian Society)
Winner
‘Make all jobs good jobs’
David Coats – Work Foundation
• There is compelling evidence to demonstrate that unemployment is damaging to health, life expectancy and life chances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that any job is better than no job at all. The quality of the work we do can have health effects in just the same way as unemployment.
• The idea of status is important here. In all societies the rich have better health and longer life expectancy than the poor. But the extent of the difference can be narrowed through intelligent policy intervention. Income inequality makes a big difference – more egalitarian countries produce better social outcomes – but programmes to improve the quality of the working environment can also reduce the so-called social gradient in health.
• Factors that make a difference in the workplace include: – Employment security – Autonomy and control – Whether work is monotonous and repetitive – Whether effort and reward are in balance – Whether employees possess the skills they need to cope with high work intensity – Whether the workplace is seen to be fair – The strength of workplace relationships
• That is why it is right to make all jobs good jobs.
• The Labour Party needs a story about work that everybody in the labour market finds relevant. This has to be a unifying narrative, which appeals to middle Britain just as much as those in low paid jobs. “Good Work” speaks to a highly skilled and well paid employee who believes that they are unfairly rewarded, unfairly treated, or subject to intrusive targets and performance management, just as much as it speaks to a security guard, cleaner or catering assistant.
• What practical policy agenda flows from this analysis? After all, it might be said that this is an agenda for employers, employees and trade unions, which is well beyond the reach of regulation. To a degree this is true, but it is an argument about recognising the limits of regulation, not an argument for inaction. So, for example, government could:
– Ensure that the National Minimum Wage retains its real value in the labour market
– Widen the remit of the Low Pay Commission so that it can investigate the causes, consequences and remedies for low pay.
– Ensure that all regulations are properly enforced – not just employment rights but health and safety legislation, tax and national insurance. Non-compliance with the NMW is most likely in an environment where there is a failure to observe other obligations too.
– Workers must know that they are participants in change not the victim of change. Improving the quality of work demands a higher level of industrial democracy. Government should invest significant resources in making the information and consultation provisions work effectively and must recognise the role played by non-union representatives in rebuilding workplace voice institutions.
Runners-up
‘The public sector should offer all jobs on a voluntary or flexible basis’ Kate Bell – Gingerbread
The public sector should advertise all its jobs as part time or job share basis. To end child poverty, as Labour’s goal is, you’ll need more parents going in to work. Single parents – and other parents – frequently tell us that the most common barrier to finding a job to combine with bringing up their family is a lack of suitable part time or flexible jobs. Government has made some progress in offering the right to ask to work flexibly – but this only kicks in after 26 weeks of employment, and doesn’t increase the availability of part time jobs for those currently not in work. It’s also a clear winner in terms of gender equality. We won’t end the gender pay gap otherwise. At the end 2009 one in five workers were in the public sector, so this could make a real difference to the lives of thousands of workers and potential workers. The government has talked a lot about the business benefits of flexible working. They should now lead by example.
‘Replacing Housing Benefit with Housing Cost Credit’
James Gregory – Fabian Society
We know that there are a number of disincentives that exists: work disincentives, instability, withdrawal rate. We also know that the left needs to find better answers. In the 1980s the problem was the kneejerk reaction to right-to-buy, compounded with New Labour buying into the property democracy vision. So what we’ve been left with is a residualised social housing sector. There are groups of people who are too affluent for state benefit but cannot buy themselves. We have crisis mechanisms in place, such as for people under threat of repossession. But it doesn’t connect people to a broader story of the welfare state. We need to bring people into the same system and mitigate the feckless idea attached to the welfare state.
We should extend the range of coverage across the range of incomes. This means extending to homeowners in difficulty. With tax credits there’s a stream to help people needing assistance but there are also should be more positive streams, opportunities to retrain through a break from mortgage payments for example. Tax structures should vary depending on what a property is being used for (buy to let, for example, in mixed property). In this respect the Housing Cost Credit could make a real difference.
This could help 1.2 million people. It is an offer for those who both can and can’t act on private market. The constituency includes those who were mis-sold right-to-buy and now struggle financially from idea that you have to own to get on.
Session 6: Reinvigorating democracy
Winner: ‘Proportional representation’, Willie Sullivan (Vote for a Change) Runners-up: Chris Leslie – (New Local Government Network), Martin Linton MP, Peter Facey (Unlock Democracy)
Winner
‘Proportional representation’
Willie Sullivan – Vote for a Change
Imagine you’re all gods and goddesses – you’ve created a new island upon which you place four tribes of different sizes. You need to decide on a system of government for the island. Should the biggest tribe run everything? In which case maybe you should opt for a first-past-the-post system. Do you let the government be formed from representatives from all tribes to work together in the interests of the whole island? There is something uncomfortable about the biggest tribe scenario. First-past-the-post is particularly unsuitable with a diverse society and system that is no longer two party. On the left we know humans can be selfish but we also know they can be caring and selfless. We hope to create a society where people find it easier to be the latter than the former. How about politicians? They can be arrogant and self-serving, but also humble and ambitious for their fellow man. We should have a system that allows the latter to be easier. Is consensus better for this or one that encourages division? It is to do with rewarding hope versus negativity and fear. A two party system often rewards negative, attack politics. If as a party you can turn voters off the other party they only have you to vote for. At Labour’s loss in Scotland in 2007 Salmond said it was the triumph of hope over fear. He was kind of right. They ran on class sizes, free school meals and so on. Labour ran on fear of independence. The SNP have not delivered on these promises but the point is that in a multiparty system you need to give people positive reasons to vote for you, not just a reason to vote against one of your opponents. Political culture needs to change and from that many opportunities for improvement stem
Runners-up
‘Radical devolution to local government’
Chris Leslie – New Local Government Network
I am convinced that radical devolution for local government is part of the foundations for proving Labour’s case that collective, community action can address the key issues of ordinary people in today’s society. While it is clear that constitutional issues don’t set people’s imagination alight, we can’t possibly hope to act as a socialist party aiming for common endeavour, achieving more together than we can alone, without properly empowering local communities to govern their own affairs. Whitehall’s machine cannot take complex local problems with very varied circumstances fully into account. Decentralising decision-making to elected and accountable local authorities is the best way forward.
The levers of power are pretty distant from the frontline and too often they may not be effective enough for dealing with problems. In Labour we’ve sometimes been frightened to devolve for fear of things like the postcode lottery. However, there’s an argument that strong local government is actually a bulwark against a right wing conservative resurgence. In a pragmatic political situation and for strong governmental reasons we have to devolve. Moreover, the ability to pilot and innovate helps to build a progressive agenda and this in turn is more likely with radical devolution.
‘Make voting compulsory’
Martin Linton MP
In Australia, Belgium and Italy you have compulsory voting with a turnout of around 90-95 per cent with perhaps punishment by a fine. Here turnout has dropped from 84 per cent to 59 per cent election, rising slightly to 61% in the last election because it was more in doubt. In Liverpool Riverside only 34 per cent vote, something which is absolutely scandalous. The highest turnout was 81 per cent in Winchester (a constituency one where previously the MP won by only two votes). That galvanised the population and the Liberal Democrats won with a 21,000 majority the time after! People have to feel their vote makes the difference. With delegitimised national and local government, and especially locally, it’s hard to claim to represent the views of the people. Compulsory voting may appear dictatorial but the reason is to relegitimise government. A bit like an opinion poll, you need a high turnout to accurately reflect opinion. My solution would be £5 off council tax if you vote!
‘A citizens’ constitutional convention’
Peter Facey – Unlock Democracy
I agree with everyone else on the panel. But do we change one element or do wholescale change? I argue a country should from time to time have a comprehensive look at how it’s doing. Because it’s rather like playing Kerplunk! Change one thing and you don’t know which one is going to let all the marbles out. What are the consequences? If you have PR in the Commons, what does that mean in the Lords? And vice versa.
It also needs remembering that we in politics are not liked by most people, indeed, ‘like’ being a weak word. They have to be involved. In Canada they have done citizens’ assemblies: 60 men, 60 women, over a year were asked to look at how the electoral system works and they recommended a change. That change didn’t happen as the politicians decided that the winning margin was 60 per cent and it got 58 per cent in the end (never mind that the winning government gets 40 per cent of the vote and then can change whatever it likes). When Gordon Brown became prime minister his first major speech was on democratic reform. This needs to be followed up properly and avoid a situation where only elites manage politics.