This article will not be the place to explicitly restate my theoretical views on how New Labour can learn from Blue Labour but rather it will highlight how I see the future sustainability of communities looking.
Harking back to the days of university, we were always told to state any assumptions we are making at the earliest opportunity. With this in mind I believe that the state should be smaller than it currently is (in terms of its responsibilities), that there are significant benefits to using the private sector (within strict parameters) and there is a need to rebalance the economy, making it less London-centric.
In some circles this is already controversial enough.
I strongly believe that central state has more responsibilities than it ever should have had and this, in both a financial and social context, is unsustainable. Don’t get me wrong; I am a strong believer in ensuring that the state is big enough in order to combat the key social problems that people encounter in society. What I would like to see is people working for and with one-another, communities coming together and mutual responsibilities shared. In order to realise such a vision, the central state fundamentally has to have less influence while power and opportunities for the local population has to be increased.
An aspect of rebuilding these communities is encouraging enterprise. It baffles me how enterprise is often seen with a negative connotation on the left. Do communities not long for local, family-owned businesses within a town who provide the type of service people want while adding that unique touch? Encouraging people to start up businesses in their local area who would deliver precisely what that community wants and needs will go someway to rebuilding the social ties communities require.
Social enterprises, whose foundations are based on social and community goals and reinvesting profit back into community projects or back into the businesses ensuring a larger scope, can provide a bespoke service to the community they serve. Thanks to the legal formation of Community Interest Companies in 2005, local assets can be directly transferred to the community in order to develop local services. Transferring derelict buildings to communities to develop a range of community based services and enterprises can further foster community spirit.
Furthermore, enterprise can facilitate a route out of unemployment, benefits and low aspiration. With the correct support, be it financial and expertise, enterprise can allow people to be in control of their own destinies whilst transforming communities.
It is here that local, community banks can play an integral role by providing capital to much needed areas to foster local growth. Local banks in the form similar to that in Germany would run in parallel to that of the large national banks and would be restricted to geographical locations which would spread the risk due to their public-private nature. With both local council and employee representation at board level, local knowledge is high which would further ensure the suitability of loans. The potential for enterprise growth with a financial institution that serves the local area is unprecedented. The marriage of large, (inter-) national banks with local, regional banks which spread risk across the country and incorporate the state is the microcosm of how the economy can work.
On a larger, national level, the private sector should not be viewed with such suspicion. In a world where we need to encourage innovative solutions to social problems the private sector can incorporate this in some sectors which do not risk public service. In competing for certain commissioned contracts, the private sector can also look for new ways to decrease the cost, say to administration or bookkeeping, which will further decrease the burden to the state.
A useful example is that there are a large number of social enterprises within the health and social care sector which should be utilised. They know what people want, they are more innovative in solving problems and they are flexible enough to provide a range of options – the NHS can harness this (with the correct regulation or accreditation) in delivering a better quality service for patients.
We should not take lightly the fact that a smaller central state will lead to fewer public sector jobs but it is up to the private sector to provide them. Decreasing corporation tax was absolutely needed to entice venture capital, to encourage entrepreneurial activity and to increase the number of start ups – all of which will enable job growth. It also serves as an excellent opportunity to cement the UK’s global competitiveness and can drive national economic growth which has spill-over and trickle-down effects.
It is absolutely correct that unfettered markets should be of major concern due to the inherent nature of ‘pure capitalism’, but with the correct level of regulation, the private sector can have profound benefits. Let’s encourage businesses to reinvest into the community it trades in or indeed to sponsor services that need improving.
Of course, part of the challenge is to entice and encourage enterprise while having enough regulation and control from the state. It is all about the balance of big business (and its regulation) which will drive national growth with local business which will drive local growth. There do need to be strict checks and balances but I feel the key to this is encouraging more co-operatives (which give power and rights to workers at the decision making level) and social enterprises (which will reinvest and serve the community) whilst ensuring the private sector gives back to the community it serves. Combined with raising aspirations and giving key business support, enterprise can build communities, share power and responsibility and rebalance the economy.
Rather than being ideologically opposed to enterprise by associating it with the right, now is the time to be innovative in our thinking, approach and strategy. We should not stifle enterprise but find ways for it to work for society.
Surely the goal is to ensure that the economy serves the people and not vice versa – we can only do this by being credible to both sides.
EVENT: Built to last: jobs, skills and growth in the next economy
• Keynote speech: Rt Hon John Denham MP, shadow business secretary
• Reply: Kitty Ussher, director, Demos
• Panel: Michael Leahy OBE, general secretary, Community Union
Sign up up to book your place now
Unforunately the role of the private sector as a provider and the interests and agendas associated with it have meant that there is a dogma and culture of its usage as a be-all and end-all in our party which appears to many as though Labour is still trying to over-compensate for feelings of inadequacy as they compare themselves with the Tory party. Real decisions are being made, less than wise decisions on many occasions by Labour elected reps for the worst reasons, attempting to satisfy the coprporate or global agenda whilst understanding that by doing so they are taking the swift road for advancement in the Party. Until our Party can re-build trust, which at the moment it cannot as it is not fit for purpose, and display a commanding understanding knowledge of practial service provision it is wasting its time. Any debates, Bluelabour, Purple books, are vain as the motive behind should cheap short-term rebranding is not trusted. I am afraid we are failing to do what is necessary to win at the next general Election, we are doing OK but Ok is maintining the status quo not defeating an encumbent who holds the cards and the advantage and is playing with its ears close to the ground so as to ensure it dogmatically makes private what it can get away with and U-turn as soon as the public demand it. It is not just a case of either dismissing the private sector or accepting it carte blanche, it is a question of understanding what form of service provision is best at delivering in a competitive environment and non-competitive environment, which service provision carries high risk and low risk, what type of private provision is best, there are options from Ltd Liability companies, plc’s and partnership based (mutual/co-op/Ltd Liability Partnership which can be defined by those entering into it) and of course which form of public provision is best, after all we can discuss State intervention, local government council run services or indeed non-profit making partnership based platforms. Creating a criteria based test could be achieved by local authoriites as a guide, however other options remain. The goals have to long-term because as we approach the long marathon back taking office these polices will define our party far more than any re-branding or shallow philosophy. Displaying a competance in Office at any level is far more important in claiming the “middle” or “central” ground and in areas where we have lost Labour support a flexible approach is needed, the very basic models mentioned above are the means to creating a theme which if implimented at the local level can win back support, what solution is right for Westminster is not the same recipe for Barking and Dagenham which in turn is different to say Islington because of the economic and social variations and goals and aspirations (very varied also and very unwise to generalise foolishly about as so many politicians have). Flexibility is required but it has to be based upon an infomed decision which is incredibly important as this relies upon an understanding, a real understanding of not just the wants but also the needs of those we represent within a Labour Party value based range of parameters. At the moment we are struggling with creating the range of parameters and lacking in a moral ethic and that is huting us and allowing the public to question our motives and also allowing Cameron to name us all hypocrites while he reaps the rewards of our failings.