People live longer, they’re better off and their educational standard is higher. For example, more children went to university under Labour, who then became parents and in turn expect their own children to go to university.

The recession and the government’s aim to eliminate the deficit within the course of one parliament has changed all of that. Higher education, job security, pensions, the health service, the police, the courts … all under threat, and the new generation’s future is bleak. The nature of the ‘promise’ that we can offer the next generation was an interesting discussion point at this weekend’s National Policy Forum – what exactly can we offer for the future? Given that Labour in government would itself be making cutbacks, how do we redefine expectations?

‘Promise’ is a friendly and positive word, implying hope and aspiration, while not being as specific as a guarantee, contract or legal right, and actually it gave rise to some puzzlement on the part of delegates (especially as it was phrased as ‘the British Promise’ which was queried by the Scottish and Welsh representatives). I felt that what we were essentially discussing here was ‘security’ and this lead to the question of politicians’ reluctance to use this word, and in particular whether progressives can reconcile the concept with aspiration and enterprise, both key New Labour ideas.

I believe that such a reconciliation is certainly possible; while recognising that language is a minefield and that ‘security’ as a slogan might sound backward-looking, or small ‘c’ conservative. At the same time when politicians talk in riddles (‘big society’, Big Conversation, Back to Basics) they can look foolish when they fail to provide clear definitions. If Labour were to introduce ‘the British Promise’ as a campaigning slogan it could perhaps, for the same reason, be risky.

In Europe ‘security’ is an acceptable concepts for politicians across the piece, even now when the Christian Democrats dominate and the economic pressures are similar. The battles about cutbacks are, if anything, more intense than in the UK, and in France they frequently take to the streets. But the concept of security itself, underpinned by state institutions, is not challenged. The arch-reactionary Bismarck introduced the idea of social security to Germany originally and this was reinforced by the postwar settlement which favoured strong unions and codetermination.

The German economy is robust, notwithstanding the economic cataclysm, which followed the vast costs of absorbing the east, and the most rapid ‘greening’ of any major industrial nation. Their motor industry unions’ compliance has, for example, allowed the car industry entirely to re-equip itself within a few years but they wouldn’t have done so without relatively generous unemployment and pension arrangements.

A progressive Labour response recognises that the economy and lifestyles change. For example, a current controversy is about pensions; part of a progressive ‘promise’ would perhaps say – yes, we all have to work longer but we should do much more to secure individual pension pots so that employees can switch careers. In the same context, we should oppose the current tuition fee proposals specifically because they will make it so difficult for mature students who seek to retrain.

Overwhelmingly, people desire security and surely, in the 21st century, they deserve it. We don’t need to mince our words; we can say it plainly.

Photo: Martin Deutsch