Having spent all of Sunday reflecting on the thoughts presented in Saturday’s opening session by Liam Byrne, Mary Riddell, Phil Collins and Peter Kellner, and as the stream of thoughts that were being shared coalesced, an invigorating sense of optimism and anticipation has emerged by the time of writing, Monday morning – early!
To have such an eclectic collection of perspectives presented from the platform producing a set of ideas that flowed from a thoughtful and creative analysis of the current state of British politics, was indeed a masterstroke brought about by the Progress team organising the day. The panel set about suggesting a sound philosophy on which to build our contemporary offer to society and placed progressive thinking at the heart of this. What emerged was the need for a powerful affirmation of a reworked universalism, based on an egalitarian approach to fairness and growth alongside a profound emphasis placed on prudence and maturity. These emerged as the core ingredients that will form a redefined and radical centre-ground to meet the challenges of 2015, those of trust and familiarity both to be developed over the next three years by being ‘cautious in opposition but proposing a radical government’.
This discussion, combining traditional and progressive thinking, led to three distinct practical activities emerging. In opposition we describe a lack of maturity and competency coming from a coalition government, led by a person unable to ‘cross lines’ within society, presiding over a fracturing coalition between right and left; in response to this political splintering it has become a government drifting towards a version of ‘mogadon politics’.
The second activity is centred on familiarity; it is attached to old values which give us a solid and trustworthy foundation from which to develop a progressive and radical future between the citizen and the state, defining the role of the state in supporting the citizen. The emphasis on recognising the past and being bold in acknowledging mistakes whilst not ‘accepting the blame for what you didn’t do’ is a vital ingredient within this second activity.
The third job is to ‘quicken the pace and depth’ of our policy process and our manifesto for a new progressive government, the latter powerfully emphasised by Liam Byrne.
So how does this valuable philosophical and theoretical proposition start to take on the mantle of reality, what is it that as a citizen we can experience in our daily lives? It was in a session that followed where this reality began to emerge. I attended ‘restoring the contributory principle’, a panel ably chaired by Kezia Dugdale and including Stephen Timms, Alison Garnham, Maurice Glasman and James Purnell.
This reality where concepts of contribution and citizenship sit alongside reciprocity began to be described; James Purnell, capturing Jon Cruddas’s concept of a social ‘covenant’, set out an exciting and creative set of emerging practical thoughts that described the welfare state of tomorrow. A proposition that protects people and guarantees a return but is never long term and focuses on a set of values that have the ingredient that Liam Byrne stressed – old values, familiar values.
—————————————————————————————
Guy Nicholson is a cabinet member in Hackney council
We seem to be suggesting that a welfare state based on the contributory principle should replace one of universalism. What happens to those who won’t, don’t or can’t contribute. And who should define when somebody can’t (deserving poor) or won’t (undeserving poor) contribute? I suppose I take the view that the ability to contribute is only achieved by those who have been fortunate enough to find themselves with life choices and support to put them in this happy state. In any case the idea of taking out of the system purely what you put in can’t work. No one really pays the true cost of the services they use through Council Tax, NI or Income Tax. By paying in collectively and in sufficient numbers creates economies of scale that enable a greater range of services to be offered to people. By insisting on the contributory principle essentially encourages people to opt out, thus driving down the general pool of resources available to help even those that contribute.
Guy, what’s the difference between ‘offer’ and policies? In the current Fabian Review, this jargon is used by 5 writers: ‘updated offer’, ‘our policy offer’, ‘a decent offer’, ‘the refining of the offer’ and ‘our offer to fairly affluent, aspirational families’. Politics as consumerism? Perhaps the Party will hold an Offer Review!