The political rationale driving IPPR’s landmark Condition of Britain report is that we cannot ‘spend our way’ to a social democratic society. In a climate of austerity, with severe constraints on public expenditure, alternative strategies are required to forge a credible centre-left politics – strengthening the ethic of mutual responsibility and contribution through revived civic institutions. Twenty years ago, IPPR published the findings of its Social Justice Commission which argued that in modern Britain economic efficiency and social fairness were two sides of the same coin: like the successful political economies of northern Europe, a more equal and cohesive Britain would be wealthier and more prosperous by investing in public institutions and human capital.
The latest Condition of Britain report updates that argument for a post-crisis world where the scarring effects of one of the deepest and most painful recessions in a century still run deep, and the United Kingdom state remains in the grip of fiscal crisis. It is clear that the ‘care crunch’ – the crisis of inadequate and costly provision in childcare and early years’ services – ought to be the focus of bold thinking. The aim should be to revitalise the welfare state in William Beveridge’s vision ‘from cradle to grave’. Labour must show it is capable of taking long-term decisions and governing in the national interest. Since 2010, the government has sought to address the deficit by ‘salami-slicing’ expenditure, rather than developing a coherent view of the state’s role and the services that ought to be provided within the public realm.
Labour’s task is to demonstrate that it is a prospective party of government with a compelling plan for the future, fashioning a strategic mission for the state by providing care services in partnership with employers, communities and families. This requires an honest assessment of Labour’s period in office: what was achieved and lessons learned; a coherent view of the major challenges facing Britain and a clear rationale for government action based on an analysis of the appropriate size and role of the state; and an agenda guided by the fundamental principle of redistributing wealth, power and opportunity to individuals, families and communities.
Achieving a fairer, more equal society entails the diffusion and dispersal of power, giving families greater choice and control. IPPR propose, ‘an affordable childcare place…guaranteed for all parents of preschool children from the age of one’. There will be a ‘universal entitlement to free, part-time, year-round care for all those aged between two and four’, paid for by restricting pension tax relief, freezing child benefit for school-age children, and scrapping the marriage tax allowance (IPPR, 2014). Moreover, parental leave for fathers will rise to one month as soon as their child is born, paid at least the level of the national minimum wage.
The undoubted strength of the IPPR proposals is that they argue the case for bold social reforms and explain clearly how they ought to be paid for. The challenge lies in convincing the public that these are the right strategic priorities for Britain at a time when the National Health Service and the pension system are under unprecedented strain. According to the 2013 British Social Attitudes Survey, the majority of UK voters are not yet convinced that additional spending on families and children is even necessary, let alone a justified use of scarce public resources. In the benign period of rising economic growth and increased public spending after its 1997 victory, the Labour government could invest in childcare and early years without having to strongly justify the case. Early investment is legitimately a central imperative for progressive politics, but the public consensus underpinning such commitments remains shallow in the UK. More needs to be done to make the case effectively in a society where it is older people who appear ever more likely to vote.
———————————
Patrick Diamond is lecturer in public policy at Queen Mary, University of London and vice-chair and research director of Policy Network
Not quite sure how you can characterise these measures as “bold social reforms”. The changes to paternity leave propose but a modest improvement to the status quo and embed the notion of the father as Parent, Second Class. Where’s the bold step of bringing us into line with many of our European neighbours and allowing prospective parents to make the choices that work for them about who should look after the baby? Where’s the acknowledgement that a legislative framework that compels (often, then at least, higher paid) mothers to take career breaks to look after children is a major contributing factor to the gender pay gap (and other expressions of workplace gender inequality)? Where’s the examination of whether “the diffusion and dispersal of power, giving families greater choice and control” really is achieved by continuing to allow the state to dictate who brings up baby? Sadly, in this regard at least, the IPPR’s proposals are not merely inhibited by a lack of public support but also by being just the wrong proposals.