This month sees an event by Policy Network on Laying the Foundations for a Labour Century, a pamphlet edited by members of parliament Liz Kendall and John Woodcock, which sets out a range of policies which they believe will help to do just what they said on the tin. One of the most compelling chapters in the pamphlet is that penned by Stella Creasy. Many of the chapters’ policy proposals align with existing Labour party policy, but Creasy’s contribution takes a wide view of the context in which these are meant to operate. The way she writes about a new globalised and technologically charged world – ‘a whirlwind of modernity, where economic and social pressures come from around the world’ – sees her talking a similar language to that used by Pat McFadden in his interview with Progress this month, one which recognises the unsettling rapidity at which the world is changing but which has set its face to embrace it and make it work for people. As Creasy writes, in such a context ‘the case for progressive politics becomes stronger, not weaker’.
The balance between security and opportunity is one many politicians are seeking to strike – Nigel Farage by pulling up the drawbridge, Creasy by talking about stimulating entrepreneurship, encouraging competition and promoting technology. Naushabah Khan identifies this in her own words on page 6.
Meanwhile, thinktanks too have been considering how to build up the ‘security’ side of the ledger. To put a figure to the problem of insecurity that is so often discussed: six million households in the United Kingdom have no assets to speak of. That is one of the striking figures from a recent report by the Smith Institute, Wealth of Our Nation: Rethinking Policies for Wealth Distribution. Also at risk are two million households who are paying down debt and so defer pension payments and build up property assets only very slowly. Much political debate focuses on income – not least the ‘cost-of-living crisis’ and the regular comparisons of rises in wages and earnings. All this is important, but improving the asset base of the population is something parties could do more on, and which would help people weather any future such crisis.
Besides the occasional simplistic foray into inheritance tax policy by the Conservatives, few political figures have sought to debate assets with any real consistency. This is a shame, as the last Labour government made some important steps in this direction and there is much that could be pursued. Former Treasury minister Kitty Ussher wrote as much on the pages of this magazine earlier this year: ‘We should dust off the asset-based welfare textbook, learning the lessons of child trust funds, the Savings Gateway and individual learning accounts … the party that wins [the next election] will be the one that uses the improved economic environment to give people the tools to erect strong buffers in their own lives as well, regardless of their background.’
The paper does not suggest ways in which assets like the child trust fund – one of the most dramatically and clearly pro-poor, redistributive policies of any British government ever, putting an asset directly into the hand of every person as they reach the age of majority – and this is an area that very much deserves further exploration. Instead it concentrates on housing wealth and proposes reforming local property taxation to differentiate between residency and ownership, with lower charges levied on residency to encourage those who do not have an asset to begin to invest in one, including non-housing assets. The paper’s argument rests on its stance that it is desirable to shift away from the promotion of home-ownership and towards ownership of other things, a politically contentious approach – although its reminder that a country less exposed to interest rate rises’ impact on mortgage repayments would mean that ‘interest rates [could] be set with reference to the wider economy rather than the housing sector,’ is a reminder of how heavily weighted towards housing one of the most powerful items in the economic toolbox.
Labour itself will need to select its tools carefully as it seeks to build a country resilient in the 21st century world.