The Progressive

Innovative and inclusive

Everyone's waiting for the PM's speech with baited breath. And everyone has a view on what he should do, but maybe shadow puppetry isn't the way to go!

Just sitting in on a really interesting fringe on Philantropy's role in the civil society. Phil Hope rattles off large statistics and talks about some really exciting ideas: a social stock exchange, for instance.

It makes me pause because Labour is actually being innovative and inclusive with relation to the 'third sector'. So the Tories shouldn't be getting all the credit for talking up charities and their role in the civil society.

It points to a real need to shout about the really good things we're doing and the great ambition we've still got.

Vincenzo Rampulla is Public Affairs Officer for the National Landlords Association

An insightful analysis

Early afternoon Sunday, in the sunshine outside Manchester Central, a sticker is thrust upon me by Richard Caborn.  It reads, “Let’s go 4th.  The campaign for a Labour fourth term.” By 7pm Ben Page of Ipsos-Mori had told a fringe audience that there was only a 5 to 10 per cent chance of this objective becoming a reality.  No wonder David Miliband appeared at a Fabian fringe that lunchtime in the grand and beautiful setting of Manchester Town Hall to argue that the biggest challenge for this conference is to tackle the sense of fatalism surrounding the party.

The awful polling that appeared in the morning’s Observer tended to focus conference debate on the short term tactics that may alleviate Labour’s predicament.   The longer term strategy to be followed, however, should take its inspiration from the insightful and biting analysis offered by Matthew Taylor at the same RSA-BBC fringe that Ben Page covered in a cloak of doom.  Page gave a powerful presentation that set out why the business of politics is difficult in the face of such widespread, seemingly contradictory beliefs as 74 per cent of the public thinking that we are heading for environmental disaster unless we change track at the same time as 59 per cent saying they are doing absolutely nothing about it.

Taylor began his response to Page by wryly noting that there is no better time to conclude that the electorate is stupid then when we are 20 points down in the polls.  While acknowledging that politics will become ever less relevant unless the challenges set out by Page are addressed, Taylor ultimately provided a defiantly optimistic anecdote to the fatalism bemoaned by Miliband.  The future, for Taylor, need not be one of bowling along (as in Robert Putnam’s celebrated tome) but can be one of collectivist solutions being applied to emerging political challenges.  Just as attendances at football matches, cinemas and restaurants have reversed trends of long historical decline by revivifying their offerings for changed times, so too collectivist political and public policy institutions can have enhanced relevancy if these institutions can be designed in a way people respond to.

Generating this response is all the more important in an era when behavioural change is ever more a precondition of policy success.  I headed for the Fabian reception buoyed by the kind of Manchester swagger, celebrated by Andy Burnham in his address to the Urban Hub; a confidence instilled by the richness of Taylor’s vision that in spite of our disastrous polling the Labour Party remains engaged in an inspirational and vital endeavour.

Jonathan Todd is a Consultant at Europe Economics and a member of Dulwich and West Norwood Constituency Labour Party

Parliamentary staff event

A side show to the main conference is the growing pressure on the government to extend rights of union recognition and minimum wage to staff that work for members of parliament.

Last night’s reception for Parliamentary Researcher’s at the Old Nags Head highlighted the iniquitous situation in the House of Commons. Staff working for members of parliament crowded in to hear how official union recognition has been denied the 450 member Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch for over 20 years.

The results of a Parliamentary Survey were announced – including news that because caseworker pay scales start so low (below £14,000) and hours are so long, caseworkers are in effect being paid less than the minimum wage.

Union officials praised the government’s commitment to the minimum wage and extending the right for unions to be recognised – but asked them to ensure that those who had worked alongside MPs to create the legislation (their staff) could also benefit.

In fact the last time Parliamentary Staff held an event at Labour Conference was 18 years ago.

Speaking last night were Rachel Maskell and Andrew Dodgshon – big guns in the Unite union who are giving their backing to staff of MPs.

MPs present included Ian Gibson and Michael Foster - earlier in the week Jim Knight aded his name to the growing list of politicians ready to press the House Authorities to sign up to an agreement that will allow the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch consultation rights.

Dan Whittle is a member of Lewisham Deptford CLP

Reassurance and unity

It's certainly been an experience for a first time CLP delegate - exhausting is the first word that comes to mind! The schedule has been very full today - from conference hall overrunning, so late into Policy Seminars - this was a shame in particular because this is where you get a whole load of Ministers/Secs of State answering questions straight from delegates. What impressed me mainly was quite a lot of honest answers that they knew were unlikely to be popular - Hilary Benn was a touch bullish in one answer but Hazel Blears smoothed it over quite subtly.

I haven't made many fringes so far (I know - I'd better get on with it!) so my main experience has been the conference hall and a few receptions. Those in the conference hall have been surprisingly well-behaved, some impassioned speeches, some more impressive than others but the voting has all been quite uncontroversial. Of course, unity and reassurance has been the theme coming from the front and echoed back to them - unity behind Gordon Brown has been almost unquestioned (a good thing, clearly everyone remembers the 80's) and reassurance about the economy - particularly from Alistair Darling's speech. It was a really clear speech, pretty balanced, and conf hall gave him an extremely long ovation - perhaps trying to reassure him (rather than the other way around) that we were behind him as well as Gordon.

And as for Receptions - I was lucky enough to go to Welsh Night (where I originally hail from) where a long and detailed farewell to Glenys Kinnock MEP took place - hearing what she's done with her time there was really inspirational (a Welsh socialist woman - definitely someone I can emulate!). I was amazed that both Neil and Glenys remembered meeting me at 16 (true politicians' memories!) and I also managed to shake Gordon's hand when he did the rounds (well that's what you do as a delegate isn't it?). So it's been fun at times, interesting at times and a bit heavy at others - but never dull, there is SO much to do. Time to get back to it.....

Ceri Hollywell is a first time delegate from Islington North CLP

Housing issues

Mmmm...conference seems to have gotten much busier today. The queue to get in is much longer this morning and it takes me about 15mins to get through the security checks and the queue. Strangely relieved though, nobody was quite certain whether the quietness of conference so far had some sort of deeper meaning. More likely it was the sun to blame (not the paper of course!).

Still it is an excuse to not rush into the exhibition centre, certainly after last night. Which was both fun and thought provoking. A fringe on what lessons can be learned from the experiences of our American cousins seemed to throw up three key themes: hope, values and the need for a real sense of honesty.

Hope in the sense of Obama, but really any political leader, becoming the conduit for voters and his party’s aspirations. Values in the sense of being able to connect with voters and really communicate a distinctive world view that informs your policies. And, finally, honesty....hopefully that’s self explanatory.

David Lammy is the surprise sensation from that fringe. The ideas he's having, the passion that seems to inform them and, crucially, how he is articulating them is both inspirational and a revelation! It seems that his time in America was well spent and he’s definitely worth keeping an eye on in the future.

Managed to go to one of the few fringes on affordable housing today. It was standing room only so it makes me wonder why more groups haven’t tried to tackle housing issues in their fringes. Surprisingly there was consensus that we need to give people proper choices about where, and on what basis, they live in their homes. Its refreshing to not be hammered with this idea that social housing is the only real socialist option. It seems like whether its renting privately, socially or trying to buy your own place –the real problem is that we need more of it and to higher standards.

So far, so sensible.That is until someone tries suggesting that we take on a more “European model” and have more “branded” housing in the private rented sector. Quizzical looks in the audience soon translate into comical comments on the way out of the fringe: “anyone for Coca-cola towers? Maybe Virgin homes?”. I think maybe not.

Wondering what to do next (get some proper food I think) I’m left thinking: Labour conference, like any political conference, is such a bubble, so what does the rest of the world think about what’s happening here in Manchester...?

Vincenzo Rampulla is Public Affairs Officer for the National Landlords Association

Labour conferences: old fashioned and dated?

I know that the autumn season of party conferences represents a tradition that is every bit as venerable as that of fish and chips on the pier, Brighton rock and Blackpool and Manchester tram cars. However there are many – me included – who believe that the party political conference, like the traditional British seaside holiday, is an institution that has seen better days. In fairness I am not suggesting that we need to do away conference altogether but I do feel that we can improve on its present format and organisation. One of the main reasons for reforming how, where and when conference is organised is what it ends up costing ordinary members – especially in terms of travel, accommodation and time. Last year a delegate from Scotland told me that she had taken a week’s annual leave to attend her first and (given what it was costing her) probably her last conference. Speaking to delegates travelling up on the train this morning I am struck by how many told me that that they had been forced to take unpaid leave in order to attend conference as they simply could not get the time off work in any other way.

Having a party conference that only takes place on weekdays means that the only people who can easily attend are the people who are paid to, some retired people (I stress ‘some’), people who are independently wealthy - or just fanatics. If we are serious about reforming and renewing as a party then we need to make conference much more accessible for working people and particularly young working people. What the other parties do is up to them but at a time when Labour desperately needs to renew is structure and and reconnect with its members and with the electorate at large it needs to think long and hard about how it organises its traditional annual shindig.

Here are a few practical suggestions:

1. Hold conference over a long weekend - this could assist in helping the party to reach out and reconnect with ordinary party members. Holding the conference throughout a working week makes it very difficult for ordinary working people to attend, and therefore participate in, what is the party’s largest annual event.
2. Seek to make the conference more inter-active - fewer set-piece speeches and more question and answer sessions with Ministers, MPs and party officials.
3. Give all new members and members with 25+ years membership, the opportunity to attend conference at a substantially reduced cost.
4. Continue to hold conference in major cities across the UK and move away from the traditional seaside venues.

Any other suggestions?

A few flaws in the arguments against votes at 16

Yesterday, Labour Party Conference voted to include extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in our next manifesto. This comes following the National Policy Forum’s vote in July  in support of votes at 16. There was a warm welcome for the vote – as you might expect – from a number of national youth organisations. There were also a few critics, including Guardian journalist Michael White and Tom Harris MP.

Three main arguments were put forward against votes at 16. Now that votes at 16 will be in Labour’s manifesto there is likely be a repeat of these criticisms from those opposed to votes as 16. On the face of it, these criticisms may initially seem to be ‘common sense’, but they don’t stand up to scrutiny. 

Argument 1: ‘Introducing votes at 16 would be bad for democracy because it would result in a fall in the percentage turnout of eligible voters at elections’

This argument was put forward by Tom Harris MP, who wrote: “If 16 and 17-year-olds are to be given the vote, I worry that the most significant effect will be a huge increase in the number of “voters” who don’t vote.” This argument is flawed on at least three counts.

First, its premise - that the percentage turnout is what matters in terms of how ‘democratic’ an election is judged to be -  does not make sense. Imagine a society of 100 people. A situation where 60 people are eligible to vote and 40 of them do so (i.e. 66% vote) is not necessarily more democratic than one where 90 people are eligible to vote and 45 of them do so do so (i.e. 50% vote). After all, in the later case more members of the society actually vote.

Second, the argument confuses legitimate and illegitimate means of encouraging higher turnout. Making it easier to register to vote, moving voting to weekends and running campaigns to encourage voting: these are all legitimate ways of encouraging higher turnout. Deciding who is eligible to vote on the basis of how likely they are to do so is not. The rationale of this argument would also justify excluding other groups with low turnout, such as ethnic minorities or those in social classes C2DE.

The third and final nail in the coffin of this argument is that - even if you accept its flawed reasoning - it is far from certain that the percentage turnout will fall. In Germany the voting age was reduced to 16 in some municipal elections, and the result was that a higher proportion of 16 and 17 year olds voted than those aged 18 to 24. Indeed, a lower voting age may even lead to an overall increase in turnout if young people pick up the habit at school and continue to vote throughout their lives – meaning a whole cohort of people more likely to vote than their forebears.

Argument 2: ‘16 year olds aren't allowed to buy alcohol, drive, etc. and therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to vote’

One objection to this argument – raised by a commentator on Michael White’s article attacking votes at 16 - is that it confuses public and private rights. Drinking, smoking and driving are private rights, not public ones. On the other hand, voting is a public right. It is not incompatible for 16 years olds to have one but not the other.

This argument also misunderstands why it is that 16 and 17-year-olds are not allowed to drive, drink, and smoke. It is not because we believe all 16 or 17-year-olds, if they were allowed to do these things, would end up having alcohol-induced car crashes or hooked on smoking for the rest of their lives. Rather, it is because a substantial minority are likely to do so, and in doing so are likely to hurt themselves or others. Where the line is drawn is a matter of judgement and common sense - rather than hard and fast rules. An individual 16-year-old is able to do a lot less damage with a ballot paper and a pen than a ton of mobile steel. There may be a very small minority who abuse their right – but there are 50 year olds who may do the same. 

Argument 3: ‘16 year olds aren’t really interested in politics, and those that are can have a say by joining their local youth council or campaigning against climate change/international poverty’

This is possibly the most ill-thought-out of the arguments. Michael White put it as follows:

‘Engage young people more in politics, I hear you bellow more thoughtfully. Well, fine, though civic engagement is a more subtle development in which party politics, an acquired taste to say the least, would not be my priority. Global poverty work or green issues of the kind which naturally engage their sympathy would be a better start.’

Much as young people care about global poverty and the environment, they also care about crime, education and work opportunities, their health and many other issues. One of the reasons the commentariat can get away with pigeon-holing ‘youth issues’, as Michael White does, is because young people don’t tend to have power to set the agenda for themselves.

Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 years olds will help right that balance. Even Michael White might be pleasantly surprised. Nat King Cole and Jimmy Young were right when they sung ‘They try to tell us we're too young.... We were not too young at all'.

Omar Salem is chair of London Young Labour and a member of the Young Labour Executive. For more information about Young Labour’s campaign for votes at 16 visit http://votesatsixteen.labourspace.com/.

Labour need to think creatively about how to meet the obvious need for homes

Missed the PM's interview with Andrew Marr but made it just in time for my 10am meeting with a minister (note to self - no more early morning meetings, especially on Sundays!). It was an interesting chat about where housing is going over the 12 months. This is such a touchstone issue and such a fast changing area. It's one where the Conservatives have nothing to contribute but Labour need to think creatively about how to meet the obvious need for homes, crucially and pragmatically looking at all-tenures to provide good quality homes that meet people's needs and desires. So it is just a shame that there are so few housing fringes on this week.

Went to a real interesting fringe meeting on Private Equity with Kitty Usher MP and Irwin Seltzer. Well it was supposed to be on Private Equity but it turned into a credit crunch, oil prices, homes discussion. Naturally, this were all the debate is at the moment. Kitty was good and Irwin was surprising, in that he was recommending clear areas where regulation would be beneficial and arguing for raising some taxes as well cutting some taxes. It is that kind of American pragmatism that New Labour has so successfully merged with clear ideology and values.

Someone questioned why Private Equity get away with the profits they do and the low tax they pay and Irwin made a lighthearted quip about not understanding the difference between greed and aspiration. But our party, our progressive socialism does distinguish between the two and it is something we need to articulate better. It makes me think that we need to have a new settlement on the whole tax issue. Not just the same debates on income tax but our whole approach and cultural expectations on how and how much we tax people, companies, etc.

Vincenzo Rampulla is Public Affairs Officer for the National Landlords Association

Politics in a foreign language

The Young Fabians/TUC/Fabians Fringe ‘Can we give the white working class what they want’ took place in the conference hall of Manchester Town Hall.

Kevin Macguire Chaired the panel of Hazel Blears, Jon Trickett, John Denham, Brendan Barber and Sunny Hundall. The panel were crammed around a long table that asked the question: Is this Labour’s last supper?

Jon Trickett framed that question, his research into the demographics of Labour voters had found that those in categories D + E, manual workers and those not currently working, caused both the boost in Labour’s poll ratings when Brown became leader, and since then had melted away.

Cruddas and Brendan sitting on the right of the table (the chair’s left) took issue with the title of the debate, and said that to separate the working class by ethnicity would ignore the common problems that had to be dealt with. Brendan used the platform to remake the case for a tax on the super rich.

Denham, sat to the left of Cruddas, saw the problem through the prism of his skills brief, and highlighted that in Dagenham and Stoke where skills are lowest, the BNP’s flag flies highest.

Hazel said what united the working class was their ambition, and concentrated on education. On the clap-o-meter she won.

Sunny Hundall said there was a cultural war raging, mainly on immigration, in which the white working class were being used as a proxy for other interests, mainly in the right wing media.

Denham and Hazel identified education and Jon, Kevin and Sunny social housing, as the priority.

Trickett argued for the necessity for encouraging more manual workers into Parliament - there are only 35 MPs in there with this background today. Trickett’s final point was that unequal societies are more fractious, crime is higher, and that this is the case for redistribution that could be made to the more well off.

Trickett said more work had to be done in how to communicate to D + E groups, Labour’s message was not getting through. He challenged Sunder Katwala (Fabians) to make research into this a priority.

Dan Whittle is a member of Lewisham Deptford CLP and a member of the Young Fabian Executive

The Politics Show

Sunday

AT 11 today 50 or so delegates, some still slightly jaded from last night’s receptions, filtered into Manchester’s Bridgewater Hall for a special edition of the Politics Show from the Labour Conference.

Our seats had our names on which raised some suspicion, and the presenter encouraged us to interrupt and even heckle if we did not agree with the panel of John Prescott, Polly Toynbee and Charles Clarke.

In the event any argument we were going to have with the panel was eclipsed by the argument they would have between each other.

When Charles and John rehearsed their respective arguments, the former for a leadership contest, the latter for a campaign for a fourth term but no new leader, there was the inevitable noisy impasse.

John called Charles bitter, and told Polly she should stop listening to the things she hears at dinner parties. Polly and Charles seemed disappointed that the audience seemed so loyal to the leadership, we echoed Tony Benn’s perennial call for an emphasis on policy not personality. Tony’s blood runs in his grand daughter’s veins. The prospective Labour candidate talked about schools and hospitals, intimating the panel to do the same.

At one stage John’s answer was drowned out by a protest against public sector pay going on outside. ‘Trade unions still do rallies I see’ said John.

Talk changed to the economy. The audience were happy with Gordon’s approach this week and there was no vein here for Clarke or Polly to mine.

When put to a vote, no one in the audience would vote against more taxes for the rich (including the News of The World Political editor – he simply had a dig at Labour for creating jobs for too many immigrants, reminding us that the nasty party with lipstick on is still the nasty party).

No signs here of rebellion from the rank and file, Gordon’s army are backing him in the hall and on TV.

Dan Whittle is a member of Lewisham Deptford CLP