On young people in the Labour Party...

Recently I went to two back to back events; the first put on by the Fabian Society, the second by the Young Fabians. The first, the Fabian Society’s Annual House of Commons Tea, was a discussion about how to better engage people in politics, while the Young Fabian event was a discussion about how to get young people more engaged in politics.

I assumed I wouldn’t be the only person attending both these event back to back; as it turns out I was only one of two. And in the House of Commons Tea there was quite a notable lack of young people (which is a bit of a blurry term, so broadly speaking I’m talking about typically student age, or younger). Of course, it should be noted that the Young Fabian event was free while the Commons Tea cost £15, and the Young Fabian event being held in the evening may also have made it more accessible, but this does reflect a trend I am  increasingly aware of in the events I attend; that with the exceptions of big, national events (National Conference, Progress Conference, Fabian Conference; although even the Fabian’s summer conference had very few young attendees) young people tend to attend “young people” events; Young Labour, Labour Students, Young Fabians etc, but seem less inclined to attend events not specifically aimed at young people.

I often get asked at such events “how do we get young people into politics?” and it always confuses me because I know so many incredibly politically active young people…but then I’ll look around the room and realise that I am one of very few young people there.

This is not to say that there aren’t problems of political apathy in my generation (both in terms of a general disinterest and a dissatisfaction with mainstream politics; two rather different issues that are often clumsily grouped together), but that I can understand why some people would be forgiven for thinking there are hardly any young politicos at all; which is just not true.

As I said, this isn’t the case with big, national events; but it’s also untrue on the campaign trail. When activists are out on the doorstep, there is a clear mix of age groups, and young activists are almost without a doubt out in force.

So why, when it comes to events, might young people be so much less inclined to attend events not specifically aimed at them? Perhaps there is a worry that, as someone younger, you’ll be patronised/ignored/etc. Personally I’ve never experienced this, but I can understand why it might be a worry for some people.

Young Labour, Young Fabian and Labour Student’s event are also, I’ve often found, more discursive than events not aimed at young people; with a far more open format than the “panel that talks after which people ask the panel questions” format; where the audience is really able to engage in discussion and debate. This explanation does become rather circular, though; are young people drawn to more discussion based events, or are they better at putting on more discussion based events?

Do young people just need…some sort of hook; something to tell them “you! This event is for you!”. The other exception I’ve seen to the young-people-not-attending-not-young-people-aimed-events was the recent Fabian Women’s network summer reception, at which there were plenty of people my age; these were all women (as, of course, were most of the attendees; but not all); so not drawn in by the fact that this event was aimed at them as young people, but that it was still specifically aimed at them as women. Perhaps. This is just speculation.

And this whole post is really just speculation and personal reflection; I’d be interested to hear how far it reflects other people’s experiences; young people who feel they only really attend young people events, or that they attend a range of events, older people who feel they do or don’t see young people at the events they go to etc.

Because if this sense I’ve got of this generational divide between activists is accurate; I don’t think that’s that great a thing. I love the younger wings of the party; I think they hold amazing events and are full of amazing people, and I think having these events and groups aimed specifically at young people is without a doubt a good thing. But when these become the only parts of the party young people really interactive they can become somewhat inward looking; and I don’t think that helps young people understand or feel part of the wider movement.

That’s, of course, just the problem; I have a few thoughts on why this might happen and I want to start exploring potential solutions. But it’s only something I’ve recently come to really register; and it’s not something I ever really hear discussed when we talk about young people in the Labour movement; so I thought that it was at least worth pointing out.

Cheer up, guys?

Am I the only one confused by the pessimism of some in the Labour party regarding our electoral prospects, and the general condition of our party? I’m not advocating complacency, or less awareness of how Labour could improve.

But I just think some people should be…happier?

I grew up in a world where the Tories were…irrelevant. I remember my confusion, at a young age, learning about Thatcher, that such a powerful figure could emerge from a party that, in my memory, had always been entirely useless.

By contrast, Labour isn’t irrelevant now. People are aware of us. People are dissatisfied with the government and see Labour as the potential alternative. We have, on average (Cameron’s “veto” moment as an exception) been ahead in opinion polls.

And yes, things could be better. People still trust the Tories more on the economy. But that’s not a reason for panic; Labour were less trusted than the Tories on the economy before the 1997 election! And yes, Ed could, personally, be polling better, although he’s been great on issues such as phone hacking and the NHS.

And, most importantly, if there was an election today, Labour would have a damn good shot. And that’s if there was an election now. We still have years to campaign, to knock on doors, to keep renovating and pushing our message. Years for the government to keep screwing up the economy and pushing through more unpopular policies.

Not to mention the fact that there’s a strong change that Ken will win the London mayoral election…and even if he loses, how close a race it is, as far as I’m concerned, is amazing; since the candidates are exactly the same as the previous election that Labour lost.

And just the things that I’ve heard on the doorsteps and on the phones in support of the Party…there’s a good amount of it out there.

Labour are still, relatively, a very new party. The Tories history has entrenched them in the British establishment…Labour are, realistically, still babies by comparison. But in that time, they have established themselves as one of the two main British Political parties, they have done so much to change society for the better, have just had their most successful electoral streak and after that ended, even with a bad defeat, are still fighting, still relevant, while the Tories failed to even form a majority, despite all circumstances being in their favour, and are making themselves, day by day, increasingly unpopular.

I do think Labour should be constantly critical of itself, constantly working to be better than its being. But I don’t understand hopelessness. For a party that, in historical terms is still, really, finding its feet, things could be a lot worse.

Labour are the party of responsible capitalism, but we need to be work out exactly what measures we're proposing.

Post the Fabian Society conference on the 14th January, everyone was shouting about “predistribution, not redistribution”; that Labour should advocate an economy where the distribution of wealth is fair and equitable without the government having to step in with wildly redistributive policies, as part of the wider campaign for “nice” capitalism…I saw some rather over excited tweets claiming that if Labourites simply kept pushing that phrase from now to the election, we would defiantly see a Parliamentary majority.

And then Cameron decided he was a nice capitalist too.

This isn’t hard territory to outflank him on, though; yes, the Conservative’s Co-operatives bill is no bad thing, but largely Cameron’s words are far more rhetoric than substance, while it has been Ed Miliband who has been framing this debate, Labour who are the sister party of the Co-operative party; it was the Co-operative Party in partnership with Labour which secured the legislation that is to be consolidated.

But while a Cameron focused more on benefit caps than pay increases might not be hard to outflank on nice capitalism, Labour needs a really coherent, strong, responsible capitalism policy package to show how we would go about reinventing the markets once back in power; many key Labour figures have put forward various ideas, but these need expanding and consolidating.

 Ed Miliband has put forward five key proposals:

- Banks lending to the businesses that need it; and this being their primary goal, above the pursuit of short term profits.

- Greater power to shareholders with long-term holdings greater power, particularly at times of takeovers, to refocus the emphasis on long term sustainability and growth, rather than short term profits.

- Encouraging vocational skills, to meet unmet market needs.

- Restraints on executive pay.

- An end to "large concentrations of unaccountable private power that lead to higher prices, exploit consumers and lead to inefficiency".

We need to look further at how Labour would actually make these things happen; how would they been encouraged…or would they be legally enforceable?

Should banks have to lend a certain minimum to businesses…if so what types of businesses? Would all companies have to give greater power to long term shareholders…should there be some sort of minimum length of time that shareholders would have to hold shares in a company? What kind of educational reforms would be put in place to encourage vocational training? How far should the government go in actively breaking up monopolies to avoid concentrations of power?

As for high pay, we should certainly adopt the High Pay Commission's recommendations for greater transparency…

-Publishing the top ten executive pay packages outside the boardroom

-Forcing companies to publish a pay ratio between the highest paid executive and the company median

-Companies to reveal total pay figure earned by the executive

…but is that enough? Will business pay its top level people less just because it’s all out in the open? Some, probably, but it’s very unlikely all would.

If we’re not looking at taxation as a way to curb top tear pay (although the five point plan’s bankers bonus tax could probably find a place in a responsible capitalism package), then instead maybe we should examine linking the amount that the highest paid earner can earn to the amount the lowest paid earner can earn…potentially enforcing this through legislation.

Meanwhile Labour can go a lot further in supporting and encouraging co-operative enterprise than Cameron is currently doing (although we should, of course, fully support what he is doing), and outside of the cooperatives movement we can still work to put employees in a far more central position in regards to decision making; for example, making businesses put employees in remunerations committees.

Finally, and I’m starting to sound like a parrot here, but Labour should actively support, as in, say we will pass legislation making it law kind of support, the Living Wage. Not just saying “well, hopefully; we’d like to do it”; saying that we will.

Labour are the party of responsible capitalism, but we need to prove that, unlike Cameron, this is substantial and not just rhetorical, by sitting down and working out exactly what that means in terms of what actions we would and will take in power, to great a better, fairer capitalism and society, and presenting this to the public as a fully thought out, coherent proposal.

Labour's flagship policy offer?

In his article for LabourList, Gus Baker argues that Labour need bolder and more dynamic policy ideas to inspire the public’s support. Now, I disagree with his implication that “pledges to decrease VAT on home improvements to 5% and regulate peak time railway fares” are all the party currently has to offer; the £2 billion tax on bankers’ bonuses to create jobs is very much in keeping with the public sentiment of the moment, while investment in schools, transport and roads is a potentially very big and bold piece of legislation.

But I do think, firstly, that the main thrust of what the public are hearing from Labour is criticism of the Conservatives; they are not hearing the five point plan clearly articulated. Labour should, more, when criticising Tory policies, be saying “and what they should be doing instead is…”.

And furthermore parts of the five point plan are…vague. With the exception of the £2 billion tax on bankers’ bonuses, the ideas of “job creation” and “public investment”, though clearly policies that Labour should adopt, are not…one, simple idea for people to get excited about, the way the minimum wage was. And meanwhile the VAT cuts and national insurance breaks (again good policies) while are not vague are, as Baker said, are not massively awe inspiring ideas either. Not that we shouldn't support these policies; it's just that they don't make very good flagship policies.

So then...what?

What policies could Labour adopt that are simple, clear and exciting?

Dropping the Health Care Bill?
Obviously something we do believe, and it has popular support, but trying to make it out centrepiece would be problematic because it’s negative; it’s hard to get the public excited about something that is saying “let’s go back to the way things were!”.

Renationalising the Railways?
OK, although I do think this would be a good idea, I’m almost joking by writing it; not only do I think the Labour Party isn’t going to do it, there’s potential for it not go down all that well with the public (potentially; I would love to see someone do a study on this).

Prison reform?
I certainly think Labour should get behind the idea of a more reform based prison system as a way to cut reoffending and thus better protect the public, but this also falls into the category of being too vague and generalised. Furthermore, it would essentially mean agreeing with Ken Clarke; though I would be all in favour of the party working with Clarke on the issue (besides the fact that Clarke is a. lovely and b. correct on this issue, some bipartisanship might win points with the public), such a flagship policy like this would really have to be something we can say the Tories wouldn’t do.

Income tax cuts?
Andrew Harrop recently argued that Labour should advocate progressive income tax cuts. There are ups and downs to this idea…the public might well be in favour, but to some doesn’t seem all that left wing...it could perhaps be done alongside public spending to stimulate the economy?, but is that affordable? This could be a strong political move, but how effective it would be without government spending, and how possible it would be with government spending is questionable. But certainly an option Labour should explore.

The Living Wage?
This is probably my top pick: raising the minimum wage to a living wage of £7.20 (£8.30 in London). It’s a simple, clear cut change in the law that would be of great benefit to so many. There is, of course, the question of whether those who are already paid the living wage or above would see it as advantageous to them; but I believe people are both egalitarian enough and aware enough that they themselves might one day end up in a low paid job that they would still support the policy.

These are just some ideas; there are certainly other options…but Labour should certainly think around potential flagship policies that the public can get enthusiastic about.